Analyzing President Obama’s Afghanistan speech and policy is at once easy and difficult. His decision to start to withdraw his own surge policy (10,000 troops home this summer and 33,000 by the end of next summer) is blatantly political, not strategic. Joint Chief of Staff Mullen and Secretary of Defense Gates have both called a withdrawal at this proscribed timetable to be ‘risky’, aka this policy decreases the chances for a successful outcome in Afghanistan. Next summer, as the weather and therefore the fighting heats up, the Taliban will be facing a retreating army. The fact that the surge of troops is dissipated just two months short of the 2012 presidential election is no coincidence. Obama wants the war off his plate and he made that clear in his speech.

Candidate Obama once called the Afghan conflict “the war we need to win”, but things have changed. Obama concluded his speech with ‘Let us responsibly end these wars’. He also mentioned ‘our effort to wind down this war’. Of course ending wars is a good thing, but it would also be nice to win them too. Barack Obama is a domestic minded president through and through. In a key foreign policy speech, one that will affect the life and death of American soldiers, he stated that he was more interested in nation building in the United States. This critical Afghan war speech featured this sentence: ‘We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.’ This is not exactly ‘Blood, Sweat, and Tears‘. Michael Gerson of the Washington Post has it right: A president provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare, instead of positing a dangerous choice between the two. In other words, having a successful outcome in Afghanistan should not mean that we have to suffer here at home.

Now for the difficult part: This decision to drawdown our troop presence in Afghanistan is indeed a tough call. We have spent billions of dollars (as Obama said in his speech, though I don’t hear him discuss our unfunded entitlements very much if at all) and have soldiers being injured and killed in a conflict that may not have a positive outcome with a majority of the strategies we put forth. We are in Afghanistan to protect ourselves from foreign terrorists who wish us harm. It is this key point where the death Osama Bin Laden comes in. If you take away the parts of the speech where Obama credits our killing of the Al Qaeda leader than our case for a well earned victorious departure gets quite flimsy. It gets especially cloudy when we look back at Obama’s reasoning for starting the surge in the first place, only a year and some months ago. Did the surge help capture Osama Bin Laden? I don’t think so, but now it is being used as a reason to start leaving Afghanistan. Fellow political blogger UNRR posits two key questions regarding Obama’s decision to pull out troops, both have to be answered in the negative:

Is there anyone who seriously believes the situation in Afghanistan is so improved that we can reasonably start pulling out troops? Does anyone really think the incredibly corrupt and incompetent Karzai government and Afghan military are ready to start taking over their own war effort any time in the foreseeable future?

Obama’s surge was only fully in place last August and 10,000 of the 30,000 troops are already packing their bags for home. I know progress has been made in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, two Taliban strongholds, but can these tactical gains be cemented with less troops and the Taliban’s knowledge that we are leaving. I guess it’s possible, though unlikely. I also want to give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt that negotiations between the US, Karzai government, and Taliban are already ongoing and showing signs of progress. I also have great faith that even with minimal numbers, there is no greater fighting force than the American military and they still may be able to accomplish our goal of making Afghanistan a somewhat stable, secure country where terrorists cannot effectively plan and implement their objectives against the United States.

Part of the job of a leader, and especially one in charge of the United States, is to make tough decisions that overall best serve your constituents. President Obama has every right to make this withdrawal decision as he is our commander in chief. We as a country cannot fight every battle or right every wrong in the world and our current fiscal crisis and long term debt have made tough decisions even harder. Choices need to be made. These choices will have outcomes and we must judge our leaders by them. President Obama has made a major decision that will shape the future of the war on terror and like his predecessor, he will have to answer to the people and history.

‘World is Safer and Better Place Because of the Death of Osama bin Laden’

President Obama

You got that right, Mr. President. The death of Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of numerous crimes against the United States and humanity, including mass murder, at the hands of an American soldier is justice served. Bin Laden’s orchestrated attack against the United States on 9/11 was an act that will live in infamy in this country and to all those who watched those two towers fall. His death does not bring the nearly 3,000 fallen back to our lives, but it can’t help but bring some form of closure. This successful action also makes something very clear: If you mess with the United States and threaten our safety and way of life, you will get the horns!

