From Joe Quinn via the Tom Ricks blog:
"Al Qaeda murdered my brother Jimmy nine years ago...My brother Jimmy worked on the 101st floor. Not a single remnant of my brother would be recovered.
...Due to my emotions (and engineering classes), I barely graduated West Point in the spring of 2002...Nine years after my brother's death..I am currently contributing to the fight here in Afghanistan.
I have recounted the last nine years of my life because my journey through these wars has been similar to yours. You were devastated by the events of 9/11. You wanted revenge, or at least some sort of justice, where you supported the invasion of Afghanistan. You were sidetracked by the Iraq War in 2003 and then again by the Iraq "Surge" in 2007. Nine years after 9/11, you are tired of war, but finally find your blood and treasure in Afghanistan.
My greatest fear is that we will lose the Afghan war because of the Iraq war. The American people are tired of war mostly due to the painful doldrums brought on by the Iraq campaign. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) also siphoned resources and attention away from Afghanistan, allowing an insurgency to rise and for the U.S. to never fully realize a plan for winning. What is winning? Winning is achieving irreversible momentum towards a stable Afghanistan, free from Taliban control, which will never serve as a base for terrorism.
After nine years of neglecting the Afghan war, we finally have a plan for winning, with the right resources, the right leadership and the right programs. At the end of August, the last of the 30,000 additional U.S. troops are finally in place. Undoubtedly, these additional troops will clear and hold large swaths of Taliban strongholds.
In General Petraeus, we also have the right leadership to orchestrate the Afghan war. Saying that General Petraeus will not make a difference in Afghanistan is like saying Michael Jordan would not make a difference in Chicago after coming out of retirement in 1994. Eventually the team will improve.
The right programs in Afghanistan have only just begun. General Petraeus made an immediate impact by partnering with President Karzai to begin the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program that will leverage local Afghans to provide village-level security. The Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) is another concept that has just been ratified, where the effects of the program will only truly be felt in the months ahead. The right resources, leadership and programs in Afghanistan have just begun. Winning the Afghan war has just begun.
So after nine years, why are we still in Afghanistan? For me it's still simple. The men that killed my brother on 9/11 were five of 20,000 terrorists trained by Al Qaeda in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban's return to power in Afghanistan will only embolden Al Qaeda even more to perpetrate terrorist attacks like on 9/11. It's easy to forget the connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 after all this time. For me, it's impossible to forget. Perhaps remembering is the luxury of my family's tragedy.
In the end, I do not want revenge anymore. The truth is that the perpetrators that murdered my brother died that same day. I now have a new goal: to leave Afghanistan. To leave Afghanistan as a stable country, free from Taliban control, which will never serve as a base for terrorism.
Joe Quinn currently works in Afghanistan as a Counterinsurgency Advisor for the International Security Assistance Force's (ISAF's) Counterinsurgency Assistance and Advisory Team (CAAT). He graduated in May from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."
Ricks Foreign Policy
Showing posts with label Tom Ricks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tom Ricks. Show all posts
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Things Do Not Have To Be So Complicated
TW:...and it certainly is not the progressives holding this up...
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Here's a sensible note from a young Navy submarine officer who says he is writing because he wants people to understand that the obstacle to being openly gay in the military lies is Congress, not in the uniformed military:
'The debate may exist in the media, and certainly exists in Congress, but on the ship, if it's talked about at all it with a little bit of confusion about what the big deal is. Don't get me wrong, there is homophobia and there are a few loud, mostly uneducated, mostly very junior, and mostly still well-meaning people who would tell you they think its wrong -- but they're the kind of people who are just saying it because its what they were brought up to say, and even they aren't saying it with much fervor. I can tell you with certainty that if the ban were lifted tomorrow -- no year of preparation -- life would go on exactly as it did before....
Life would go on. Mostly what I heard after Admiral Mullen's declaration was, "it's about time." There is no question if the military is ready -- the military is waiting.
... I just want the press to understand that it is the Congress that needs pushing, not the military, and that excuses such as "senior military officials like the CJCS and SecDef are out of touch with the low-level, young guys on the ground" may be true on many issues, but not this one.'
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/04/openly_gay_soldiers_and_sailors_the_view_from_a_navy_submarine
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Here's a sensible note from a young Navy submarine officer who says he is writing because he wants people to understand that the obstacle to being openly gay in the military lies is Congress, not in the uniformed military:
'The debate may exist in the media, and certainly exists in Congress, but on the ship, if it's talked about at all it with a little bit of confusion about what the big deal is. Don't get me wrong, there is homophobia and there are a few loud, mostly uneducated, mostly very junior, and mostly still well-meaning people who would tell you they think its wrong -- but they're the kind of people who are just saying it because its what they were brought up to say, and even they aren't saying it with much fervor. I can tell you with certainty that if the ban were lifted tomorrow -- no year of preparation -- life would go on exactly as it did before....
Life would go on. Mostly what I heard after Admiral Mullen's declaration was, "it's about time." There is no question if the military is ready -- the military is waiting.
... I just want the press to understand that it is the Congress that needs pushing, not the military, and that excuses such as "senior military officials like the CJCS and SecDef are out of touch with the low-level, young guys on the ground" may be true on many issues, but not this one.'
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/04/openly_gay_soldiers_and_sailors_the_view_from_a_navy_submarine
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Made No Sense Then Makes No Sense Now
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Hats off to Army Maj. Gen. George Davis, who vigorously objected to waterboarding and other forms of torture. He wrote that:
'No modern state, which is a party to international law, can sanction, either expressly or by a silence which imports consent, a resort to torture with a view to obtain confessions, as an incident to its military operations. If it does, where is the line to be drawn? If the ‘water cure' is ineffective, what shall be the next step? Shall the victim be suspended, head down, over the smoke of a smouldering fire; she he be tightly bound and dropped from a distance of several feet; shall he be beaten with rods; shall his shins be rubbed with a broomstick until they bleed?'
