Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch Posted by Michael Cohen

In today's edition of Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch we see a mismatch between operations and the strategy laid out by the President (or at least an overemphasis on building up the Afghan government's credibility) and a complete lack of resources to do population-centric counter-insurgency, particularly when it comes to Afghan troops. If we don't have civilian development and post-conflict reconstruction experts or indigenous Afghan soldiers then how exactly are we supposed to maximize any security gains made in Afghanistan?

President Barack Obama, March 27th, 2009, describing the new US strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan

We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future . . .I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.  That's the goal that must be achieved.

Soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.

From today's Washington Post about the Marine counter-insurgency currently taking place in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, said his Marines will focus their efforts on protecting civilians from the Taliban and on restoring Afghan government services, instead of mounting a series of hunt-and-kill missions against the insurgents.

"Our focus is not the Taliban," Nicholson told his officers. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."

President Barack Obama, March 27th, 2009, describing his plans for a civilian surge in Afghanistan:

And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.  At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort.  But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future.  These investments relieve the burden on our troops.  They contribute directly to security.  They make the American people safer.  And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run -- because it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a crop -- or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

Today's Washington Post:

The Marines have also been vexed by a lack of Afghan security forces and a near-total absence of additional U.S. civilian reconstruction personnel. Nicholson had hoped that his brigade, which has about 11,000 Marines and sailors, would be able to conduct operations with a similar number of Afghan soldiers. But thus far, the Marines have been allotted only about 500 Afghan soldiers, which he deems "a critical vulnerability."

State has added only two officers in Helmand since the Marines arrived. State has promised to have a dozen more diplomats and reconstruction experts working with the Marines, but only by the end of the summer.

NSN Daily Update: 7/1/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We’re Reading

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserted that his electoral victory represented the failure of his enemies’ attempts at a “soft overthrow.” Iran’s chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying that European countries are not qualified to participate in nuclear talks until they apologize for “interference” in post-election riots. The Iranian authorities temporarily shut down the newspaper run by failed presidential contender Mahdi Barroubi, as part of an effort to contain and silence the opposition movement.

The Organization of American States gave Honduras three days to reinstate the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya. The newly appointed interim president, Roberto Micheletti, threatened to arrest Zelaya if he returns to Honduras.

The U.S. Treasury and State Departments announced actions against two North Korean companies in an effort to curtail North Korea’s ability to finance trade in missiles and nuclear materials. A U.N. official reported that food aid to North Korea has dried up in the wake of its May nuclear test, although its people’s need is acute as ever.

In China, the buying and selling of make-believe currency in online games like World of Warcraft has become so widespread that Chinese authorities are fearing it will affect the real economy.

According to an opinion poll released Wednesday, the vast majority of Pakistanis view the Taliban as a threat. Islamic fundamentalists in the country have begun targeting fruit juice bars, which are considered dens of immorality.

Commentary of the Day

Carlos Alberto Montaner argues that the coup in Honduras reflects a conflict between two ways of understanding the role of the state.

Glenn Garvin claims there is nothing shocking about the coup, and faults “new-found defenders of Honduran democracy.”

Contributors at the New York Times celebrate Canada Day.

The LA Times applauds the return of Iraq to Iraqis

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Is Right Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm not exactly sure what to make of Bob Woodward's piece in yesterday's Washington Post about Afghanistan, but I will say that it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Of particular note is Woodward's recounting of this meeting between National Security Advisor Jim Jones and US generals in Afghanistan:

Suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel? Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?" Nicholson and his colonels -- all or nearly all veterans of Iraq -- seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.

Ok, fair enough, the President doesn't want to send more troops to Afghanistan. It's a point that he elaborated on in public recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops." But here's the problem, Obama and Jones want the US military to undertake a counter-insurgency mission that is fairly ambitious and troop intensive: "security; economic development and reconstruction; and governance by the Afghans under the rule of law." Yet at the same time you have the generals making fairly clear that they don't have enough troops to complete this mission:

The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized.

During the briefing, Nicholson (Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson) had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.

This comes on the heels of recent statements by General McCrystal that ""We've got to ruthlessly prioritize, because we don't have enough forces to do everything, everywhere." So basically what you have here is the Administration signing off on an ambitious counter-insurgency mission, but refusing (it would appear for political reasons) to give the generals the troops they need to finish the job. This makes absolutely no sense. (And while I know that Bob Woodward has a sacred responsibility to keep his sources happy, perhaps this is the sort of glaring contradiction that merits a follow-up question).