A few thoughts:

• The braveness shown by the group of Navy Seals/CIA (details of course our sketchy), who were dropped from the sky to probably the most hostile of environments to carry out one of the most crucial, historical, and dangerous missions in American history, is hard to comprehend. They are heros through and through and have earned our eternal gratitude.

• This successful mission could not have been accomplished without years of hard work by our nation’s intelligence agencies, military forces, and diplomats and all of them deserve all the accolades coming to them.

• President Obama showed great leadership and of course this mission could not have happened without it. His presidency will forever be known as the one that got Osama, and like his quote above, the US and world are all the better for it.

• Though the details and facts of this amazing mission are still coming in, it seems that it could never have been accomplished without information gathered by the much-maligned CIA during the crucial and headspinning days/years after the 9/11 attack. It seems that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up the name of the courier that led the US to Osama’s compound 5 years ago. This strategic information might never have been acquired without the Bush administration’s stress on capturing Al Qaeda figures alive so they could be interrogated. The success of this mission indeed has many fathers, and former President Bush and his staff definitely belong among them.

• This fight is far from over. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 al-Zawahriwi is still alive and free and this must change. He is a powerful figure and in many ways was the leader of Al Qaeda’s strategy and logistics. Violent attacks against the US by Islamic radicals did not all funnel from Osama Bin Laden, either. The failed bombing attempts in Time Square (car), Detroit (underwear bomber, plane), and Portland (Christmas tree), just to name a few, had no known direct links to Osama’s camp, but nevertheless they were real and dangerous and their threat is still alive.

• The big elephant in the room now is American and NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Already I have heard in the media and among some colleagues about declaring ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘getting out’. Though I disagree with this, I do believe Osama’s death is going to be a game changer. More on this later.

So good riddance to human garbage and big cheers to all those who helped make our country and the world a bit safer and much more just.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

For a majority of President Obama’s 2nd State of the Union address foreign affairs were only brought up in relation to domestic economic or social issues. For instance, the US was ‘falling behind’ South Korea in education and Europe in infrastructure… The focus on domestic issues should not be a surprise as Obama has already stated that ‘the country he’s most interested in building is our own’ and the United States is still struggling economically and psychologically with many Americans seeing a bleak future for our coming generations. Alas, there are foreign monsters abroad that need to be addressed by our Commander and Chief and Obama curtly discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Al Qaeda, and even Tunisia. I’ll make a few observations of these topics with Afghanistan at the end: (The near entirety of the SOTU’s foreign affairs section is found at the bottom of the post)

• Iran and North Korea: Here is the President’s statement on those two destabilizing forces in international security:

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.

Yes, that’s it. If you want to scroll lower to the entire foreign policy section you can see a paragraph on Sudan that is longer. So in a speech dominated by domestic policy, we see a nuclear state that in the past year twice militarily attacked its southern neighbor, strong US ally South Korea, and another state nestled in the volatile Middle East that just turned down yet another Western attempt to disclose its nuclear capabilities and desires, get two sentences. Words in a speech do not define effective policy, but if you were Iran or North Korea, wouldn’t this signal to you that you are not one of the United States’ main concerns?

• Iraq: Though I’ve read some conservative pundits critique the President for washing his hands of the conflict or for taking credit for the Bush administration’s surge and SOFA policies, I thought Obama did a good enough job discussing a topic that he nor the country probably wanted to talk about. Though the word ‘civilian’ is inaccurate (we still have  a strong military presence in the country),  Obama made a necessary statement in regards to our logn term commitment to the future of Iraq; ‘our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people.’

• Afghanistan: The Afghan war, where over 100,000 American troops are currently engaged, received twice the time as Iran and North Korea…that’s right not one short paragraph, but two! (Highlighted below) Nothing really new was said. President Obama did state that our main reason for the war was to keep the Taliban from gaining a ‘stronghold’ where they could assist Al Qaeda in launching attacks on the US. If one takes this to heart, it is hard to imagine the administration being too lenient on negotiations with members of the Taliban, but they have shown many other signs that this is likely to occur. In this vein, the President also said that we will start to bring troops home in July, bringing back the fading July 2011 drawdown date that we haven’t heard much of lately. Does this mean that tens of thousands of American troops will be coming home in July? I still don’t think so, but a more than token amount will.
• China: The Middle Kingdom was mentioned twice, both times in reference to the American education/innovation/economy. The US was shown to be behind in both comparisons.

