A Wartime Transition

The NY Times recently solicited op-ed contributions from a number of national security experts. They provide interesting perspectives on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the many challenges and opportunities awaiting President-elect Obama.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, discusses the two-front war confronting the Obama Presidency.

He has less than two months to go from broad rhetoric to concrete day-to-day action. On Jan. 20, he will take over at a pivotal point in negotiating Iraq’s status of force agreement with the United States, in the middle of a winter military campaign in Afghanistan, and during a political, security and economic crisis in Pakistan. None of these issues will wait for America to deal with its financial problems. And no one involved believes that the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s northern territories can be fully won, or even transferred to Afghan and Pakistani hands, by even the end of President Obama’s first term. For at least the next two to three years, the war will intensify, and virtually all of the additional burden will be borne by the United States.
Leaks of a new National Intelligence Estimate have shown that we are now losing the war for several reasons: a lack of Afghan competence; a half-hearted Pakistani commitment to the fight; a shortage of American, NATO and International Security Assistance Force troops; too few aid workers; and nation-building programs that were designed for peacetime and are rife with inefficiency and fraud. This is why Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and other military leaders have called for 20,000 to 25,000 more troops and warned that even those reinforcements may not be adequate.

Even with a potential drawdown in Iraq, the military is being stretched ever thinner. The Army already extends the deployment of troops beyond their commitments, and it and the Marine Corps may well find it impossible to meet their goals for shortening deployment cycles. As things stand, it will almost certainly take until 2011 to bring enough military advisers into Afghanistan to train its army and police forces to the level where locals can replace international troops. And with increasing terrorist attacks on non-governmental groups, many aid workers are being forced to leave the country.

…Even if the United States fully withdraws from Iraq in 2011, as Mr. Obama and the Iraqi government say they would like, we will remain on something very like a war footing there throughout the next presidency. While the combat burden on our forces will decline, withdrawal will be as costly as fighting. It will take large amounts of luck (and patient American prodding) for the Iraqi government to move toward real political accommodation while avoiding new explosions of ethnic and sectarian violence.

Even with progress on those fronts, we will have to withdraw while still helping to win a war, contain internal violence, limit Iranian influence and counter its nuclear program, create effective Iraqi security forces, and help Iraq improve its governance. Not a full war perhaps, but at least a quarter war in terms of continuing strains on our military and budget. ...In spite of recent progress under Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Mr. Rumsfeld’s inability to manage any key aspect of defense modernization has left the Obama administration a legacy of unfunded and expensive new trade-offs between replacing combat-worn equipment, repairing and rehabilitating huge amounts of weapons and equipment, and supplying our forces with new, improved equipment.

At best, President Obama will have to conduct the equivalent of one-and-a-quarter wars throughout his first term. At worst? The outside chance of war with Iran as well.

Fred Kagan, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, insists that we must capitalize on the common interests we share with Iraq vis-à-vis Iran.

Iraqis want to remain independent of Tehran, as they have now demonstrated by signing the agreement with the United States over Iran’s vigorous objections. They want to avoid military conflict with Iran, and so does America. Iraqis share our fear that Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, which would threaten their independence. And they resent Iran’s efforts to maintain insurgent and terrorist cells that undermine their government. Of course, the Iraqis recognize, as we do, that Iraq and Iran are natural trading partners and have a religious bond as majority Shiite. This may be to our benefit: the millions of Iranian pilgrims who will visit Iraqi holy sites at Najaf and Karbala over the coming years will take home a vision of a flourishing, peaceful, secular, religiously tolerant and democratic Muslim state.

The reintegration of Iraq into the Arab world is also under way. Many Arab states have already begun to open embassies in Baghdad. We should keep in mind that Iraq also shares interests with America regarding Saudi Arabia and Syria. Increasingly, Iraqi leaders speak quietly of replacing the Saudi kingdom as the dominant Arab state. Iraq also knows that Syria has allowed Al Qaeda fighters free passage across their common border for years, and has served as a staging base for Iranian support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Washington and Baghdad have a common interest in persuading the Syrian regime to abandon its support of terror groups.

America will withdraw its forces from patrolling in Iraq and will significantly reduce the number of soldiers there over the coming years — that is not and never has been in question. The timing and nature of that withdrawal, however, is extremely delicate. It is vital that we help see Iraq through during its year of elections, and avoid the temptation to “front-load” the withdrawal in 2009. It is equally vital that we develop a broader strategic relationship with Iraq using all elements of our national power in tandem with Iraq’s to pursue our common interests. President Obama has the chance to do more in Iraq than win the war. He can win the peace.

Peter Mansoor, former executive officer to General David Petraeus, discusses an appropriate American withdrawal from Iraq that will leave that country intact.

Barack Obama has the opportunity to recast American policy toward Iraq in a meaningful way, by providing much-needed support to its political center. His administration should view the new status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad as a means to shape the withdrawal of our combat forces while maintaining enough leverage to guide Iraq toward a more stable future.

…The key now is to sustain the momentum toward reconciliation, even while combat forces are withdrawn — a delicate balancing act. Although insurgent attacks have been appreciably reduced and Al Qaeda in Iraq is devastated, considerable distrust remains among various ethnic factions and religious sects and within the Iraqi government. As honest brokers, American forces keep the peace in key areas. Yet it is possible that we can complete their departure over three years, as envisioned in the status of forces agreement, assuming that the Iraqi Army has matured enough to take on added responsibilities.

Up to four brigades and their associated support — 20,000 to 25,000 troops — could be withdrawn in 2009, which would provide reinforcements for the war in Afghanistan. Withdrawals should then accelerate, as the division of power and resources is cemented locally across Iraq, with half the remaining combat forces and their associated support withdrawn in each of the following two years. By the end of 2011 — subject to Iraqi concurrence, of course — some 20,000 to 40,000 troops would remain for an extended period. These would be mainly military advisers, counterterrorist units, combat aircraft crews and support, and intelligence and logistical personnel.

Much of the stability in Iraq stems from a patchwork of agreements across the country between local leaders and the American military or the Iraqi government. To make sure that these agreements endure, the Iraqi government needs to prove to its people that it represents their interests in these ways: by ensuring adequate representation in political life of all sects and ethnicities in the political life; by incorporating a significant number of the Sons of Iraq (Sunnis who have supported the counterinsurgency) into the police forces and other government jobs; by providing tangible incentives for the return of Iraqi refugees from abroad; and by equitably distributing government funds and services to all areas of Iraq.

…Even as we pull troops out, the United States is not without significant leverage. We provide the Iraqi armed forces needed assets, from intelligence and logistics to air support and advisers; our civilian advisers are helping to improve the efficiency of the Iraqi government; our global diplomatic leverage can help Iraq in a number of ways; and Washington can encourage business investment in Iraq, particularly in its dilapidated oil industry.

To nudge the Iraqi government in the right direction, the new administration must let it know, quietly but firmly, that the blank check given by the Bush administration is no longer in force. It should make clear that we, too, want to see the expeditious withdrawal of American combat forces, but only in a manner that ensures Iraq will not again dissolve into chaos and civil war. Long-term American diplomatic, economic and military support should be contingent on a comprehensive political solution with a fair division of power. The alternative — a sectarian Shiite government that marginalizes other sects and ethnicities and is perhaps aligned with Iran as well — is
unacceptable.

