What Are We REALLY Doing In Afghanistan?

In 30 June remarks to the United Nations Security Council U. S. Ambassador Susan Rice pointed out that President Obama has clearly stated the U. S. goals in Afghanistan are "to disrupt, defeat, and dismantle Al Qa'idah and to build up the Afghan government's capacity to secure its people and its territory." That would seem to be a straightforward accounting of what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan, but developments over the last few months leave me skeptical and wondering at the administration's competence.

If the first part of the goals really was "to disrupt, defeat, and dismantle Al Qa'idah", well, that mission was accomplished almost before the troops assigned to the latest "surge" boarded the aircraft for Bagram Air Base. It was certainly achieved before Ambassador Rice proclaimed it to the world as part of our mission in Afghanistan.

On 13 June my friend and acknowledged Middle Eastern expert Rick Francona published a report citing intelligence information that indicated Al Qa'idah operatives were fleeing Pakistan. Long ago removed from Afghanistan by U. S. forces and with their sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan's Swat Valley and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) now feeling the heat from the Pakistani Army's offensive against their Taliban allies, Al Qa'idah was forced to disperse to the safety of the chaos in Yemen and Somalia. That chaos allows them to fade out of sight until they are ready to strike again, something they will be able to accomplish with no trouble whatsoever since we are not closely pursuing them.

So it seems that the real mission of U. S. forces in Afghanistan is really "to build up the Afghan government's capacity to secure its people and its territory." But does anybody really know what that means? There is some evidence that the Obama administration doesn't and is only now formulating a plan on how to measure progress.

This was supposed to be the good war. The war that was still going on only because President Bush diverted critical assets to the war in Iraq. Candidate Obama almost came right out and promised the American people that if elected he would set the situation right forthwith. And then he sends the troops out to fight and die with the primary enemy already withdrawn from the battlefield and the rest of the mission undefined?

I've repeatedly criticized this administration's foreign policy and believe it has been defined by blunder after blunder which will certainly leave the U. S. in a weaker diplomatic position in the Middle East if not the entire world. But this fiasco makes the foreign policy seem positively Dulles-like. If, like me, you have relatives over there in harm's way I recommend taking the attitude I have assumed: Generals Petraeus and MacChrystal are so competent, they'll save us from the idiots that have been elected to run the country. At least I hope so.

Is It A War Or Not?

I note that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency is greatly increasing the number of its agents in Afghanistan. With the Obama administration trying to put forward plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, I have to wonder about the focus of efforts in that country. It is quite obvious the Marines are in one hell of a battle in at least Helmand province and are experiencing some success. But much fighting remains to determine the outcome. And what of the rest of the country?

While the administration may indeed be prudent in exploring ways to extract our combat forces at this early juncture, it seems to me to be unwise to give our opponents a potential source of hope by advertising the fact that we are seeking an exit. Our experience in Iraq, through the debriefing of captured personnel, has substantiated that any announcement of U.S. planning to abandon the battlefield has only emboldened our enemies.

Once again, the inept foreign policy of the Obama administration seems to only encourage those who seek to cause us extreme harm. Win the war first Mr Obama, then talk about policing the situation in Afghanistan.

A Revolution Or Just A Power Struggle?

The unrest in Iran brings delicious thoughts of not only a regime change but also a thaw and major improvement in relations with the United States. Thousands and sometimes millions at a time have taken to the streets to protest the announced result of last Friday's presidential election. Violence has flared as they have clashed with security forces and images of the cataclysmic events of 1979 and the Shah's last days come to mind. But I wonder if we are seeing another revolution or simply witnessing a very messy power struggle by competing factions within the existing governing system.

The leaders of the opposition and the ones calling the shots for the protesters' activities appear to be losing presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and Ayatollah 'Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Both men are veterans of the 1979 revolution and have served or currently serve in high positions in the Islamic Republic. In 1979 Mousavi was appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini as the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Council and served as prime minister from 1981 until the post was abolished in 1989. Ayatollah Rafsanjani is currently chairman of the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Discernment Council, both of which are vital to the functioning of the government. Neither is friendly with their counterparts, winning presidential candidate Ahmedinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but their differences seem to be more personal than idealogical.