Fwiw, General Davis made that comment in September 1902, when he was the senior lawyer in the Army. He is quoted in the new, Winter 2010 issue of Army History magazine.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/30/army_general_no_to_torture
"Hats off to Army Maj. Gen. George Davis, who vigorously objected to waterboarding and other forms of torture. He wrote that:
'No modern state, which is a party to international law, can sanction, either expressly or by a silence which imports consent, a resort to torture with a view to obtain confessions, as an incident to its military operations. If it does, where is the line to be drawn? If the ‘water cure' is ineffective, what shall be the next step? Shall the victim be suspended, head down, over the smoke of a smouldering fire; she he be tightly bound and dropped from a distance of several feet; shall he be beaten with rods; shall his shins be rubbed with a broomstick until they bleed?'
Fwiw, General Davis made that comment in September 1902, when he was the senior lawyer in the Army. He is quoted in the new, Winter 2010 issue of Army History magazine.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/30/army_general_no_to_torture
Friday, December 4, 2009
Armitage on AfPak
TW: Armitage was a foreign policy advisor for several Republicans, close to Colin Powell and then blown out with Powell, as he was no friend of Cheney. His insight on AfPak seem highly relevant though.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"Richard Armitage is an unusual guy in Washington -- both candid and well-spoken...he has given an interesting interview to Prism...new publication at the National Defense University.
Some highlights:
At first, the U.S. government was able to keep Pakistani intelligence from meddling in Afghanistan. "The second surprise was frankly how successful we were for the first 4 years-almost 5 years-at keeping the ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence] relatively out of it. They were so shocked with the speed at which we invaded Afghanistan that I think the ISI felt it was only a matter of time until we prevailed." Armitage's timeline here suggests to me that Afghanistan started really falling apart when the ISI went back in. That's an interesting conclusion
He says Bush and his war cabinet never formally considered whether to invade Iraq. "Never to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, 'Should we do this or not?' He never did it."
The Bush administration didn't understand democracy and how to encourage it. "The Bush administration's push for votes as though voting equals democracy was wrong-headed because a vote is something that happens inside a democracy, but is not necessary for a democracy. You can have a democratic system without having people raise their hands and have a secret ballot. Loya jirgas to some extent are these."
He believes Bush administration actions undercut the American position abroad. "It's harder and made more complex when we abuse the writ of habeas corpus here or when we torture people."
Reading he recommends, and why: "Have you read the novels of Naguib Mahfouz? They're great, and through them all you get a couple of things, I think. First, the good humor of Egyptians; they have enormous good humor. Second, patience and long suffering, but you realize that at some point in time you can't joke something away. You can't outwait it. I would be afraid the tipping point is going to come, and particularly now that the strategic center of gravity in the Middle East has shifted to Riyadh and away from Cairo."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/armitage_on_pakistan_s_spies_bush_s_errors_egypt_s_novels
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"Richard Armitage is an unusual guy in Washington -- both candid and well-spoken...he has given an interesting interview to Prism...new publication at the National Defense University.
Some highlights:
At first, the U.S. government was able to keep Pakistani intelligence from meddling in Afghanistan. "The second surprise was frankly how successful we were for the first 4 years-almost 5 years-at keeping the ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence] relatively out of it. They were so shocked with the speed at which we invaded Afghanistan that I think the ISI felt it was only a matter of time until we prevailed." Armitage's timeline here suggests to me that Afghanistan started really falling apart when the ISI went back in. That's an interesting conclusion
He says Bush and his war cabinet never formally considered whether to invade Iraq. "Never to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, did the President ever sit around with his advisors and say, 'Should we do this or not?' He never did it."
The Bush administration didn't understand democracy and how to encourage it. "The Bush administration's push for votes as though voting equals democracy was wrong-headed because a vote is something that happens inside a democracy, but is not necessary for a democracy. You can have a democratic system without having people raise their hands and have a secret ballot. Loya jirgas to some extent are these."
He believes Bush administration actions undercut the American position abroad. "It's harder and made more complex when we abuse the writ of habeas corpus here or when we torture people."
Reading he recommends, and why: "Have you read the novels of Naguib Mahfouz? They're great, and through them all you get a couple of things, I think. First, the good humor of Egyptians; they have enormous good humor. Second, patience and long suffering, but you realize that at some point in time you can't joke something away. You can't outwait it. I would be afraid the tipping point is going to come, and particularly now that the strategic center of gravity in the Middle East has shifted to Riyadh and away from Cairo."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/armitage_on_pakistan_s_spies_bush_s_errors_egypt_s_novels
Friday, October 23, 2009
Come On Already With Cuba
TW: Obama has slightly loosened our restrictions on Cuba but has extended the official embargo. The tiny minority of reactionary Cuban-Americans; tired, old anti-commies and probably a fair number of competitors for potential Cuban imports (perhaps the very powerful sugar lobby) continue to thwart America's greater national interests.
From Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes via Tom Rick's blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security... What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough. While these relaxed restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States.
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized...the undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn;
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone. The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative...
We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed. These 50 years have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States.
...A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives. The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious. It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis-à-vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors. Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our 50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/23/marine_colonel_drop_the_cuba_embargo
From Marine Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes via Tom Rick's blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"The Obama administration's decision to extend the U.S. economic trade embargo on Cuba for an additional year is detrimental to our national and regional security... What is most perplexing is the fact that earlier this summer the Obama administration decided to relax some of the regulations regarding personal travel and personal money transfers from Cuban-Americans to their relatives in Cuba, as well as telecommunication exchanges between private U.S. and state-run Cuban companies: all are steps in the right direction for U.S. interests - but are not enough. While these relaxed restrictions are certainly a step forward in normalizing relations, these steps do not outweigh the heavy diplomatic, information, and economic influence of Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Russia, India, and Iran, all of whom support the Cuban government and all of whom seek to be peer competitors with the United States.