An Unsolicited Endorsement

Nick Kristof reports on one of John McCain’s newest endorsements -- one of the few he has received from overseas, and one his campaign won’t be talking about anytime soon.

“Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,” read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group’s propaganda.

For a campaign that has repeatedly claimed that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama, this endorsement certainly provided an awkward turn of events. But, as Kristof notes, the “endorsement of McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists.” In fact, it’s clear that the animosity generated by the foreign policy of George W. Bush, and wholeheartedly championed by John McCain, has actually been the biggest recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and various terrorist organizations around the world.

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

During the cold war, the American ideological fear of communism led us to mistake every muddle-headed leftist for a Soviet pawn. Our myopia helped lead to catastrophe in Vietnam. In the same way today, an exaggerated fear of “Islamofascism” elides a complex reality and leads us to overreact and damage our own interests. Perhaps the best example is one of the least-known failures in Bush administration foreign policy: Somalia.

Today, Somalia is the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, worse even than Darfur or Congo. The crisis has complex roots, and Somali warlords bear primary blame. But Bush administration paranoia about Islamic radicals contributed to the disaster.

Somalia has been in chaos for many years, but in 2006 an umbrella movement called the Islamic Courts Union seemed close to uniting the country. The movement included both moderates and extremists, but it constituted the best hope for putting Somalia together again. Somalis were ecstatic at the prospect of having a functional government again. Bush administration officials, however, were aghast at the rise of an Islamist movement that they feared would be uncooperative in the war on terror. So they gave Ethiopia, a longtime rival in the region, the green light to invade, and Somalia’s best hope for peace collapsed.

“A movement that looked as if it might end this long national nightmare was derailed, in part because of American and Ethiopian actions,” said Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert at Davidson College. As a result, Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers. “There’s a level of anti-Americanism in Somalia today like nothing I’ve seen over the last 20 years,” Professor Menkhaus said. “Somalis are furious with us for backing the Ethiopian intervention and occupation, provoking this huge humanitarian crisis.”

Patrick Duplat, an expert on Somalia at Refugees International, the Washington-based advocacy group, says that during his last visit to Somalia, earlier this year, a local mosque was calling for jihad against America — something he had never heard when he lived peacefully in Somalia during the rise of the Islamic Courts Union. “The situation has dramatically taken a turn for the worse,” he said. “The U.S. chose a very confrontational route early on. Who knows what would have happened if the U.S. had reached out to moderates? But that might have averted the disaster we’re in today.”

The greatest catastrophe is the one endured by ordinary Somalis who now must watch their children starve. But America’s own strategic interests have also been gravely damaged. The only winner has been Islamic militancy. That’s probably the core reason why Al Qaeda militants prefer a McCain presidency: four more years of blindness to nuance in the Muslim world would be a tragedy for Americans and virtually everyone else, but a boon for radical groups trying to recruit suicide bombers.

A Letter from President Bush

Thomas Friedman recently penned an interesting letter from President Bush to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashadani, speaking to the proper way forward in Iraq.

Dear Sirs, I am writing you on a matter of grave importance. It’s hard for me to express to you how deep the economic crisis in America is today. We are discussing a $1 trillion bailout for our troubled banking system. This is a financial 9/11. As Americans lose their homes and sink into debt, they no longer understand why we are spending $1 billion a day to make Iraqis feel more secure in their homes.

For the past two years, there has been a debate in this country over whether to set a deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. It seemed as if the resolution of that debate depended on who won the coming election. That is no longer the case. A deadline is coming. American taxpayers who would not let their money be used to subsidize their own companies — Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch — will not have their tax dollars used to subsidize your endless dithering over which Iraqi community dominates Kirkuk.

Don’t misunderstand me. Many Americans and me are relieved by the way you, the Iraqi people and Army have pulled back from your own brink of self-destruction. I originally launched this war in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong. But it quickly became apparent that Al Qaeda and its allies in Iraq were determined to make America fail in any attempt to build a decent Iraq and tilt the Middle East toward a more democratic track, no matter how many Iraqis had to be killed in the process. This was not the war we came for, but it was the one we found.

Al Qaeda understood that if it could defeat America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, that it would resonate throughout the region and put Al Qaeda and its allies in the ascendant. Conversely, we understood that if we could defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, in collaboration with other Arabs and Muslims, that it would resonate throughout the region and pay dividends. Something very big was at stake here. We have gone a long way toward winning that war.

At the same time, I also came to realize that in helping Iraqis organize elections, we were facilitating the first ever attempt by the people of a modern Arab state to write their own social contract — rather than have one imposed on them by kings, dictators or colonial powers. If Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can forge your own social contract, then some form of a consensual government is possible in the Arab world. If you can’t, it is kings and dictators forever — with all the pathologies that come with that. Something very big is at stake there, too.

It’s not the stakes that have changed. It is the fact that you are now going to have to step up and finish this job. You have presumed an endless American safety net to permit you to endlessly bargain and dicker over who gets what. I’ve been way, way too patient with you. That is over. We bought you time with the surge to reach a formal political settlement and you better use it fast, because it is a rapidly diminishing asset.

You Shiites have got to bring the Sunni tribes and Awakening groups, who fought the war against Al Qaeda of Iraq, into the government and Army. You Kurds have got to find a solution for Kirkuk and accept greater integration into the Iraqi state system, while maintaining your autonomy. You Sunnis in government have got to agree to elections so the newly emergent Sunni tribal and Awakening groups are able to run for office and become “institutionalized” into the Iraqi system.

So pass your election and oil laws, spend some of your oil profits to get Iraqi refugees resettled and institutionalize the recent security gains while you still have a substantial U.S. presence. Read my lips: It will not be there indefinitely — even if McCain wins.

Our ambassador, Ryan Crocker, has told me your problem: Iraqi Shiites are still afraid of the past, Iraqi Sunnis are still afraid of the future and Iraqi Kurds are still afraid of both. Well, you want to see fear. Look in the eyes of Americans who are seeing their savings wiped out, their companies disappear, their homes foreclosed. We are a different country today. After a decade of the world being afraid of too much American power, it is now going to be treated to a world of too little American power, as we turn inward to get our house back in order.

I still believe a decent outcome in Iraq, if you achieve it, will have long-lasting, positive implications for you and the entire Arab world, although the price has been way too high. I will wait for history for my redemption, but the American people will not. They want nation-building in America now. They will not walk away from Iraq overnight, but they will not stay there in numbers over time. I repeat: Do not misread this moment. God be with you.

George W. Bush

Confronting Our True Enemies

Yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement regarding the misplaced foreign policy priorities of Bush-McCain Republicans:

“Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan. During my trip, I met with some of our generals and troops who are fighting on the front lines every day. During those meetings, they reinforced for me their courage and determination to win the fight against the Taliban and the terrorists. I also learned more about the determination of the Afghan people. One part of the trip took me to a vocational school, where young Afghani men and women were receiving training in English, computers, car repair and other skills so that they could help pull their families – and their country – out of poverty and toward a brighter day.

