Since the Afghan war began, NATO and Afghanistan have become inextricably intertwined.  The linkage culminated at last year’s NATO summit where the 60^th anniversary of the alliance sparked the assertion that Afghanistan could be the alliance’s make-or-break test of the 21^st century, despite other looming challenges.

This year’s summit in Lisbon, Portugal, meanwhile, was billed as a turning point in the war and the beginning of the transition process.  This past weekend, members formally agreed to the end of combat operations in Afghanistan by 2014.  But setting a timetable is only one key component of this process; having a competent security force to hand responsibility off to is the other.  Thus, NATO’s mission to train the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) is just as integral to the endgame.

Earlier this month, the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan (NTM-A), which provides and better coordinates existing training of the ANA and ANP, celebrated its first anniversary.  Over the first year of the mission, there have been some notable positive outcomes, namely substantial growth in number of both the ANA and the ANP.  But there have also been some notable challenges, like corruption and illiteracy, which are hindering the effort.  All in all, a robust effort is still needed to create a viable Afghan security force.  Yet the program still needs nearly 1,000 more trainers to be able to fully complete the development of the forces. (more…)

Kay King, Vice President of Washington Initiatives at the Council on Foreign Relations, recently released a report entitled Congress and National Security arguing Congress’s increasing inability to effectively address major domestic and international challenges has severe ramifications for U.S. national security.

King points to contributing factors which have led to a decline in Congressional effectiveness, including amplified partisanship, abuse of rules and procedures, outdated committee structures, decreased expertise, and competition with domestic programs. She specifically addresses how the toxic partisan atmosphere has contributed significantly to Congress’s mixed performance on its national security responsibilities:

…the nation’s political landscape has been realigning since the 1970’s, ushering in deep partisanship, severe polarization, a combative 24/7 media, and diminished civility. Over time, this environment has given lawmakers greater incentive to advance personal and partisan agendas by any means, including the manipulation of congressional rules and procedures. It has politicized the national security arena that, while never immune to partisanship, more often than not used to bring out the “country first” instincts in lawmakers. It has also driven foreign policy and defense matters, short of crises, off the national agenda, marginalizing important issues like trade. Combining this increasingly toxic political climate with an institutional stalemate in the face of mounting global challenges and it is not surprising that Congress has struggled for years to play a consistent and constructive role as a partner to as well as check and balance on the executive branch on international issues.

King then goes on to recommend reform in five critical areas: prompt and inclusive action on budgets and legislation, timely and knowledgeable advice and consent on treaties and nominees, realistic and effective oversight, closing the expertise gap, and bolstering the congressional-executive branch partnership on national security policy.

The entire report can be found here.

Late yesterday, CNN released the results of a nation-wide poll gauging public support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  The poll showed strong support for the treaty, with 73% of the public supporting ratification. Significantly, support for the treaty was not limited to one party or political affiliation, but was spread across the political spectrum and, according to CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, ”majorities in all major demographic groups support the treaty.”

This public support for New START reflects the strong bipartisan backing the treaty has from top national security leaders such as the thirty signatories of PSA’s statement on New START, who include ten former Senators, four Secretaries of State, four Secretaries of Defense, and three National Security Advisors, as well as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission among others.

As one of the final priorities for the 111th Congress, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has  the “unanimous support of the United States military” and enjoys strong, bipartisan support from our nation’s most respected national security experts.

New START is an urgent national security priority—and should be divorced from partisan bickering and the electoral process.  As Secretary Clinton reminded reporters yesterday, “When it comes to foreign policy, it is important to remember that politics stops at the water’s edge.”  Key Republicans and Democrats from the past seven administrations have strongly endorsed this treaty.   The Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, seven former heads of U.S. Strategic Command and Strategic Air Command—and countless others, all agree that the Senate must ratify New START.  The elections do not alter this support. (more…)

My visit to Camp Leatherneck and the PRT at Lashkar Gah reinforced that  Helmand is the land of extremes.  Afghanistan’s largest and longest province, Helmand also produces most of the poppy in Afghanistan — making Helmand province a bigger producer of poppy than any nation in the world save its own.

Helmand is dominated by the Helmand river, which runs north-south from the Kajaki dam near Kandahar to Dishu in the south.   The population of Helmand lives off and along the river and its canals and irrigation channels.  Helmand’s border with Balochistan, Pashtun tribes, and poppy dominated economy made it largely Taliban controlled  — until recently at least.

The mission of Marines in Helmand is to wrest control of the population centers from the Taliban.  This is tough counterinsurgency fighting and the Marines have done amazing work turning the tide in key districts of Helmand, though the fight is far from over.  The offensive which began with Marjah in 2009 continued district by district into the key towns of the Helmand including Nad Ali, Musa Q’ala, Garmsir,  and now Sangin. Taliban resistance hasn’t disappeared by any means (even in Marjah) but don’t underestimate the ability of the Marines to clear and hold.  With a density of forces now in place and a dismounted force, the results from the population are visible.  People are getting out, engaging in commerce, and talking to Marines about needs and concerns. (more…)

There are encouraging signs that mil to mil relations between the Pentagon and the PLA are thawing.  This week, after a freeze in relations that lasted nearly a year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with his Chinese counterpart, General Liang Guanglie, at the ASEAN “Plus” Defense Ministerial in Hanoi.  At the meeting, Gates received an invitation to visit Beijing, probably sometime in the first half of next year, although the dates still have to be worked out. Separately, there have been reports of a meeting between Chinese and American officials on maritime security in Honolulu. Though limited, these are welcome developments as the Administration lays the groundwork for President Hu’s visit to Washington next year.

