The Surge Narrative and Other Lies Your Teacher Told You Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at abu muqawama, Andrew Exum has praise for Max Boot's take below on what the replacement of General McKiernan with Lt. Gen McChrystal as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan tells us about counter-insurgency:

I would not go as far as to claim, as Bob Woodward did in "The War Within," that it was the special operators rather than the "surge" that turned around Iraq. Victory in a counter- insurgency depends more on securing the populace than on targeting enemy leaders. I am told that McChrystal realizes that, even if Woodward does not.

Boot goes on to argue:

Lest we forget that counterinsurgency is as much a political as a military undertaking, on the very day of McChrystal's appointment, a new U.S. ambassador arrived in Kabul. Karl Eikenberry, himself a retired general and former commander in Afghanistan, will have to coordinate the civilian side of the war effort, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker did so ably in Iraq.

What these little nuggets remind us is that on both sides of the political spectrum there seems to be a collective myth-making going on about the "success" of the surge. It now seems to be, among some, practically conventional wisdom that the surge and, in turn, COIN tactics saved the day in Iraq.

Is it inconvenient to note, as we begin to do "more successful counter-insurgency work in Afghanistan" that the United States has:

• Not achieved a counter-insurgency led victory in Iraq
• That the fundamental goal of the surge - political reconciliation -- has decidedly not been achieved.
• That an important element of the short-term success that came in the surge was not because we secured the Iraqi population but because the United States supported Sunnis in "targeting enemy leaders," namely Al Qaeda.
• That Iraq's future remains incredibly uncertain.

And as corollary to this point, it seems worth mentioning that one of the fundamental precepts of counter-insurgency as described in the Fm-24 is that "counterinsurgents use all instruments of national power to sustain the established or emerging government and reduce the likelihood of another crisis emerging." But of course that has not happened in Iraq; and instead a separate power base (outside of the Shiite-dominated national government) has been created.

And of course there is a fifth part to this equation - ethnic cleansing. One of the points that Andrew made yesterday on the Rachel Maddow show was that one of the metrics of success in Afghanistan is not US casualties, but instead Afghan casualties. Apparently that was the metric of success in Iraq in 2007. But this ignores an uncomfortable truth; namely much of the decrease in civilian killing in Baghdad was a result of sectarian killing. As the 2007 NIE on Iraq tells us:

Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.

According to one albeit difficult to confirm factoid, by 2007 "Baghdad was once 65 percent Sunni and is now 75 percent Shiite." Now of course, we don't have the full numbers - and census data is pretty tightly held in the Middle East - but it's impossible to talk about diminished civilian casualties in Iraq without referring to the sectarian violence that consumed Baghdad in 2005-2006 and its political consequences.

Learning the correct lessons from the surge is not a thought experiment or some esoteric, academic exercise - it's crucial to understanding what really happened in Iraq in 2007 and 2008; as well as the efficacy of future counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Only if we are honest about the significant limitations on COIN operations and their limited success in Iraq can we talk about their application in Afghanistan. But if we start to believe that the surge and hence counter-insurgency techniques in Iraq brought significant victories we run the very real risk of beginning to believe our own press clippings.

If America's experience in Iraq is any indication we should be very, very dubious about the potential for COIN success in Afghanistan - no matter which general is in charge.

U.S. Joins the Human Rights Council Posted by James Lamond

Yesterday, the United States was elected (in an uncontested election) to a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council.  While the HRC has its flaws, this is a great step by the Obama administration for American leadership on international human rights issues.

The Human Rights Council has been a controversial organization since its creation, three years ago.  It was created in 2006, replacing the disgraced Human Rights Commission. The council has received a great deal of criticism for focusing its scrutiny on Israel and for not acting on the most pressing human rights issues of the time, including Darfur.  Critics also accuse the council for being hypocritical, since many of its members are human rights offenders themselves. So rather than help shape the organization from withing, the Bush administration chose to stay out of the council, making this America’s first time seeking a seat.

