Afghanistan, the Recession, and National Defense

From what I heard last week, Obama may be pushing for more civilians than soldiers. That fits into what David Ignatius reports in David Kilcullen's Road Map for Afghanistan:

"Obama's policy choices for Afghanistan are usually presented in stark terms: Either he authorizes a major new escalation, well beyond the 17,000 additional troops he has already approved, or he scales back the mission to a narrower counterterrorism effort aimed at preventing al-Qaeda from mounting attacks.

Kilcullen argues that either of these extreme options would be a mistake. 'It would be the height of folly to commit to a large-scale escalation now,' when the political climate in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan is so uncertain. We should use the extra 17,000 troops to stabilize the situation but delay the big decision about escalation until after Afghanistan's presidential election in August."

***

Kilcullen offers a four-stage model to explain the radicalization of the typical Taliban supporter in Afghanistan. The process begins with "infection," as al-Qaeda establishes a presence; next comes "contagion," as al-Qaeda uses its haven to mount attacks; then follows "intervention" by the United States to destroy al-Qaeda's sanctuary and its Taliban protectors; and that produces "rejection," as the local population allies with al-Qaeda and the Taliban against the foreign invaders.

For America, it's a costly and self-defeating exercise -- which is precisely what al-Qaeda intends. Kilcullen quotes a haunting 2004 statement by Osama bin Laden: "All we have to do is send two mujaheddin to the furthest point east to raise a cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the [U.S.] generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses . . . so we are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."

From New York Times comes Obama Says a Way Out of Afghanistan Is Needed:

“There’s got to be an exit strategy,” Mr. Obama said in a wide-ranging interview shown Sunday on “60 Minutes” on CBS. “There’s got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift.”

European officials have been outspoken about their plans to leave Afghanistan in the next three to four years. Mr. Obama’s remarks, which were recorded on Friday, indicated that the administration, which has more troops and resources in Afghanistan than European countries do, is also working toward a long-term strategy.

***

In the interview, Mr. Obama also signaled that the United States was redefining its mission in Afghanistan, away from the Bush administration’s broader strategy of promoting democracy, civil society and governance in Afghanistan and toward getting the country to a point where it is not used to start attacks on the United States.

Asked what the United States’ mission in Afghanistan should be, Mr. Obama replied: “Making sure that Al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies. That’s our No. 1 priority.”

That this might have to do as much with the economy as with ideology, take a look at Robert Kaplan's The Shrinking Superpower:

Nonetheless, I do not expect any sudden slashing of defense budgets. What I foresee is a more gradual siphoning of money away from vital programs over the next decade, even as China, India, and other countries enlarge their navies and other forces. This will not necessarily lead to a security dilemma for the U.S., but it will certainly lead to a multipolar world and the end of American dominance. The only development that could change this equation would be a new and sudden threat – and one other than mass-casualty terrorism. For while terrorism would lead to larger budgets for the intelligence establishment, the conventional air and sea platforms from which great powers are made would not be affected.

Defense policy will be increasingly geared toward protecting the homeland, even as globalization makes for a smaller, more intricately connected world. America, in the final analysis, will be better protected, even as its global reach wanes. That is what to expect if the recession is still with us a year from now.

And what is so wrong with that?

Thinking About Afghanistan

Something a bit old from The Sunday Herald but which asks questions we need to ask ourselves:

"A senior officer put the problem into perspective when he said that Northern Ireland is one-fifth the size of Helmand, yet at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s and 1980s the British Army was able to commit 20,000 troops to wage a war against an enemy with a far smaller force.

'Do we really want to find ourselves involved in a draining commitment which could last up to 30 years?' he asked. 'Because if the answer is yes' we're going to need more assets or fewer commitments elsewhere we lack sufficient ground troops and our air support in Helmand is pitiful.'

His fears were echoed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup. He warned that the end of the British presence in Basra would not necessarily provide a magic wand for him and his team of planners."