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to retard regional security and stability, and further serve to erode our influence in the Americas at a time when U.S. credibility is globally scrutinized...the undeniably ineffective embargo will continue to halt progress at every turn;
...the U.S. unilateral embargo will continue to encourage Cuba to partner with Russia, China, and Brazil for off-shore oil and natural gas exploration within the shared U.S. and Cuban economic exclusion zone. The U.S. embargo will continue to endear many of the poor Caribbean and Central American nations to the Chavez Venezuelan PetroCaribe initiative...
We must face the facts: the U.S. efforts to isolate and force a regime change in Cuba for nearly half a century have failed. These 50 years have successfully driven Cuba to aggressively seek support elsewhere, as is evident in their forming and fostering diplomatic ties, seeking infrastructure support, establishing military liaisons, and accepting economic support from every government in the Americas - to include Canada - with the exception of the United States.
...A less adversarial tone with Cuba will reestablish much needed dialogue in the region and help address shared national border security vulnerabilities, transnational and regional crime consortiums, and environmental and ecological initiatives. The necessity for the Obama administration to lift the U.S. economic embargo is painfully obvious. It would enhance the region's security, promote economic prosperity, establish shared environmental regulations, and help re-establish our credibility and leadership vis-à-vis some of our most prominent global allies and competitors. Lastly, let's ask ourselves, "Has our 50 year embargo brought Cuba any closer to democracy, or have we denied the Cubans an opportunity to see the best that our free and democratic society offers?"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/23/marine_colonel_drop_the_cuba_embargo
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Effective COIN Takes the Right Resources Not Just More
TW: In a bit of an antidote to the pessimism of yesterday's post on COIN in AfPak, we do appear to be making some progress in aligning our resources with the challenges of properly executing a COIN strategy. Obviously the question becomes can we align our resources quickly enough to be effective. The challenge (as always) is not really whether we have enough resources but do we have the right resources. Folks speak to the softer COIN aspects (e.g. translators, cultural knowledge, engineers etc.) frequently yet our build-out of those resources even after decades of banging our heads against the wall in Vietnam, Iraq, AfPak and elsewhere; we seemingly refuse or struggle to develop enough of these resources. Asking a 20 year old kid to become a sophisticated COIN operator is asking much.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"Here's a comment from Cpl. Nicole Zook, who has been involved in training Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan. Phrases in this note about training such as "I put them through the wringer" go a long way toward explaining why these FETs seem to work. I'm impressed.
'I have trained female Marines for the FET teams here and participated in them, as well as participating in both Lioness-type search teams and women's engagement and medical teams in Iraq. The women who volunteer for these teams - and it is a volunteer effort - are some of the most physically and mentally strong, intelligent women the Marine Corps has to offer. They are also some of the most caring.
After finishing my tour of duty doing security missions in Iraq, I volunteered to train any willing Marines from my unit to prepare for the FET missions here in Afghanistan. There were ten. I put them through the wringer and held them all to an exceptionally high standard in their training. I ensured that they were well trained for the physical demands of combat missions, including crew-served weapons training, fighting, and self-defense; the mental demands of being a female attached to an all-male unit (there are plenty) and maintaining decorum among the sometimes unruly and rude men; and intensive cultural, language, psychology, and communication training to prepare them for interacting with the Afghan women. The Marines loved every minute of their training, even when I ran them into the ground, and asked for more. They are better trained than some of their male counterparts and they are participating in the program for all the right reasons.
These young ladies understand that through the FETs, they are being given the opportunity to make a connection and make a difference with Afghan women. Many times I see male Marines come to the Middle East with the attitude that everyone here is an enemy, and killing is the only answer. The FET volunteers care about the people of Afghanistan, and Iraq, as individuals, on a human level, with no preformed prejudice. That is why the program works so well. FETs go in with the right attitude, and the people know this. They are instantly welcoming, and we can see the difference we make among the women and children of Afghanistan firsthand - and we know that, in turn, they are making a difference among the nation's men through their family connections.
The powers that be are calling for more troops in Afghanistan. I agree, wholeheartedly. But let them be the right kind of troops. What we need, more than just bodies, are EOD technicians, able-bodied interpreters, counterintelligence specialists, and FET volunteers. Lots and lots of FET volunteers.
Sincerely,
Cpl Nicole M. ZookHelmand Province, Afghanistan"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/women_in_coin_iii_the_view_from_helmand
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"Here's a comment from Cpl. Nicole Zook, who has been involved in training Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan. Phrases in this note about training such as "I put them through the wringer" go a long way toward explaining why these FETs seem to work. I'm impressed.
'I have trained female Marines for the FET teams here and participated in them, as well as participating in both Lioness-type search teams and women's engagement and medical teams in Iraq. The women who volunteer for these teams - and it is a volunteer effort - are some of the most physically and mentally strong, intelligent women the Marine Corps has to offer. They are also some of the most caring.
After finishing my tour of duty doing security missions in Iraq, I volunteered to train any willing Marines from my unit to prepare for the FET missions here in Afghanistan. There were ten. I put them through the wringer and held them all to an exceptionally high standard in their training. I ensured that they were well trained for the physical demands of combat missions, including crew-served weapons training, fighting, and self-defense; the mental demands of being a female attached to an all-male unit (there are plenty) and maintaining decorum among the sometimes unruly and rude men; and intensive cultural, language, psychology, and communication training to prepare them for interacting with the Afghan women. The Marines loved every minute of their training, even when I ran them into the ground, and asked for more. They are better trained than some of their male counterparts and they are participating in the program for all the right reasons.
These young ladies understand that through the FETs, they are being given the opportunity to make a connection and make a difference with Afghan women. Many times I see male Marines come to the Middle East with the attitude that everyone here is an enemy, and killing is the only answer. The FET volunteers care about the people of Afghanistan, and Iraq, as individuals, on a human level, with no preformed prejudice. That is why the program works so well. FETs go in with the right attitude, and the people know this. They are instantly welcoming, and we can see the difference we make among the women and children of Afghanistan firsthand - and we know that, in turn, they are making a difference among the nation's men through their family connections.