Despite the Obama administration’s membership, the HRC is still a flawed organization and we should not expect drastic immediate change, just because of U.S. membership. Vaclav Havel points out the many flaws in the organization a recent NY Times op-ed.   From human rights abusers maintaining seats to flawed electoral processes to governments trading votes on the HRC for other positions, the council’s original intent of protecting victims and confronting human rights abuses seems to have been put to the side.  These deep institutional flaws will make change and reform difficult.  The administration recognizes both the flaws in the organization and the challenges ahead. As Susan Rice earnestly says, “While we recognize that the Human Rights Council has been a flawed body that has not lived up to its potential, we are looking forward to working from within with a broad cross section of member states to strengthen and reform the council.”

While the organization is far from perfect, this is a good step in the right direction for promoting the international human rights agenda, reshaping the council and promoting American global leadership. Despite all the cries about the decline of American hegemony, the U.S. is still by far the most powerful country in the United Nations.  Its membership on the Human Rights Council can better shape the council towards its original intent.   As Don Kraus, CEO of Global Solutions, said,

"The U.S. has enormous resources and leadership capacities that we can use to make the Council a more effective institution. As a member of the organization, our priority must be to ensure that it lives up to the high standards upon which it was founded."

Critics of the HRC have many legitimate complaints.  But everyone agrees that the council needs to focus more of its original intention of protecting victims of human rights abuses. The best way to influence an organization and achieve this goal is by participating from within rather than critiquing from outside.

Droning On Posted by Patrick Barry

Reporting today in the LA Times indicates that the U.S. has compromised with Pakistan's pleas for some drones of their own by adopting a joint-operation scheme for conducting the remote airstrikes targeted at militants operating in northwest Pakistan.

Under the new partnership, a separate fleet of U.S. drones operated by the Defense Department will be free for the first time to venture beyond the Afghan border under the direction of Pakistani military officials, who are working alongside American counterparts at a command center in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

"This is about building trust," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program has not been publicly acknowledged. "This is about giving them capabilities they do not currently have to help them defeat this radical extreme element that is in their country."

Don't go thinking the CIA-run drone operations are shutting down though.  To the contrary:

Despite that arrangement, U.S. officials avoided offering Pakistan greater control over the CIA drones, in part out of concern about giving Pakistan direct access to a sensitive and secret intelligence operation. At times, U.S. intelligence officials have voiced suspicions that elements of the ISI, which has long-standing relationships with Taliban leaders, have warned targets in advance of U.S. strikes.

U.S. officials also cited a reluctance to take CIA drones away from their efforts to track and kill senior Al Qaeda figures, and stressed that the military drones would pursue a different set of targets, mainly Taliban-linked fighters.

Hmm, this looks a quid-pro-quo to me, something we've come to expect far as drones in Pakistan are concerned. Recall that under the previous arrangement the U.S. bombed, but denied and the Pakistanis criticized, but allowed.  I could be wrong, but based on the LA Times coverage, the U.S. now appears to be offering greater Pakistani control over COIN-focused drone operations in return for the continued freedom to conduct CT-focused drone missions targeting al-Qaeda.  It's a way for the administration to continue a policy, which the IC has identified as invaluable, whilst hopefully reducing some of the backlash associated with it.

The question therefore becomes whether this bargain is any more durable than the last.  There, I'm not so sure.  For all the negative complications cause by Pakistan's government complaining loudly about Predator drones, at its core, the issue is controversial for reasons having nothing to do with the government.  After all, if I were explaining to someone why drone strikes in Pakistan are a hotly contested issue, I would say its because they target a group most Pakistanis tend to discount, result in significant collateral damage and loss of civilian life, and fuel a sense of national injustice and violation which pushes people into the insurgency.  And only then would I add that Pakistan's government huffs and puffs about them.  Maybe.

If drone strikes are as valuable as Dennis Blair and Leon Panneta say they are, the Administration is going to have to start justifyng them against real counterarguments, and not just contenting itself with whatever approval Pakistan's government is willing to give.

