Welcome Back to My Good Graces Tom Friedman . . . Ish Posted by Michael Cohen

After the humanitarian porn that he wrote about Afghanistan on Sunday, I was bit ticked off at Tom Friedman. But nothing like a little realism to turn the tide for old Tom:

America has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered here early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed — if ever. We came here to destroy Al Qaeda, and now we’re in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?

At least The Class Too Dumb to Quit is in charge, and they have a strategy: Clear areas of the Taliban, hold them in partnership with the Afghan Army, rebuild these areas by building relationships with district governors and local assemblies to help them upgrade their ability to deliver services to the Afghan people — particularly courts, schools and police — so they will support the Afghan government.

The bad news? This is State-Building 101, and our partners, the current Afghan police and government, are so corrupt that more than a few Afghans prefer the Taliban. With infinite time, money, soldiers and aid workers, we can probably reverse that. But we have none of these. I feel a gap building between our ends and our means and our time constraints. My heart says: Mission critical — help those Afghans who want decent government. My head says: Mission impossible.

This kind of gets to a point I raised yesterday on NPR's On The Point (self-promotion alert) with Max Boot from CFR and Brandon Friedman from VoteVets. Trying to do population centric counter insurgency in Afghanistan is sort of like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Without the necessary host country support the gains we make in Afghanistan are going to be ephemeral at best.

Of course, I can't completely let Friedman off the hook:

Does Mr. Obama understand how much he’s bet his presidency on making Afghanistan a stable country? Too late now. So, here’s hoping that The Class Too Dumb to Quit can take all that it learned in Iraq and help rebuild The Country That’s Been Too Broken to Work.

No, no, no. It's not too late now. And it's not up to the officers in Afghanistan to make this work. They are being given an untenable mission that I'm quite sure they will do everything in their power to ensure succeeds. But it's not clear they have the resources, the time ofe the support to make it succeed. It's up to our political leaders in the Executive Branch and in Congress, not the military, to say enough is enough.

The Powell Doctrine's Enduring Relevance Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at World Politics Review I have a new piece up about the enduring relevance of the Powell Doctrine:

Once upon a time, there was a grand and influential foreign policy doctrine. It was based on some traditional notions about U.S. statecraft that placed severe constraints on when America went to war. It asserted that when the United States used military force, it must do so in overwhelming fashion and only in the service of vital national interests. For any military action, it counseled the dispassionate weighing of costs and benefits, recommended that policymakers have clear, realistic and achievable political objectives, and called for the strong support of the American people and a clearly defined exit strategy.

This doctrine was called the Powell Doctrine, and it was based, in large measure, on a long-simmering debate in the military about how, when and where the United States should use force.

 . . . More than a quarter-century after it first entered the strategic consciousness of the U.S. national security bureaucracy, we don't hear much about the Powell Doctrine anymore. It has seemingly become a precious artifact of a bygone era in U.S. statecraft.

Yet, the lack of attention today to the key attributes of the Powell Doctrine is difficult to understand. After the twin conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan, the more than 5,000 American troops killed, the hundreds of billions -- even trillions -- of dollars spent, it's hard to imagine a strategic doctrine that is more appropriate.

Unfortunately, the lesson seemingly being drawn from these two wars is not that the U.S. must avoid the sort of draining, manpower-intensive and time-consuming counterinsurgency operations that have defined the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the moral of Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be that the United States must learn to fight these types of conflicts more effectively, because they are the future of war.

Meanwhile, the lessons of the Powell Doctrine and a restrained notion of when military force should be exercised are gathering cobwebs in the U.S. strategic toolbox. The time has come, however, to dust off this old war horse, because it is perhaps more relevant and timely than ever.

Read the whole thing here

NSN Daily Update: 7/22/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's complete daily update, click here.

What We're Reading

Bombings in Iraq killed 19 and wounded 80 in a series of attacks Tuesday. Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki is making his first visit to the White House.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad openly defied the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by refusing to dump his selection for vice president, Rahim Mashaei. Hard-liners oppose Mashaei for insisting that Iranians have no quarrel with Israelis, and because he was spotted watching women dance in Turkey, which Islamic fundamentalists consider a crime.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. is ready to extend an “umbrella of defense” over its Gulf allies if Iran develops a nuclear program. She also expressed concern about North Korea’s ties to the secretive dictatorship in Myanmar.