The Afghanistan and whole foreign policy section seemed to me like the President was checking boxes. It appears that those who predicted he would pivot to foreign affairs after the midterm defeat were wrong.

He’s a great interpretation of President Obama’s foreign affairs SOTU pronouncements by The Cable’s Josh Rogin:

Foreign Policy section the SOTU:

Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West; no one rival superpower is aligned against us.

And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America’s commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.

Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we are disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.

We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan Security Forces. Our purpose is clear – by preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.

In Pakistan, al Qaeda’s leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.

American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START Treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.

This is just a part of how we are shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO, and increased our cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to missile defense. We have reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, and built new partnerships with nations like India. This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances for progress in the Americas. Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility – helping farmers grow more food; supporting doctors who care for the sick; and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.

Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power – it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan – with our assistance – the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: “This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free.”

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

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.

Please take a look at this report from Reuters:

“If it were in a position to do so, Al-Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired on June 21. Pakistan has been battling Al-Qaeda’s Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 100 kilometers northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands. ‘God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahedin would take them and use them against the Americans,’ Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of Al-Qaeda’s in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television.”

After reading this a couple thoughts came to mind.  1. The US and the international community cannot fall into any type of lull in our efforts to prevent non state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This is obviously especially pertinent in the state of Pakistan, where the Pakistani military seems to be making some progress against Taliban strongholds in the Swat and Northwest Frontier provinces.  The Obama administration has shown they take this threat seriously, exemplified by their recent efforts to enhance the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.  The administration should also actively promote the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).  A flexible, internationally accepted organization to curtail WMD proliferation started by the Bush administration.

Secondly, why is Al-Jazeera television giving this Al Qaeda criminal air time?  Al-Yazid’s words should be heard by intelligence analysts, government officials, and no one else.  What good can come out of this publicity?  Let Al Qaeda’s words fall on deaf ears by giving them a smaller and smaller soap box or at least one without a microphone near it.

President Obama fulfilled one of his main campaign promises on Tuesday, a major increase of US soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.  The US plans to send 8,000 this spring, followed by groups of 4,000 and 5,000 during the summer, for a total of about 17,000 troops, or about 50% of the 36,000 Americans already stationed in the volatile country.

The attention, or more accurate, the lack there of, this has gotten in the media is appalling.  On the day of the announcement, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had it as the fourth storyline of the day, behind the Stimulus passage (ok) and the Aroid scandal (not ok).  And today, the second news morning after the announcement, not one story from any major newspaper (realclearpolitics).  Heck, I write a blog called ‘Afghanistan’ and I didn’t even write about it! (My Foreign Policy Association ‘Afghanistan and Central Asia’ blog has been split in two).  The Iraq ‘surge’ was just a little over 20,000 troops and I recall it being a ‘big deal’.  Not only should the media do its job of examining the how’s, why’s, and the ‘what’s’ of this Afghan troop surge, but it also owes it to the men and women who are about to do tremendously difficult work in a dangerous and unstable region.  

Anyway, what really concerns me is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive strategy to go along with these troops.  In a written statement, (no time for a press conference or speech), Obama really only justifies the troop surge as ‘necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation.’  Obama and his JCS have already leaked that they are likely to have a more ‘realistic’ approach to the conflict, trying to bring stability and security first, democracy and Afghan good governance second, but I want to hear some explanation how these troops will lead to that.  The Iraqi surge did come with a General Petraeus counterinsurgency plan attached to it and had his rock solid leadership.  

I have long advocated for a more sophisticated and comprehensive view of the challenges US/NATO/Afghan/Pakistani government face in this conflict, and despite the recent lackluster of coverage, I believe it has started to happen.  After all, I support sending more troops to Afghanistan, and have for awhile, I just know that it will take much more than just fresh soldiers on the ground to bring peace and stability to the region.  

Here’s a rundown on the problems these new soldiers and the US military faces in Afghanistan:

a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.

US marines in Afghanistan's Nuristan Province (New York Times)

We need a strategy.  We cannot just double-down on the Petraeus Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy, though some of its ‘secure and hold’ methods will be useful, many others won’t in the Afghan conflict.  The Bush team held a top secret comprehensive review of the Afghan situation and I know that Obama has it on his table right now, but we in the public have still been kept in the dark.  

