Time for Foreign Policy to Get Small Posted by David Shorr

 
Time to downsize our foreign policy aims, apparently. But wait, Greg Scoblete sees a problematic contradiction with the Obama administration's core principles:

Unfortunately, the administration can't "go small" (in Miller's words) if it continues to endorse the idea that only America stands between an orderly world and Hobbesian chaos.

Greg isn't so off-base about the premises of the current FP approach. I couldn't help noticing, though, the undertone of American leadership as self-flattery (nothing gets by me). So what about this threat of chaos? Overdramatic fantasy? Is all this talk about a "just and sustainable international order" really just national security strategy-speak for appointing ourselves as global saviors?

I don't think so. Check my logic here:

1. The biggest items on the agenda -- disequilibrium in the gloobal economy, climate change, and nuclear proliferation -- are on a negative trend line, stemming directly for a shortfall in international cooperation.
2. These items are high on the agenda because the stakes are high and the consequences dire.
3. Diplomatic and political impetus from the United States is a critical factor in spurring a more serious collective international response. We don't have all the answers, but we're taking the questions seriously; if America pulls back, things will continue along their downward slide.

Chaos? Economic imbalances will eventually go completely out of balance. Ten nuclear-armed nations becomes 12, 15, 20... Violent political predators from Sudan to Zimbabwe go unchecked. Oh, and remind me what happens when the global average temperature reaches four plus degrees over pre-industrial levels? I don't think chaos overstates the case.

The real point is that the United States cannot by itself ward off this Hobbesian future. This is an appeal to other governments to join Washington as global leaders who step up to their responsibilities to deal with these challeneges. The test of international cooperation is a test of leadership. (BTW, I am aware of how civics book goody-goody I sound on these rants.)

Of course this begs the question, "what if they gave a shared global leadership and nobody came?" Actually, the FP wonk who's given the best sketch I've read of an incremental way forward is .. Greg Scoblete after last year's Copenhagen climate change conference. Back then I wrote how persuasive I found his this-will-be-a-slog depiction of international cooperation.

Not A Choice Posted by James Lamond

As everyone knows, the roll out of the George W. Bush memoir, Decisions Points, has begun. The Post reports this morning on one part of the book:

Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding [Khalid Sheik] Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was “Damn right” and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book.

What caught my eye on this the most was that Bush – as many others – still think that it is ok to torture in the "ticking time bomb scenario" because they are working under the premise that torture is more effective than traditional methods performed by a skilled interrogator.  But thats not the case, as Ali Soufan, the legendary FBI interrogator who speaks fluent Arabic and who successfully conducted the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah discovering that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the 9/11 mastermind, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year: 

Principals Fan-Out to Urge Ratification of New START Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

As one of the final priorities for the 111th Congress, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty provides Senators—both new and returning—with the opportunity to demonstrate seriousness on an issue that has largely escaped public debate this election cycle:  national security.   

New START has the unanimous support of the United States military.  The treaty reinstates a stringent verification regime that allows U.S. inspectors to once again monitor Russia’s nuclear arsenal.  It has already been 333 days and counting since we’ve had boots on the ground in Russia.  When Congress returns to Washington on November 15, Senators need to respect the advice of our military and national security leadership and ratify this important treaty. 

In the wake of the elections, we’ve already seen a flurry of support for moving ahead with New START:  

After a Cabinet Meeting this morning, President Obama remarked, “I should mention that in addition to those economic issues, there are some things during the lame duck that relate to foreign policy that are going to be very important for us to deal with, and I’ll make mention of one in particular, and that’s the START treaty.  We have negotiated with the Russians significant reductions in our nuclear arms.  This is something that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support.  We’ve got people like George Shultz, who helped to organize arms control treaties with the Russians back when it was the Soviet Union who have come out forcefully in favor of this.

This is not a traditionally Democratic or Republican issue but rather a issue of American national security.  And I am hopeful that we can get that done before we leave and send a strong signal to Russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals, but also sending a signal to the world that we’re serious about nonproliferation.  We’ve made great progress when it comes to sending a message to Iran that they are isolated internationally, in part because people have seen that we are serious about taking our responsibilities when it comes to nonproliferation, and that has to continue.”