Pakistan is objecting to the U.S.’s plans to expand combat operations in Afghanistan, arguing that fighting the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan will force militants into Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Waziristan region of Pakistan is proving a tough battle for Pakistani forces.

The U.N. said it will require a record $4.8 billion in aid this year to address humanitarian crises, including conflicts in Iraq, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Palestinian territories, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

The first human trials of swine flu vaccine began in Australia.

Commentary of the Day

Paul Cruickshank observes that the U.K. has lowered its official terrorist threat level to its lowest level since the 7/7 bombings, and wonders if it’s time for the U.S. to do the same.

The NY Times urges Congress to close loopholes in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.

Liya Kebede calls on U.N. members to focus on improving global maternal health.

Fred Kaplan calls the vote to end production of the F-22 a “substantial step” towards scaling back the influence of defense contractors on the U.S. military budget.

David Bromwich writes that “serial war” has become an America way of life

F-22 victory about more than just a plane Posted by Max Bergmann

It is sometimes easy to overstate the significance of a fight over a particular weapon system. But in this case I think it is fair to say that this is a huge huge victory for Obama and Gates and is a big step forward toward instituting a strategic shift within the Pentagon.

The Senate resoundingly supported an amendment from Senators Levin and McCain 58-40 to strip funding for the F-22. The margin of the victory is shocking given just last week Levin pulled the amendment for fear of not having enough votes. But in the last week Gates and Obama went for it. Obama stuck his neck out and threatened the first veto of his presidency. Gates lobbied aggressively, highlighting the opportunity costs of keeping the F-22 and tying it to his ability to grow the ground forces by another 22,000.

But this fight was more than just about the F-22. It was also about whether the Pentagon would be able to institutionalize the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and finally move out of the Cold War strategic mindset that still dominates. Gates has sought to institute a strategic shift within the Pentagon, focusing on developing a more balanced force that is not only capable of fighting conventional wars, but is capable of doing the full spectrum of operations. The military has begun to transition toward this new outlook - moving out of the mindset that labeled stability operations as "operations other than war" and that has focused on big ticket conventional items.   

Yet Congress has - and will always have - a more parochial focus. Where big ticket items are protected at all costs - whether or not they make strategic sense. Therefore the odds that Congress would go along with Gates and Obama did not look good. The F-22 is an amazing plane, by far the best fighter in the world. It was being built in 46 states and the defense industry was out in full force in the midst of a severe recession fanning fears that 100,000 jobs would be lost if the plane was scrapped.

But the F-22 – despite being cool – has little utility. It was designed to fight the next generation of Soviet fighters that were never built and comes at tremendous cost. It has not been used in combat missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, since the plane only has one real function – fighting other fighters – something that the cheaper and more versatile F-35, which is being built in large for the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, is more than capable of doing. So the Raptor is expensive, unnecessary, and its roles are duplicated by another more cost-effective aircraft. It is the prime example of a big weapon system that does little to enhance our security. Conservative KT McFarland even said, “The only thing we should do with the F-22 Raptor is rename it -- The White Elephant.”

So Obama and Gates drew the line in the sand on the F-22 and told Congress you are either with us in moving in a new strategic direction or you are against us and for business as usual. So what makes this such a big victory is not that Obama and Gates “won” but that they got the Senate – by killing the F-22 – to back their strategic shift centered on building a more balanced force. 

NSN Daily Update: 7/21/09 Posted by The Editors

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We’re Reading

Amidst the continued post-election strife, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has emerged as the driving force behind efforts to crush the still-defiant opposition movement. The extensive use of the military has led some commentators to call the election a military coup. Meanwhile, Ayatollah Khamenei warned that continuing post-election divisions would lead to the collapse of Iran’s ruling elite, as ex-president Mohammad Khatami made a fresh call for a referendum on the countries legitimacy.

