Loya Jirga as Dayton? Posted by Patrick Barry

Senator Wicker (D - Miss.) asks Ambassador Eikenberry a loaded question about President Karzai's calls for a Loya Jirga, and whether the Taliban would be invited to participate in such a convention.

Eikenberry dodges a bit, deferring to the Afghan government, and stating that the purpose of the Loya Jirga would be for the Karzai government to regain the confidence of the Afghan people, after an election that many regarded as flawed.  Whether elements of the insurgency would participate is a question for the Afghan government, not the U.S.

On the issue of elements of the Taliban rejoining Afghan society, Eikenberry is a little more forthcoming. So long as the conditions for Taliban re-integration remain the severing of ties to terrorists, the renouncement of violence, and respect for the Afghan constitution, then such an approach would find support from the U.S., at least according to Eikenberry. 

What I think remains unresolved is how the U.S. will ensure that these conditions are fulfilled, without more actively involving itself in a process that right now it seems content to hand over to the Afghan government. 

Double Standard Posted by Patrick Barry

Why is everyone asking Ambassador Eikenberry about his cable being leaked, but not McChrystal about his strategy review getting leaked? Seriously, the leak of an entire military strategy review and its impact on the civilian strategy should be just as important to congress, if not more important, than the negative repercussions of the leak of fragments of a state department cable.

Uggh John McCain Posted by Patrick Barry

John McCain just doesn't understand strategy.  If by 2011 the United States hasn't accomplished any of their objectives for Afghanistan, than I'd say its time to take a good hard look at whether there's anything more we can do (if we haven't already reached that point.)  That's why you set objectives, so as time goes on, you can assess whether you've achieved them, and whether the continued pursuit of them is worth risks in other areas.  In John McCain's view, achieving victory is worth whatever cost.

Contiguous Security Posted by Patrick Barry

General McChrystal defines success in part by achieving what he calls "contiguous security," something that will allow Afghans to move freely, engage in commerce, etc.  Look for this concept to become a buzzword in the Washington debate.

Eikenberry's thoughts on risks Posted by Patrick Barry

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing has kicked off.  Ambassador Eikenberry states without greater progress in Pakistan, success in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed.  Where's Anne Patterson when you need her?

Memo to Congress: Taliban Does Not Want to Lie in Wait Posted by Patrick Barry

For anymore congressman like Rep. Frank Lo Biondo or Rep. John Kline thinking of asking whether the administration's conditions based timetable emboldens the Taliban, or will somehow allow them to lie in wait and plan, please read Matt Duss's post on Wonk Room, and then ask a different, more serious question that doesn't waste everyone's time.

Do you guys understand what defeat even means? Posted by Patrick Barry

Here I was, distracted for a few minutes, and McChrystal goes ahead and takes all the sexiness out of the concept of "defeating the enemy."  Defeat, in McChrystal's view, is not an absolute term, but instead means "rendering the enemy incapable of completing its mission." So much for squashing the Taliban out of existence. 

The elephant in the hearing room Posted by Patrick Barry

McChrystal's response to Chairman Skelton's question about U.S. goals are highly revealing about the disproportionate space taken up by Afghanistan in the Washington debate.  McChrystal defines U.S. strategic objectives in terms of thwarting Al-Qaeda, and enabling the Afghan government to better take charge of its own affairs, something pursuant to the main goal.  But that says absolutely nothing about Pakistan, where U.S. interests are arguably much greater.  Now that's not exactly McChrystal's (or Eikenberry's) fault, since their commands don't extend into Pakistan.  But you have to wonder whether the fuss over their testimony is giving Congress and the American people a proper appreciation for how U.S. interests should be balanced on either side of the Durand line.  Why, for instance, isn't there complimentary testimony from Pakistan Ambassador Anne Patterson and CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus?

Nothing to See Here Posted by Patrick Barry

I'm struck by McChrystal's emphasis on how the administration's strategy, and the deliberations that went into it, have added "clarity" that benefits every component of the mission.  If there's a rift between the Administration and the ground commanders, it's not on display here (at least so far). 

Where there's slip between the cup and the lip will be in terms of how that approach is implemented.  In that sense, McChrystal's remarks have a dual effect.  Besides reassuring Congress that the Administration and ISAF are on the same page, by recognizing the clarity of the administration's strategy, McChrystal winds up holding himself accountable on the implementation side.  Any missteps in operationalizing this clear guidance will be largely on his shoulders. 

How's that for some nuance Posted by Patrick Barry

McChrystal begins by going into surprising detail about the nature of the insurgency threatening Afghanistan, in an overview that moves from the Qetta Shura to the Haqqani Network to Hezbi Islami.  This analysis is more disaggregated than anything I've seen from Obama's team so far, and it contrasts particularly with the testimony given by Gates and Clinton, which suggested that the insurgency had morphed into a kind of multi-headed, but cohesive syndicate.