The powers that be are calling for more troops in Afghanistan. I agree, wholeheartedly. But let them be the right kind of troops. What we need, more than just bodies, are EOD technicians, able-bodied interpreters, counterintelligence specialists, and FET volunteers. Lots and lots of FET volunteers.
Sincerely,
Cpl Nicole M. ZookHelmand Province, Afghanistan"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/women_in_coin_iii_the_view_from_helmand
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Where Do We Stand In Iraq?
TW: This Ricks Q&A with the Economist frames my views on Iraq fairly well. Putting aside whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place (a huge assumption for the sake of discussion), how do things look since the "surge" in 2007. Has the surge achieved much other than providing an "honorable" means by which the U.S. reduces its presence? Was there value in delaying the inevitable fight amidst the various ethnics in Iraq perhaps. There was also a cost in American blood and treasure.
From Economist:
"DIA: You say the "surge" strategy in Iraq "succeeded tactically but failed strategically". What do you mean by that?
Mr Ricks: The surge achieved its military or tactical goal of improving security. But its stated goal was the larger, strategic one of creating a breathing space in which a political breakthrough could occur. No such breakthrough occurred. As General Odierno says in "The Gamble", we created a space, but some Iraqi leaders used it to move backward.
...all the major political questions that vexed Iraq before the surge are still there: How to share oil revenue. The relationship between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a weak confederation. All of these questions have led to violence in the past, and are likely to again. Don't take it from me—take it from the former mayor of Tal Afar, who recently said that all the ingredients for civil war remain present in Iraq. The only element in the equation that is changing is that as US troop numbers go down, American influence will wane.
DIA: How much of the success of the surge was due to the change in American tactics, and how much to the change in attitude on the part of the Iraqis (ie, the Anbar awakening)?
Mr Ricks: Both were major ingredients. A third important factor was a new American attitude—a new humility, a sudden willingness to listen to Iraqis and even to those considered enemies, and even to put 100,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll. A fourth was the fact that by the time the American approach changed, the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad was completed.
DIA: You've written a series of blog posts titled, "Iraq the unraveling", that you describe as "a running commentary about what is unfolding every day before our very eyes". What needs to happen to stop this process of unraveling and how much of the burden falls on American troops in the country?
Mr Ricks: I don’t know what needs to happen to lead to political change, but I doubt the answer is a military one. The role the American troops play now is kind of a referee, to prevent civil war from breaking out again, and to try to make sure that Iraqi soldiers and police treat Iraqi civilians decently. I do worry that the plan to bring troop numbers down swiftly next year (2010) will erode the ability of the Americans to carry out those two missions."
From Economist:
"DIA: You say the "surge" strategy in Iraq "succeeded tactically but failed strategically". What do you mean by that?
Mr Ricks: The surge achieved its military or tactical goal of improving security. But its stated goal was the larger, strategic one of creating a breathing space in which a political breakthrough could occur. No such breakthrough occurred. As General Odierno says in "The Gamble", we created a space, but some Iraqi leaders used it to move backward.
...all the major political questions that vexed Iraq before the surge are still there: How to share oil revenue. The relationship between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a weak confederation. All of these questions have led to violence in the past, and are likely to again. Don't take it from me—take it from the former mayor of Tal Afar, who recently said that all the ingredients for civil war remain present in Iraq. The only element in the equation that is changing is that as US troop numbers go down, American influence will wane.
DIA: How much of the success of the surge was due to the change in American tactics, and how much to the change in attitude on the part of the Iraqis (ie, the Anbar awakening)?
Mr Ricks: Both were major ingredients. A third important factor was a new American attitude—a new humility, a sudden willingness to listen to Iraqis and even to those considered enemies, and even to put 100,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll. A fourth was the fact that by the time the American approach changed, the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad was completed.
DIA: You've written a series of blog posts titled, "Iraq the unraveling", that you describe as "a running commentary about what is unfolding every day before our very eyes". What needs to happen to stop this process of unraveling and how much of the burden falls on American troops in the country?
Mr Ricks: I don’t know what needs to happen to lead to political change, but I doubt the answer is a military one. The role the American troops play now is kind of a referee, to prevent civil war from breaking out again, and to try to make sure that Iraqi soldiers and police treat Iraqi civilians decently. I do worry that the plan to bring troop numbers down swiftly next year (2010) will erode the ability of the Americans to carry out those two missions."
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
We Do Not Need To Torture
TW: Ricks cites a U.S. Army magazine piece on torture (the piece is linked below). We can walk and chew gum at the same time- secure our country whilst obeying the rule of our own laws.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"...in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture. Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:
'President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.'
In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said."
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09summer/wahlquist.pdf
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy mag:
"...in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture. Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:
'President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.'
In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said."
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/09summer/wahlquist.pdf
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Woof Woof
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"I have a lot of sympathy for people carrying around Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It sucks.
But now I see where a former spokesman for the British ministry of defense says he has post-traumatic stress disorder from telling so many lies about the Iraq war. Really? If that were really the case, I'd expect to see the sidewalks of Washington crowded with former Bushies gone barking mad.
Hey, look out the window ..."
"I have a lot of sympathy for people carrying around Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It sucks.
But now I see where a former spokesman for the British ministry of defense says he has post-traumatic stress disorder from telling so many lies about the Iraq war. Really? If that were really the case, I'd expect to see the sidewalks of Washington crowded with former Bushies gone barking mad.
Hey, look out the window ..."
Real Government Waste
From Tom Ricks:
"Stories like this...drive me nuts. The Afghan army is "hard to train." Why? Because the soldiers are illiterate. Pop quiz: How many of the Spartans at Thermopalye were literate? One reason armies have had officers is to ensure that for every 100 or so soldiers, there is someone who can decipher a map and read orders.
'U.S. Maj. Gen. Richard Formica, who is in charge of training both soldiers and police, says the high illiteracy rate is not a "show-stopper."
However, he added that illiteracy "particularly becomes a challenge for those recruits that we want to advance to become noncommissioned officers, because the higher you get in rank and responsibility, the more expectation there is that you can read and write at some basic level."