Iraq and Afghanistan, Again

I repeat myself: what are we supposed to win in Iraq? We came not as conquerors but as liberators seeking to root out terrorism and a tyrant. Well, that is my melange of all the shifting and twisting goals espoused by George W. and his Fearless Neo-con Brain Trust.

So reading these paragraphs by Anthony H. Cordesman in Two Winnable Wars leave me wondering if someone is redefining our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan:

What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.

If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.

I thought going into Iraq was a mistake. I still think so. I also say those points no longer matter. This country allowed George W. Bush the ability to make a complete screw up of our military and foreign policy. We also have the responsibility to help fix the problems we created and the ones that we exacerbated, but to think our military forces can continue to win tactical battles while losing the strategic war only continues our problems.

With either Democratic candidate, we face the chance of ending the Bush/Republican monomania that we need no help in rebuilding Iraq and that Afghanistan has no place in the war on terror.

Senate blocks bills to pay for Iraq, Afghanistan

I am sure everyone has heard this news-Senate blocks bills to pay for Iraq, Afghanistan. The following is from the Boston Globe:

"Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska."

***

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was the lone Democrat opposing it because he said it did not go far enough to end the war.

The Republican proposal to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached failed by a vote of 45-53, which was 15 short of the number needed to go forward.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year.

Don't blame the Dems, blame the fact we do not have enough of them in the Senate.

Better days ahead?

That seems to be the hope held out by the New York Times reviewer of The Second Civil War:

"Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies."

***

...Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.

I say that depends on us. I say conservatism depends on fear: fear of change, fear of women being treated equally, fear of people from different religions or skin color. So long as we allow ourselves to be cowed, then the political operatives like Karl Rove will do what they have done - divide us up amongst ourselves for the political gain of their masters like George W. Bush.

Yesterday, I actually found myself liking a Robert Novak column. I am not sure what that means but my impression is that Novak has lost any enthusiasm for the Republican President:

For an hour on Tuesday, the Iraqi lawyers presented their pleas to Flood, who made no comment. Flood assured them that Fielding, but not necessarily the president, would see the letter. They then returned to the bus, which transported them to the Supreme Court. There, much to the Iraqis' surprise, they were given 45 minutes by Chief Justice John Roberts for a substantive discussion. "This was much better than the White House," exclaimed an Iraqi lawyer, who can only hope that President Bush gets interested in building the rule of law in Iraq.

How quaint: some people believeing that George W. Bush has an interest in the rule of law!

Yesterday, listening to the news on NPR, I heard the Army needs more troops. General Casey needs more troops because we do not have enough to cover any other military emergency that might crop up. Iraq and Afghanistan have swallowed our Army.

Last night, I caught Hardball and Tucker on MSNBC. Both shows emphasized the Congressional Democrats tying funds on Iraq to a withdrawal date and Bush thundering against any such limits on his playing warrior. The Republicans already started with their cliched chorus of any limits on the President means abandoning the troops. Bush abandoned our soldiers by dropping them into a fight with no goal, no strategy, no purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement. Bringing the American military does not mean that the troops have failed but will certainly spotlight the failure of George W. Bush both as President and as a man.

Charles Kauthammer uses the phrase rout in describing what he sees the result of the Democratic position. Pfui. Our fight was never in Iraq. Iraq was of George W. Bush's choosing, it was his fight. Our fight remains in Afghanistan. No one talks of leaving Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden looms over the border from Pakistan. No Democratic politician speaks of leaving off the hunt for bin Laden. Only George W. Bush lacks the attention span to hunt bin Laden. For Bush, bin Laden exists as a tool to scare us.

Bush wishes to pummel us with fear. Time for us to stop and move boldly forward with our better selves leading the way.

Cheney Mentally Ill or Just Stupid?

From the AP:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday renewed Washington's warning to Iran that "all options" are on the table if the country continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

At a joint news conference with Prime Minister John Howard during a visit to Australia, Cheney also said Washington was "comfortable" with Britain's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and that it was up to Australia to decide if it would do the same.