“Despite years of chaos and bloodshed, despite many families torn apart by war, the young people I met were still brimming with hope. Seeing these young men and women study together, I was reminded of the difference the United States has made by aiding their fight against the Taliban. The courage of our troops and the Afghan people was inspiring. But there was another conclusion that I could not avoid: the progress I saw is being terribly undermined by deteriorating security. I returned to America more convinced than ever that the greatest threat to our national security lies in Afghanistan and Pakistan – and these places must be our central focus. Today, one day from the seventh anniversary of the most violent terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil, the mastermind of that attack – Osama Bin Laden – remains free.

“For all the tough rhetoric of chasing Bin Laden to the gates of hell, the Bush Administration has failed to put the necessary resources and manpower into the hunt for America’s No. 1 enemy. President Bush has rightly said that the war on terror is about more than just one man. Yet seven years after 9/11, the President has allowed that one man’s vast al Qaeda network regroup in its safe haven in Pakistan. And in Afghanistan, the sad fact is that the Taliban – the brutally oppressive regime that housed Bin Laden and al Qaeda – is on the rise, attacking our troops and innocent Afghan civilians.

“We must be clear-eyed in our realization that the very same people who attacked us then continue to regain strength and threaten us now. This dire situation could have been avoided. When President Bush took us into Afghanistan following September 11th, Democrats, our country and the world stood with him. We knew it was a fight we must wage and win. But after a series of military victories, the President lost focus and turned instead to an ill-conceived war in Iraq. With the job unfinished in Afghanistan, the President devoted our troops and treasure to another battlefield. Predictably, with focus shifted, Afghanistan began to backslide, with neighborhoods once reclaimed from the enemy becoming battlegrounds once again.

“The reason for these failures is no mystery. No matter how hard the Republican spin machine tries to rewrite history and obscure the truth, the fact is that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Yet George Bush, John McCain and their Republican allies chose to shift our resources away from where our enemy lives and into a place that had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

“Afghanistan is a far larger country than Iraq, with a much larger population, and far rougher terrain. Yet today, we have 34,000 American forces in Afghanistan and 146,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan is much poorer than Iraq – one of the poorest countries in the world – yet we have spent $170 billion in Afghanistan, and nearly $650 billion in Iraq. Afghanistan is the home of Al Qaeda, the home of the Taliban, and the central front of the War on Terror. Yet there are more than three times as many troops in Iraq and we have spent nearly four times as much money there.

“The result of this Republican failure is clear: after a drop in violence early in the Afghanistan war, the Taliban came back with a vengeance in mid-2006. By that time, we didn’t have enough troops on the ground to respond. The troops we needed were 1,500 miles away, in Iraq. The commander of American forces in the region, Admiral William Fallon, put it this way in January: ‘Back in 2001, early 2002, the Taliban were pretty much vanquished. But my sense looking back is that we moved focus to Iraq, which was the priority from 2003 on, and the attention and the resources focused on a different place.’

“With resources focused on a different place, as Admiral Fallon said, here is what we are now seeing: In July, nearly twice as many U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq; June was the second deadliest month in Afghanistan for coalition and U.S. forces since the start of the war; In Eastern Afghanistan, attacks on coalition troops increased by 40 percent over the first five months of this year; Roadside bombings have increased; and Opium production is up, with Afghanistan producing 93 percent of the world’s opium.

“And President Bush’s failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had consequences beyond the borders of those two countries. This morning, the bipartisan American
Security Project issued a report noting that attacks by violent terrorist groups around the world are at an all time high – and this is without counting terrorist attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. Their report also notes that ungoverned spaces continue to provide sanctuary for terrorist organizations, including Afghanistan, East and North Africa, and Somalia.

“Yesterday, President Bush had one last chance to meaningfully change his strategy and begin to reverse all these backsliding trends. He chose not to. He chose to stick with the status quo and not make significant changes. And unfortunately, we have seen no reason to believe that a John McCain presidency would offer any break from the failed Bush foreign policy.

“For all his talk about listening to the commanders on the ground, George Bush is dangerously deaf to the calls of our commanders in Afghanistan. In the words of Admiral Mullen, ‘I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.’

“We know today that no more than a token shift of troop levels will take place until we have a new President committed to winning the war on terror by fighting the actual terrorists. That will require a new approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Pakistan.

“We have seen in Pakistan a dangerous approach by President Bush of placing all our bets on one man – General Musharraf. That was a fatal and avoidable blunder. Musharraf did not implement democracy, did not uphold human rights and did not stop the terrorists operating inside Pakistan’s borders. American dollars meant to fight terrorism were wasted. The Pakistani people suffered, and the United States lost credibility with them for supporting a dictator who did not uphold their basic rights. Because of President Bush’s failed approach to Pakistan, we have now seen al Qaeda regroup within its borders.

“According to the declassified key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate of July 2007 titled ‘The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland,’ al Qaeda has ‘protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistani Federal Administered Tribal Areas.’ The intelligence agencies reiterated this a few weeks ago, saying that al Qaeda ‘has maintained or strengthened key elements of its capability to attack the United States in the past year.’

“During our time in Afghanistan, from our meetings with President Karzai to our meetings with American generals, one message was clear: we cannot solve the problem in Afghanistan without solving the problem in Pakistan.

“Those concerned with the writing of our history books will have ample opportunity to delve into the Bush failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in far greater detail than I have done in my remarks. The historians will note that on George Bush’s watch, the Taliban grew stronger, running their operations from terrorist bases inside Pakistan. They will note that under George Bush’s watch, al Qaeda regrouped, ready to carry out other attacks against the United States. And they will note that on George Bush’s watch, our national security was jeopardized and the threats that led to the attacks in 2001 are as grave if not graver in 2008.

“Our job in Congress is not to do the job of the historians, but to answer one question: Where do we go from here? President Bush gave his answer to that question yesterday. His answer was: we don’t go anywhere. We stay exactly where we are.

“John McCain has made it clear that he stands in place with George Bush. With due respect due to the President and Senator McCain, the status quo has failed. They are out of touch with the realities and ramifications of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I saw in Afghanistan a people eager, desperate and ready to lift their country to democracy, equality and economic opportunity, but held down by the weight of an enemy we failed to destroy. I hope that in the coming months, our courageous, overworked, overstretched, overstressed troops can continue to hold off the enemy without the full resources and manpower necessary to complete the mission. And I hope that the American people will have the wisdom to choose a leader who will take the war on terror back to the terrorists and look the Afghan people in the eye and say that help is on the way.”

Shuffling Priorities

In August, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Barack Obama laid out several of his foreign policy priorities in a speech titled “The War We Need to Win.” In that speech, he spoke of the increasing violence in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, and the lawless sanctuaries in Pakistan that have devolved into safe-havens for al-Qaeda and into launching points from which militants attack U.S. forces.

"Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains, that murdered 3,000 Americans. If we have actionable intelligence about high-valued terrorist targets and if President Musharraf will not act, we will."

Obama was quickly ridiculed and criticized for his 'naïve recklessness'. Hillary Clinton: “I don’t think it was a particularly wise position to take” because “he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan.” John McCain, who told crowds at every campaign stop that he would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, asked "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan?"

