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.

Tags: Al Qaeda, Bush, nuclear terrorism, Obama, PSI, terrorism

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.

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan troop surge, Al Qaeda, Bush, Karzai, Obama, Pakistan, surge, Taliban

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)

Tags: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama, Petraeus, Taliban, US foreign policy

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.

Tags: 9/11, Afghanistan policy, Al Qaeda, Bush, Iraq, torture, War on Terror

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?

Tags: Al Qaeda, Central Asia, Islamic extremism, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, terrorism, US foreign policy