Anti-Islam Rhetoric in the Elections: First Take Posted by James Lamond

Abu Aardvark has a great post up about how the anti-Muslim rhetoric played out in this election, and some of the international consequences.  I would like to add to the discussion a quick breakdown of the results of key elections where anti-Muslim rhetoric was front and center:

• Keith Ellison, who was targeted in the campaign by both a group called Americans Against Hate and The Tea Party Nation because “He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza,” won by more than 40 percentage points (67.8% to 24.2%). (Andre Carson, also a Muslim, also won reelection by more than 20 percentage points (58.7% to 37.8%)).
• Sharron Angle, who played the fear card with claims that Sharia has taken over American cities, lost in Nevada.
• Bruce Braley, who was attacked by his opponent (Benjamin Lange) for not opposing the “victory mosque” won by two percentage points (49.5% – 47.6%).
• Nick Rahall, who is Lebanese American and was targeted by the West Virginia Conservative Foundation (WVCF) for his outreach to the Arab-American community, and by his opponent (Spike Maynard) who ran an ad saying donations to Rahall by the National Association of Arab-Americans PAC, the National Muslims for a Better America PAC and the Arab American Leadership PAC amount to “terrorist ties” and that Rahall is “good for the Middle East, bad for America,”  won with 56% of the vote.
• Carl Paladino, who ran ads denouncing the “Ground Zero mosque” lost by over 25 percentage points in the NY governor’s race.
• Illario Pantano, the candidate for North Carolina’s 7th District, who wrote in the Daily Caller that, “the Cordoba Mosque in Spain symbolized a gateway to Muslim conquest of Western Europe – a conquest which today is unfolding in real time,” lost by almost 8 points.

It was not all one sided.  Renee Elmers, from the North Carolina 2nd district, who ran this ad challenging her opponent to take a position on the "victory mosque," won by a slim margin.  More details should come out as the exit poll results come, but reports from North Carolina say that the issue played in the late summer/early fall, but died down as weeks went on.  There was also the ballot initiative in Oklahoma that blocks judges from considering Islamic or international law when making a ruling - a common issue in Oklahoma.

9 Takeaways From Last Night Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at AOLNews, I have a new piece that considers some of the ramifications of what happened last night:

Republicans Won't Shake Up Washington

Last night was a political tsunami, but don't expect things to change overnight in Washington. The GOP ran a brilliant campaign that channeled voter anger. But now the hard part begins. Republicans talked about cutting spending but found it easier to identify the programs they wanted to protect than those they would cut. They railed against growing budget red ink but want to blow a $700 billion hole in the budget by extending the Bush tax cuts and reversing Medicare cuts. They ran on fixing the economy and creating jobs, but by taking government spending off the table have left practically no tools at their disposal to achieve this goal. Finally, by winning the House but losing the Senate, there are few ways for them to force President Barack Obama's hand, except of course shutting down the government. And we all remember how well that worked out for Republicans in 1995.

Of course, if Republicans choose to compromise with the president (which seems to be the preference of a strong majority of voters), they run the very real political risk of alienating their most fervent supporters. 

Other than that, congrats on the win!

Read the whole thing here

America's Misplaced Anger Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at AOLNews, I have a new piece up with some thoughts on Election Day:

The American people are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore. They're tired of billion-dollar bailouts that have bankrupted the country. They are tired of Democratic politicians who are raising their taxes. They are tired of a Congress that has basically done nothing over the past two years.

Come Tuesday, these angry voters are going to shake up Washington, by voting for a Republican Party committed to reversing the failed policies of the Democratic Party. Sounds like a pretty good list of complaints, right?

There's one problem. It's simply wrong.

In reality, bank bailouts have actually turned a healthy multibillion-dollar profit. The economy has expanded over the past five quarters. And since Democrats took control of both Congress and the White House in January 2009, 95 percent of Americans have seen their tax burdens go down. Yet according to a recent Bloomberg poll, Americans (by a 2-to-1 margin) believe the exact opposite

You can read the whole thing here . . . and don't forget to vote!

Les Gelb on the Importance of the Economy for American Power Posted by Jacob Stokes

Les Gelb has a great piece in the new issue of Foreign Affairs. It makes a case that should be obvious to policymakers, one that was obvious up until about Ronald Reagan: that the strength of the U.S. economy underpins American power. Gelb takes that one step further even and says GDP is now more important than military strength.

The piece has a lot of good stuff in it, so read the whole thing (subscription required), but I think the profound parts came mostly in critiques of American national security strategy. Gelb points out that American strategy has essentially ignored the health of the economy and then offers thoughts on how to orient U.S. national security policy to include more consideration of economic factors. Some highlights below.