In the end, was Barack Obama really so naïve? As reported today:

President George W. Bush secretly approved U.S. military raids inside Pakistan against alleged terrorist targets, according to a former intelligence official with recent access to the Bush administration's debate about how to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban inside the lawless tribal border area.

The Times:

President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials. The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission. “The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,” said a senior American official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

In the words of Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Afghanistan and Pakistan "are inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between them. Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

To highlight the direness of the situation, he issued an even more blunt statement: “I’m not convinced we’re winning in Afghanistan. [But] I am convinced we can.” To that end, he has ordered a comprehensive military strategy to better address the growing threat from the border region. The Post elaborates:

On the day after President Bush announced he will cut troops in Iraq and bolster them in Afghanistan between now and early 2009, Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates also signaled that they would give increasing priority to the Afghan war and the expanding insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. "The war on terror started in this region. It must end there," Gates told the committee.

Violence has mounted for more than two years in Afghanistan from an increasingly sophisticated and brazen insurgency, one fueled by havens in Pakistan. As a result, the war is exacting a worsening toll on coalition forces, with the number of U.S. troop deaths projected to surpass last year's high of 117. So far this year, 109 troops have died. U.S. and NATO troops remain hampered by manpower shortages, a lack of helicopters and a disjointed chain of command.

"Frankly, we are running out of time," Mullen said, adding that not sending U.S. reinforcements to Afghanistan is "too great a risk to ignore."

He said the new influx of U.S. forces into Afghanistan that Bush announced Tuesday -- an Army brigade and Marine battalion with a total of about 4,500 troops -- does not meet the demands of commanders there, but is "a good start." Already, total U.S. forces in Afghanistan have grown from 21,000 troops in 2006 to nearly 31,000 today.

The Fight Against al-Qaeda

In a recent edition of the Christian Science Monitor, Seth Jones and Martin Libicki discuss the fight against al-Qaeda, the fallacy of the so-called “War on Terror” and why the Bush-McCain over-reliance on military force in conducting counterterrorism runs contrary to our national security interests.

Military might against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups isn't working – and no wonder. After studying the record of 648 terrorist groups between 1968 and 2006, we've found that military force has rarely been effective in defeating this enemy. Indeed, the US reliance on military force – especially conventional military forces – has often been counterproductive.

Take Al Qaeda: Despite suffering a setback in Iraq and several senior operatives killed or captured, it has carried out more terrorist attacks after Sept. 11 than it did before, and these attacks have spanned a wider geographic area across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

The group's methods – from improvised explosive devices to increased suicide attacks – have grown more sophisticated. Its organizational structure has evolved as well, including encouraging a grass-roots approach by members while maintaining strategy and operations from a central location in Pakistan. This resurgence is reason enough to trigger an overhaul of US counterterrorism strategy. History offers some critical guidance.

Since 1968, more than three-quarters of terrorist groups have ended because of a political settlement or joint policing and intelligence efforts. But a political solution is not in the cards with Al Qaeda. Its goal – to take down multiple state regimes to create a pan-Islamic caliphate – is too radical to lead to any sort of negotiated settlement with Middle Eastern governments.

A good start toward peace, though, would be for Washington to stop thinking of this as a "war" with a battlefield solution. Most US allies, such as Britain and Australia, already have. In Britain, for example, the government shuns the phrase "war on terror" despite a long history of dealing with such terrorist groups as the IRA.

And rightly so. Military force often has the opposite effect from what is intended. It is often overused, alienates the local population by its heavy-handed nature, and is a boon to terrorist recruiters. The term "war" also has a symbolic cost. It feeds into the jihad or "holy war" concept that attracts the attention of potential terrorists by elevating them to "holy warrior" status. Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors.

What we are engaged in, more aptly, is "counterterrorism." Rather than a military focus, policing and intelligence should form the backbone of US and allied counterterrorism efforts. Tracking down Al Qaeda's network of members worldwide will require more work abroad from the CIA and FBI, as well as cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.

Such a strategic shift will demand a change in spending. Of the $609 billion in counterterrorism funding authorized by Congress between 2001 and 2007, 90 percent went to military operations. Much of that money would be better spent on law enforcement and intelligence agencies working overseas.

To be sure, when Al Qaeda is involved in an insurgency it may be necessary to use military force particularly special operations forces. But US successes against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the capture of several of its top terrorists in Pakistan suggest that the military and intelligence agencies should increasingly play a background role whenever possible.

Local military, police, and intelligence forces typically have more legitimacy to operate than do US forces, and have a better feel for the lay of the land. The US military should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, especially in large numbers, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.

There are good reasons to be hopeful. Al Qaeda's probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero. Its objectives are virtually unachievable. And no religious terrorist group that has folded since 1968 has achieved victory. While Osama bin Laden enjoys some popular support in the Muslim world, he has made enemies of virtually every government across the globe.

By alienating most of the world and declaring unachievable objectives, Al Qaeda has set a losing strategy. Let's not make countering it more difficult than it has to be.

Republicans and Our Enemies

In response to a foreign policy commentary from Joe Lieberman titled “Democrats and Our Enemies”, Senator Joe Biden responded with a Wall Street Journal op-ed of his own. The title? “Republicans and Our Enemies” of course…

On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy. In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered. The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.

Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make. The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion. Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

The results speak for themselves. On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war. Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure. The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader. Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked. Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control. Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.

The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb. Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material. Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.

It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically. Iran's people need to
know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.

The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets. The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?

It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.

2008 and the Stakes for America’s Security

At a recent speech at Georgetown, Senator Joe Biden delivered a speech entitled “2008 and the Stakes for America’s Security.” It’s an articulate condemnation of the Bush foreign policy from the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman.

“It’s great to be back at Georgetown, which has done such a wonderful job educating one of my sons, and several of my nieces and nephews. I hope that all that tuition will translate into, if not “Biden Hall,” then at least a student lounge. I want to thank a few people for making this event possible: President Jack Degioia, Dean Bob Gallucci; VP of Federal Relations Scott Flemming; the College Democrats and their President Adam Feiler; and the Georgetown Lecture Fund. After you hear me speak, you may want to blame them.

When people say ‘this is the most important election in my lifetime’, they’re right. So much is at stake. The physical security of our children. The retirement security of our parents. The economic and health security of our families. And, above all else, the national security of our country, which is a President’s first responsibility.

I start from a simple premise: we cannot afford another four years of Republican stewardship of our nation’s security. After eight years of the Bush Administration, our country is less secure and more isolated than it has been at any time in recent history. This administration has dug America into a very deep hole – with very few friends to help us climb out.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The next President will have an awesome responsibility – but also the greatest opportunity since FDR – to change the direction of our country… and the world. It starts with a much clearer understanding of how the world has changed over the past two decades. As Yeats wrote in “Easter 1916” our world has “changed utterly, a terrible beauty has been born.”