But these steps are unlikely to lead to the kind of comprehensive security relationship that the U.S. wants with China.  Rather, a form of limited engagement and competition is more likely to be the new norm.  The Chinese are still angry over the $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan, and they are irritated by U.S. offers to mediate the dispute over the Spratley islands in the South China Sea, which they consider a “core” national interest.  This summer’s joint U.S.-South Korean exercises in the East China Sea, did nothing to ease tensions either.  Many people in the Chinese leadership feel encircled by the U.S.  These moves only reinforce their fears. (more…)

I’m in Kabul!  I inspect the city on my drive from the airport.  It seems  pretty similar to my last visit with one big annoying exception: traffic.  There are just more cars on the road now (both Afghan and expat) and the result is close to gridlock.  The 30 minute drive from the airport turns into total nightmare as protests at Kabul University completely paralyze Mayor road.  We end up bailing out of the car, flagging down a taxi, and heading to the Gandamack for dinner.    I suppose traffic is actually a good thing. It either shows that more Afghans are buying cars, more are out and showing confidence in the regime, or the civilian surge has had a secondary effect of gridlock.  Overall the impression is a more busy and vibrant Kabul.

Our initial meetings feature a variety of senior civilian and military officials representing State, USAID, ISAF, RC-South, and Task Force Raider.   Our discussions go quickly to the issues at hand: are we winning?  If so, why?  How is the civ-mil collaboration working?

The general consensus from those on the ground is that we are making progress in security and the population is responding at a local level, especially in the south.   (more…)

Over the past week, Taliban militants in western Pakistan have bombed and set fire to dozens of tankers carrying oil to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The seemingly daily trend of attacks on NATO fuel supply convoys has been ongoing since Pakistan closed a key border crossing in retaliation to a U.S. helicopter strike within its airspace. This recent surge in violence highlights the increasingly precarious reliance on fossil fuels as the single most critical strategic linchpin of U.S. military success. With the soaring costs – in both dollars and lives – of the military’s dependence on oil becoming ever more apparent, there has never been a more urgent time to accelerate the transition to renewable energy use on the battlefield.

Even before the recent wave of attacks, a study by the Army Environmental Policy Institute found that for every 24 fuel convoys to Iraq or Afghanistan, one soldier or civilian involved in the transport was killed. On top of the risk, the economic costs of the military’s dependence on oil are staggering. Although the military purchases gasoline at a relatively cheap price, transporting a gallon of fuel to a forward operating base can cost up to $400. Moreover, the sheer scale of the military’s energy expenses ($20 billion in 2008) leaves it particularly vulnerable to oil price volatility, as just a $10 uptick in the price of a barrel of oil costs the Department of Defense about $1.3 billion. These factors, in addition to the strategic challenges and indirect costs associated with importing foreign-produced oil rather than using American-made renewables, make the military’s current energy practices dangerous, inefficient, and ultimately unsustainable. (more…)

My perspective is that of a stability operations policy wonk and pre-deployment training leader.  I’ve been working and thinking about conflict and stability since the early 1990s when I was at OSD and as a Director on the NSC Staff.  Bosnia and Kosovo were the conflicts du jour and though these are worlds apart from Afghanistan, many of the challenges, shortcomings, and frustrations we face today were just as plainly visible then.

About five years ago, I started working extensively with the military on Iraq and Afghanistan pre-deployment training.  My company provides the field experts, curriculum, and training to the military on what is essentially “smart power” — the interagency/PRT/whole of government tools in the Iraq and Afghan tool kit.  We also support the training of PRT civilians.  My company has extensive field experience in Afghanistan although I do not.  With another trip under my belt, I can pretend to be as smart as my trainers!

Let’s see if I can remember what I learned on my last visit, in Spring 2009.   That trip focused on meetings in Kabul and RC-East in the last days of GEN McKiernan’s command of ISAF.   The first Obama strategy review was still underway. (more…)

Can you hear that grinding noise? That’s the sound of an overused, overextended military breaking down.  We seem to spend a lot of our time deliberately avoiding our gaze from obvious trouble signs. But for those who care to observe reality the warning signs are plentiful.

Consider just a few news reports in the past week.

New York Times
September 30, 2010

Four Suicides In A Week Take A Toll On Fort Hood

By James C. McKinley Jr.

HOUSTON — Four veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan died this week from what appeared to be self-inflicted gunshot wounds atFort Hood in central Texas, raising the toll of soldiers who died here at their own hands to a record level and alarming Army commanders.

So far this year, Army officials have confirmed that 14 soldiers at Fort Hood have committed suicide. Six others are believed to have taken their own lives but a final determination has yet to be made. The highest number of suicides at Fort Hood occurred in 2008, when 14 soldiers killed themselves, said Christopher Haug, a military spokesman.

About 46,000 to 50,000 active officers and soldiers work at the base at any given time, making this year’s suicide rate about four times the national average, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates at 11.5 deaths per 100,000 people. (more…)