U.S. strategy ignores economic power.

Having overlooked profound changes in the world, U.S. leaders have done little to modernize their national security strategy. Present U.S. strategy offers too little bang for its buck because there is not enough buck in the strategy. A new way of thinking about U.S. interests and power must aim for a foreign policy fitted to a world in which economic concerns typically -- but not always -- outweigh traditional military imperatives.

How being global guarantor of security has eroded focus on maintaining economic strength.

Reality vs. Spin in Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at Foreign Policy.com I have a new piece up arguing that there is a growing divide between reality and the military spin coming out of Afghanistan:

Today there are two wars taking place in Afghanistan. The first is the war confidently described by the U.S. military: a conflict that according to leading military commanders and even the secretary of defense is "headed in the right direction" and has a "good chance at success." This war is hard but not hopeless; more Afghan soldiers are being trained and an increasing number of Taliban commanders are, as one Western military commander recently put it, "getting an absolute arse-kicking."

But virtually every day there are press reports that speak of another war. It is one defined by rising civilian and military death tolls in a growing number of once-safe regions -- particularly in the north of the country -- now marred by violence and insecurity; government corruption and incompetence that remains as bad as ever; and an increasing sense of fatalism among the Afghan people. In this war, pessimism, not optimism, is the dominant outlook. The problem is that the latter conflict actually seems to be taking place -- while the former seems to be a figment of the military leadership's imagination.

This growing divide is increasingly bringing into question the very credibility of U.S. military statements about military progress in Afghanistan.

Read the whole thing here

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.): The Conservative Defense Myth Posted by Jacob Stokes

NSN Senior Adviser Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton has a piece up today on AOL News about how the post-George H.W. Bush GOP has shown itself incapable of securing America.

Here's the key graph:

Until 1992, one could argue that the Republican Party could fulfill that responsibility. But the establishment and tea party conservatives' recent lurch to the right has distanced Republicans from the more sober foreign policies of Republican presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush. From the War Party's John McCain to the Tea Party's Rand Paul, the right has moved away from the hardheaded pragmatism that helped America win the Cold War and, instead, is pushing us toward a policy of endless, unilateral war.

America deserves civilian leaders who have taken the time to learn about the world we live in, who will send our young men and women to war only to protect American interests, and who will take care of those who serve when they come home.

Read the whole thing here.

"...I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end" Posted by Heather Hurlburt

A couple months ago, I corresponded with NSN's Advisory Board member Ted Sorensen about whether he'd be interested in writing a piece comparing the towering speech on religion JFK made during the 1960 campaign, to counter anti-Catholic bigotry, with the state American Muslims find themselves in today.  Sorensen pointed out to me that the 50th anniversary of the speech passed on September 12.  But I failed to follow up, and now it is too late.  So in tribute I will post the chunk of that speech I think of when I read assertions that Muslims are unfit to serve in Congress, inherently frighteneing, not adherents of a real religion, etc etc.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been -- and may someday be again -- a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice, where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind, and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and the pastoral levels, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Statement by the President on the Passing of Ted Sorensen Posted by The Editors

Statement by the President on the Passing of Ted Sorensen

“I was so saddened to learn that Ted Sorensen passed away.  I got to know Ted after he endorsed my campaign early on. He was just as I hoped he’d be – just as quick-witted, just as serious of purpose, just as determined to keep America true to our highest ideals.

From his early days desegregating a Nebraska pool to his central role electing and advising President Kennedy to his later years as an international lawyer and advocate, Ted lived an extraordinary life that made our country – and our world – more equal, more just, and more secure. Generations of Americans entered public service aspiring to follow in his footsteps.

Even as I mourn his loss, I know his legacy will live on in the words he wrote, the causes he advanced, and the hearts of anyone who is inspired by the promise of a new frontier. My heart goes out to his wife Gillian, his daughter Juliet, his sons, Eric, Stephen, and Philip, and the entire Sorensen family.”

###

The Rise of Free - But Meaningless - Elections Posted by Shadi Hamid

I have a new piece out in Foreign Policy on Arab elections, where I discuss a new and troubling trend: the free but unfair - and rather meaningless - election. You can read it here. Here's a teaser:  

A certain Arab country recently held parliamentary elections. The vote was reasonably free and fair. Turnout was 67 percent, and the opposition won a near majority of the seats -- 45 percent to be exact. Sounds like a model democracy. Yet, rather than suggesting a bold, if unlikely, democratic experiment, Saturday's elections in Bahrain instead reflected a new and troubling trend in the Arab world: the free but unfair -- and rather meaningless -- election.