The emergence of China and India as major economic powers. The resurgence of Russia floating on a sea of oil. A unifying Europe. The spread of dangerous weapons and lethal diseases. The shortage of secure sources of energy, water and even food. The impact of climate change. Rising wealth and persistent poverty. A technological revolution that sends people, ideas and money hurtling around the planet at ever faster speeds. The challenge to nation states from ethnic and sectarian strife. The struggle between modernity and extremism.

That’s a short list of the forces shaping the 21st century. No one country can control these forces, but more than any other country, we have an ability to affect them - if we use the totality of our strength. Our military might and economic resources are necessary but not sufficient to lead us into this new century. It is our ideas and ideals that will allow us to exert the kind of leadership that persuades others to follow and to deal effectively with these forces of change. Over the next few months, I’ll speak in detail about how Democrats will exert that kind of leadership.

For today, I want to concentrate on this administration. It has squandered our ability to shape this new world. It has put virtually all of these issues on the back burner, failing to devote the intellectual capital and constant effort they require. It has destroyed faith in America’s judgment. And it has devalued America’s moral
leadership in the world.

Instead, this administration has focused to the point of obsession on the so-called “war on terrorism” and produced a one-size-fits-all doctrine of military preemption and regime change ill suited to the challenges we face. It has made fear the main driver of our foreign policy. It has turned a deadly serious but manageable threat – a small number of radical groups that hate America – into a ten-foot tall existential monster that dictates nearly every move we make. Even if you look at the world through this administration’s distorted lens, you see a failed policy.

This failure flows from a dangerous combination of ideology and incompetence and a profound confusion about whom we’re fighting. It starts with the very language the President has tried to impose: “the global war on terror.” That is simply wrong. Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can’t even identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win.

The most urgent threat is the intersection of the world’s most radical groups -- like Al Qaeda -- with the world’s most lethal weapons. But we also must confront groups that use terror not to target us directly, but to advance their own nationalistic causes. We must deal with outlaw states that support them and otherwise flout the rules. We must face a civil war in Iraq, a renewed war for Afghanistan, and an ideological war for the future of Pakistan. We must help resolve a historic conflict between Arabs and Israelis.

And we must contend with Iran, especially its efforts to acquire the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. This administration spent five years fixated on changing the Iranian regime. No one likes the regime, but think about the logic: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we’re still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material and is closer now to the bomb than when Bush took office. Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing.

That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure. But is also means doing much more to reach out to Iran – including through direct talks – to exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically. The Iranian people need to know that their government, not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation.

Saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders and spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right into Tehran’s pockets. The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. It’s amazing how little faith this administration has in the power of America’s ideas and ideals.

All these fronts throughout the Middle East and South Asia are connected. But this administration has wrongly conflated them under one label, and argued that success on one front ensures victory on the others. It has lumped together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us. It has picked the wrong fights at the wrong time, failing to finish a war of necessity in Afghanistan before starting a war of choice in Iraq.

The result is that, to quote the findings of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat: “Al Qaeda is better positioned to strike the West… [it has] regenerated… and remains determined to attack us at home.” Of course, we must destroy Al Qaeda. But instead of rolling back the threat it poses, this administration’s approach has helped produce a global breakout of extremism, which now threatens more people in more places than it did before 9-11. So even on its own terms, the national security strategy of this administration has been a failure. We cannot afford four more years.

Last month, a man I greatly admire and consider a friend, Senator John McCain, set out his vision for our foreign policy. To his credit, John repudiates some of the Bush administration’s approach to the world. He recognizes that the power of our example is as important as the example of our power… that allies we respect, not disdain, can advance our interests. He is especially eloquent about his abhorrence for war – as John is uniquely placed to be.

But John McCain remains wedded to the Bush Administration’s myopic view of a world defined by terrorism. He would continue to allow a tiny minority to set the agenda for the overwhelming majority. It is time for a total change in Washington’s world view. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.
Nowhere is this truer than in Iraq. The war dominates our national life. It stands like a boulder in the road between us and the credibility we need to lead in the world and the flexibility we require to meet our challenges at home. When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip. When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a McCain administration… and so there is a real and profound choice for Americans in November.

Like President Bush, Senator McCain likes to talk about the dire consequences of drawing down our forces in Iraq. He argues that Iraq is the meeting point for two of the greatest threats to America: Al Qaeda and Iran. It’s an argument laden with irony. After all, who opened Iraq’s door to Al Qaeda and Iran? The Bush administration.

“Al Qaeda in Iraq” is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy: it wasn’t there before the war, but it is there now. As to Iran, its influence in Iraq went from zero to sixty when we toppled Saddam’s Sunni regime and gave Shi’ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power. No matter how we got to this point, President Bush and Senator McCain argue that if we start to leave, it will further empower Al Qaeda and Iran.

I believe they are exactly wrong. And so do a large number of very prominent retired military and national security experts who testified before the Foreign Relations Committee this month. Would drawing down really strengthen ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and give it a launching pad to attack America? Or would it help eliminate what little indigenous Iraqi support ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ retains?

Most Sunni Arabs have turned on ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’, alienated by their tactics and ideology. AQI is down to about 2000 Iraqis and a small number of foreigners whose almost exclusive focus is Iraq. When we draw down, the most likely result is that
Iraqis of all confessions will stamp out its remnants – and we can retain a residual force in or near Iraq to help them finish the job.

Last week, I asked our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to tell us where al Qaeda poses a greater threat to America’s security: in Iraq, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said: Afghanistan and Pakistan. So what about Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan – the people who actually attacked us n 9-11? If we draw down, would they be emboldened?

Or, to paraphrase the National Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism, would they lose one of their most effective recruiting tools -- the notion that we’re in Iraq to stay, with permanent military bases and control over the oil? And would they finally risk the full measure of America’s might?

Senator McCain has taken a lot of heat for saying he would not mind if American troops stay in Iraq for a hundred years. The truth is, he was trying to make an analogy to our long term presence in peaceful post-war Germany, post-armistice Korea and post-Dayton Bosnia. But Germany, Korea or Bosnia after the peace are nothing like Iraq today – with thousands of bombs, hundreds of American injured and dozens of American killed every month -- and there is little prospect Iraq will look like them anytime soon.

Worse, saying you’re happy to stay in Iraq for one hundred years fuels exactly the kind of dangerous conspiracy theories about America’s intentions throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds that we should be working to dispel.

What about Iran? Would drawing down increase its already huge influence in Iraq? Or would it shift the burden of helping to stabilize Iraq from us to them and make our forces a much more credible deterrent to Iran’s wider misbehavior? The idea that we could or even should wipe out every vestige of Iran’s influence in Iraq is a fantasy. Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, our ally in Baghdad greets Iran’s leader with kisses. Like it or not, Iran is a major regional power and it
shares a long border – and a long history – with Iraq.

Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra Shi’a rivalry and Sunni-Shi’a civil war. The challenge for us is not eliminating all Iranian influence in Iraq, but forcing Iran to confront the specter of a disintegrating Iraq or all-out war between different Shi’a factions. By drawing down, we can take away Iran’s ability to wage a proxy war against our troops and force Tehran to concentrate on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq’s borders and instability beyond them.