And so should the protestors succeed and force the downfall of Ahmedinejad and Khamenei, I would expect Mousavi to assume the presidency and Rafsanjani to be elected Supreme Leader by the same Assembly of Experts that he currently chairs. Because of their commitment to the Islamic Republic I would also expect a continuation of many of the existing policies of the current government and only a very slight thawing in US-Iranian relations. Therefore, current events in Iran seem to me much more of an internal power struggle than a revolution that will lead to significant change.

Is Iran In the Calm Before the Storm?

I noted with alarm this morning that the Iranian government was prohibiting reporting from the streets of the anti-regime protests gripping the nation. In my estimation, it is the final preparation by the mullahs before the start of a vicious crackdown on the anti-government protesters. Although the situation remained calm today, I suspect it was simply to allow the demonstration by pro-government supporters in Tehran and to allow the final marshaling of forces. It is obvious the Revolutionary Guards, with their 120,000 strong members, and the Basij with its nearly unlimited supply of zealous, ultra-conservative Iranian and Arab fanatics are seething and seeking to impose the will of Supreme Leader Khamenei. In addition, according to the Iranian-American blog niacINsight the Supreme Leader has stated:

“Those who have committed crimes of aggression against the state and private properties are not part of the demonstrators, they are those who have the aim of undermining the security of the state. Our intention is to secure and protect the identity of the nation and it’s interests.”

That doesn't sound at all good to me. I would not be surprised if the government has decided to crackdown ruthlessly on the protesters and I expect extensive violence and casualties tomorrow.

Have the Iranians Started Eating Their Young?

In the unrest following the Iranian presidential elections a disturbing report has emerged. According to a post yesterday on niacINsight, a blog for the Iranian-American community, "According to our private phone conversations with people in Tehran, hundreds of parents have gathered by a police station in Yousef Abad, now known as Seyyed Jamal Aldin Asad Abadi, with their hands raised to the sky saying “Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children.” They were gathering there because their kids are missing and they were trying to find out where they are." Although this is the only report of this nature noted so far, I believe it is entirely possible following the Saturday night rampage at Tehran University by members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Basij militia.

This type of action is certainly not unprecedented and brings to mind two incidents from the 1970s. At that time the military dictatorships in charge of Greece and Chile were the targets of student unrest and demonstrations. They responded by rounding up student leaders and activists and secretly executing them en masse without legitimate trials. This subsequently cost them the political and military support they needed to sustain their juntas and led to their downfalls. Could the same thing happen in Iran?

That is certainly a possibility, but it is important to remember that the Greek and Chilean juntas were based upon the support and backing from the military. When the militaries could no longer bear the political pressure on them, the dictatorships succumbed. That may not be the case in Iran.

Grand Ayatollah Khameini's theocracy has never really relied upon military support to sustain its rule. Its power is derived from the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militia. Both of these organizations are idealogically motivated and may not be susceptible to the political pressure that doomed the Greeks and Chileans. While the pleas of desperate mothers with their children whisked away in the night are compelling, so far they have fallen on deaf ears in Washington. Without outside help of some sort to topple the regime, the fanatics comprising the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij will probably be able to secure the situation and ensure the continuance of the Islamic Republic.

A Bullet Dodged

The results of the Lebanese Parliamentary elections were a pleasant surprise and a major crisis in the Middle East averted. Although the Obama administration, which dispatched Vice President (and Bumbler-in-Chief) Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the country to indicate US support of the March 14 coalition, would like to and probably will claim credit for shaping the March 14 electoral victory I believe it was the simple pronouncement of the Maronite Christian patriach that averted the disaster of a Hizb Allah government in Beirut.

