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

Below is a must-read article by the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt about the disappearance of debate and discussion about America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like I, he sees this as a detriment to our policy making process and a disservice to all our servicemen in harm’s way. Here is a portion of the article, but please read the whole thing:

You would hardly know, from following this year’s election campaign or the extensive coverage of last week’s primaries, that America is at war.

Those elected to Congress in November will face fateful decisions on the continued deployment, or not, of U.S. forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet those wars, and the wisdom of committing to or withdrawing from them, have hardly been mentioned in the hard-fought campaigns of the spring.

Look at some candidate Web sites. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, forced into a runoff in Arkansas’s Democratic primary, lists 10 categories of issues, none of which are defense or national security. Under “Veterans and National Guard,” she does mention the war in Iraq but not the war in Afghanistan. For her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, “National Security, Veterans and the Military” comes eighth on a list of nine issues and begins, “Arkansas is home to military bases that are critical to our nation’s security.” “Ensuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan” is the entirety of his platform on those conflicts.

In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, who rode a wave of opposition toward the Iraq war into Congress in 2006, includes defense (fifth out of five topics) on his site but writes mostly about properly equipping and caring for the force and accountability in weapons purchasing. For his Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, “National Security” comes 10th out of 10 (just after “Second Amendment”) with no mention, as far as I could see, of Iraq or Afghanistan.

In a time of joblessness and home foreclosures, it’s not surprising that politics would focus on the economy more than on national security. And maybe, in a time of toxic partisanship, we should be grateful for this inattention to the wars, taking the absence of debate as a sign of rare bipartisan consensus. Certainly few would miss the vitriol of the Iraq debate of a few years back.

Yet there’s something disquieting about the quiet. For one thing, it’s yet another reminder of American society’s separation from its professional military. As the November elections approach, candidates across the spectrum will ostentatiously wear their support for “our warriors” like body armor, which I suppose is better than the alternative. But as the troops become props, the real men and women who are sweating and taking fire and sleeping on hard ground 7,000 miles away are oddly missing from the conversation.

Why do you think American politicians and the populace at large has moved their attention elsewhere? Poor economy? Current state of the wars? President Obama’s rhetorical downplaying? Partisan consensus? War fatigue? Justin Bieber?

PS: Also check out this other WaPo news article stating that the US has no Plan B if the Kandahar offensive does not go as planned.

Tags: Afghanistan, domestic politics, Iraq, Obama

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

The President Karzai-President Obama relationship was bound to be an uncomfortable one from the get-go, but things are getting ridiculous, and it is not helpful for either side. In case you haven’t heard, ever since Obama’s visit to Kabul last week, which included a personal meeting with Karzai, a diplomatic (more likely undiplomatic) row has occurred between the two sides, with Karzai accusing the West/US of illegally tampering with his reelection and even stating that he might have to join the Taliban if things did not improve between his government and the US. The Obama administration, which has kept Karzai at arms-length ever since it came into office, followed up its reported tough talk about Karzai’s corrupt practices during Obama’s Kabul trip with talk that the Afghan president may have his invitation to DC this May cancelled. Thankfully, in the past 24 hours relations seem to be on a more sure footing as the US State Department went out of their way to affirm that Karzai was a valuable partner and that “it’s important to try to tamp this down and get back to business.”

Notice the distance, both literally and figuratively...

It is important to remember the many audiences in play for each side here. President Karzai has a federal and local government to lead, a more than skeptical populace waiting to see results and be shown that he is not just a feckless American puppet, and various factions of insurgents, some of whom he will need to join his side if he is to bring about real national reconciliation. Then of course add to this an American government invested heavily, and I mean heeeeeavily!, in Afghanistan’s future, European donors and soldiers, the United Nations, and of course neighboring powers such as Pakistan, India, Iran, and Turkey (not to mention a little neighbor called Kyrgyzstan!). President Obama has his own cascade of audiences to please as well. That being said, both sides are stuck with each other and spats like this cannot be allowed to fester for long. In a Fred Kaplan article on the subject he quotes Gerard Russell, a former UN official who was based in Kabul, who argued that ‘the West is faced with just two options on what to do about Karzai: either withdraw support for him—or back him all the way. Ambivalent support or persistent bickering is a recipe for disaster and defeat.’

I’m basically in agreement with Russell’s black and white conclusion. In fact, one could argue that the Obama administration’s (with Karzai basically doing the same) public critiques of Karzai combined with a dearth of high level meetings has forced Karzai to outwardly fight back to maintain relevance and domestic legitimacy. Karzai was reportedly very angry at US National Security Advisor’s Jim Jones’s comments before the Obama visit that he had made ‘no progress’ on the corruption front. And it’s not like Karzai is holding a bad poker hand here, as it is in strong American interest for his government to be stable and prosperous. For this outcome to even possibly occur, it is near impossible to imagine Hamid Karzai not being an important aspect of it. After all, if a viable alternative was to be found in a legitimate fashion, the presidential election of 2009 was the venue.