Finally, would our responsible draw down accelerate sectarian chaos? Or would it cause Iraq’s leaders and Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors to finally act responsibly? To date, both have used our large presence as a crutch or an excuse for inaction. When that stops, they will have to start to fill the vacuum or put their interests at much
greater risk. We should debate the consequences of drawing down in Iraq. But more importantly, we should talk about what both President Bush and Senator McCain refuse to acknowledge: the increasingly intolerable costs of staying.

The risks of drawing down are debatable. The costs of staying with 140,000 troops are knowable – and they get steeper every day: The continued loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers; The emotional and economic strain on our troops and their families due to repeated, extended tours, as Army Chief of Staff General George Casey recently told Congress; The drain on our Treasury – $12 billion every month; The impact on the readiness of our armed forces – tying down so many troops that, as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Richard Cody said, we don’t have any left over to
deal with a new emergency; The inability to send enough soldiers to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda has regrouped and is plotting new attacks.

When I visited Afghanistan in February, General McNeil, who commands the international force, told me that with two extra combat brigades – about 10,000 soldiers – he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on move. But he can’t get them because of Iraq. Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says he would want to send them home for a year to rest and retrain before sending them to Afghanistan. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago.

It is long past time to clearly define our interests in Iraq. It is not in our interest to intervene in an internal power struggle among Shi’a factions. It is not in our interest to back one side or the other, or get caught in the cross fire of a Sunni-Shi’a civil war. It is in our interest to start to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. Even if we could keep 140,000 troops in Iraq, they will not be the deciding factor in preventing chaos. Instead, we need to focus all our remaining energy and initiative on achieving what virtually everyone agrees is the key to stability in Iraq: a political power sharing agreement among its warring factions.

I remain convinced that the only path to such a settlement is through a decentralized, federal Iraq that brings resources and responsibility down to the local and regional levels. We need a diplomatic surge to get the world’s major powers, Iraq’s neighbors and Iraqis themselves invested in a sustainable political settlement.

Fifteen months into the surge that President Bush ordered and Senator McCain embraced, we’ve gone from drowning to treading water. We are no closer to the President’s stated goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself in peace. We’re still spending $3 billion every week and losing 30 to 40 American lives every month.

We can’t keep treading water without exhausting ourselves and doing great damage to our other vital interests around the world. That’s exactly what both the President and Senator McCain are asking us to do. They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraqis will come together politically, which was the purpose of the surge in the first place. They can’t tell us when, or even if, we will draw down below pre-surge levels. They can’t tell us when, or even if, Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet. They can’t tell us when, or even if, this war will end.

Most Americans want this war to end. They want us to come together around a plan to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. They’re not defeatists. They’re patriots who understand the national interest – and the great things Americans can achieve if we responsibly end a war that we should not have started.

I believe it is fully within our power to do that. Then, with our credibility restored, our alliances repaired and our freedom renewed, we will once again lead the world. We will once again address the hopes, not play to the fears, of our fellow Americans. That is my hope for next November – and for the country we all love.

May God bless America and protect our troops.

National Insecurity

As compiled by the National Security Network, “five new reports from various government agencies and independent organizations were released this week, all confirming that the Bush Administration has weakened the security of the United States.”

The reports were: 1) Government Accountability Office: the Bush Administration has no plan for defeating al-Qaeda its central haven in Pakistan; 2) National Defense University: Iraq War is a debacle; 3) Rand Corporation: 300,000 American troops have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; 4) House Armed Services: Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan are poorly managed; and 5) Refugees International: The humanitarian crisis in Iraq is worsening. Some excerpts:

Government Accountability Office: Bush Administration Has No Plan for Defeating the Terrorist Threat

The Executive Branch has failed “to develop a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power” to defeat terrorism. The GAO found that “no comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas] has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007).” Despite these mandates, “. . . neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress.”

Al-Qaeda has succeeded in re-constituting itself in the safe-haven of Pakistan’s tribal areas, where they are putting the finishing touches on its plan to attack the United States. The GAO “found broad agreement, as documented in the unclassified 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), State and embassy documents, as well as among Defense, State, and other officials, including those operating in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA.” In addition, the GAO report cites testimony from the Director of National Intelligence, which says that “al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place.”

Independent Report from the National Defense University: Iraq Conflict a “Major War, and a Major Debacle”

The Iraq War has profoundly weakened the United States. The NDU report, written by a former aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, found that the Iraq War has weakened the U.S. across the board: “Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen,” and “our status as a moral leader has been damaged…” Additionally, the war has had a “…negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq… ” and “our Armed Forces— especially the Army and Marine Corps—have been severely strained…” Worst of all, while the war was described as necessary to secure the safety of the United States, our efforts in Iraq have become “... an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.”

Post-Invasion strategy has been as flawed as the decision to go to war itself. “To date, the war in Iraq is a classic case of failure to adopt and adapt prudent courses of action that balance ends, ways, and means. After the major combat operation, U.S. policy has been insolvent, with inadequate means for pursuing ambitious ends.”

RAND Corporation: The War in Iraq has Done Tremendous Harm to the Health of our Armed Servicemen

The Iraq War has done great trauma to the mental health of hundreds of thousands of service members. According to a study conducted by the RAND Corporation, it is likely that over 300,000 armed service members have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and an estimated 320,000 individuals suffered traumatic brain injury during their deployment. “Assuming that the prevalence found in this study is representative of the 1.64 million service members who had been deployed for OEF/OIF as of October 2007, we estimate that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI during deployment."

All too often, service members carrying these invisible scars do not receive adequate care. “Even when individuals receive care, too few receive quality care. Of those who have a mental disorder and also sought medical care for that problem, just over half received a minimally adequate treatment. The number who received quality care (i.e., a treatment that has been demonstrated to be effective) would be expected to be even smaller. Focused efforts are needed to significantly improve both accessibility to care and quality of care for these groups. The prevalence of PTSD and major depression will likely remain high unless greater efforts are made to enhance systems of care for these individuals.”

House Armed Services Committee Report: Provincial Reconstruction Teams, Crucial to US Efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, are Under-Resourced and Poorly Coordinated

PRTs in Afghanistan and Iraq lack “strategic guidance.” “The PRT program lacks strategic guidance and oversight. The Department of Defense and the Department of State have not established clearly defined objectives and milestones for Provincial Reconstruction Teams for achieving larger operational and strategic goals. Nor have they adopted a system for measuring PRT effectiveness and performance.”

Reconstruction initiatives suffer from unpredictable access to funding and poor coordination. “PRTs operate under complicated and, at times, unclear chains of command. The lack of unity of command negatively impacts unity of effort, which can result in uncoordinated, and even counterproductive, outcomes.” Moreover, the Armed Services Committee Report found that in spite of their broad set of responsibilities, PRTs have neither had “predictable funding streams” nor “an appropriate mix of well-trained military and civilian staff.”

Refugees International: Iraqi Government is ‘Party’ to a Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

Study contradicts Bush Administration claims; militias, not Iraqi government, are primary providers of humanitarian assistance. “As a result of the vacuum created by the failure of both the Iraqi government and the International Community to act in a timely and adequate manner, non-state actors play a major role in providing assistance to vulnerable Iraqis. Militias of all denominations are improving their local base of support by providing social services in the neighborhoods and towns they control. Through a ‘Hezbollah-like’ scheme, the Shiite Sadrist movement has established itself as the main service provider in the country.” Aided by these patronage operations, Iraqi militias “are also recruiting an increasing number of civilians to their militias - including displaced Iraqis.”