NSN Daily Update 5/13/2009 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

A bomb exploded at the gates of a U.S. base in Khost, Afghanistan, killing 7 Afghan civilians, a day after militants attacked Afghan government buildings in the city.  NATO supply trucks bound for Afghanistan were burned in north-west Pakistan.  The U.S. will once again use an airbase in Uzbekistan to supply troops in Afghanistan, however the base will officially be run by South Korea.

The U.S. launches a new drone attack program that gives the Pakistani military significant control over targets and firing decisions.

In Bethlehem, Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian homeland, for lifting the embargo on Gaza, and urged Palestinians to refrain from terrorism.  The New York Times looks at the declining influence of Mideast Christians.

The United States joined the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Commentary of the Day

Maureen Dowd points out hypocrisy in the Republican Party over former Vice President Dick Cheney’s public criticism of the Obama administration.  Michael Duffy asks, “Dick Cheney: Why So Chatty all of a Sudden?”

Vicki Divol explores the failures of the rules on how the White House keeps Congress informed of covert actions.

Aravind Adiga lays out four “emergencies” for the next prime minister of India to contend with.

Bumper Sticker Diplomacy Posted by Patrick Barry

There's a lot of Pakistan-related stuff going on today, but before I get to that, could Ambassador Holbrooke please explain the meaning of these bumper stickers to me? Are they pro-U.S.? Anti-U.S.?  What's the story?

 

NSN Daily Update 5/12/2009 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, a detainee who gave false information cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, died in prison in Libya, an apparent suicide.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to Egypt for support in creating a moderate Arab block against Iran.  He also pledged to renew discussions with the Palestinians within a few weeks.

President Obama threatened to limit intelligence sharing with the U.K. if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed.

Commentary of the Day

The LA Times celebrates Roxana Saberi’s release but also looks at the larger case of human rights abuses in Iran.

Anthony H. Cordesman argues for putting more effort into holding and building Iraq before withdrawing.

Bret Stephens discusses Pakistan’s existential challenge in being a country defined not by what it is but by what it is not.

Romney Foreign to Foreign Policy Posted by Adam Blickstein

Mitt Romney still wants to be President, but that still doesn't mean he understands anything about foreign policy. A recent email solicitation from Romney to supporters slams President Obama, saying that:

"Obama 'chose inaction' when Iran’s president said his country had mastered the steps necessary to enrich uranium. He said the president did the same when North Korea launched a long-range missile."

Well, sounds like Romney simply wants to continue the 8 years of Bush administration inaction that actually led to Iran coming close to developing and possessing nuclear weapons in the first place. As David Ignatius observed:

Absent some last-minute fireworks, President Bush will leave office with a kind of double failure on Iran: Administration hard-liners haven't checked Tehran's drive to acquire nuclear-weapons technology, and moderates haven't engaged Iran in negotiation and dialogue.

The strategic balance between the two countries is the opposite of what Bush had hoped to accomplish: Iran is stronger than it was eight years ago, and the United States, fighting costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is weaker. Iran spurns America's carrots and dismisses its sticks.

That's the kind of strategic failure Romney hopes to continue as President. And regarding diplomacy on Iran, he is contradicted by 5 former Secretaries of State, including 3 Republicans: Kissinger, Baker and Powell. On North Korea, wasn't it the 8 years of Bush administration inaction and saber rattling Romney also advocates that brought us to April's missile launch?

The problems posed by North Korea have some of their roots in the Bush administration’s failure to thwart nuclear proliferation.  For the first 6 years of his administration, President Bush reversed the Clinton-era policy of engaging directly with North Korea – a policy that was working.  By the time the Bush administration had belatedly opted to re-engage, North Korea had developed enough material for approximately 10 nuclear bombs and even tested a device in 2006.  More broadly, President Bush’s policies undermined specific treaties and institutions as well as international consensus in favor of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Again, Romney seems to have a myopic at best, misguided at worst, and regardless of either, mistaken set of superficial talking points when it comes to foreign policy. At least he wasn't talking about Cuba, something he very adroitly knows nothing about:

"Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase 'Patria o muerte, venceremos.'" Romney said, referring to the Venezuelan president and persistent U.S. critic. "It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba."