What will be the overriding use of these troops? Will they protect Kabul and its surrounding area, like the first group of soldiers sent in January, or will they be sent to volatile south?  Will the US back Karzai in the upcoming election or try someone with less baggage (remember all those calls for Maliki’s head in Iraq?)?  Will raids into Pakistan continue, increase?  Are we okay with Pakistan government’s recent deal with in the Swat region, allowing Sharia and Taliban law? (Holbrooke says ‘no’)  What will be the counter narcotics strategy?  How will aid more effectively reach the Afghan citizens and improve their economy?What will be expected from the other NATO members?  And HOW LONG will US troops be stationed in Afghan?  Are we there until Afghan is stable?  Al Qaeda is defeated?  The Taliban are defeated?  Afghanistan is a democracy?  We run out of money and men?  The San Francisco Giants win the World Series?  (Don’t worry, that’s next year!)

Too many questions left unanswered.  The Afghanistan conflict will indeed be a stiff test for Obama, America, NATO, and of course those in the region seeking peace and freedom.

It is being reported that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff will issue a report recommending that the Obama administration lower its expectations for a democratic Afghanistan and instead concentrate on regional stability and defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I have not seen the report myself, but Politico’s David Cloud asserts that the report by the JCS has come to the conclusion that the Bush administration’s emphasis on creating a free, open Afghan society and governance may be too difficult to obtain in a timely manner and should be looked at as a ‘vision for the future’ and not as a ‘goal.’

The report calls for ‘narrowing’ the US/NATO goals to ‘just’ defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, uprooting their sanctuaries in Pakistan, and ‘ensuring’ regional stability. The thought that these are ‘narrow’ goals is laughable considering how challenging they have and will continue to be. Nevertheless, this is definitely a more realist outlook than trying to obtain a democratic and liberal style governance and society in the Afghan state.

This report, which should be out in the open and on the president’s desk soon, comes at a crucial time as the Obama administration is preparing to send around 12,000 more troops into the conflict.  Obama, who seems like he has realist, pragmatic leanings, may be sympathetic to this plan and will accordingly direct these incoming troops to these newly-focused goals.   It is also well-known that Obama staked much of his campaign rhetoric onchanging US-Afghan War policy and putting the conflict to the forefront of American foreign policy.  We’ll have to see how Obama, Petraeus, Bob Gates all see this plan in the next few weeks.

The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly 8 years now, (for the people of Afghanistan, a lot longer), and though I don’t see the American people wavering too much in support of the effort, there is definitely those who feel like some progress needs to be shown. Will a concentration of forces, resources, and strategy centered on the specific goals of stopping Al Qaeda and Taliban’s refuge in Pakistan and a lessening of talk and efforts for state building bring some tangible results to show the American people and the world. And maybe this will allow more breathing space and time for the Afghan government to grow in strength. Can the US have its cake (regional security) and eat it too (Afghan/Pakistan democracy)?

What goals should the US emphasis in Afghanistan? Would the JCS recommendations undermine the democratic gains already made in the country and possible in the surrounding region?

(Photo Source: AP)

In the last few weeks, there has been much talk about how much credit the Bush administration has kept America’s homeland safe. The Bush administration and many others have argued that their strong policies, bringing the fight to Afghanistan and Iraq and using measures from the Patriot Act and aggressive interrogation techniques, including water boarding and rendition, are largely responsible for seven years of a quiet homeland. Their critics concentrate on the fact that Bush was president at the time of the worst attack in US history, has actually increased extremism abroad with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and Abu Ghraib, and some claim that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have not even really tried to hit America again.

Both sides have valid points and like many issues in foreign policy and politics, we will never really have a perfect picture. For instance, asserting that attacks that never happened are proof that your government kept us safe will always garner, ‘yeah, I guess.’ And Bush’s critics who argue that his policies have just antagonized the Islamic world, breeding more terrorists, is equally difficult to prove.

Along with many government agencies and officials, the Bush administration must be held responsible for allowing the attacks of 9/11 to happen on their watch. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq’s (I will discuss Iraq more on a separate post) invasion periods were immensely successful, but their transition to stable, democratic governments has been a great challenge, one worsened by poor policy decisions. Embarrassing episodes of Abu Ghraib and Bush’s inability to communicate effectively with the American people and world have also been detrimental to the fight on terror.