Sectarian Iraqi Government has contributed to the humanitarian disaster. “The Government of Iraq is itself a party to the conflict and its security forces have facilitated displacement and sometimes carried it out themselves. Officers in the Iraqi Security forces complain that most of their men are loyal to the Mahdi Army and most of their commanders are loyal to the Mahdi Army or the Badr Militia. They and Sunni groups described incidents where Iraqi Security Forces opened fire on Sunni neighborhoods, protected death squads, or were directly involved in the kidnapping and execution of Sunni civilians.”

The Trouble in Diyala

The LA Times provides an interesting account of the migration of AQI into the Diyala River Valley.

For the last year, U.S.-led forces have pursued the militants from one stronghold to the next in Diyala, a province of winding waterways and abundant farms stretching north and east from Baghdad to the Iranian border. They have captured or killed hundreds of people, most said to be members or affiliates of the militant group Al Qaeda in Iraq. The American-led troops have destroyed weapons caches, training bases, bomb-making factories and torture houses.

Yet the Sunni Arab militants identified by many U.S. commanders as their most lethal enemy and the greatest obstacle to stability in Iraq continue to flow into the province and farther north to the regions of Mosul and Kirkuk. This is not the only place that the militants have established a haven, but the U.S. deems success here as crucial to its efforts to consolidate recent security gains as American troops begin to draw down.

al-Qaeda in Iraq

This week, the Post published an interesting article about al-Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) attempts to win back many of the disaffected Iraqi Sunnis who have risen in opposition to its harsh tactics. It provides a good overview of the plight of the terror group in recent months. A couple excerpts:

The Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq is telling its followers to soften their tactics in order to regain popular support in the western province of Anbar, where Sunni tribes have turned against the organization and begun working with U.S. forces, according to group leaders and American intelligence officials. The new approach was outlined last month in an internal communique that orders members to avoid killing Sunni civilians who have not sympathized with the U.S.-backed tribesmen or the government.

From internal documents and interviews with members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a picture emerges of an organization in disarray but increasingly aware that its harsh policies - such as punishing women who don't cover their heads - have eroded its popular support. Over the past year, the group has been driven out of many of its strongholds. The group's leadership is now jettisoning some of its past tactics to refocus attacks on American troops, Sunnis cooperating closely with U.S. forces, and Iraq's infrastructure.

The U.S. military says it destroyed much of the leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007, killing 2,400 suspected members and capturing 8,800, while pushing the group almost completely out of Baghdad and Anbar province. Although U.S. officials and their Sunni allies caution that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains dangerous and could find ways to regenerate, they assert that the group now is largely a spent force.

By all accounts, the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq has plunged. The U.S. military said the number sneaking in from Syria has dropped from 110 a month in late summer to about 40 to 50 a month now. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a predominantly Iraqi group, but the U.S. military says it is led by Arabs from outside the country.

Phantom Phoenix

USA Today provides an interesting read about the realities on the ground in Mosul during "Operation Phantom Phoenix." The objective of this coalition operation is to aggressively root out al-Qaeda from the northern provinces of Iraq, primarily Diyala.

A Tenuous Peace

It's widely recognized that one of the significant benchmarks toward reconciliation and stability in Iraq is the ground-laying for new elections. The political and security landscape has changed dramatically since the last elections, new players need to be brought in (particularly Sunnis), and local leadership needs to be provided to a growing majority of Iraqis who are distrustful of the current regime that has largely isolated itself in Baghdad. But as Iraq moves toward new elections, jockeying by key players (both Shia and Sunni) could undoubtedly risk many of our recent gains toward peace and stability.

In the south, representatives of Muqtada al-Sadr recently met with members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), the largest Shiite political party led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. The Shiite militias controlled by these two factions (Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Badr Organization) have been in a turf battle since the onset of the war but signed a “tenuous peace agreement” following bloody clashes in Karbala that left 52 dead this summer. The subsequent cease fire declared by Sadr gave him time to weed out renegade factions within his ranks and is one of the key factors in the reduced levels of violence in Baghdad and the south. But it’s unclear how long that will last as Sadr will undoubtedly do everything in his power prior to new elections to shore up his support and ensure his interests are represented. Those moves would be countered by Hakim who would desperately want to secure his role as the ultimate political power-broker. The recent meetings between their factions should give us some glimmer of hope that both sides recognize the stabilizing factor a peace between them would bring.

Meanwhile, rivalries amongst Sunnis in Anbar have created a situation just as precarious. While today’s relative stability can be credited to the tribal sheiks (dubbed “the Awakening”) who rose up against al-Qaeda, those same sheiks are responsible for fueling the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqi and Coalition forces in the first years of the war. These sheiks, who boycotted the initial elections, now want a piece of the pie – a move that will be undoubtedly be countered by those Sunnis who participated in the elections and cooperated with Coalition forces from day one. Most of these Sunnis, members of the Iraqi Islamic Party, are viewed as corrupt by the sheiks, who have grown increasingly disgruntled because their communities are not receiving a fair share of reconstruction funds and basic services. The sheiks believe this is happening because they essentially have no representation in the government in Baghdad. Thus they would approach new elections with a different mindset and would seek to “gain back” some of the political influence that has subsequently been accumulated by the Iraqi Islamic Party.

So while new elections in Iraq are essential to any sort of long-lasting stability, we should also prepare for the short-term chaos and violence that they could also bring.

There You Go Again...

Last week, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, wrote an editorial claiming that the country would undoubtedly turn to the Republican Party again this November. Why? Because they, and only they, are strong enough to protect America.

'Republicans Will Make History' by Ken Mehlman

Last month's narrowly averted plot to blow up airliners bound for the U.S. from Great Britain is a stark reminder that we are engaged in an extraordinary and dangerous global war. In 46 days, the American people will make an important decision about how we prosecute that war: Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?

This war began long before September 11, 2001. For a generation, the terrorists have attacked free nations, from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich to the 444 days that American hostages were held in Iran; from the 1983 Beirut attacks to the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995 and Khobar Towers in 1996; from the embassy attacks in 1998 to bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Too often, free nations responded weakly, or not at all, so the enemy grew emboldened. The result was 9/11.

Now we understand that we face a radical global movement of Islamic fascists, held
together by a totalitarian ideology as deadly as the ones we faced in World War II or the Cold War. This movement ebbs and flows. Its adherents meet in cyberspace instead of buildings. They gather on blogs instead of barracks. A terrorist in Syria can recruit allies in the heart of Europe and a cell leader in Asia can activate an attack in the U.S., all without leaving their homes. That makes this enemy difficult to defeat. They constantly adapt -- so we must as well.

That is why the choice we face on Nov. 7 is so critical. Democratic leaders are saying Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, that we should be more focused on defending the homeland. But again and again, the Democrats have proposed weakening our defenses. We learned on 9/11 the need for coordination between federal, state and local governments; yet the majority of congressional Democrats voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act. The foiled airplane plot re-emphasized the importance of following an enemy whose command and control is often obscure; yet Democrats opposed the NSA surveillance program and praised an activist judge's attempt to shut it down.