... To overcome the problem for the Afghan army, a private company, Pulau Electronics of Orlando, Fla., has been hired to run a program that aims to make 50 percent of the troops "functionally literate," within the first year of the program.
"The target is for them to be able to write their name and their weapon's serial number," said Joe Meglan, 39, of Savannah, Ga., who works for Pulau.'
The average private soldier in Afghanistan does not need to be literate. Nor does he need diversity training, by the way. (FWIW, he probably has a lot more liberated attitude toward gays than does the average Marine recruit.)
He only needs the sort of literacy classes described in the AP article if his American trainers lack the imagination and historical knowledge to train him to be an Afghan, instead of an imitation American, soldier. If were are going to make any progress in dealing with failed states, we are going to have to learn to train across cultures. I mean, Gurkhas became one of the most feared entities in the British military establishment.
I suspect that Americans tend to think people who are illiterate are stupid. They are not, especially in a country like Afghanistan."
TW: We have poured billions into similarly ineffective and ill-considered (and far worse and more expensive) programs in AfPak and Iraq over the 8 years. Companies like Pulau make millions in the mean time. Folks get extremely uptight about alleged government waste and inefficiency but our approach to nation-building is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government spending bar none. Where are the street protesters?
"Stories like this...drive me nuts. The Afghan army is "hard to train." Why? Because the soldiers are illiterate. Pop quiz: How many of the Spartans at Thermopalye were literate? One reason armies have had officers is to ensure that for every 100 or so soldiers, there is someone who can decipher a map and read orders.
'U.S. Maj. Gen. Richard Formica, who is in charge of training both soldiers and police, says the high illiteracy rate is not a "show-stopper."
However, he added that illiteracy "particularly becomes a challenge for those recruits that we want to advance to become noncommissioned officers, because the higher you get in rank and responsibility, the more expectation there is that you can read and write at some basic level."
... To overcome the problem for the Afghan army, a private company, Pulau Electronics of Orlando, Fla., has been hired to run a program that aims to make 50 percent of the troops "functionally literate," within the first year of the program.
"The target is for them to be able to write their name and their weapon's serial number," said Joe Meglan, 39, of Savannah, Ga., who works for Pulau.'
The average private soldier in Afghanistan does not need to be literate. Nor does he need diversity training, by the way. (FWIW, he probably has a lot more liberated attitude toward gays than does the average Marine recruit.)
He only needs the sort of literacy classes described in the AP article if his American trainers lack the imagination and historical knowledge to train him to be an Afghan, instead of an imitation American, soldier. If were are going to make any progress in dealing with failed states, we are going to have to learn to train across cultures. I mean, Gurkhas became one of the most feared entities in the British military establishment.
I suspect that Americans tend to think people who are illiterate are stupid. They are not, especially in a country like Afghanistan."
TW: We have poured billions into similarly ineffective and ill-considered (and far worse and more expensive) programs in AfPak and Iraq over the 8 years. Companies like Pulau make millions in the mean time. Folks get extremely uptight about alleged government waste and inefficiency but our approach to nation-building is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government spending bar none. Where are the street protesters?
Marine Generals To Cheney: "Fear Is NO Excuse"
TW: To Cheney I could add most members of the Fox Nationalistic Jingoistic Channel, Limbaugh, Malkin etc. etc.
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Further Evidence That He Is U Know What...
From Tom Rick's blog at Foreign Policy Mag:
"I didn't know that President Obama knows how to make South Asian food. From an interview with Dawn of Pakistan apparently overlooked by the American media:
I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook," said Mr Obama.
"What can you cook?" "Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets."I think half the country would be amazed and half the country appalled by this. Can you imagine President Bush saying such a thing?"
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Why We Will Win
TW: Obama's speech is just that a speech. The reviews are running rampant, many highly predictable but what Obama and the U.S. is trying to do is thread a series of needles. And we should never forget that despite all of our challenges, the evolving world political and economic systems, and our sometime tedious and inane domestic politics, only one nation is able and willing to try to thread those needles. Obama is trying new approaches, some will fail but he is trying and he is VERY good.
The day, if ever, the leader of China or Brazil or Iran is standing in front of an audience in Cairo eliciting such attention and derision will be the day you will know the world has truly changed. We are no where near that day but the world needs enlightened leadership to the extent we can provide that then that day will be very far off.
From Tom Ricks blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"I was interested that the home page of the Iranian news agency has not a word about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I think this is an interesting sign of success for Obama, because it suggests to me that he just flummoxes the anti-American element in the Middle East. Good for him.
I also was impressed by Jeffrey Goldberg's take on the speech:
"An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."
The day, if ever, the leader of China or Brazil or Iran is standing in front of an audience in Cairo eliciting such attention and derision will be the day you will know the world has truly changed. We are no where near that day but the world needs enlightened leadership to the extent we can provide that then that day will be very far off.
From Tom Ricks blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"I was interested that the home page of the Iranian news agency has not a word about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I think this is an interesting sign of success for Obama, because it suggests to me that he just flummoxes the anti-American element in the Middle East. Good for him.
I also was impressed by Jeffrey Goldberg's take on the speech:
"An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
TW: Today is Memorial Day. A couple of bloggers for whom I have respect have shared their associations with fallen friends and acquaintances of theirs. Tom Ricks of Foreign Policy magazine shared this story.The above is the late Captain Rob Yllecas, who was injured in Afghanistan last fall and subsequently died in December. His wife created her blog initially to update folks on his treatment and then later about her family's life after the funeral.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Military Person's Perpective On Torture
TW: This is from Tom Ricks blog but it is largely a re-print of a letter from a US Army Lt. Colonel to conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer wrote a column a couple of weeks ago saying torture was a bad idea not to be used unless it would save American lives which is not much different than saying it should be used on an almost open-ended basis.
