Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, American left, American right, Bush, domestic politics, Obama

So Gen. McChrystal is now a goner and Gen. Petraeus is back to save the day yet again. Anyway you cut it, this is a sad situation that can only make a difficult situation even worse. Gen. Petraeus is obviously a capable leader and he fits in well with the counterinsurgency strategy which we are smack in the middle of implementing, but this whole incident reaks of an overall policy in dissarray. The three month review process by the Obama administration, culminating the announcement of a troop surge with a definite time limit, created fissures that have obviously not been filled. Vice President Biden, Envoy Richard Holbrooke, and Ambassador Eikenberry, all targets of Gen. McChrystal and his aides in the Rolling Stones article, in one way or another voiced reservations about Gen. McChrystal’s plan for the Afghan war effort, with Biden and Eikenberry being outright opposition. Gen. Petraeus is adeft at Washington DC politics as he is at counterinsurgency and we can only hope that he and Obama’s civilian team can finally get on the same page. The only winners in this embarrassing incident are the Taliban.

I’ll have some more comments on the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal, Obama, Petraeus in a little bit

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, McChrystal, Obama, Petraeus

When President Obama announced that he was sending an additional 30,000 American troops to work under Gen. McChrystal’s leadership in Afghanistan, his very next sentence stated that US forces would be starting a withdrawal 18 months later on July 2011. I was critical of this at the time and still am. The US and the President are in a difficult position and all agree that we should not be in Afghanistan in perpetuity, but I feel that publicly announcing a withdrawal date works too much in the advantage of the Taliban-led insurgency. As George Will aptly put it, ‘The Americans are going home; the Taliban are home.’ The Taliban have been called many things, but ‘impatient’ isn’t one of them. The Obama administration is betting that this surge in troops following the guidance of Gen. McChrystal’s hybrid counterinsurgency/special forces strategy can create breathing room for the Afghan state to grow enough that it can prevent A. A Taliban takeover of the south or the country as a whole B. a safe haven for Al Qaeda and their ilk.

The Taliban are obviously aware of this goal and since their existence and future hold on power is directly threatened, one should expect them to fight on. Negotiations between President Karzai’s government and US/NATO with certain Taliban leadership and factions is a constant topic and it is to believed that a key reason for the American surge is to bring about an environment of Kabul government strength/Taliban weakness that pushes the talks in the former’s favor. Buuuuuuttttt, this is where the announced withdrawal date comes into play and it’s not in a positive way. We are already 1 year and 2 months from July 2011 and only half of Obama’s 30,000 troops have arrived. The Marja offensive in Helmand has been a short-term success, but it’s long term prospects are at best tentative and the coming surge into Kandahar will be much more difficult. We constantly here that the ‘holding’ of the territory is the crucial part of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan, but once again I turn to Mr. Will, ‘what can be held by a counterinsurgency force focused on an exit strategy?’ It is important to remember that the Obama administration (mainly in the voice of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) has given much leeway in the extent of a withdrawal, specifically in terms of timing and troop numbers and no one should be surprised to hear the President announce that troops will be needed to stay and fight longer, but nevertheless a message has been sent that the US plans to get out sooner rather than later.

National Security Correspondent for the Washington Examiner Sara A. Carter recently did a report on military personnel’s views of Obama’s Afghan strategy and particularly of the set withdrawal date, and they are not pretty. The report comes with caveats as most of those military personnel quoted are either retired or anonymous and the piece only features comments critiquing the administration. Nevertheless, it is important to hear some words spoken by those in the trenches. Here are some of the them:

Retired Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Timothy Haake, who served with the Special Forces, said, “If you’re a commander of Taliban forces, you would use the withdrawal date to rally your troops, saying we may be suffering now but wait 15 months when we’ll have less enemy to fight.”

A former top-ranking Defense Department official also saw the policy as misguided.

“Setting a deadline to get out may have been politically expedient, but it is a military disaster,” he said. “It’s as bad as [former U.S. Secretary of State] Dean Acheson signaling the Communists that we wouldn’t defend South Korea before the North Korean invasion.”