In truth, the phrase does not belong to free Cubans. It has been the trademark speechmaking sign-off of their most despised opponent, Fidel Castro. And unlike Romney, Castro would switch to English to declare, "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome."

So how did Romney characterize his foreign policy experience in an interview with Matt Lauer just before the 2008 campaign?

Well, of course, in the private sector I've done business all over the world and been managing enterprises and negotiating with entities all over the world. And what I find is that people want a fresh perspective. They don't want the folks that have been slogging it out in Washington and battling over minutiae. They want folks that can actually get the job done.

Americans are tired of all the talk. They want somebody who can do, who can act. And so as they look at the people on the scene at this point, they look at someone like a mayor, who hasn't had foreign policy experience. They look at a governor, who hasn't either, other than through their broad life experience. And they look at their ability to make tough decisions, to bring people together and to actually get the job done

Americans are also tired of underwhelming politicians who feign knowledge of foreign policy. In fact, on foreign policy, Mitt sounds awfully like Sarah Palin. Speaking of whom:

[Head of Sen. John McCain’s 2008 vice presidential vetting project A.B.] Culvahouse also detailed which stumper questions the top VP choices were asked, including whether they were ready to use nuclear weapons and whether they would take a shot at Osama bin Laden even if it meant the death of civilians. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “hit them out of the park,” said Culvahouse, without saying what the correct answers were.  He said, mysteriously, that other candidates had not performed as well: that means at least one possible 2012 candidate like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty might have lost out at this stage of the process.

It seems that even Palin presented herself as more skillful on critical national security issues than Mitt, but Romney persists to portray himself as an expert even as it clearly flies in the face of reality. When it comes to knowing anything about the world and global relations, he makes Sarah Palin look like the host of "Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego," while he is just one of the faceless backup crooners in Rockapella. But in the end, they both possess a cheap, childlike and unpolished game show quality in their understanding of foreign policy.

NSN Daily Update 5/11/2009 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete Daily Update here.

What We’re Reading

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Israel for the second leg of his Middle East tour.  He expressed support for a Palestinian state and acknowledged the deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

King Abdullah of Jordan described the Middle East peace plan he devised with President Obama, a “57-state solution,” and warned that if peace is not achieved, there will be another conflict in 12-18 months.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry and the Kurdistan Regional Government reached an oil export deal.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will face a tough week of hearings on the Pentagon budget, amid skepticism over reforming military spending.

Commentary of the Day

Richard A. Clarke discusses the importance of cybersecurity.

Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic, examines the problems with the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Selig S. Harrison looks at the ethnic tensions in Pakistan.

Richard Clarke Responds to GOP Guantanamo Attacks Posted by The Editors

Today, Richard Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, reacted to recent Republican attacks on President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo as well as the release of a GOP video which uses graphic imagery from September 11:

"This video and the recent Republican attacks on Guantanamo are more desperate attempts from a demoralized party to politicize national security and the safety of the American people. But what is more disturbing is their brazen use of imagery and the memory of 9/11 to score political points. Thousands of Americans tragically died that day, and for the GOP to think it can win elections by denigrating their memory is disgraceful. 
 
"The difference between these Republican videos and the very terrorist propaganda that seeks to damage our society is negligible.  Each attempt to stoke the embers of fear in order to disrupt American life.  Just as al Qaeda videos should be viewed as misguided rants from a small group of marginalized radicals, so too should these Republican videos be equally dismissed.  As opposed to what the GOP thinks, the American people are not that naïve."

The GOP Strategy? LOUD NOISES!! Posted by Adam Blickstein

Good to see the Republicans haven't forgotten how to politicize 9/11. It worked so well in 2006 and 2008, so no doubt it will sweep them back into power in 2010. It's interesting how nearly 8 years after 9/11, none of the terrorists mentioned in the video have, you know, been brought to justice or convicted of their crimes, even though the Bush administration had plenty of time and resources to do just that. Instead, they created an ad hoc system with torture at its center that has gotten us into the morass we are in right now.