From Tom Ricks Blog at Foreign Policy magazine:
To summarize: Those who endorse torture need to think twice about the effect it has on the moral and discipline of our troops. Also, think about his point that torture has two victims: the person suffering it, and the person inflicting it."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/12/torture_a_national_guard_officer_responds_to_krauthammer
From Tom Ricks Blog at Foreign Policy magazine:
"Mr. Krauthammer,
I don't usually make a point of responding to the talking-head proselytizers in my Sunday paper but your column prompted me to do so.
I'll make this simple. There are NO circumstances under which torture is acceptable. Jack Bauer's "24" makes for great TV but even in a ticking timebomb situation such behavior is inappropriate and illegal. Torture is counter to our moral code, a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions to which we subscribe and perhaps least understood, but most significantly, counterproductive and ineffective. Nothing else really needs to be said, but if you want more details read on.
I have friends who have been to SERE and instructed SERE students and acted as interrogators. All agree that waterboarding and other such 'enhanced' techniques are good for training (in a strictly controlled environment) our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on what to expect in captivity. They also agree that it is torture to anyone outside that training environment. Finally, they all agree that torture rarely results in actionable intelligence, as the victim is willing to say most
anything to end the torture.
So you must wonder, by what authority is this letter writer speaking? Well, as a Lieutenant Colonel and Combat Arms Battalion Commander in the Army I am responsible for the welfare, training, good order, and discipline of my soldiers. I am responsible for everything they do or fail to do. I am also responsible to follow and issue only those orders that are legal, ethical and moral. Torture of another human being is illegal, unethical and immoral, and I would be duty bound to disobey any such order...just as PFC Lynndie England and SPC Charles Graner (and their many counterparts, senior officers and NCOs at Abu Ghraib) should have done...just as any of my soldiers should disobey should I give such an order. We all have the lessons of Nuremburg to rely upon anytime such questions come to mind; "I was just following orders" is never justification for committing crimes against other human beings.
Before deploying to Iraq last year, I explained these things to my troopers. It is difficult to explain to young (practically) kids, with little experience, and poor knowledge of the world...but if you are caring and committed, and repeat yourself often enough they learn and understand. I told them the most important thing they needed to take away from all their preparations was that while it would be terrible to lose one of them or have one of them seriously physically injured, it would be worse to have them come home physically well and mentally broken because they had somehow lost their humanity. Torture destroys our humanity, and any equivocation (feel free to exercise the Kantian absolutist vs utilitarian argument to your heart's content) on the matter is just bullshit.
. . . If captured I would honor our Armed Forces Code of Conduct to the best of my ability and go to whatever my fate, resolute in the knowledge that our nation remains a last bastion of what is right (or ought to be right) in the world. Torture has no place in America, and Americans have no reason to employ it. War ain't fair, but we have to fight it while maintaining a level of dignity and humanity, jus in
bello. This is rough work for people bound to a code of Duty, Honor, Country.
Proselytizers, who say but do not act, need not apply.
To summarize: Those who endorse torture need to think twice about the effect it has on the moral and discipline of our troops. Also, think about his point that torture has two victims: the person suffering it, and the person inflicting it."
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/12/torture_a_national_guard_officer_responds_to_krauthammer
Friday, May 8, 2009
Moving On With Our National Security
TW: I had never heard of Ms. Flournoy but the sentiment seems good and a nice change from the recent past for sure. Gates continues to get rave reviews and is providing beaucoup cover as Obama pushes the envelop on some national security matters but all signs are that he will not stay through the full-term (or two...). Folks like Flournoy will need to build up sufficient reputations to step into those shoes at some point.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy:
"Michele Flournoy, the second most powerful person at the Pentagon nowadays...likes the rule of law.
"The United States must exemplify respect for the rule of law. We have to stop invoking American exceptionalism and return to our historical role as champion of the rule of law both domestically and internationally."
Nice idea, but I am not sure how get we from here -- where torture was made national policy -- to there. There is a lot of "do whatever it takes" disrespect for law embedded in the last seven years of American history that the administration doesn't seem very interested in cleaning up.
She also is...for multilateralism. I think the test of this will be the first time we do something unpopular at home because our allies really really really...want us to. I don't know what that might be. Maybe sign up to the International War Crimes Tribunal?
She has an interesting take on "the commons," and the role the U.S. military should play in policing it. "We see increasing tensions in the global commons: the sea, space, cyberspace and so forth. These are really the connective tissue of the international system and of our global society. And we must ensure access to these shared resources remains open." Are you listening, Navy and Air Force?
...One Army colonel posed an interesting question: Okay, what would you call this strategy? It's a good question. Flournoy didn't have an answer, and neither do I. Basically, it sounds like a plan for a mature national security policy.
I expect Robert Gates to step down as defense secretary about a year from now. Might he be succeeded by Ms. Flournoy?"
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy:
"Michele Flournoy, the second most powerful person at the Pentagon nowadays...likes the rule of law.
"The United States must exemplify respect for the rule of law. We have to stop invoking American exceptionalism and return to our historical role as champion of the rule of law both domestically and internationally."
Nice idea, but I am not sure how get we from here -- where torture was made national policy -- to there. There is a lot of "do whatever it takes" disrespect for law embedded in the last seven years of American history that the administration doesn't seem very interested in cleaning up.
She also is...for multilateralism. I think the test of this will be the first time we do something unpopular at home because our allies really really really...want us to. I don't know what that might be. Maybe sign up to the International War Crimes Tribunal?
She has an interesting take on "the commons," and the role the U.S. military should play in policing it. "We see increasing tensions in the global commons: the sea, space, cyberspace and so forth. These are really the connective tissue of the international system and of our global society. And we must ensure access to these shared resources remains open." Are you listening, Navy and Air Force?
...One Army colonel posed an interesting question: Okay, what would you call this strategy? It's a good question. Flournoy didn't have an answer, and neither do I. Basically, it sounds like a plan for a mature national security policy.
I expect Robert Gates to step down as defense secretary about a year from now. Might he be succeeded by Ms. Flournoy?"
