This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

President Obama has now presented the nation with a sober, solemn assessment in explaining the need for an additional 30,000 troops for Afghanistan: Al Qaeda remain in “common cause” with the Taliban; they have metastasized into Pakistan; they have again infiltrated our shores.  Answering those who have grown complacent, the President reminded America that “this is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.”

Yet many are unconvinced.  Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), for instance, responded to the President’s address that more troops would not make America more secure because ”Al Qaeda can go any place. They don’t have to be in Afghanistan.”   Senator John Kerry stated that many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, “either don’t see the nexus or don’t accept” that al Qaeda and the Taliban remain in league with one another.

(more…)

Last week a CIA drone fired two hellfire missiles at a farmhouse in a remote region of South Waziristan, Pakistan.  The target was Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious leader of the Pakistani Taliban who, according to the UN, is thought to be responsible for over 80 percent of the suicide bombings that have taken place within Afghanistan.  He is also likely responsible for the assassination of the Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto.  According to many accounts, Mehsud, a diabetic who was receiving treatment on the roof of the house, was killed by the attack.  Mehsud’s apparent demise is welcome good news.  However, we must also be realistic in our assessment of its potential impact.  Too often we have yearned for the quick solution – the elimination of a terrorist or a tyrant – to solve a much larger systemic problem.

Historians frequently debate the role of individuals in shaping past events.  Some argue that if were not for the actions of certain leaders at critical times, the path of history would have been dramatically different.  Others downplay the role of individuals and point to broader societal forces that shape leaders’ decisions.  Of course, the reality is that in some situations individuals play a critical role and in others the circumstances of the time dominate.  Unfortunately, when looking at the issue of terrorism, we have too frequently overemphasized the role of individual leaders – Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.  This is not to say that these individuals did not play a critical role.  However, an overemphasis on a handful of “bad guys” leads us sometimes to overlook the more fundamental changes in the environment that must take place.

Iraq provides one example of this phenomenon.  As the insurgency in Iraq began to expand in the summer of 2003, there was a concerted effort to capture or kill Saddam Hussein and other high level members of his regime.  In December 2003, Hussein was captured and many Americans breathed a sigh of relief.  At last the leader of a hated regime posed no further threat to the future of the country.  But, the insurgency was just catching fire.  In March 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a Blackwater convoy.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rose to prominence as a leader of the insurgency.  This was just the beginning. (more…)

Last week the Pew Global Attitudes Project released its 2009 poll results on the US image in the world.  This year’s results showed a dramatic change since last year’s poll.  With Obama’s election, views of the US by people around the world have improved dramatically.  Considering that during the presidential campaign, Obama was receiving a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, this result is not altogether surprising.  Amidst this good news, however, the poll indicates that there remain real reasons for concern, particularly amongst those in the Muslim world.  Although Obama’s election has certainly improved the view of the US by many around the world, many of those whose opinions count most in America’s struggle against terrorism have not been won over by Obama’s persona nor his oratory skills.  They are waiting for concrete changes in US policy.

Certainly there is much to celebrate in this poll, particularly regarding America’s relations with its traditional friends and allies.  In Britain positive views of the US increased from 53 to 69 percent.  In France, there was a 33 percentage point increase to 75 percent favorability.  And in Germany favorable ratings of the US increased from 31 to 64 percent.  In Germany and France more people expressed support for Obama than for Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy.  Although America’s foreign policy interests are impacted by a variety of factors, certainly having a favorable public in allied countries should not be underestimated.

Admittedly, however, getting Europeans to like Americans should be considered low hanging fruit.  My guess is that few Europeans would report that the US foreign policy of the past several years has impacted them on a personal level.  Rather, their disdain for the Bush administration had more to do with the symbolic “ugly American” that it represented – the swaggering American cowboy quick to pull his pistol rather than resort to more “civilized” discourse.  So, it’s not surprising that when the symbolic ugly American exits the stage, approval ratings rebound.