From the Washington Post regarding the Cheney-Pelosi spat and al-Qaeda in Iraq:

The remarks also reflected Cheney's frequent suggestion that al-Qaeda is the United States' principal adversary in Iraq, a stance disputed by many experts inside and outside the government. A recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that factors in Iraqi violence include "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

These remarks from the London Times about Tony Blair make some interesting comparisons with our warrior Vice President:

Only the fantasy world inhabited by Blair and Des Browne, his defence secretary, can now claim the four-year British occupation of Basra a success. A country that can be patrolled only by air or in armoured columns is not controlled, let alone governed. Blair promised last week “to publish a plan to develop the port of Basra later this year”. This is outrageous. Where was that plan before the invasion? The one happy note is that when the British leave the Shi’ite south, it should at least be spared the fury of the Shi’ite/Sunni conflict in the north. Mere gang warfare will ensue.

If Basra was uncontrolled and ungoverned, what does this say about Baghdad? Memory lapses seem to abound on both sides o the Atlantic (I listened to Olbermann's Countdown on Friday and a clip from Tony Snow had me laughing out loud. Since when did our President ever think the UN was an institution to follow? Gee, was John Bolton just putting us on?).

Last week’s decision has given new impetus to the Iraq blame game. Pundits vie for comparisons with the Dardanelles, Crete, Khartoum or Afghanistan. Such efforts demonstrate only that in matters of war politicians remember nothing and learn nothing. What is extraordinary is to watch the same mistakes made in Iraq — basically waiting on policy dictated from Washington — being repeated in the Helmand desert. Browne and his defence ministry profess confidence in their press releases while commanders scream for reinforcements. To expect a British cabinet to remember Crete or the Dardanelles may be asking a lot, but they seem unable to recall the day before yesterday.

As with the President, Mr. Cheney forgets Afghanistan. Or maybe he came to believe his own mendacity that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? The English have not forgotten Afghanistan and the Taliban. The AP article above had Australia John Howard saying something about the US being forced out of Iraq as encouraging Iran. Mr. Howard seems to forget that Afghanistan is on the other side of Iran from Iraq. Getting forced out of there would be a blow to us that I think Iran would find more bothersome and also encouraging. Bothersome because the Iranians hate the Taliban and encouraging because the Afghan situation is more of conventional military situation than Iraq. Failing in Iraq belongs to the civil/political side and not the military. Perhaps here lies the explanation for the Vice President's apparent delusion about Iraq - for a political failure means the fault lies with the Executive Branch and its eager chickenhawks. Emphasizing the military role obscures the true failure in Iraq.

Something more to think about from the London Times:

At first the Taliban were so soundly routed that they could do little. But gradually, encouraged by the West’s queasy commitment, they have used their bases in Pakistan to regroup. They are now a serious threat to western forces. British troops have seen tougher fighting in Afghanistan than in Iraq and more of our soldiers have died there. It is a bloody and dangerous struggle against a ruthless enemy, which is no surprise to anyone who knows a bit about British and Russian imperial history.

Lastly, this from John Nichols at The Nation, which focus on the importance of Cheney and our foreign policy:

Were Cheney a run-of-the-mill vice president, his inability to identify the line between fact and fantasy – or is it: truth and fiction – would be the stuff of comedy sketches. But, of course, Cheney is no ordinary second in command. Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy, he has for six years now been the real "decider." Only the most delusional observer of Washington fails to recognize that the Bush White House does what it does "because," as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill explained, "this is the way that Dick likes it."

So as the vice president, with his attacks on Pelosi, launches a new front in his war on reality, isn't it time to talk ask whether American can survive another two years of his misrule. Or, to be more precise: Hasn't he earned the sanction proposed by the bumper stickers that read: "Impeach Cheney First"?

If it were not that Congress has enough on its hands and other means for limiting Cheney's power, I would heartily agree with impeaching this idiot.