And I'm pleased to see that my old friends at abu muqawama agree with me:

So if we are committed to our current strategy in Afghanistan, it seems pretty darn important that we're confident we have the force levels necessary to establish that minimum level of security.  Otherwise our "civilian surge" and reconstruction initiatives seem likely to be DOA.  That's not a call for the administration to reflexively throw in more troops without a rigorous analysis of strategic costs and benefits, but it does suggest that it needs to double-check to ensure that its ends, ways, and means in Afghanistan are are all aligned.

If I had my druthers the President would conduct just such a cost benefit analysis and come to the right conclusion that the currently stated mission in Afghanistan is worth neither the blood nor treasure that are needed for it to be successfully achieved. Instead he has chosen a muddled course that pretty much guarantees the US won't achieve his goals for Afghanistan. Personally, I think fighting a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the modern equivalent of fighting a land war in Asia, but if that's the mission you decide upon then you have to give the military the resources to actually do it.

The President can't have it both ways. Either you fight the war in Afghanistan to achieve the mission you've laid out, or you don't. There isn't really a middle ground here. History provides a pretty good road map for how that usually works out.

In the end, this whole situation reminds me of another old military expression: FUBAR

NSN Daily Update: 6/30/09 Posted by The Editors

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We're Reading

US troops have withdrawn from Iraqi cities six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security responsibilities in cities to Iraqi forces. Four US soldiers were killed just before the pullout was completed. Iraq now begins to auction off oil and gas licenses, with China as a key bidder.

The ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, has said he will return home this Thursday, after being forced into exile on Sunday. Pro-Zelaya protestors clashed with Honduran police and soldiers yesterday. The coup invokes ghosts of past U.S. policies towards Latin America.

North Korea is going ahead with plans to enrich uranium, a possible step to making a nuclear weapon, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee has said. The Obama administration is preparing to wield broad financial pressure to try to force North Korea to dial back its weapons program.

Iran’s Guardian Council formally certified the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term Monday night, saying there was no validity to charges of voting fraud. Five out of nine local staff from the UK embassy detained in Tehran have been released, Iranian officials say.

A wing of the Taliban based in a North Waziristan say they have abandoned a peace deal with the Pakistani government. A reputed drug lord described as one of the biggest heroin suppliers in eastern Afghanistan -- with suspected ties to the Taliban -- appeared in federal court in Washington Monday, where he was ordered detained pending his expected drug trial.

Israel has dispatched its defense minister, Ehud Barak, to the US as relations with the White House deteriorate over Israel's refusal to end settlement building in occupied territories.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will visit Myanmar at the end of the week for talks that will include the 13-year detention of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the United Nations said.

Néstor Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, resigned his post as leader of the Peronist Party on Monday, a day after he and his supporters suffered a crushing defeat in national congressional elections.

China has agreed to loan Zimbabwe $950m to help it revive its fledgling economy, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has said.

Commentary of the Day

Jawad Al Bolani, Iraqi Interior Minister, expounds on the anticipated instability within his country. 

Bob Herbert criticizes the Obama administration’s continued, unlawful incarceration of an Afghan detainee. 

Alvaro Vargas Llosa discusses Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s role in the Honduran coup.

Richard Cohen urges President Obama to end the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Con Coughlin analyzes current tensions between Iran and the UK

Something You Don't See Everyday Posted by Adam Blickstein

An entire 13-story building in Shanghai (under construction--so unoccupied) literally fell over. From Gizmodo:

This is what progressive foreign policy looks like Posted by The National Security Network

From NSN intern Rodrigo Seira

Compare the Bush administration’s reaction:

“Less than a day after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was overthrown in what later turned out to be an unsuccessful military-backed coup d'etat, Otto Reich, the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, summoned senior Latin American diplomats… Reich began by handing out copies of a State Department press release that blamed Chavez's overthrow on Chavez himself and denied that any coup had even occurred. Reich then gave a tortured reading of the Venezuelan constitution in an attempt to illustrate that Chavez's apparent military overthrow really wasn't unconstitutional at all -- an explanation some diplomats at the meeting thought could only have been rationalized by the coup plotters themselves. Neither Reich nor other State Department officials would comment on the meeting.” [Saloon, 4/17/2002]

With Secretary Clinton’s remarks:

“I want to start with yesterday’s unfortunate events in Honduras, which were a test of the inter-American system’s ability to support and defend democracy and constitutional order in our hemisphere. The United States has been working with our partners in the OAS to fashion a strong consensus condemning the detention and expulsion of President Zelaya and calling for the full restoration of democratic order in Honduras. Our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country.” [Dep. Of State, 6/29/09]

American People Smarter on Iran than Neocons Posted by Adam Blickstein

But that won't stop them from writing Op-Eds, blowing hot air on TV, freaking out on the floor of the Senate and House, or demanding the U.S. impose sanctions against Iran at such a fragile time for its people. From CNN:

A new national poll suggests that that nearly three out of four Americans don't want the U.S. directly intervene in the election crisis in Iran even though most Americans are upset by how the Iranian government has dealt with protests over controversial election results.