Another U.S. soldier stationed in Afghanistan said that “making the announcement of a withdrawal date was a signal of defeat.”

He added, “It’s not whether we withdraw a little or a lot, but it’s the point we’re making. Once we made it public, the Taliban knew we weren’t going to stick it out, and I think that little bit of hope is all they need to keep going.”

Those in charge of the decision making for this troubled, yet critical foreign policy decision deserve our sympathies as these are life and death choices that will affect the future of the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, NATO, etc. for years to come. As I said before, the Obama administration has given itself enough wiggle room to backtrack on this withdrawal date if they believe it is not in the best interests of the country at the time, but there will be domestic political ramifications. (I believe these will be smaller than some claim, but there is definitely a portion of Obama’s base that would be very disappointed if they saw him as leading us deeper into ‘another intractable war’.) However, what will disappoint the American public the most would be the use of our human and financial resources on a strategy that may be flawed from the very beginning.

I’m a believer in the McChrystal strategy and believe the US cannot leave Afghanistan to just drones and small special forces. President Obama made a brave decision to back Gen. McChrystal and provide the war effort with badly needed resources. But I remember flinching in my seat when in his West Point address he followed up the 30,000 troop announcement with the words of ‘withdraw’ literally seconds later. We deserve a winning strategy all the way through.

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan troop surge, domestic politics, McChrystal, Obama

'Our health care system is broken....Oh, I mean.....Our Afghan strategy is broken'

Barack Obama made his first trip to Afghanistan as president a few days ago, and during his 6 hours in the country he met with President Karzai, Gen. McChrystal, and Ambassador Eikenberry. It has been reported that Obama pressed Karzai on clamping down on corruption and that their conversations were very much ‘down to business’.

In related news, the US president’s approval rating (WaPo poll) for his management of the Afghanistan situation, unlike other areas such as health care, jobs, and the economy, is on the rise. During the height of his ‘dithering stage’ on choosing an Afghan strategy in October, November of 2009, his ratings had turned upside down, with more disapproving (48%) than approving (45%). This was a long fall from early in 2009 when Obama held strong in the low 60’s. As I argued in late 2009, it wasn’t so much the situation on the ground that was causing Americans to become disenfranchised with our presence and ability to win in Afghanistan, though that certainly was a factor, but a lack of leadership from the nation’s leaders. The only time Obama talked about Afghanistan was about how difficult a situation it was him and the US. Don’t believe me? The American public wanted to see a leadership that had a plan that it believed in. ‘Either we are in to win or let’s get the heck out!’

Since the announced Afghan surge strategy at West Point, the Obama administration has enjoyed ever growing levels of support, November 45%, December 52%, January 50%, and the latest from a couple days ago, 53%, with an incredible only 35% disapproving. These numbers come despite the fact that American combat deaths have doubled and injuries tripled from this time last year. The uptick in the poll numbers is good for the president and should show the administration that the American public is willing to give him time to show positive results from McChrystal’s surge strategy. This latest visit by Obama, especially with images like the one below, will only help.

Garnering domestic support for a war over seas is a crucial part of any winning war strategy. President Obama must spend political capital on fostering support for the Afghan war effort by reminding the American public the stakes involved and communicate that we have a strategy in place that can bring success. Now that the health care debate is thankfully not dominating his agenda any longer, I expect more public attention to be shown by President Obama about this critical issue to US foreign policy. The poll numbers show he’ll have a somewhat friendly audience.