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Lest We Forget Iraq
TW: What is our goal in Iraq again other than leaving with as many of our troops in one piece as possible? Given that our casualties have in fact declined greatly, I would call that a victory. Naturally never having been there in the first place would have truly minimized them.
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
Any other claims to victory are crap. We made a deal with the Sunni insurgents for a cease-fire. Will that deal hold in the face of Shiite government acts? Have many of the metrics by which the "surge" were meant to be judged born out? Not so much. Violence is down but are you confident it will remain so?
From Tom Ricks blog:
"I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.
Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:
'As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage'
That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Here is a quote of the day:
If they don't release Adil Mashadani, all the Awakening in Iraq will rise up like our uprising today," he [a local Awakening Council spokesman] added."
Along with the bombings in west Baghdad lately, the street fighting over the weekend doesn't quite form a trend. But it points toward one possible series of events. That is, the Maliki government is putting the screws to the Awakening movement (for those who just arrived, that's a mainly Sunni group of about 100,000 people, many of them former insurgents, who in late 2006 and 2007 arrived at ceasefires with the U.S. military presence in Iraq). The American plan was to integrate about 20,000 members of Awakening groups into Iraqi security forces, and help the rest find other work.
Meantime, the Baghdad government was supposed to take over the payments to the groups, which when I last checked totaled about $30 million a month. But the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government never really liked the idea. Indeed, the first deals were cut by U.S. officials behind the back of the Iraqi government. So Maliki's guys are:
Arresting some leaders of the "Sons of Iraq" (the American term for Awakening forces)
Attacking others
Bringing only 5,000 of the ex-insurgents into the Iraqi security forces
And stiffing others on pay, with some complaining they haven't been paid in weeks or even months
I think Maliki's gambit is to crack down on the Sunnis while American forces are still available in sufficient numbers to back him up. This is a turning into a test of strength, Sunni vs. Shiite.
There's more. If the Awakening fighting spreads, I wouldn't be surprised to see Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite militia re-emerge. I've always thought the Sunni Awakening forced him to go to ground, because he didn't want to be the only guy taking on American forces. But if the Sunnis are on the attack again, it might be game on for him as well. I am reminded of Ambassador Ryan Crocker's worry, expressed in my new book and elsewhere, that the future of Iraq was something like Lebanon. That is, it has a government, but it is shaky, and there is violence in the streets, with some political parties having armed wings that are outside the control of the government.
The Washington Post's Anthony Shadid calls this all "potentially worrisome." When Shadid begins to worry, we all should. He's the guy who back in early 2004 used to encourage me to take taxis around Baghdad.
Proven provider John McCreary of NightWatch fame is even more emphatic:
This is a pre-cursor of the second round of the Sunni-Shia civil war to follow."
Question of the day: What should I say the next time someone tells me the surge "worked"?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Treating Al Qaeda Like Soviets?
TW: Several folks are starting to push a containment strategy relative to Al Qaeda reminiscent of our strategy with the Soviets during the Cold War. Obviously there are differences, not the least of which is Al Qaeda's suicidal and unswerving ideology. Yet Al Qaeda appears to be weakening and frankly has never been capable of more than sporadic acts albeit extremely disruptive acts.
Regardless my hope is that we place Al Qaeda into context and by all means make sure we differentiate between the homicidal and suicidal Al Qaeda adherents and the much larger groups (i.e. Taliban, Hamas) who may not share our beliefs but will behave rationally in pursuit of their own agendas. Containing the Taliban is a much more feasible and less risky strategy than merely containing Al Qaeda. Ultimately the two strategies may go hand in hand, if we contain as opposed to try to destroy the Taliban they may be far more willing to purge Al Qaeda.
From Economist:
"...Today on his blog, Tom Ricks highlights some insight from Colin Gray on the war on terrorism.
...Al Qaeda is showing signs of being a self-defeating adversary, beset by internal pathologies and increasingly unpopular in the very societies it seeks to mobilize against the West. In his view, a patient, containment-like approach that encourages these divisions and avoids self-inflicted wounds provides a better blueprint for the counter-terrorism effort than the ill-conceived excesses adopted by the Bush administration."
...the dangers of an American war in Pakistan, which makes me think that the country does not fall into America's protective sphere in his mind. Yet allowing terrorists to take over large swaths of the country would do anything but place a ceiling on the threat. And, unlike in the cold war, terrorists have no cause to show restraint. All of which leads me to believe that a realistic containment strategy may end up being more aggressive than Mr Porter thinks."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/03/containing_the_terrorists.cfm
Regardless my hope is that we place Al Qaeda into context and by all means make sure we differentiate between the homicidal and suicidal Al Qaeda adherents and the much larger groups (i.e. Taliban, Hamas) who may not share our beliefs but will behave rationally in pursuit of their own agendas. Containing the Taliban is a much more feasible and less risky strategy than merely containing Al Qaeda. Ultimately the two strategies may go hand in hand, if we contain as opposed to try to destroy the Taliban they may be far more willing to purge Al Qaeda.
From Economist:
"...Today on his blog, Tom Ricks highlights some insight from Colin Gray on the war on terrorism.
Too many people have become unduly fixated on the challenge posed by terrorism. ...Terrorism does not threaten our civilization, but our over-reaction to it
could do so. ...Compared to interstate conflict, terrorism—even terrorism armed
with weapons of mass destruction—is a minor menace.
...Al Qaeda is showing signs of being a self-defeating adversary, beset by internal pathologies and increasingly unpopular in the very societies it seeks to mobilize against the West. In his view, a patient, containment-like approach that encourages these divisions and avoids self-inflicted wounds provides a better blueprint for the counter-terrorism effort than the ill-conceived excesses adopted by the Bush administration."