On the final day of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India, the US and India announced an agreement on a series of defense, space and civil nuclear deals and established a high-level dialogue designed to deepen relations between the two countries.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday announced a temporary increase in the size of the Army of up to 22,000 troops to meet what he called the “persistent pace” of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The goal of the increase is to ease the strain of deployment, as many troops have faced repeated lengthy rotations in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Commentary of the Day

Roger Cohen analyzes the divide between Iran’s proud sense of itself and its history and the recent conduct of the hard-line Khamenei-Ahmadinejad faction. Meanwhile, Robert Tait asserts that the imprisonment of the frail reformer Saeed Hajarian exposes the “illogical cruelty” of Iran’s leaders.

The LA Times writes that the current state of coalition operations in Afghanistan is beginning to resemble the chaos that gripped Iraq at the height of its insurgency several years ago.

Gregory Rodriguez discusses the importance of President Obama’s recent visit to Ghana and notes the unique history of Africa’s history and future that only he could provide.  

The Power Problem at New America Foundation Posted by Michael Cohen

Chris Preble, a fellow at Cato Institute has a really interesting new book called the Power Problem about how US military dominance is not actually all its cracked up to be. It's a pretty provocative book and it explores the sort of questions about US foreign policy and national security policy that are all too rarely raised in Washington.

This coming Friday I'll be moderating a panel discussion at New America Foundation with Chris, my NAF colleague Michael Lind and Stimson Center Fellow Gordon Adams where we will be discussing Preble's book and whether our military dominance weakens rather than strengthens the United States.

RSVP here

Welcome Aboard Stephen Walt Posted by Michael Cohen

I couldn't help but chuckle at this headline over at Stephen Walt's blog on Foreign Policy.com:

Mission creep in Afghanistan

Walt is frustrated by the fact that the US military is spearheading a major prison reform effort in Afghanistan, which is all well and good . . . except for the fact that we can't get a prison reform effort off the ground here in the United States! But his takeaway is one worthy of consideration:

Let's not forget how we got here: about eight years ago a small group of anti-American criminals hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in the United States. The ringleaders of the plot were in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government (at that time under Taliban control) refused to give them up. So the United States invaded to overthrow the Taliban and capture the al Qaeda leadership. Unfortunately, we failed to get the latter, and we bungled the subsequent reconstruction effort by going into Iraq, thereby enabling the Taliban to make a comeback. So now we're escalating there once more, in a potentially open-ended effort to build a functioning and legitimate Afghan state. And now that means fixing their prison system too. How does one say "mission creep" in Pashto?

Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch - The Two Little Girls Version Posted by Michael Cohen

According to Thomas Friedman, there apparently is good reason to continue prosecuting a dubious counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan . . . there are little girls to be saving:

In grand strategic terms, I still don’t know if this Afghan war makes sense anymore. I was dubious before I arrived, and I still am. But when you see two little Afghan girls crouched on the front steps of their new school, clutching tightly with both arms the notebooks handed to them by a U.S. admiral — as if they were their first dolls — it’s hard to say: “Let’s just walk away.” Not yet.

It's hard for me to put into words the anger that wells up inside of me when I read such an odious and manipulative op-ed like this one. This is the equivalent of liberal humanitarian porn. Perhaps Tom Friedman should attend a military funeral and write an op-ed about the looks on the faces of two little girls in America whose daddy is killed in Afghanistan pursuing this mission.

It's not that those of who think the current mission in Afghanistan is a fool's errand don't care about these little girls, but their plight cannot be the deciding factor in how America chooses to utilize military force abroad. For all those little girls in Afghanistan, there are little girls in Sudan or North Korea or even down the street from me in Brooklyn who also need help. Quite simply, it's not how you would ever conduct foreign policy decision-making . . . or ever should. I'm more than happy to argue with anyone about why I think the current mission in Afghanistan is the wrong one, but I'm not going to argue with someone who throws cheap, manipulative and emotional arguments in my face about two little girls in Afghanistan.**

Perhaps this is the same sort of shallow and simplistic decision-making that turned Tom Friedman into a cheerleader for that last humanitarian intervention that he just couldn't walk away from - Iraq

** And on that note I will be arguing about Afghanistan tomorrow on KCRW's On The Point so be sure to listen in.

Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch - The Bret Michaels Version Posted by Michael Cohen

It's hard to make complete sense of the statements today by Secretary of Defense Gates around the length of US involvement in Afghanistan. On the one hand Gates seems to be suggesting that Gates is cognizant of the possibility of mission creep and diminishing public support for the war:

After eight years, U.S.-led forces must show progress in Afghanistan by next summer to avoid the public perception that the conflict has become unwinnable, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in a sharp critique of the war effort. "After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway," Gates said in an interview. "The troops are tired; the American people are pretty tired."