 Something similar will happen on Nov. 9 in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom is a close U.S. ally that has grown increasingly proficient at predetermining election results without actually rigging them. It involves gerrymandering at a scale unknown in the West and odd electoral engineering (Jordan is one of only three countries in the world that uses something called Single Non Transferable Vote for national elections). Even when the opposition is allowed to win, the fundamentals do not necessarily change. Parliamentary legislation in countries like Jordan and Bahrain, after all, can be blocked by appointed "Upper Houses." And even if that were not the case, the King (or the President) and his ministers -- all appointed -- can also kill any threatening legislation.

As they say, read the whole thing. 

Lt. Gen. Jameson: ICBM shutdown had 'no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces' Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Earlier today, former Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff of U.S. Strategic Command, Lt. General Dirk Jameson, USAF (Ret.), once again reiterated his strong support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and stressed that the computer glitch at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming that took 50 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) temporarily offline was “nothing to be overly concerned about.”

Prior to his STRATCOM assignment, Gen. Jameson commanded the 14,500 men and women of the U.S. 20th Air Force, and was responsible for all U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, seven major subordinate units, operational training, testing, security and readiness. 

On a media conference call convened by the bipartisan American Security Project, Gen. Jameson emphasized that this interruption had “no real bearing on the capabilities of our nuclear forces to carry out their deterrent mission.”  Gen. Jameson further warned against doing “something foolish like not ratifying the New START Treaty because of this isolated event.” 

“I represent a group of retired admirals and generals who, on a nonpartisan basis, have investigated the New START Treaty and believe that it is in our country’s vital interest to see that this treaty is ratified,” Gen. Jameson said. 

The New START Treaty has the “unanimous support of America's military leadership,” including seven former STRATCOM commanders who have assured Senators, "We strongly endorse its early ratification and entry into force."

Despite this strong support, a few Cold War ideologues have attempted to use the F.E. Warren incident as an excuse to oppose New START.  Earlier today, Marc Ambinder reported: 

“The recent failure reinforces the need for the United States to maintain 450 ICBMs to ensure a strong nuclear defense," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). “If new START had been in place on Sunday, we would have immediately been below an acceptable level to deter threats from our enemies.  Before ratifying this treaty, the Senate must ensure we modernize our own nuclear weapons and strengthen our national security.”

Mideast Peace Hoop Jumping Posted by David Shorr

So I got to thinking about the Netanyahu government's demand for Palestinian affirmation of Israel's Jewish nature before a peace deal can be reached. Essential cornerstone for negotiations, or off-putting requirement for the other side to prove its legitimacy? The question of the day isn't the nature of the Israeli state, but the price of admission for Palestinian negotiators just so talks can begin in earnest. What might some analogies be for this situation, I wondered?

A few ideas. Imagine that Sinn Fein in the late-1990s had been required, prior to serious talks, not just to abandon violent insurgency but also to pledge allegiance to the Queen and fly the Union Jack at their offices and events. How about this headline: European Union to Turkey -- "Never Mind Kurdish, French Must be an Official Language."  Or closer to home, what if Senate Republicans demanded amdendment of New START with a commitment to deploy missile defense?

I guess I'm just noting the distinction between negotiation and capitulation. Which ought to be obvious, now that I think of it.

A Tale of Two Wars - Part Two Posted by Michael Cohen

Paula Broadwell today over at Tom Ricks blog:

"We would be the first to caution that victory is not just around the corner," said a senior official in Kabul this week. He also noted that while some members of the media may have rushed to change the narrative from one of 'all is lost' to 'winning is inevitable,' but quickly clarified that "Neither is true."

Huh, I wonder where the media might have gotten the idea that we're winning in Afghanistan?

David Petraeus:

"I think it is arguable, at least, that we are winning.”

Admiral James Stavridis:

After 15 months as the NATO commander for operations globally, with a focus on Afghanistan, I’d say we have a good chance at success in the country.

Maj. Gen. Nick Carter,  the British commander of the NATO coalition forces in southern Afghanistan

"We now have the initiative. We have created momentum,” said Carter, who has overseen the Kandahar operation for the last year. “It is everything put together in terms of the effort that has gone in over the last 18 months and it is undoubtedly having an impact.”