Considering that our experience with the Iraq war has demonstrated that the go-it-alone approach to US foreign policy is seriously flawed, having the Europeans on board is certainly a welcome change.  Unfortunately, however, it’s not enough. (more…)

President Obama’s much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world is just a few days away. We now know the location (Egypt) and the venue (Cairo University). We know that the president will also visit Saudi Arabia, another hugely important Muslim state. We know the context of his travels to the region: Obama enjoys relatively favorable ratings among Muslims, especially when contrasted with those of President George Bush, but many are reserving judgment, waiting to see if Obama will actually change U.S. foreign policy, or merely talk about doing so. The test case is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But the president will also want to talk about Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, he will hope that North Korea’s behavior doesn’t grow even more erratic at a time when his attention will be focused elsewhere.

The Peace Process: As I noted in January, no one ever said it was going to be easy to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Last week reminds us that 1) that the essential issues are well understood, 2) the two parties are at an impasse, and 3) the United States is caught in the middle. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. government’s opposition to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “A stop to settlements,” she said emphatically, “not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.” The next day, the Israeli government responded with equal clarity. Israeli Cabinet Minister Benny Begin said “natural growth” of existing West Bank settlements would continue. “The Israeli Jewish towns and villages should develop according to the natural development rate and this must not be stopped,” he said. And just in case anyone questioned the official Palestinian position, Rafiq Husseini spelled it out: “No peace can be reached with one settler remaining in Palestine.” The expansion of the settlements is the key stumbling bloc to a resumption of serious negotiations. What is President Obama prepared to do to stop them? What can he do?

Iraq: The war still isn’t over, there are still nearly 140,000 U.S. troops on the ground there, and they won’t all be out until 2012. Gen. Casey hinted that the Army is prepared to stay longer. That isn’t consistent with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between the outgoing Bush administration and the Maliki government in Baghdad, but Casey appears to be laying the groundwork for any last-minute change of plans. Regardless, the United States needs the cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors to prevent the country from falling back into sectarian chaos as U.S. troops do draw down, and to contain the violence if the worse-case scenario occurs.

Iran: With presidential elections less than three weeks away, President Obama is surely hoping that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s days in power are numbered. But there is little that the United States can do to hasten that end, and if Washington is perceived to be interfering in Iran’s internal politics, that will surely strengthen Ahmadinejad’s otherwise very weak hand. Obama was right to take a wait-and-see approach to Iran, and should urge other countries in the region to do the same until after June 12th.

Afghanistan/Pakistan: They aren’t Middle Eastern countries, but they are Muslim countries, and the conduct of military operations there clearly affects the United States’ global standing, and therefore on the level of support that we can expect going forward. President Obama should reiterate at every possible opportunity our essential goals, what we are prepared to do to achieve them, and what others can do to help us.

In general, during the course of his travels, President Obama is likely to adopt a conciliatory, even deferential tone. He will stress the need for cooperation over confrontation, and for problem-solving over trouble-making. But so long as the rejectionists and the extremists can dictate events on the ground, he will also need a strong dose of humility.
countrywide home loans overnight,
need 5000 loan overnight cash,
washington mutual home loans,
excel loan amortization schedule prepayment cash,
high risk personal loans now,
citibank student loan,
home equity loans pros and consulting,
loan amortization schedule payment

Obama and Shultz at the White House on May 19 (AP photo)

At a meeting Tuesday with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, President Obama summed up the group’s deliberations on the goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons:

“This is a reminder of the long tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that has been the hallmark of America at moments of greatest need, and that’s the kind of spirit that we hope will be reflected in our administration.”

It’s great to hear this from the President who also made “bipartisanship and openness” an official plank in his campaign platform, and now identifies it as a key to effective US national security and foreign policy for his Administration.