With this all being said, I give the Bush administration a passing grade in what I see as an immensely challenging and complicated foreign policy issue. It is sad to say, but no one was prepared for the 9/11 attack except the terrorists themselves. Throughout the 90s, Al Qaeda and its fellow brethren were ratcheting up their attacks against US forces and interests in Africa, the Persian Gulf, and finally hitting our homeland. Bush rightly recognized this as not a police matter, but one of war. Though I would be fine with losing the moniker ‘War on Terror’, we must maintain a mindset of war against these groups who’s very being is to destroy the US and West and our way of living. Before 9/11 we treated terrorism with mainly police tactics and our enemies were far from deterred. Though we need to utilize police work and methods in this fight, we cannot look at this battle through that lens anymore. Bush was forthright with this belief in the very beginning and has yet to relent. He has been especially effective in voicing the moral differences between our way of war and life and the terrorists, but I feel people for several different reasons have tuned him out over the last few years, missing some important speeches.

The current state of the NATO effort in Afghanistan is at a crossroads will challenge US armed forces, the NATO alliance, and US policy for years to come, but one things for sure and that is the terrorists have their hands full trying to stay alive in the Hindu Kush mountain. Though I think it unfortunate that the US has not captured Osama or Zawahiri yet, I am pleased with their current existence, likely living every day in fear in a cold cave. Years ago Bush faced many critics for his assertion that ‘we are fighting them over there, not here,’ but I’ve come to realize that this has largely proven a true and valuable policy success. Of course, this comes with great sacrifice from American and foreign troops and civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Time to wrap up. Bush’s presidency has been flawed and disappointing in many ways, but I appreciate his strong leadership in facing a determined, and hard to define enemy. He helped show the terrorists and the world that the United States will not take an attack on our land and values sitting down. Though the US has done wrong in its fight to keep our people safe, we have still kept our ideals front and center. 9/11 showed the US that it was not impenetrable and that there was still evil in this world, and thankfully George W. Bush has helped lead us to show the world that the US is up to the challenge.

The Foreign Policy Association just made a big mistake…they published me. I wrote a short descriptive/analytical piece for the FPA about the rise of Islamic terrorism and extremism in Central Asia and how it was spilling over into the Afghan/Pakistan borderlands. Here is an excerpt below:

The border between the states of Afghanistan and Pakistan is now arguably the most active front in the war on terror. Foreign terrorists and extremists have come to the volatile border from the Middle East and Central Asia and there is real fear that these perpetrators may bring the war back to their home countries. Even more worrisome is that several of the militant groups involved in the current Afghan/Pakistan/US/NATO conflict hold broader goals of attacking American and Western interests. Central Asia, defined here as Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Uighur-dominated Xinjiang Province in western China, with Afghanistan and Pakistan as integral neighbors, also has vibrant militant groups threatening the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and before the Olympics the Chinese government was targeted for several attacks by Uighur separatists with ties all the way to Pakistan. This briefing will analyze the rise in terrorist and extremist activities near the Afghan/Pakistan border, explore the major Islamic extremist groups active in Central Asia, discuss the reasons for their presence, and provide policy recommendations for the US, local actors, and regional groups.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s Foreign Helpers

In the last year or so there have been continual reports of a greater presence of foreign individuals and groups participating in extremist activities undermining Afghanistan, Pakistan, and regional stability. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done an excellent job recruiting foreign jihadist to their fight against the US/NATO, Afghan, and Pakistani forces. Several disturbing trends have been recorded, including a rising use of suicide bombings and the recruitment and use of children in combat. Since 2001, there have been over 260 suicide bombings in Afghanistan alone, not to mention the hundreds that have recently occurred in Pakistan and Iraq, and unfortunately this number has only been increasing. US officials have stated that Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the Afghan/Pak border have systematically created an underground network into Central Asia, which has brought in approximately 200 children into the violent conflict. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have been called ‘feeder channels’ for the terrorist groups. Pakistani journalist and scholar Ahmed Rashid told Radio Free Europe: “We’ve seen more and more of these people coming in. We have seen more suicide bombers in Afghanistan who supposed to be Uzbek from Uzbekistan. Clearly, there’s something going on here.”

I’m assuming now you are totally hooked and are desperate for the rest, right?  Click here to continue reading the piece.  Thoughts?  Criticisms?