Colonel John Ferrari, deputy commander of the NATO Training Mission Afghanistan:

Ferrari spoke of an “inevitability factor,” in which local security forces, in theory and if trained properly, rise in quantity, skill and state of equipment, sharply tilting the war in the government’s favor.

The Times of London:

"The Taliban are getting an absolute arse-kicking," said one top-level Westerner deeply involved with Operation Ham Kari, the latest big push by US and British forces in Kandahar. "It's been their worst year since 2001-02. We're taking them off the battlefield in industrial numbers. We're convinced that the initiative has really shifted."

The Washington Post:

"There are tectonic shifts going on. There really are," an aide to Petraeus said of the network, also speaking on the condition of anonymity because of lack of authorization. However, the aide added: "Are we at that culminating point where we start to see disintegration? Not yet."

I can only imagine where reporters got the crazy idea that things are turning around in Afghanistan . . .

A Tale of Two Wars Posted by Michael Cohen

A friend was commenting to me this morning that it's become nearly impossible to understand what's happening in Afghanistan today . . . because every news story seems to reflect an agenda-driven leak. 

And right on cue we have these two headlines from the Washington Post . . appearing in the same paper on back-to-back days.

U.S. operations in Kandahar push out Taliban - October 26, 2010

U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn't succeeded - October 27, 2010

How does one understand what's happening in Afghanistan when the same major American newspaper has two articles making diametrically opposite arguments about the status of the war?

Well, here's a helpful hint - try to figure out who is leaking the information. Here's what the more pessimistic story has to say:

An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.

The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Here's the source of the information from the more optimistic story about US military progress:

With 2,000-pound bombs, 12,000 troops, and one illiterate but charismatic Afghan border police commander, the American military has forced insurgents to retreat from key parts of this strategically vital region, according to U.S. and Afghan commanders.

US military commanders on the ground are more optimistic about the situation on the ground than intelligence analysts across the US government. Imagine that! Seriously, who could have seen that one coming?

But if you're still not sure who to trust, consider the other Washington Post article on Afghanistan today:

U.S. and other international development programs in a key Afghan province are "incoherent" and lack mechanisms to avoid wasteful overlap or to monitor their success, according to a new report by government auditors.

This is happening in Nangahar province, which is considered relatively stable (ish), compared to the situation in Kandahar. So one might be able to draw the conclusion that even if the US is making progress in pushing out the Taliban it's going to have a very difficult time maintaining those gains. Ultimately, that should be the corrective to any of these "we're making progress" or "we're killing lots of Taliban" stories - can we hold what we've gained.

So far the evidence on that count is a bit more conclusive. 

Why Democrats Lose on National Security Posted by Michael Cohen

I've been a bit sidetracked in my hopes to blog Bob Woodward's Obama War's - but I would be remiss if I didn't raise attention to this breathtaking quote from Leon Panetta about last fall's Afghanistan review:

He told other principals, "No Democratic President can go against military advice, especially if he asked for it." His own recommendation would be, "So just do it. Do what they say." He repeated to other key White House officials his belief that the matter should have been decided in a week. 

You know, it's almost as if in Leon Panetta's world we don't need a president at all.

Keep in mind, Leon Panetta is not a nobody - he was a Democratic congressman for 16 years, he was Bill Clinton's budget director and his chief of staff, he was part of the Iraq study group and now he runs the CIA. In short, he's a liberal stalwart, a loyal Democrat - in Washington's constricted political culture he is the kind of gray-beard who other Democrats believe has lots of gravitas (a Very Serious Person).

And yet he seems to believe that the party to which he has dedicated his professional life has so little credibility on national security issues that a Democratic president - elected in large measure because of his courageous opposition to the Iraq war - cannot reject the military advice of his generals. Actually he not only can't reject it; he can't even debate it!

We spend a lot of time here at Democracy Arsenal criticizing the foreign policy views (and actions) of Republicans - as we should. But let's be clear: it is precisely attitudes like those expressed by Panetta (one that is widely held by other serious Democratic foreign policy experts) that ensure Democrats consistently lose on national security or even worse, habitually make the wrong decisions on national security. It's a good part of the reason why we haven't had a Democratic Secretary of Defense in 14 years - because Democrats think that they only way they can have credibility on national security is to have their administrations blessed by a Republican  . . . or a guy in a uniform (and right on cue, here is Peter Beinart making the predictable argument for Colin Powell as Obama's next Secretary of Defense).