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, domestic politics, Karzai, McChrystal, Obama, Public Opinion, war

A former intelligence official called it a “high-level asset meeting gone bad.” Bad is definitely an understatement. Of course the comment is in reference to the suicide attack which killed 7 CIA agents at Forward Operating Base Chapman in border province of Khost. They were “experienced frontline officers and their knowledge and expertise will be sorely missed,” said Henry A. Crumpton, who led the CIA campaign in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. The attacker was a potential informant of the Haqqani network of the Taliban and was wearing an Afghan National Army uniform at the time of the attack. Apparently, the perpetrator made it through one checkpoint and blew himself and several others away before he was to be searched for weapons. The Pakistani and Afghan Taliban have both claimed responsibility for the attack, with one specific Taliban leader stating that the attack was in revenge for CIA-led drone attacks.

This tragic incident highlights numerous issues challenging the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan. First off, it is indeed the nature of the covert intelligence game that one has to trust those who you really cannot trust. The CIA in Afghanistan need to gather information on Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership and organization and to do this human intelligence is a vital component. After all, the drones don’t just know where the bad guys are hiding by themselves.

This specific incident, which involved a supposed Afghan Army member, also portrays the difficulties in discerning friend from foe. How serious is this issue to the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy? Vital would be an understatement. Key to future stability of Afghanistan, and to a lessening of a foreign military presence, is the growth in size and capability of the Afghan army and police. The Taliban of course know this and will do whatever they can to undermine its progress. A great way to do this is to infiltrate the Afghan army and police ranks with your own soldiers and inflict demoralizing and strategic calamities, such as this Chapman CIA incident and the shooting of five British soldiers by an Afghan police officer last month. Throw in the fact that the Afghan government, and its foreign purse holders, are desperate to build up the Army and police numbers and it should not surprise us that some ‘bad apples’ are mixed into the bunch. If I were the Taliban, this is what I would do.

Nevertheless, in terms of the CIA’s presence in Afghanistan, it is still critical to have an on the ground footprint in Afghanistan’s most volatile southeastern regions. The drone attacks have had a major impact on downgrading the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership and the pressure must be maintained. This likely cannot happen if the CIA has to move out of Khost, Kandahar, etc. It has been reported that the CIA presence in Afghanistan is to increase by about 20-25% along with the surge in US/NATO troops this coming year, but one can bet that this Chapman attack will change some of the calculus on how the agency operates.

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, Al Qaeda, CIA, drones, Taliban

Tags: Afghanistan troop surge, domestic politics, Obama

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan troop surge, America Exceptionalism, Bush, international liberalism, Obama

“Twas the night before Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy speech and all through the internet, not a pundit was resting, all arguing that they knew what was right.  The allies were briefed in hopes that more troops would soon be there.  Then down came Obama to West Point with sweet words of strategy.”

All I want for Christmas is a winning Afghan strategy.

I offer an immediate apology for that pathetic attempt at parodying ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas’.  Tomorrow may not be Christmas, but it will sure have a major impact on the future of the United States, Afghanistan, Pakistan, NATO, and thousands of lives. So, what do we know about the Obama administration’s plan that will be laid out tomorrow? And what do I want to hear?

First off, it appears that the US will send around 30,000-34,000 more American troops and ask its NATO partners to send in another 10,000. This is obviously the most important aspect of the new strategy. It has also been leaked that the administration will not back McChrystal’s suggestion of doubling the Afghan army. Benchmarks for the Karzai led Afghan government will also be stressed. Lastly, according to the New York Times, the President will ‘lay out a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war’. This last item leads to what I personally want to hear from President Obama tomorrow.

Basically, if Obama truly believes that this is a necessary war, as I do, and is willing to maintain more than 100,000 American soldiers and civilians and spend billions of dollars in the conflict, then fight to win. Or to use his words, ‘finish the job’. In other words, I will be disappointed if the speech, and therefore the strategy’s goal, is too focused on getting out of Afghanistan. Not finishing the job, but just ending the job. I do understand the difficult position that Obama and US are in, as David Corn of Politics Daily correctly labels the diverging characteristics of the current situation:  ‘This must be done; this won’t last forever.’ Basically, Obama must at the same time explain to the American public that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to fight, but that it will be a fight with a conclusion not that far away.