Most Americans approve of how President Obama's handled the situation. And 74 percent think the U.S. government should not directly intervene in the post-election crisis, with one out of four feeling that Washington should openly support the demonstrators who are protesting the election results.

Since Congress obviously always does what the American people desire (especially in regards to the public option for health care, which members of Congress are clamoring for after polls show 72% of Americans back this option), I assume the Kirk amendment will immediately and emphatically be dropped from the pending Foreign Operations appropriations bill, in accordance with the vast majority of Americans and to do what's right for the Iranian people. Another nugget from the poll:

"Interestingly, older Americans are more likely to be outraged. They may have bitter memories of the American hostages held by Iran for more than a year in 1979 and 1980," said CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

I don't think it's due to their bitter memories from 1979. Old people are just attached to old ideas, and the only people perpetuating these anachronistic and antiquated ideas on Iran and foreign policy are the graybearded neocons. So the generation gap makes complete sense.

My What Cute Iraqis You Are Posted by Michael Cohen

The piece by John Hannah ( former National Security Advisor for Dick Cheney) in today's LA Times is really quite a whopper. This glossed up history of the Iraq surge I found particularly enjoyable:

Bush's decision to double-down rather than retreat sent friend and foe alike a powerful message that the U.S. had no intention of abandoning Iraq. Reassured, Iraqis were galvanized in their efforts to confront Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and recommitted themselves to building an independent, pluralist democracy.

Of course the thrust of Hannah's op-ed is not oriented toward re-fighting the last war, but instead to attack President Obama for losing the current one. He claims that for the President "withdrawal, not victory, is his highest priority." You know Mr. Hannah might want to consult the Status of Forces Agreement signed by President Bush that MANDATES A WITHDRAWAL OF US TROOPS FROM IRAQ by 2011 and the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of this month. (Check out Article 24).

Yet, this doesn't stop him from blaming the Obama Administration for the fact that Iraqis are "accommodating themselves to the agenda of the coming Iranian hegemony rather than their departing American liberators." And what exactly is the solution to this problem: "offsetting withdrawal" with "high-level diplomatic and economic engagement. That, however, will require the president spending far less time signaling his eagerness to get out of Iraq and more time working with Iraqis to figure out how best we can stay."

Now here's the thing I don't understand; if the goal of the surge was to create a "successful, modernizing democracy" in the Middle East then doesn't the turnover of security to Iraq's government represent a sort of, "Mission Accomplished?" John Hannah claims that he is speaking to Iraqis on a regular basis, but I guess he missed the fact that the upcoming withdrawal date from Iraqi cities is being heralded in Iraq as a national holiday and great victory for Iraq.

Hannah just seems oblivious to the fact that the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Considering that the US supposedly initiated the surge to ensure that Iraq would have some future as a democratic country don't there views merit at least some consideration?

Militarizing Domestic Policy Watch Posted by Michael Cohen

There is a really fascinating article in today's Washington Post about the simmering dispute between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense over border security. DHS wants more National Guard troops on the border and the Pentagon is warning of mission creep and larding on more responsibilities for the military that civilian agencies should be handling.

This is a tricky issue. I'm sympathetic to DHS and the border governors who are dealing with rising violence and it is the job of the military to, at least theoretically, protect the homeland. But, I think Gen. Victor Reunart head of U.S. Northern Command hits the nail on the head:

"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Renuart, who is responsible for defending the continental United States.

Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said.

The process that Renuart describes is one that has been constantly repeated over the past 15 years. The US lacks civilian capacity to do effective development work - call the military. The President calls for a civilian surge in Afghanistan, but doesn't have enough civilians to do the job - let's have the military do it.  AID is a hollow shell - rely on the military to not only do development but dole out foreign assistance.  The simple fact is that, whether it’s waging the war on terror or the war on drugs; nation-building in post-conflict environments; development, democracy promotion or diplomacy; fighting cyber-criminals or training foreign armies the global face of the United States today is most likely to be that of a uniformed solider.

So yes there is real danger of continuing this dangerous process by giving the military even more to do here at home. This dispute also highlights a key element of causality in this ongoing militarization of what should be civilian responsibilities: it's often the fault of civilians. In their recent excellent report on civil-military relations Sarah Sewall and John White at the Carr Center make this point quite nicely:

If civilians abdicate responsibility for the tough choices, or fail to resource or support civilian agencies, they effectively push the military into decisions and activities that belong primarily in the civilian space.