Fearful of standing up for what they believe in and bolstered by national security me-tooism Democrats have consistently failed to lay out their own national security agenda. So what we have is one party of militarists and fetishizers of American global leadership and another party that is slightly less solicitous of the military and the platitudes of American leadership. Granted, I'm generalizing a bit here; but how Democrats came to see a progressive national security as something that looks a bit more progressive than whatever crazy idea the GOP comes up with is deeply troubling.

It might also be worth remembering that it is precisely toxic attitudes like Panetta's that Barack Obama ran against in his 2008 Democratic primary campaign. Instead of running with the Democratic pack, Obama called the Iraq war what it was - a stupid war. He rejected the notion that Democrats had to act like Republican-lites on national security and foreign policy.

And yet here is his CIA director saying that he "cannot" reject military advice because the political fallout would be too great. I'll tell you what if Barack Obama wants to have a better, more progressive foreign policy . . . perhaps he should find some new aides.

Heather's take on Wikileaks Posted by The Editors

DA blogger and NSN Executive Director Heather Hurlburt has a piece on Wikileaks up on the Huffington Post:

This afternoon's new tranche of Wikileaks seems to add a numbing amount of new, awful detail to what we already knew about the Iraq war. They are a flood on top of a steady, if less headline-grabbing, drip from other sources: Salon's report that an originator of the military's coercive interrogation program was rewarded with a no-bid Pentagon contract, Truthout's reporting on the legal directive intended to cover experimentation or testing of the program on detainees.

The wikileaks "model" has two major demerits: first, it's still wrong to put Iraqi lives at risk and/or release personal details about soldiers and civilians who fought, informed, died or just had the misfortune to live in Iraq over this period. But second, the flood of data makes it harder, not easier, to see the patterns that we still need to learn from this misbegotten war. And the sheer, accumulated horror of it will accelerate the pace at which some Americans will turn away from wanting to learn anything at all.

Full piece after the jump.

The Neocon New START Whip Posted by Jacob Stokes

In a show of dedication to the two-front war doctrine, neoconservative thought leaders gave three warning shots to the rest of the Republican establishment yesterday. Those shots are a message to get in line on opposing the New START treaty – the second front in the GOP’s internecine war, with the first being the defense budget. Unlike the defense budget though, on New START the neocons are mainly battling the old-line Cold War establishment and senior military leaders.

The three warnings shot are three pieces in the Washington Times, one each from Frank Gaffney, the team of John Bolton and Paula DeStutter and a news piece by reporter/columnist Bill Gertz. Frank Gaffney’s piece, as one might expect, trots out a bunch of discredited conservative arguments against New START with no substance or quotes to back them up. Bolton and DeStutter’s piece is similarly weak on the substance, twisting the facts to try to say the Obama administration is actually responsible for the gap in verification of the Russian nuclear arsenal, which, because of Republican obstinacy and stalling, has gone on for 319 days as I write this sentence. (It’s worthy of note though, they’re careful not to say New START’s verification measures are worthless.) The third piece posits that the Obama administration is secretly negotiating a missile defense agreement with Russia – again, no evidence but a useful rumor in the runup to an election.

The fact that these pieces don’t have substance doesn’t matter much to this bunch. They’re not too worried about the substance. What they’re trying to do is prevent the rest of the party – specifically, old guard Republicans such as Robert Gates, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, as well as some of the saner of today’s crop such as Richard Lugar – from allowing President Obama to get a win on New START or any other foreign policy issue, even if it’s clearly in American security interests. They do that by providing arguments that could be true, even if they’re clearly not.

The Military's Latest Afghan Offensive - Operation Enduring Conflict Posted by Michael Cohen

So it seems the latest US military offensive has begun both in Afghanistan and here in the United States - Operation Enduring Conflict. And like so many other military offensives it promises to be a smashing success - in continuing US military involvement in Afghanistan.

It began over the weekend, with a shock and war-style attack that left critics of the conflict dazed and bloodied. In the Washington Post:

"Top U.S. military and civilian officials in Afghanistan have begun to assert that they see concrete progress in the war against the Taliban, a sharp departure from earlier assessments that the insurgency had the momentum. Despite growing numbers of Taliban attacks and American casualties, U.S. officials are building their case for why they are on the right track, ahead of the December war review ordered by President Obama."  