The pre-election statement on Saturday by Nasrallah Butros Sfeir that Iranian attempts to influence the elections outcome and would "change the face of Lebanon" apparently caused enough Lebanese Christians in crucial districts to change their votes from Michel Aoun's Free Patriot Movement to parties that supported the March 14 coalition. As a result, the coalition actually increased its Parliamentary representation from 70 seats by one. So far this has allowed Lebanon to dodge the bullet of the international isolation and almost certain economic ruin sure to follow the seating of a Hizb Allah government, but all is still not rosy.

Hizb Allah has amply demonstrated a propensity for eliminating its political rivals. A series of political assassinations can certainly be expected but the big question is whether Hizb Allah decides to be satisfied remaining in opposition for the time being or if it will use its well-armed and trained militia to seize power. The key is the veto power that Hizb Allah obtained through the use of force last year. With its majority increased, however slightly, March 14 is not inclined to grant that concession.

So the stage is set. I believe Hizb Allah, despite the benign acquiesence thus far stated by its leader Nasrallah, is simply waiting for the outcome of Sunday's presidential election in Iran. If Ahmadinejad retains the presidency the mullahs in Tehran will probably feel secure enough to allow Nasrallah to demand veto power in any new Lebanese government. If March 14 is not willing to grant it the likelihood of renewed civil war in Lebanon is a bullet that the new government may not be able to dodge.

Nice Words ... But Arabs Are Looking For Action

President Obama's speech to the "Muslim World", which in reality was directed towards the Arab World, evidently received a pretty good reception among Arab Muslims. They certainly welcomed his words and seemed optimistic that a better relationship with the United States could be achieved. However, almost universally, Arabs expressed caution stressing that before the friendly, cooperative relationship the United States seeks could be established the US actions must match its words.

With Obama stressing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the closing of the Guantanamo facility, and the prohibition on the use of torture in his speech, one could be excused for thinking that the United States is demonstrating plenty of action in support of the president's words. But that is not the action the Arabs seek. The action that they're looking for is something that the US cannot deliver.

During his speech President Obama was greeted with rousing cheers when addressing demands to Israel but a deafening silence followed any mention of demands on the Arabs. For decades the Arabs have believed that the United States possesses the ability to impose a solution on the squabbling parties in the Middle East. In their view, the US has chosen to use this ability only to force concessions from the Arabs and it has never been used against the Israelis.

And so, the Arabs most definitely enjoyed hearing President Obama's demands that Israel immediately stop expanding settlements in occupied territories and accept the "two state" Palestinian solution. But in order for them to offer up friendship and cooperation to the United States, they want to see the US impose those conditions on Israel. That's the action they want. Of course, that's not going to happen.

Impending Catastrophe in Lebanon?

Elections for the Lebanese Parliament will be held Sunday, June 7. Although there are over 20 different political parties fielding candidates, the election really comes down to a collection of parties that are pro-Syrian and an anti-Syrian coalition. Currently the anti-Syrian March 14th coalition, named for the date in 2005 the huge rally was held in Beirut which forced the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon after a long occupation, holds a majority with 70 of the 128 seats. But there are strong indications that the pro-Syrian coalition led by Hizb Allah could capture enough seats to form the new government. No matter which coalition is the winner it is difficult to see anything but trouble ahead for Lebanon.

If the March 14th group of parties do win a majority, which will not be easy given the disarray exhibited by the coalition during the campaign, it is highly likely that Hizb Allah will claim election tampering and attempt to have the results overthrown. It is even more likely that they will respond to a March 14th victory by using their highly-trained, well-armed militia to start another civil war. The Lebanese Army is no match for Hizb Allah and it is even questionable if it would even attempt to intercede in the ensuing conflict. The country is just now starting to really recover from its previous 15 year civil war and any renewed fighting, almost certain to be as especially bloody as it was the last time, would be disastrous to the country and, ironically, lead to the return of the Syrian occupation.

Equally disastrous would be the formation of a government led by an Iranian ally. Evidence of Iranian intentions to meddle in the internal affairs of Lebanon was presented by Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hizb Allah, last week in a speech in which he announced Iran's intention to provide a Lebanese government led by his party with advanced air defense missiles. These missiles would of course be intended primarily against Israeli reconnaissance overflights and it is difficult to imagine that the Israelis would not act at the earliest opportunity to eliminate such a threat.