...the dangers of an American war in Pakistan, which makes me think that the country does not fall into America's protective sphere in his mind. Yet allowing terrorists to take over large swaths of the country would do anything but place a ceiling on the threat. And, unlike in the cold war, terrorists have no cause to show restraint. All of which leads me to believe that a realistic containment strategy may end up being more aggressive than Mr Porter thinks."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/03/containing_the_terrorists.cfm
Friday, February 27, 2009
Mexican Unrest
TW: 250 people have been murdered in Juarez City (across the river from El Paso) this month. There are 1.6 MM folks in Juarez City, there are 2.8MM within Chicago's city limits. Imagine if an equivalent nearly 500 folks had been murdered in Chicago this month (there were 510 in 2008 total which was up from 450 in '07). The vast majority of the murders are drug related.
The Mexican federal government does not control the drug lords. Corruption is rife throughout federal, state and local governments. To think that our own governments are not also riddled with corruption related to the drug trade would be naive.
From Tom Rick's blog:
"The most interesting news story of the day is that the governor of Texas wants to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. I am not sure where this situation is going, but it is the kind of thing that can come out of left field and upset all our plans for our ongoing wars elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government also says it is sending troops to the border area, apparently to re-take parts of the city of Juarez, where, according to Reuters, more than 250 people have been killed in drug violence this month. "We aren't going to give up an inch of the city," vowed Interior Minister Fernando Gomez Mont. Kind of reminds me of the recent comments of the Pakistani government about Swat. The difference, of course, is that Swat is near Afghanistan, while Juarez is across the river from the west Texas town of El Paso.
...There is a weird analogy between Pakistan and Mexico. In both places, American addictions -- to oil and to drugs -- have helped fund those who are destabilizing those countries. The Pakistan connection is generally less direct -- I am thinking of Saudi Arabian funding of extremists."
The Mexican federal government does not control the drug lords. Corruption is rife throughout federal, state and local governments. To think that our own governments are not also riddled with corruption related to the drug trade would be naive.
From Tom Rick's blog:
"The most interesting news story of the day is that the governor of Texas wants to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. I am not sure where this situation is going, but it is the kind of thing that can come out of left field and upset all our plans for our ongoing wars elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the Mexican government also says it is sending troops to the border area, apparently to re-take parts of the city of Juarez, where, according to Reuters, more than 250 people have been killed in drug violence this month. "We aren't going to give up an inch of the city," vowed Interior Minister Fernando Gomez Mont. Kind of reminds me of the recent comments of the Pakistani government about Swat. The difference, of course, is that Swat is near Afghanistan, while Juarez is across the river from the west Texas town of El Paso.
...There is a weird analogy between Pakistan and Mexico. In both places, American addictions -- to oil and to drugs -- have helped fund those who are destabilizing those countries. The Pakistan connection is generally less direct -- I am thinking of Saudi Arabian funding of extremists."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
You Break You Fix It
TW: Tom Ricks has written extensively on Iraq and is very hooked into to our military establishment. His theme is simple there are no easy answers in Iraq so get used to it regardless of your political persuasion.
To me I like others am not sure what the best route to take is at this point, although fewer troops in general and the majority of those remaining stationed in Kurdistan is my preference. The fundamental point though is avoiding these catastrophes in the first place, which is why I am glad we have a new POTUS. I can only hope he does not do something stupid in Iran.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Salon just carried an insightful review of my [Rick's] book [the Gamble] that triggered a mudslide of nasty letters from the magazine's readers.
"If you enjoyed 'Fiasco,' thrilled to have your prejudices about the clueless Bush administration confirmed, it's your responsibility to read 'The Gamble' to have some prejudices challenged," wrote the reviewer, Joan Walsh, Salon's editor-in-chief. I think she really captured the ambivalence at the heart of the book, the sense that staying in Iraq is far from appealing, but may be the least worst choice available. Her review concludes that, "I still want troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. But reading this well-reported book may have changed even my notion of what that means."
Her readers didn't like hearing that, and posted a variety of angry responses. Here's the note I sent to Walsh after reading some, but not all, of the 117 responses:
Looking over the comments on your review, I think what a lot of people are failing to grasp, or are resisting understanding, is that there are no good answers in Iraq. The question many of them don't seem to want to face is, what is the least bad answer?
It was a pre-emptive war launched on false premises that distracted us from the task at hand in Afghanistan. Everything that has happened in Iraq since then is the fruit of that poisoned tree. Given that original sin, what do we do? Staying in Iraq isn't appealing. Leaving risks genocide and regional war.
So what do your more vehement readers recommend? What do you do if both courses of action are bad, even immoral?"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/19/stuck_in_iraq
To me I like others am not sure what the best route to take is at this point, although fewer troops in general and the majority of those remaining stationed in Kurdistan is my preference. The fundamental point though is avoiding these catastrophes in the first place, which is why I am glad we have a new POTUS. I can only hope he does not do something stupid in Iran.
From Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy Mag:
"Salon just carried an insightful review of my [Rick's] book [the Gamble] that triggered a mudslide of nasty letters from the magazine's readers.
"If you enjoyed 'Fiasco,' thrilled to have your prejudices about the clueless Bush administration confirmed, it's your responsibility to read 'The Gamble' to have some prejudices challenged," wrote the reviewer, Joan Walsh, Salon's editor-in-chief. I think she really captured the ambivalence at the heart of the book, the sense that staying in Iraq is far from appealing, but may be the least worst choice available. Her review concludes that, "I still want troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. But reading this well-reported book may have changed even my notion of what that means."
Her readers didn't like hearing that, and posted a variety of angry responses. Here's the note I sent to Walsh after reading some, but not all, of the 117 responses:
Looking over the comments on your review, I think what a lot of people are failing to grasp, or are resisting understanding, is that there are no good answers in Iraq. The question many of them don't seem to want to face is, what is the least bad answer?
It was a pre-emptive war launched on false premises that distracted us from the task at hand in Afghanistan. Everything that has happened in Iraq since then is the fruit of that poisoned tree. Given that original sin, what do we do? Staying in Iraq isn't appealing. Leaving risks genocide and regional war.
So what do your more vehement readers recommend? What do you do if both courses of action are bad, even immoral?"
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/19/stuck_in_iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)