This massive public relations bombardment was bolstered with a series of behind the lines operations that sought to strike at NATO's soft underbelly. 

From the Times of London:

"The Taliban are getting an absolute arse-kicking," said one top-level Westerner deeply involved with Operation Ham Kari, the latest big push by US and British forces in Kandahar. "It's been their worst year since 2001-02. We're taking them off the battlefield in industrial numbers. We're convinced that the initiative has really shifted."

The Montreal Gazette:

The feeling among Canadians and American soldiers fighting in this corner of the country is that the principal reason some Taliban are keen to talk is that the enemy has been getting crushed on the battlefield since a huge surge in U.S. forces finally kicked in this summer. Even a few members of the Western media who have been notoriously dubious about the war may slowly be changing their minds.

The enemy was pushed back on its heels. "Wait a minute," they cried. Civilian casualties are way up . . . the North is getting worse . . . the ANSF can't fight its way out of a paper bag . . . the insurgency is maturing and getting more effective . . . even the White House thinks things are going badly . . . your one "success" Marjah is anything but.

What Is PJ Crowley Possibly Thinking? Posted by Michael Cohen

One of the most difficult parts of chronicling the US war in Afghanistan is keeping track of some of the utterly head-scratching, divorced from reality statements that come out of the mouths of US military officers and diplomats.

Yesterday's statement from State Department spokesmen PJ Crowley about political reconciliation in Afghanistan is a quintessential example of this phenomenon:

The United States said Thursday it cannot see Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar meeting criteria for peace talks with the Afghan government and playing a constructive role in Afghanistan's future.

US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Taliban foot-soldiers and leaders could participate in Afghanistan's future if they renounce violence, cut ties with Al-Qaeda and support the Afghan constitution. But he doubted the opportunity would be seized by Mullah Omar, the Taliban's one-eyed leader who is believed to be hiding in Pakistan and who, the Washington Post said last week, backs secret high-level peace talks with Kabul.

"From our view, Mullah Omar has been attached at the hip to bin Laden for some time. So, based on everything that we know about him today, in fact he will not meet the criteria that we have laid out," Crowley told reporters. "He had many opportunities during the '90s and even after 9/11 to disassociate himself from Osama bin Laden. He chose not to," Crowley said.

"So you know, there's nothing that we see that indicates that Mullah Omar will, in fact, change his stripes. As a result, we don't see that he qualifies to play a constructive role in Afghanistan's future."

Perhaps my favorite part about Crowley's statement is the notion that the Taliban won't show they are serious about peace talks if they don't, "renounce violence, cut ties with Al-Qaeda and support the Afghan constitution." So apparently the State Department now defines "seriousness" as surrender. And this by the way is the diplomatic agency of the world's most powerful country.

COIN Is Dead! Long Live Another Poorly-Conceived Military Strategy Posted by Michael Cohen

Fred Kaplan notices something about that whole COIN strategy in Afghanistan - it ain't working and the US military is moving on:

Officials say a shift in U.S. war strategy has begun to take place in Afghanistan, away from classic counterinsurgency (protecting the population, providing basic services, promoting good government) and toward the traditional business of killing and capturing bad guys.

U.S. and NATO officers, intelligence analysts, and other officials and advisers now believe that our objectives in the Afghanistan war can no longer be accomplished in sufficiently short time through COIN alone or even through a COIN-dominant strategy.

Under classic COIN strategy, this process would take place slowly but steadily, as the presence of security forces and the supply of basic services boost popular allegiance to the Afghan government, which in turn dries up the base of support for the insurgents.

However, it is now calculated, even by many COIN advocates, that this process would take too long—and be too corrupted by Afghan politics—to work in any practical sense.

In any case, the time needed for success through a COIN campaign alone—another six to 10 years, or more, the strategy's most avid supporters estimate—is seen as politically unsustainable.

As for Afghan politics, COIN can succeed only by, with, and through the host government U.S. troops in a COIN operation are—and advertise themselves to be—fighting on behalf of the host government. And yet, by all official accounts, Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government is so distrusted by its own people—and so incompetent at (or uninterested in) providing services—that it cannot really serve as a reliable partner in a COIN campaign.

It's really hard to describe how maddening it is to read something like this in October 2010, when throughout the Summer and Fall of 2009 it was the exact argument made by COIN opponents as to why a COIN operation was not going to work in Afghanistan. Now it appears after basically wasting a year and a half of trying to out governance the Taliban we've realized that . . . guess what population-centric COIN can't work in Afghanistan.