In addition, anti-Iranian Arab countries would also view a Hizb Allah victory with alarm. They're already wary of Iranian intentions in the Arabian Gulf littoral and they would not welcome a Lebanese government friendly toward Tehran. It is entirely feasible that Lebanon, like Syria, could find itself isolated in the Arab world for its friendly relations with Iran. That could impose some economic hardships in a country that relies so heavily upon tourism and prides itself as the party capitol of the Arab world. It is almost impossible to imagine the stern and sober mullahs in Tehran countenancing the continuation of that.

And the U.S. would also have some strong reservations about a Lebanese government led by Hizb Allah which it has declared as a terrorist organization. As such, heavy sanctions would likely be imposed similar to the ones imposed on Syria. Further economic damage would result and all military assistance to Lebanon would cease, but possibly even worse would be the damage to the relations between Washington and Beirut. A spirit of friendship and cooperation has existed between the two capitals for decades but I simply cannot imagine even the appeasement seeking Obama administration allowing it to continue.

And so, it looks as if Lebanon is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. No matter which way it votes, catastrophe looms. And it seems impossible to divine which path is least catastrophic.

Netanyahu Visits Egypt and Jordan (Update)

Last week the Jerusalem Post reported that CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel in early May to issue a demand that Israeli rhetoric concerning the Iranian nuclear threat be toned down a bit. The Obama administration was trying to line up international support for its proposed sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear activities and considered the Israeli saber rattling counterproductive. I suspect the US demand only hardened Israeli resolve to act militarily to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

In view of this, the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented visits to Egypt and Jordan for summit meetings with President Mubarak and King Abdullah before his summit with President Obama can now be surmised with greater clarity. As I noted previously Iran was the primary, if not the only, topic on the agenda at both meetings. It is my opinion that following the US warning Netanyahu was seeking assurance from two of the three (the third being Saudi Arabian King Abdullah) leaders of the Arab anti-Iranian coalition that they would not be unduly alarmed if Israel ignored the US arm-twisting, and that Israel would still have their tacit support for any action against Iran. I would think that he also sought assurances that any developments on the Iranian issue would not adversely (for Israel) affect their existing positions concerning the Palestinian problem.

And so, with Egyptian and Jordanian implicit support for Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue the results of the Netanyahu-Obama summit should not be a surprise. I'm sure it was politely made exceedingly clear to Obama that Israel had no intention of backing down from its hawkish stance at all. Finding it so easy to defy the ill-advised command of the novice president of the greatest power on earth, I'm sure Prime Minister Netanyahu subsequently experienced no qualms whatsoever ignoring the US demand to halt the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.

In less than one month the president who promised the electorate change in his campaign speeches may very well have delivered a significant change for our foreign policy in the Middle East. But, somehow, I don't think the American people expected the change to be loss of prestige, respect, and the ability to shape and influence events in that vital region of the world.

Don't Do It Pakistan!

The Pakistani military is evidently experiencing some success with its operation against the Taliban in Swat and Malakand. The Army claims it has regained control of about half of Mingora, the largest city in Swat, and the Taliban leader in Swat has called for his forces to stop fighting the troops in the city. It is unclear whether the Taliban intend to withdraw, as their spokesman Muslim Khan claims, or whether they intend to attempt to blend in with the civilian populace in an attempt to continue operations undercover.

In addition Sufi Muhammed, the leader of the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM or the Organization for the Implementation of Muhammad's Law), has stated that the Taliban in Swat are willing to disarm if the Pakistani government implements Sharia law in the region. This is identical to the agreement that was in place last month before it fell apart when the Taliban did not honor their end of the bargain. And now the Taliban wants to go back to the conditions that led to the current round of fighting and the massive refugee problem? Not bloody likely!

