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 And then he sends the troops out to fight and die with the primary enemy already withdrawn from the battlefield and the rest of the mission undefined?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.