Green Epiphany: Media Notices Energy Security Posted by Jacob Stokes

Just in the last couple of weeks it seems the media has finally gotten the message on energy security, at least the logistical piece of it. The attacks on NATO oil tankers sparked most this conversation, which prompted a follow up story in the Times:

Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment.

Piling on, Jim Arkedis of PPI wrapped it all together this morning in the LA Times, with a piece that linked the tanker attacks in Pakistan with the fact that the USS Cole, which was bombed 10 years ago this week, was on a 24-hour refuel when it was hit. Arkedis’s point is that a decade after the Cole, we still haven’t gotten the message.

Though the lessons from 9/11 will be debated for years, [the Cole bombing’s] message is succinct. It is best summed up by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway: "Energy choices can save lives on the battlefield." The armed forces are searching for next-generation green energy technologies because they provide power at the point of its consumption, which decreases the military's need to resupply with carbon-based fuels.

Arkedis offers a fix: an innovation fund in the Pentagon to speed up the development of more energy-efficient technologies. Tom Friedman made a similar point in his column this week, although his focus was funding on the civilian side. Either way – and it can be either way because most energy-saving techniques developed by the military will have obvious practical civilians uses, and vice versa – finding solutions for saving energy is essential, both for national security and economic competition.

Not Such Magical Thinking About Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at the New Republic, I have a new piece about the situation in Afghanistan based on my recent travels there. It offers a slightly different take than what you might be hearing from other think tankers and the folks at ISAF:

Arriving in Kabul the first thing that hits you is the aura and aroma of dust. It covers the capital city in a hazy sheen and, more to the point, in a distinct and powerful odor. Considering that Kabul reportedly has one of the highest percentages of atmospheric fecal matter in the world it's the sort of smell that, at least initially, strikes you in the face.

It offers a useful preview of the more powerful smack of gloom that seems so evident in Afghanistan today. Among the many local and international journalists, NGO officials, analysts, and political leaders that I spoke to during a recent visit to Afghanistan, there was a pervasive sense of fatalism about the country’s future and the U.S. war effort (the lone exception to this consensus being the ever-optimistic U.S. military). Worse, none of those I talked with seem to know what to do about it.

The dire security situation colors everything. When I mentioned to one NGO official that things in the country's south and east had worsened, he quickly corrected me: "Security is bad everywhere." And it's true. Roads that were safe a year or even six months ago are now considered too dangerous to travel. The south and east—the heart of the Taliban insurgency—has become a complete no-go zone. And even once relatively secure northern provinces like Kunduz, Nangarhar, Takhar, and parts of Badakhshan are reaching their own tipping points—pushed by insurgents and straightforward banditry.

The northern province of Balkh, home to the provincial capital of Mazar-i-Sharif, (where I worked as an election monitor during recent legislative elections) generally has been considered one of the country’s safest. But even in Balkh there were persistent reports of Taliban activity and districts now considered off-limits. Just recently, a suicide attack was reported on the road between Mazar and Balkh, killing one person and injuring more than two dozen. Not so long ago, such an assault would have been unimaginable.

Read the whole thing here.

 

More Magical Thinking on Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

Michael O'Hanlon on the situation in Afghanistan - October 6, 2010

"Afghanistan remains a tough fight, but at least three-quarters of the country - starting with bustling Kabul, extending into most of the north and west and including parts of the east - is either in reasonably promising shape or improving," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank who just returned from a trip to Afghanistan.

And in other news in Northern Afghanistan - October 8, 2010

In an audacious attack, insurgents assassinated the governor of Kunduz Province on Friday by bombing the mosque where he attended the weekly Friday Prayer, according to Afghan officials.

The bomb blast killed 12 people and wounded 33 at the main mosque in Taliqan, the capital of Takhar Province, which borders Kunduz.

The assassination underscored the growing capability of the insurgency in northern Afghanistan, which has become increasingly unstable over the past year. Mr. Omar was the third government official in the past two months to be assassinated in the region. In August and September, district governors were killed in Kunduz and Baghlan Provinces.

In Western Afghanistan - October 9, 2010:

Four Italian soldiers were killed and one seriously wounded in an insurgent attack in western Afghanistan on Saturday . . .

Italy has more than 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, mainly deployed in the western part of the country that is usually less violent than other areas in the south and the east.