. . .While not predicting a parallel fate for the Obama administration, Gates emphasized the need for progress in Afghanistan during an interview aboard his plane as he returned to Washington after visiting sailors Friday at the Great Lakes Naval Station in Illinois. Gates has spoken about the need for progress in Afghanistan and the public's fatigue of war. But in this interview, he went further by offering a more specific time frame for needed progress as well as the consequences of failing to meet it.

However, as Bret Michaels reminds us, every rose has its thorn (and every cowboy sings a sad, sad song):

Gates said that victory was a "long-term prospect" under any scenario and that the U.S. would not win the war in a year's time. However, U.S. forces must begin to turn the situation around in a year, he said, or face the likely loss of public support.

. . . Gates said that Americans would have the patience to continue the war in Afghanistan only if the new military approach began to move the conflict out of deadlock. "If we can show progress, and we are headed in the right direction, and we are not in a stalemate where we are taking significant casualties, then you can put more time on the Washington clock," he said.

There really are two ways to read what Gates is saying: one, we are not in this for the long haul and, truly, if we don't see progress in a year then the US is going to start winding down the mission. Two, if we can show even the slightest example of success in Afghanistan a year from now, the mission will continue.

My bet is on the latter, in part because the former brings with it a whole host of political headaches for President Obama a few months before a mid-term election. Does he really want to start winding down the US presence and open himself and his party up to the criticism that they are 'cutting and running,' 'abandoning the mission' (insert your own GOP talking point here)? The worst that will happen to Obama if he chooses the former course is outcry from liberal Democrats, which will likely be tempered by a desire to not too heavily rock the boat right before a mid-term election.

There is an historical precedent to consider. Back in 2007, President Bush pitched the surge in Iraq on the idea that it would create political breathing space for Iraqi leaders to move forward with political reconciliation. Of course, that didn't happen so instead the new benchmark for success became civilian casualties and overall security in Iraq, which thankfully began to improve. In other words, the metrics for success became a bit of a moving target.

The lesson here is that since the Obama Administration failed to lay out any benchmarks for measuring success or even "victory" in Afghanistan a year from now military (and political leaders) can come up with all kinds of positive metrics to argue that the mission is enjoying success and thus should continue.

This may also provide an explanation as to why the military is pushing forward with a major counter-insurgency operation in Helmand province that lacks both civilian and host country support. If a year from now Helmand is relatively stabilized the military can see 'look how well the mission is going' even though without that the civilian and host country support the gains are ephemeral at best.

But of course the only people making the latter argument will be liberal Democrats and lonely bloggers like myself.  Guess who's going to win that battle.

NSN Daily Update: 7/20/09 Posted by The Editors

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We’re Reading

US troops are finding new restrictions placed upon them by the Iraqi government more restrictive than they would have preferred. Compromises over vague language in the Status of Forces Agreement are being hammered out. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki also plans on visiting Arlington National Ceremony in his upcoming trip to Washington while the autonomous Kurdish region sees a campaign of upstarts challenging incumbents for seats in local government.

President Obama is considering creating a specialized unit of interrogators for seeking intelligence from high-value detainees.

Satellite imagery confirms the existence of massive labor camps in North Korea that the North Korean government does not acknowledge.

“The trial of the century” in Turkey pits a government run by an Islamist party against secular members of the military, with a verdict that could have political implications for a country which a history of secular governance but military interference within civilian governance.

Commentary of the Day

Thomas Friedman recalls a visit to a girl school in Afghanistan and how that visit provides a new perspective on the US war in Afghanistan.

Jim Hoagland and David Ignatius offer a 6 month recap of President Obama’s foreign policy agendas, with Hoagland more optimistic about Obama’s policy trajectory, whereas Ignatius argues more resources are needed to meet Obama’s ambitious goals.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN’s Special Representative for Somalia, explains why current events offer a critical opportunity to get Somalia back on the right track.