What was that sound you heard over the weekend? That was the sound of the other shoe dropping. Or put another way, we have come full circle, from Afghanistan to Iraq and now, back to Afghanistan.

It looks as if the military is wasting no time in fulfilling the pledges of Barack Obama. During his campaign he pledged to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Here’s hoping it doesn’t turn out to be a case of being careful what we wished for.

Obama and top U.S. commanders have vowed to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 20,000, which could push the total U.S. military presence there above 50,000.

U.S. Joint Forces Command officials are working to help the Pentagon dispatch the last of four new brigades requested by commanders in Afghanistan by late spring or early summer.

The U.S. military will soon launch a pilot program to raise local militias, paid by the Pentagon, in an effort to improve security throughout Afghanistan.

Evidently this is supposed to be the Afghan version of the Iraqi Awakening movement. After initially being rejected by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the plan was developed this fall and approved just over two weeks ago.

Yet some officials warn that the forces must be carefully vetted to avoid repeating the mistakes of Afghanistan’s past, as in bolstering local warlords. They worry about launching a program modeled on the U.S.-financed militias of Iraq, given the considerable differences in the wars.

It would be a mistake to think that tactics and strategies that were successful in Iraq can just be transplanted into Afghanistan. Consider what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on the Dec. 17 Charlie Rose show: (more…)

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks in Mumbai, India, there is little doubt that there will be pressure on the incoming Obama Administration to move quickly in response to the Pakistan-India (and Afghanistan) security crisis. Early reports suggest that Pakistani based militants are behind the Mumbai violence and that American leadership will be necessary in order to secure regional stability.

While a focus on the region in general and Pakistan in particular is welcome, it is critically important that the new Administration develops a nuanced, long term approach to the very real challenges that exist. Crucially, the Administration must sequence its response and remember that despite the violence in Mumbai, and the link to Kashmir, it is stability in Pakistan that is a crucial first step to bringing peace to South Asia. This will take time and a clear understanding of how militancy has grown in Pakistan over recent years.

Most analysts believe that the Bush Administration’s support for the government of Gen. Musharraf contributed to a systematic rise in militancy over the last few years. Musharraf sought to marginalize and ban popular liberal opposition parties while allowing fringe religious parties to fill the vacuum; he assumed that he could control these parties and their figures. In reality, the religious parties became the primary outlet for anti-Musharraf sentiment and some of them fueled a rise in militancy. Policy analysts who recognized that Pakistani spikes in militancy occurred when the country was ruled by the military accurately predicted that history would repeat itself under Musharraf. The situation is most grave in the hard-to-govern tribal areas that border Afghanistan where a historic mistrust of central government, a rise in militancy and the relocated Taliban and Al Qaeda have created a security crisis.

(more…)

Future historians will inevitably link George W. Bush with Iraq, and probably not in a very flattering way. Will they do something similar with Barack Obama and Afghanistan?

Of course it is too soon to say. But as Afghanistan wavers towards, if not on the brink, of disaster, one can’t help but wonder what Obama’s future national security team will be thinking and recommending.

Despite all the U.S. has done in Afghanistan or tried to do things are far from good. A recent UNICEF report found that violations of children’s rights are increasing in Afghanistan with more attacks against schools, more children killed and more evidence of child sexual abuse.

On the one hand Obama pledged to withdraw forces from Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan. So he may be pleased that Marine Corps leaders are devising a plan to send more than 15,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan to wage aggressive warfare against the Taliban that they expect could take years, assuming they receive approval from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David H. Petraeus.

That would be in addition to the more than 30,000 American troops, mostly from the Army, already in Afghanistan and the additional 30,000 troops from other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and allies also there to combat the Taliban and other Islamist insurgent forces.

But finding more Marines to send won’t be easy unless there is a significant drawdown in Iraq, where they have been, west of Baghdad, since 2004. The Marines have about 22,000 there, assigned mostly to back up Iraqi security forces. So that might provide an additional incentive for Obama to make good on his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months.

On the other hand U.S. military officials have already started talking about how they can’t possibly meet that schedule, so Obama could face significant opposition to trying to redeploy troops quickly. Would he be willing to spend the political capital?

Sending more troops could be a replay of the significant international opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said he has doubts about U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s plans. Kouchner said plans that increase troop numbers would only work “in precise areas with a precise task.” He said France thinks military power alone won’t stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. (more…)

Simon Cameron-Moore writing for Reuters notes that the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan was summoned to Islamabad to protest over recent drone attacks. Moore notes that:

“Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani called the missile attacks “intolerable” and voiced hope President-elect Barack Obama’s government would show more restraint.”These kinds of acts are counter-productive … it adds to our problems,” Gilani said, adding he was sure when “Obama’s government is formed, these attacks will be controlled.”

There can be little doubt that use of these drones are harming U.S.-Pakistani relations and weakening the democratic government of that troubled country. Again, I am not suggesting an absolute ban on the strike drones but there needs to be a recognition that their use for anything other than the top 2-3 Al Qaeda targets is proving to be highly problematic. The use of these strike drones is causing instability in Pakistan - that is a fact we must address.

William S thinks that they have been been tacitly accepted:

The U.S. and Pakistan “reached tacit agreement in September on a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy that allows unmanned Predator aircraft to attack suspected terrorist targets in rugged western Pakistan, according to senior officials in both countries.”

And I think that Andrew is, at least, considering this point.

I have to disagree - my sources suggest they are a huge problem and Bloomberg carries news of Pakistani push back:

Pakistan denied giving the U.S. approval to target suspected militants on its territory, after the Washington Post said the nations had reached an agreement on allowing missile strikes by unmanned Predator drones.

“There is no tacit understanding,” Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshitold lawmakers yesterday when asked about the report, the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan said.

My feeling is that we need to reduce the use of these drones and seriously consider whether the cost of using them is worth paying. The fact is that they are killing civilians. It is one thing to use them to target those at the very top of the Al Qaeda tree, it is another to use them as the weapon of choice. Better options are available. Some analysts are calling for increased intelligence gathering and placing additional resources behind multifaceted effort to snatch targets instead of striking them from the air. That is something I cannot speak to but I will say that the drones are causing us real problems in Pakistan and harming the democratic government we should be supporting.

This is the last post I will write before the presidential election. I do not pretend to know what the outcome will be but if the polls are right it appears that Senator Obama will be the next U.S. president. If so, it is likely that it won’t be long before, as his running mate Sen. Joe Biden said, that he will be tested. The same thing could be said even if Sen. McCain wins.

The truth is that in respect to many different foreign policy and military issues the United States has been acting like a not very proficient juggler, tossing balls into the air in an effort to keep them from falling to the ground.

The truth is that the time that some dubbed the “unipolar moment” which all the neoconservatives were crowing about years ago, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and U.S. victory in Operation Desert Storm, is long gone.

Just consider what the next president of the United States will confront. In respect to Iraq there might not be an accepted Status of Forces Agreement, meaning U.S. troops will lack legal authority to remain there. U.S. officials say they would have to cease operations and confine troops to bases unless some other arrangement, such as an extension of the U.N. mandate, could be worked out.

In respect to Iran, aside from its nuclear program, a new president will have to deal with what seems to be an ongoing program of U.S. sponsored covert violence to bring about regime change. A new paper by the Century Foundation detailing this program concludes that:

We can expect more incidents, and we can expect the risk of retaliatory incidents to increase. As that happens, the point resurfaces. When does Iran reach its tipping point and begin to fight back, not with words, but with expanded terrorist acts?

(more…)