It is understandable for both administrations to be frustrated with the other as the situation is untenable for both sides in many ways, but like Mr. Russell asserted, a falling out between the two would likely leave both parties in undesirable positions. Both sides need to walk fine lines here. The Obama administration needs to provide enough backing for Karzai so that he can have a chance at progressing the ability and legitimacy of the Afghanistan government, while at the same time making it clear to the Afghan president that we expect concrete results in exchange for all of the American political, financial and military resources that largely created and maintain his position. The Karzai administration needs to show….the Afghan population that it is independently capable of providing services and security to the whole country, portions of the Taliban insurgency that are willing to give up their weapons that it is a viable negotiating partner, and the US/NATO that it can be a dependable partner.

(Photo Source: Reuters)

Tags: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, diplomacy, domestic politics, Karzai, 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

Tags: Afghanistan troop surge, domestic politics, 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

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

As much as I disagree with the CIA prosecution policy of the Obama administration, it has helped highlight a critical and complicated issue in US national security, international security, and for modern democracies.  Discussions by President Obama, ex-VP Dick Cheney, leading intellectuals, newspapers, and citizens, like us here at GPP, attests to this, and I hold up that we can find an acceptable, if not happy, medium.  In any regard, that’s all I’m going to say about that right now.  Well, almost.  Here’s two provocotive CIA/torture pieces worth checking out:  Liberal Columnist Richard Cohen looks at ‘Torture’s Unanswerable Questions‘ 2.  A high level debate on the issue spurred by Cohen’s piece.

The rest of this post will be as the title suggests, a hodge-podge of Great Power topics.  Are you pumped or what!?!  I am!!!

• Stratfor’s George Friedman takes a stab at reviewing the now concluded, opening stage of President Obama’s foreign policy.  Friedman’s take is centered on two related points: Obama’s policies are a lot like Bush’s and this is no surprise because state leaders’ foreign affairs decisions are shaped by ‘necessity’ and constrained by fundamental strategic interests.  Friedman is a Realist, and a consistent one, so this should not surprise.  The most interesting aspect of the review is Friedman’s geopolitical analysis of Obama’s ‘Reset’ policy with Moscow.  He sees an inherent problem with the strategy:

The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.

This is true for many international issues, as just because we desire ‘talks’, ‘resets’, ‘war’, etc. does not mean our ally or enemy want the same.  Conflicts happen for a reason.

• For only the 2nd time in decades, with this time looking to be much more consequential than the first, Japan has a new ruling party running its domestic and foreign affairs.  The perennially in power Liberal Democrats have been booted out of government and replaced by the Democratic Party of Japan and this will muddies the future Japan-US alliance, if even just a bit.  From their very existence, the Liberal Democrats were closely allied with the US, and the DPJ has held some troubling policy prescriptions toward its relations with the US while in opposition.  Though a sea change in relations is extremely unlikely, there is indeed some cause for concern, especially in regards to the presence of American military personnel on certain Japanese islands.  The Obama administration will need to show some agility in dealing with this new government and keeping the Japanese-American alliance strong.  A rather mundane, stable US foreign policy sphere has suddenly become a bit more exciting/worrying.

• Speaking of East Asia and Realism, Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini wrote a short and sweet piece persuasively arguing that no one should expect to see US-China partnership any time soon.  Here is a list of the contrasting interests and positions that will keep them apart: 1. US focus on geopolitical headaches around the globe with China confining itself with geo-economic challenges 2. Both state governments have internal issues to keep their attention (economic, health care, Uighurs, baseball playoff races, etc.) 3. Internal bureaucratic infighting, especially in regards to a lack of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington’s respective State and Treasury Departments 4. Lastly, on major international security issues, like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia’s moves in Eastern Europe, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, climate change, the two behemoths have diverging positions.  What’s interesting about this piece by Bremmer and Roubini is that they make a Realist argument, but stress internal aspects (bureaucracy, domestic politics) as key factors.  Realist theory largely and mistakenly misses these factors by focusing too much on just the state and international actors.

• Speaking of Russia in Eastern Europe (at least I did a little bit ago), Moscow is having a good ol’fashioned great power row with Poland about who was more Nazi-friendly during World War II.  I know what you’re thinking….this is great-power-awesome!  Apparently, Russia has been releasing documents showing elements in Poland helped the Nazis, while the Polish are trying to remind Moscow that they invaded and conquered them in a partnership with the Third Reich!  It seems like this morbid diplomatic fight is not a real threat to Polish-Russian relations, just an interesting verbal spat.

• Apparently, the War on Terror may not be dead just yet.  Obama Press Secretary used the phrase in its proper context when defending Obama’s Afghan strategy.

• Just when you thought your great power work was done, here is a bloggingheads.tv video by two mostly well-spoken folks debating whether America will remain a great power, with the much more important question of How, being addressed as well.  Hat tip to my friends at Foreign Policy Association’s Rising Powers blog, specifically David Kampf, for this and for already picking out the discussion’s ‘money quote’:

“the greatest advantage that the United States has going forward is that as other countries become more powerful there is always going to be the feeling among their neighbors and among others in the world that they are going to view that apprehensively and I think they are going to look to the United States…to provide you with a security partner.”

Just like the Pittsburgh Pirates’ playoff chances, this post is finished!

Tags: Bush, CIA, domestic politics, Obama, War on Terror, WWII