The Pakistani government would be well advised to ignore any Taliban pleas for a ceasefire agreement and press on with the military operation. The Taliban have yet to honor any agreement they have made and I see no indication of a desire or willingness to change that behavior. An agreement now would only allow the Taliban to escape the noose and fall back to rearm and regroup. They will then break yet another agreement and return to steal control of more and more of Pakistan at the point of a gun until they are stopped and brought under government control by the gun.

A Couple of Items

I follow the milblogs closely and noticed a couple of items concerning Afghanistan in the last week that gave me pause and a bit of concern. Separately, neither is cause for alarm but together they seem to highlight an unexpected level of amateurishness and inexperience where one would least expect to find it.

The first involved the heightened security state at Kandahar and a subsequent memo from the contracting office on the base requiring all personnel including contractors to wear body armor and carry their helmets at all times while they are outside of hardened structures. Summer is coming and the temperatures are rising. As one contractor noted, "How can you pour (concrete) slabs in 45C (113F) heat with body armour?” That's an excellent question. He then continued,
“I just cannot believe the incompetence of those coming in this new surge. You would have thought that after almost 8 years, someone would know something about the place." A reasonable assumption in my opinion.

The order was amended the next day to correct the situation but you still have to wonder how something like this could happen. I'm inclined to cut the contracting officer a bit of a break on this, he's tasked with overseeing contracts worth millions and is responsible to not only protect the government's interests on the contract but to also ensure the safety and welfare of the contractor's deployed personnel. It is definitely not an easy job. But still, before issuing a memo such as this I would think a contracting officer inexperienced with local conditions would check with someone more familiar with the environment. That they did not lends a lot of credence to the contractor's assessment of incompetence.

The other item I noted is a little more serious. A National Guard Embedded Training Team (ETT) has found out that it is close to rotation. The current ETT is led by a senior Major and is composed of a Captain and several Senior NCOs. They have discovered that they will be replaced by a team from the Georgia National Guard headed by a Second Lieutenant and staffed with several mid-level NCOs. That's all well and good, but this ETT is attached to an Afghan National Army (ANA) battalion which calls the experience level of the replacements into serious question.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with a 2LT and a bunch of E-5s composing an ETT. But instead of advising a battalion, wouldn't it be more appropriate for them to be working at the platoon and/or company level? These guys just don't have the training and experience needed to advise an ANA battalion commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel and his staff. And what about the implied insult to the ANA LtCol? Are we telling him that we don't think his command merits the assignment of a field grade officer instead of a relatively new company grade 2LT? And it surely sends a derogatory message to his staff since we're only giving them a handful of potential platoon sergeants to advise them instead of the experienced former company commanders they deserve.

Hopefully these two situations are just the normal abberations that pop up in any armed conflict. But it is a bit disconcerting that they showed up so close together and at the same time we are ramping up for a "surge" in Afghanistan. Let's hope that there are no more abberations.

Netanyahu Visits Egypt and Jordan

In the last week and a half Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has visited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan for consultations before his summit with President Obama next week in Washington. Ponder on that for a moment and then somebody tell me the last time that happened.

For some reason, I really don't think it is indicative of a functional U. S. Mideast foreign policy. Despite the headline grabbing Palestinian problem, none of the principals in the talks appear to be ready to significantly change their demands on any of the critical issues facing a settlement of that dispute. That leaves the only other obvious topic, Iran.

It is obvious that the path the Obama administration has chosen regarding Iran is causing extreme concern among friendly governments in the Middle East. I think both Prime Minister Netanyahu next week and President Mubarak after that will be trying to convince President Obama to change U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East, at least as it pertains to Iran. President Obama should listen to their advice. If we continue on the road we are following, the potential for irrepairable damage to our Middle East foreign policy is likely.

What's Really Going On Here?

In an interesting development last week Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Sharm Ash Shaykh, Egypt. It is interesting because either Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Mubarak apparently felt it was necessary to meet with the other before the two of them, as well as Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, leave for their separate Washington summits with the Obama administration. With both sides' positions on the Palestinian/peace issue seemingly set in concrete, and post meeting reports confirm that, I am left wondering at the timing and motivation for the meeting.