The military is not some magic Swiss Army knife that can solve every problem; at some point the civilian agencies like the Border Guard and others need to do their job - or Congress needs to appropriate the funds so they can do their job.

Confused About Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm really confused about what's going on with US policy in Afghanistan. First, there is this recent guidance from General McCrystal to US troops:

Success will be defined by the Afghan people's freedom to choose their future--freedom from coercion, extremists, malign foreign influence, or abusive government actions.

I feel like I'm sort of beating a dead horse on this one, but here again is what President Obama said in March about US goals for Afghanistan:

We are not in Afghanistan to control that country OR TO DICTATE ITS FUTURE.  We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.  That's the goal that must be achieved.

I realize that I'm not an expert on counter-insurgency and there are those who think I have trouble connecting dots, but doesn't what Gen. McCrystal said in his initial guidance to US troops not contradict what President Obama announced in March? Or at the very least, does it not herald a long US mission in Afghanistan?

Now in fairness the President's original statement on Afghanistan was a bit unclear and as several folks have mentioned to me it is certainly open to some interpretation, because the President also does talk about the need to improve governance and local reconciliation. However, this particular passage from the Obama's March speech does seem less ambiguous:

I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops . . . These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.

But then I read this from a WPost interview two weeks back with General McCrystal:

"We are going to look at those parts of the country that are most important -- and those typically, in an insurgency, are the population centers," McChrystal said.

McChrystal's comments suggested that he wanted to pull forces out of some of the more remote, mountainous areas of Afghanistan where few people live and where insurgent fighters may be seeking refuge. In recent months these isolated pockets have been the scene of some of the most intense fighting between U.S. troops and insurgents.

So now we're so focused on protecting civilians in Afghanistan that we're not even going after the enemy, as President Obama insisted we would in March! This is not to mention the fact that perhaps Gen. McCrystal's focus is not in the right place -- a point nicely made by Joshua Foust:

The last army to do an “ink stain” approach to Afghanistan were the Soviets, who felt that the population was in the cities, so if they just controlled the cities the countryside would fall into line. . . .The Taliban are not strongest in the cities, but outside of them: you’ll find the insurgency grinding in the hills above Lashkar Gah, the countryside to the west and north of Kandahar, the plains of Zabul, the Khost bowl, the mountains of Paktya and Paktika, and the narrow valleys from Kapisa to Kunar and Nuristan. None of them are urban, or even sort of urban. I really hope they’ve learned by now that Afghanistan is not urban, that the insurgency—and the people—are scattered into small rural communities throughout the country. Securing the cities has never been the Coalition’s weakness.

Now, even if you believe that engaging in a long-term counter-insurgency and eliminating the Taliban's political influence in Afghanistan will accomplish the President's goals then shouldn't someone in the US government (preferably the President) make that very clear to the American people? This seems particularly important when you have the US commander in Afghanistan also saying this:

The ongoing insurgency must be met with a counterinsurgency campaign adapted to the unique conditions in each area that: Protects the Afghan people--allowing them to choose a future they can be proud of. Provides a secure environment allowing good government and economic development to  undercut the causes and advocates of insurgency

While also admitting this:

"We've got to ruthlessly prioritize, because we don't have enough forces to do everything, everywhere,"

I think everyone would agree that providing a secure environment and allowing for good government (pretty much firsts in the sad history of Afghanistan) will take a very long time to achieve. And maybe this is the absolute right approach to protecting America's interests and ensuring that Afghans enjoy a stable and reasonably prosperous future (although color me deeply skeptical).

But really this isn't about the efficacy of counter-insurgency. It's about, what the hell are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? What exactly is our strategy there and what is the end game?  If we don't have "enough forces to do everything" in Afghanistan then why is our top general embarking on an operational approach that under current policy constraints he is unlikely to see to its fruition?

And at a time when we can't agree to spend more than $1 trillion dollars on ensuring every American has access to health care or are reluctant to ask Americans to pay more out of pocket so that we can finally begin to roll back global warming shouldn't we level with the American people about the true costs of a full-fledged counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan? Considering that fact that we've already appropriated approximately $225 billion for the war in Afghanistan it seems like a legitimate conversation for this country to be having.

It's entirely possible that a year or two from now this Administration will decide to declare victory and go home and all my worrying will be for naught. But if 5 years from now we're still in Afghanistan chasing the dream of modernizing and stabilizing a country with little hope of achieving either . . . well I really don't want to be the one to say I told you so.