We need to aggressively and effectively interrogate captured terrorists in order to stop their plans before they come to fruition; yet Democrats want to handcuff those efforts. Terrorists cannot build IEDs or buy weapons without funding, but when the New York Times disclosed a secret program that was tracking their financing, more than 85% of House Democrats voted against a resolution supporting the program and condemning its media disclosure. We need to stop rogue regimes like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; yet Democrats want to take any use of force off the table.

Even more dangerous is that Democrats truly seem to believe that Iraq is completely separate from the greater war on terror. Al Qaeda's leaders are not confused about the importance of Iraq to their goal of global jihad. Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said his plan is to use Iraq as a base to launch further attacks, with the goal of creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. He wants to turn Iraq into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, except one strategically located between Syria and Iran, and sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of oil. Osama bin Laden himself said that the American withdrawal from Somalia emboldened his movement before 9/11. Imagine the victory celebrations among the terrorists if we were to retreat from Iraq. Yet this is exactly what Howard Dean and a majority of Democrats would have us do. In 46 days, we must ask ourselves, would surrendering Iraq to the enemy make us safer -- or less safe?

Here at home, we are also working to reform government. We live in a global economy, one in which it is just as easy to create jobs in India as it is in Indiana. Republicans understand this, which is why we are committed to lower taxes, less regulation and fewer lawsuits. Republicans have cut taxes every year since George W. Bush was elected president. We have streamlined regulations, reformed bankruptcy laws, offered choice to Medicare recipients, and limited class-action lawsuits. The Democrats opposed every single one of those reforms -- and they are pledging to stand in our way as we move forward.

Republicans want to eliminate the death tax once and for all. Democrats want to bring it back. Republicans want to explore new sources of energy to bring gas and heating prices down. Democrats want to block domestic exploration. Republicans want small businesses to be able to band together to provide health care to their employees at a reasonable price. Democrats don't believe entrepreneurs should have that freedom. Republicans want all parents to have the choice of where they send their kids to school. Democrats would limit that choice to the rich and powerful. The list goes on and on.

It would be foolish not to acknowledge the challenges Republicans face this election cycle. We are up against history. It has been close to a century since Republicans have held the White House and the House of Representatives for eight straight years. Winning four elections in a row doesn't happen that often.

Each election is unique, and the issues and candidates in the governor's race in Michigan are different from congressional races in California or the Senate contest in Tennessee. But there can be no doubt about the national and international import of the choice we all face as Americans. We face war and a changing global economy, and Republicans have very different strategies for victory than the Democrats. I believe the American people understand the choice of 2006, which is why I am confident that in 46 days Republicans will make history and maintain our majorities in Congress.

It’s the typical propaganda we’ve come to expect from the Republicans whenever an election is around the corner and they’re not polling too well. As per usual, it reeks of hypocrisy, irony, and blatant falsehoods. Thankfully, it’s also falling upon an increasing number of skeptical, if not deaf, ears. More and more people are sick of hearing the safety of their families and the security of their country used as campaign rhetoric instead of the underlying reason why the actions of their elected leaders should take precedent over their words.

In the article, Mehlman asks an important question; “Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?” First of all, how do we define “staying on offense?” Is it beginning a war in one country and then undermining its success by preemptively waging an unrelated war in another country before that initial war has been won? That would seem to be a doctrine of staying on the offensive regardless of the opponent.

I would contend that staying on the offensive means aggressively taking the fight to the terrorists, starting with al-Qaeda, without relenting until bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and those responsible for 9/11 were brought to justice. It would also mean implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and ensuring that our military, as well as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the resources they desperately need to capture terrorists and keep America safe. It would also involve an aggressive diplomatic effort to recruit the international coalitions and relationships necessary to wage an effective global war on terrorism. Unfortunately for Mehlman and unfortunately for America, the Republicans have failed badly in each of these regards.

And what are the available tools in fighting the war on terrorism? If it’s torture and unchecked presidential powers, then you should stay the course and vote Republican. Not only have they failed to use every tool to defend America, they have actually decreased the number of tools at our disposal. Poor civilian leadership decisions have dramatically lessened our military deterrent by stretching our under-equipped military dangerously thin. Many of these same decisions have undermined our nation’s credibility around the world which has lessened the diplomatic tools at our disposal, effectively depriving us of the partnerships we need to effectively root out terrorists in every dark corner of the world.

Mehlman and the Republicans also continually claim that we are engaged in a life and death struggle that defines who we are as a nation. At the same time, they refuse to let the military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies fight that war with anything more than a hand tied behind their back. Instead of mobilizing our nation for this epic struggle, they seem content on doing as little as possible... other than waging an all-out publicity war against the French and the liberals, all of whom clearly hate freedom.

Instead of adequately funding our military, homeland security and law enforcement needs, they push through unprecedented wartime tax cut after tax cut for the very people who should be sacrificing most, not least. He even boasts of Republican efforts to repeal a tax on the wealthiest estates in the country; an effort dubbed the "Paris Hilton Tax Cut" that carries a pricetag of at least $700 billion over 10 years. After those tax cuts, it’s a tight budget they claim...that’s why we can’t meet the growing financial needs of a nation fully mobilized for war. Even so, those Republicans are apparently “utilizing every tool” at our disposal to keep us safe.

Instead of providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment they desperately need to complete their mission safely and successfully, they tell them to their face that “you go to war with the Army you have...not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Instead of waging an aggressive and focused war on terror, they commit their biggest sin by diverting much-needed resources and manpower from that effort to wage an unnecessary war based on false premises.

Mehlman later contends that free nations who respond weakly, or not at all, to terrorists will only embolden those terrorists. In pointing out the obvious, he attempts to provide a contrast from the strong Republican (apparently not simply American) response to 9/11. He fails to mention that it’s also probably not overly productive and perhaps a bit emboldening in itself to play directly into the hands of the terrorists; something the War in Iraq has precisely done.

Mehlman provides the enlightening proposition that the new generation of terrorists meet in cyberspace, not buildings; in blogs, not buildings. With this keen understanding of 21st century technology, he surely also understands how a new generation of terrorists has multiplied and intensified so quickly as a result of the very foreign policy he propounds. Yet, he fails to offer solutions, other than stay the course, to the problems he has only helped exacerbate. Instead, he contends that we must adapt just as these terrorists constantly adapt. It’s too bad that failing to adapt to a changing world is a Republican hallmark.

So, to get back to Mehlman’s underlying question… If you support the Republican record on national security, by all means vote Republican in November. I believe it is a clear record in which we’ve diverted necessary attention and resources from our real security priorities, we’ve broken our military, we’ve energized a new generation of terrorists around the world, and we’ve emboldened nations like Iran and North Korea and made them even greater threats to our security and national interests.

If instead you want our nation to wage an aggressive, unrelenting, focused and more successful war on terror without sacrificing the very principles for which generations of Americans have fought and died, then you should tell Ken Mehlman that he’s full of shit and you should give the Democrats a chance to get things done the right way.