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.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, May 11, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)