With nothing new from either side on the peace agenda, obviously the real reason for the meeting was to discuss Iran. But which of the leaders called for the meeting and for what reason? Additionally, why did they have to be held before the Washington summits? Reports that Netanyahu wanted Egypt's assistance building an anti-Iranian Arab coalition are certainly credible and tend to indicate that he is the one who pressed for this get-together. But what's the urgency driving the scheduling of such a meeting before the summits with the Obama administration? There is none that I can see. While I have no doubt that such a topic was on the initial agenda, I just don't see it as the driving factor.

It is tempting to think that the Netanyahu-Mubarak talks were the initial high-level coordination for a future Israeli strike on Iran. Since the Saudis are now convinced that the United States under the Obama administration will confront Iran with only words, Netanyahu and the Israeli government could be seizing the opportunity to use Egypt as a mediator to secure Saudi overflight privileges. If that were the case then the timing for this meeting would make sense. The Israelis would want to get their own and the Egyptians' stories straight so that neither side slipped up and let the cat out of the bag in their Washington talks. This would indicate that Netanyahu was driving the schedule for the meeting. Again, this is credible but I think highly unlikely.

But what if it were Mubarak that pressed Netanyahu for a meeting at this time? What would make the Egyptian president insist on talking to the Israeli prime minister before he left for Washington? The only reason I can think of is that someone wants to send a message to Washington and Israel plays a very large part in the message being sent. It doesn't take much thought to realize the prime suspect to send such a message would be the Saudis.

With the Obama administration drafting speeches trying to build an international consensus to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, the Saudis no longer have faith that the United States will guarantee their security. The specter of a nuclear armed Iran terrifies them and without the protection of the U.S. nuclear retaliatory capability they are probably feeling particularly vulnerable. Could they be exploring the possibility of Israel replacing the U. S. in this capacity?

A Really Nervous Feeling

Several official sources in Pakistan are providing incredible reports of Taliban casualties in battles raging in Northwest Pakistan. In the district of Shangla, which is adjacent to Swat, the Pakistani military has actually reported more Taliban casualties than the size of the entire Taliban contingent it had previously reported there. US military sources are quoted as describing the Pakistani claims as "wildly exaggerated." Oh, really?

There is no question the Pakistani military is seriously engaging the Taliban now that they have actually threatened the federal government. Approximately 15,ooo regular Army troops appear to now be committed and I have seen reports in the Pakistani press that several more brigades are on their way to join the fight. Facing them are an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 Taliban fighters who are reported to be very brave but tactically inept.

However, the Army appears reluctant to engage the Taliban with the ground forces. Assaults thus far have relied almost exclusively upon massive bombardment by artillery, fixed wing air, and helicopter gunship. While these attacks are undoubtedly impressive to watch and they do result in flattened villages (some of which received no prior warning to the civilian populace) and destroyed Taliban fixed positions, it is impossible to believe the absurd enemy casualty figures provided by the government which range up to 10 per cent of total estimated Taliban strength.

As the US Army learned in Iraq, successful counterinsurgency operations require "boots on the ground" in both kinetic and civil affairs operations. While the Pakistani operation may just be in its early stages and the ground forces will engage later, it's not an encouraging sign that the government is claiming such fantastic success at this juncture.

Following last week's meeting in Washington between Presidents Zardari and Obama, it is pretty obvious that the Pakistanis are trying to create the impression of much accomplishment while still actually doing very little of substance. That leads me to the conclusion that the administration promised them something highly desirous in return for firm action against the Taliban and they want it very much.

Where have we seen this before? A reluctant military operating against a dedicated enemy and reporting unbelievably successful results. Results that are inevitably reported just a short time after Uncle Sam promises tons of filthy lucre to a weak and corrupt government. Doesn't it sound like the news coming from some banana republic just before it falls? And compounding it this time are the nuclear weapons which could wind up in the hands of Islamic extremists.

Why am I getting a really nervous feeling about this?