You might think Obama’s commitment to bipartisan consultation and cooperation on national security would win nothing but plaudits from a group of former leaders obviously assembled not just for their substantive expertise, but for their bipartisan credibility. So then what are we to make of George Shultz’s reply, in the role of spokesman for the elder statesmen? Not once, but twice, the former Reagan administration official remarked that President Obama was wrong about nuclear disarmament being a “bipartisan issue,” because:

“It’s really nonpartisan. This is a subject that ought to somehow get up above trying to get a partisan advantage. And it’s of such importance that we need to take it on its own merits. And that’s the way we’ve proceeded. And that’s the way, at least it seems to us, you’ve proceeded.”

(more…)

Remember way back when, in March 2009, when everyone was so pleased and excited that the Obama administration had announced its “comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” As Mary Hopkin once sang:

Those were the days my friend
We thought they’d never end
We’d sing and dance forever and a day
We’d live the life we choose
We’d fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.

It has been less than two months but the “strategy” is not looking so hot. Right now, policymakers charged with implementing it are probably reaching for an entire bottle of Jack Daniels, as opposed to the glass or two of wine in Hopkin’s song, as they contemplate the AfPak area of operations.

Consider a few news items from just the past week.

Over half a million people have fled the fighting in Pakistan’s Valley, bringing the total number of displaced since August to one million as 125,000 Pakistan soldiers fight a reported 4,000 Taliban militants there. Even assuming the Pakistani military is committed to the fight, something it has promised before but not followed through on, it is unclear whether it will succeed. Pakistanis in the area say the Taliban had so far held on to every neighborhood they had seized in the previous days and months. Witnesses said Friday that the insurgents remained in control of Mingora, the district capital, and many parts of the districts of Buner and Lower Dir.

And, if the Pakistani military does not decisively destroy the Taliban there that will put them far too close for comfort to various Pakistani nuclear facilities. As Leonard Spector Deputy Director of the Monterey Institute’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation wrote:

Taliban fighters will surely be emboldened to probe into government-controlled areas closer to the capital and to several key nuclear sites. Given their enormous political and military salience, the nuclear sites would be particularly appealing targets. Whether government forces would fare any better in protecting these locations than in the Swat Valley would be hard to predict. If a site were overrun, local physical protection measures would mean little.

U.S. military and intelligence officials worry that Taliban forces pushed out of Afghanistan by reinforced U.S. troops this summer will flow unimpeded into Pakistan, as they did during U.S. operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said in an interview that Pakistan has become the nerve center of al Qaeda’s global operations, allowing the terror group to re-establish its organizational structure and build stronger ties to al Qaeda offshoots in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and parts of Europe. (more…)

As the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari, prepare to meet with President Obama this week there are concerning messages coming from General David Petraeus, the commander of US Central Command (Centcom).  Here’s an excerpt from a recent Fox News story on his thoughts on the situation in Pakistan:

They said Petraeus and senior administration officials believe the Pakistani army, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, is “superior” to the civilian government, led by President Ali Zardari, and could conceivably survive even if Zardari’s government falls to the Taliban.

In general, I believe that Petraeus has done an incredible job in Iraq and his approach to counterinsurgency is probably one of the most important elements of the turnaround that occurred there.  He has been an admirable public servant and I generally respect his judgment.  On this issue, however, if the above excerpt is accurate, there is much reason for concern – the insinuation that perhaps there is a better alternative to the civilian-led government in Pakistan that the US government might consider supporting.

It all comes down to exactly how one interprets the term “superior”.  It is true that a military government in place in Pakistan might be more quick to do the bidding of the US government (though the experience with Musharraf leaves even that to question).  The fact is that democratic governments are slow and cumbersome.  They must answer to the broad population rather than the will of a few appointed leaders.  So, yes, in terms of getting action quickly, a military-led government could, theoretically, be “superior”.  Similarly, a police state is pretty good at preventing crime.  That doesn’t mean that it’s the model that should be sought. (more…)

I know the topic de jour these days is America’s torture policy, amplified by the recent release of Bush administration torture memos, but let’s not dwell on the past, as rightwing torture apologists, like to phrase it.