This challenge will be one of this young president’s greatest yet. For not only does he need to get the country, both politicians and everyday citizens alike, to believe that this is a fight worth sacrificing for, but also that he is putting in place a winning strategy. In tomorrow’s speech, Obama cannot just layout a well-written and delivered address, he must also show that he is a leader worthy of being called Commander in Chief and to do this he needs to communicate in a more visceral way. As John Harris of Politico stated, ‘No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance’. Obama will be in a room full of young men and women who will all most likely play a tangible part in this conflict for years to come and he needs to inspire them with more than a well-thought out strategy.

Though there are signs that there will be aspects I will be uneasy hearing from the President tomorrow, I am optimistic we are going to get a good plan and a strong public statement of the conflict’s importance to country. I just hope it is the first of many such efforts to communicate our stake in this crucial war. I’ll of course be back to discuss the speech and the strategy it details over the next few days.

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, domestic politics, Obama, Public Opinion

It is always easier to critique a decision than to actually make one. It is always simpler to ask questions than to answer them. It is always faster to eat than to cook. It is always easier to fly than….ok, I think we get the idea. I’ve been critical of recent US policy on many matters, from Afghanistan and Iran to human rights and American exceptionalism and it’s time I laid out my positions on such matters. Before I do this, I want to emphasize that I do not claim to have all the answers, as I don’t. I fully understand how difficult is to make actual foreign policy as a head of state, while as much as a civilian who’s never been president can, and will just offer the best advice I can.

The first significant policy facing the United States and the Obama administration that I will offer my policy prescription on is the war in Afghanistan.

This is the issue for which I have spent the most attention on in the past two years and therefore I have no illusions to how difficult the task is facing the United States, NATO, and the Afghan government. What do I believe our goals to be in the conflict? First and foremost we must defeat, and at minimum contain Al Qaeda and similar groups of their ilk. Secondly, the Taliban, specifically their more radical elements, cannot be allowed to control the central government again. In this regard, the building of an at least somewhat effective and capable central government that can provide a decent amount of security and services for most of its citizens must be attempted. This last part will be the most challenging and as one can tell by my weak rhetoric (decent), I hold a fair amount of skepticism of success on this front, at least in the short-term. Fourthly, the stability and integrity of the Pakistani state must be maintained and strengthened with a special focus on their nuclear weapon system. Lastly, there is also a moral aspect to this conflict. The attacks of 9/11 not only immediately killed thousands of innocent Americans and people from around the globe, but have also bred long-term negative effects on our daily lives (increased security measures, feelings of insecurity, vitriol partisan politics on the national security level, etc.) The American people and way of life was attacked and we need to fight back. Another ethical aspect is the fact that the US removal of the Taliban in 2001 freed millions of Afghans from one of the most repressive, backwards, and violent regimes in modern history. Can we let this happen again? In my opinion there is much for the US to lose by failing in these objectives and that is why I believe we must play to win.

This is why I support Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. The Taliban cannot be allowed to freely control the Pashtun region’s of southern and eastern Afghanistan, let alone dominate the central state, and a major increase in US/NATO troops following McChrystal’s population security-centric strategy provides the greatest opportunity to fight back. If the strategy is successful, less ideological members of the insurgency should be able to be pulled away and reintegrated. A crucial aspect of this is the ability to offer these Afghans a chance of not only physical safety, but of a job and a living. I don’t see how economic growth and the building of a stronger central and local government can occur without breathing space from insurgent attacks, bribes, and threats and I believe that is what the McChrystal surge could provide. Do I expect the troop surge and counterinsurgency approach to provide a death blow to the Taliban? No, but it could help put the Afghan government, NATO, and US on a stronger footing, forcing the moderate elements of the insurgency to switch sides or at least negotiate from a weaker standing point. The commitment of thousands of troops with strong political backing from the US President would be a strong signal to the Taliban and more importantly to the Afghan population, that we aren’t going anywhere until we see some progress of stability and governance. If the Taliban are sure we will leave than we have already lost. Time and time again, I have read reports of Afghan civilians failing to fully open up and trust US/NATO troops and aids because ‘they don’t know how long they will stay, while they know for a fact the Taliban will’. We need to take this initiative back and show in a concrete fashion that we can be trusted and are the side to bet on. The McChrystal surge gives us the best chance at this outcome.