Instead let’s return to Afghanistan and Pakistan or Afpak in Washington jargon. Because if it is bad news in war zones that provide flimsy pretexts for torture, then Afpak seems likely to produce plenty in the future.

Let’s start with the under covered statement by Gen. David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, who spoke at the John F. Kennedy School of Government on April 21. He said, “”We do believe we can achieve progress, but it’s going to get worse before it gets better,” said Petraeus. “When you go into the enemy’s sanctuaries, they will fight you for it. There will be tough months ahead, without question,” he said.

“Tough months?” Uh, General Petraeus? You meant tough years, didn’t you? Politico reported April 21 that the Pentagon’s senior military leaders are worried that the security situation in Afghanistan is stalemated or deteriorating, and now are preparing a far-reaching plan that would prepare the U.S. military for a war that could last three to five more years, officials said.

The effort, which is being coordinated by the Joint Staff and is still in its early stages, is designed to create an experienced cadre of officers and senior enlisted soldiers, who would rotate between assignments in Afghanistan and at their home stations until the end of hostilities.

The article goes on to say that “Until now, officers involved say, the Afghanistan war has been a secondary concern for the Pentagon, which has tended to view it as a short-term mission that took a back seat to the war in Iraq.”

Say what? 679 fatalities, and counting, in Operation Enduring Freedom since 2001, for a back seat “short-term mission?” If that really reflects the thinking of the past U.S. military and civilian leadership someone needs to be fired and perhaps court martialed or indicted for gross dereliction of professional responsibility.

Speaking of gross dereliction two weekends ago Afghanistan’s President Harmid Karzai asked Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, to explain allegations of six civilian deaths in two recent incidents. It was the second time in three days Karzai brought up the topic with Gen. David McKiernan.

The United Nations has said a record 2,118 civilians died in the Afghan war last year, a 40 percent increase over 2007. The U.N. said U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians, or 39 percent of the total. Of those, 552 deaths were blamed on airstrikes. (more…)

Let the trumpets sound. And let the people rejoice. Let the heralds go forth and proclaim unto the world, we have a brand new bouncing baby strategy. Surely, our future victory in Afghanistan is now assured.

Well, before the heralds all get out of breath perhaps we should pause to consider this new strategy. For it is not as if we didn’t have one before. I’m sure that the Bush administration must have had something posing as a strategy in the six years we have been fighting in Afghanistan. Perhaps it was just hiding in one of Dick Cheney’s undisclosed locations.

But surely President Obama, like the Oracle of Delphi, will do better. Let us consider his vision.

A Regional Approach

For the first time the President will treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge. Our strategy focuses more intensively on Pakistan than in the past, calling for more significant increases in U.S. and international support, both economic and military, linked to Pakistani performance against terror. We will pursue intensive regional diplomacy involving all key players in South Asia and engage both countries in a new trilateral framework at the highest levels. Together in this trilateral format, we will work to enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border and address common issues like trade, energy, and economic development.

Building Capacity and More Training

For three years, the resources that our commanders need for training have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, this will change. The 17,000 additional troops that the President decided in February to deploy have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 more U.S. troops to train the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can increasingly take responsibility for the security of the Afghan people.

In the President’s strategy, for the first time we will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner.

Who could possibly be curmudgeonly enough to criticize it? Well, let me be that curmudgeon for a moment. Let’s see, give more help to Pakistan. Well true, we don’t want a nuclear armed state lapsing in chaos so we have a stake in keeping it unified. Of course, that was the same rationale that kept us aiding former President by coup d’état Pervez Musharraf for years, until his resignation last August, and look at how well that worked.

Even worse, nobody seems interested in considering that it was doubtful that al Qaeda would seek to move into Afghanistan as long as it is based in Pakistan and that escalating U.S. drone airstrikes or Special Operations raids on Taliban targets in Pakistan will actually strengthen radical jihadi groups in the country and weaken the Pakistani government’s ability to resist them. (more…)