The McChrystal led surge could also create a bit of a pincer move against the both Pakistani and Afghani Taliban insurgents. Though there is too much ungoverned and treacherous land to ever fully cover, if the Pakistani government continues to show a commitment to fighting these Taliban elements in South Waziristan (and hopefully beyond) is combined with a strong US/NATO presence in the Afghanistan south and east it leaves far less operating space for the insurgents. Speaking of just Pakistan, I believe the Obama administration is largely on the right track. There has been constant attention to the Zardari and Pakistan military apparatus from high levels of the administration (with NSA Gen. Jones and CIA Chief Penatta just visiting this week) and this applied pressure, along with the impetus created by the myriad of domestic terror attacks throughout the country, seems to be prodding these two actors to take the fight to the insurgents causing havoc in Pakistan’s ungoverned northwest territories. The US has provided billions of aid in both the Bush and Obama administrations and it looks like some of it is going to good use. Concerning the drone attacks against Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistani territory, the administration has my full support and should continue to use this valuable tool. This blunt, but effective tactic is a valuable one, but it cannot stop Al Qaeda or the insurgency alone, it must just be one of the many tools in our tool box.

Those who support a more modest counter-terrorism strategy (Biden, Obama’s political aides, George Will, CATO) argue that we should we should just train and grow the Afghan military and police and get out, leaving them to do their own fighting. While I fully agree that we must build up the Afghan forces as quickly and efficiently as possible I understand that it takes US/NATO troops to not only train these forces, but also partner with them in battle, where the real learning occurs. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution sees an Afghan surge as having a more than fair chance in strengthening the effectiveness, legitimacy, and confidence of the nascent Afghan military and police forces and thinks it offers a ‘key reason’ for ‘more hopefulness about our mission’. If we want these Afghan security forces to grow into effective fighting and policing units we must show a commitment to this goal, by letting them learn by working in partner with the greatest military force in the world.

This policy recommendation faces tremendous obstacles, but I believe it offers us the greatest chance at progress in the war on terror and in bringing stability and peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US national security is at risk here as the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan have shown in the recent past and present that they cannot control their own territories from being used as a home base for violent Islamic extremists who have it as a goal to attack US citizens and interests. Besides the fact that I believe a larger troop presence accompanied with an effective strategy to protect the local population gives us the greatest opportunity for victory, I also believe in the now seemingly out of fashion idea that it is better to fight them over there than here. Many pundits and experts state that are efforts in Afghanistan have largely been a failure, and in many ways they are right, but there is one piece of evidence that showcases that we are doing something right today and in the past 8 years. The United States homeland has been free from a major foreign originating terror attack since 9/11. This does not happen by chance. Thousands of dedicated, courageous Americans, along with our allies, have been investigating, prosecuting, fighting, communicating, and dying so we can be safe and secure here at home. As of today, 923 Americans, 235 British, and 366 others have given their lives in Afghanistan to protect our way of life.

With no illusions and with a heavy heart, I urge President Obama to do what is necessary to win in Afghanistan. Besides seeing an counterinsurgency strategy quickly and effectively implemented, I would like to see our President put forth a strong campaign to help steady wavering public support of our efforts in this conflict. He needs to be firm and explain why we are doing what we’re doing and how this policy will give us the greatest chance of success. I strongly believe that faltering polls numbers favoring our presence in Afghanistan have become so because of a lack of executive leadership. I don’t want to hear an exit strategy, I want to hear a winning strategy. I urge President Obama to stand up and deliver.

Alright, I’ll try to do more of these in the future. Let me know what policies interest you the most. Also upcoming will be the 4th GPP Power Rankings!

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan troop surge, Obama, War on Terror