A few items…

1. Eurasianet and the FPA’s Global Food Crisis blog have once again highlighted the plight of hunger in the Afghan state.  The Eurasianet report states that around 40,000 Afghan citizens die every year because of hunger, way overshadowing those that are killed by violent conflict, though the two are connected in many unfortunate ways.  The United Nations is stepping up to the plate with over $300 million in aid and the US/NATO should take advantage of this effort by making sure the Afghan government gets it into the right hands.

2. US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke will host today a Trilateral meeting between US/Afghanistan/Pakistan to review policy involving all three states.  Sec of State Hillary Clinton will reportedly stop by.  Lord knows they have a lot to cover: US troop surge, drones, food crisis, Swat-Sharia deal, Hillary’s powersuit.

3. Lastly, I just want to spotlight FPA’s Pakistan Blog by Bilal Qureshi.  Bilal does a great job updating his site with the most recent events and happenings in the country of his birth.  But he doesn’t stop there, of course, as he applies great analytical skills to the complex problems facing the destabilized, but crucial state.  As can be seen by the Trilateral meeting occurring today, Pakistan is vital to not only Afghan stability, but also US national security and interests in many ways.

4. Japan has pledged to pay the salaries of Afghanistan’s 80,000 police officers for six months as part of its ongoing financial support for the country.  Tokyo pledged to spend $2 billion in aid to the Afghan nation back in 2002 and this is part of that sum.  This is just one more example of Japan-US’s strategic relationship, where the US provides the muscle and Tokyo brings in hard cash.

Pakistani intelligence officials briefed the US military yesterday and though they agreed that American drone attacks were degrading Al Qaeda’s leaders and more importantly their ability to foment far reaching violence, that the radical group, partnered with the Taliban, was increasingly destabilizing the Pakistani state.  As much as the US desires a stable (and free?) Afghanistan, maintaining a secure and capable nuclear-armed Pakistani state is equally if not more important.

The Pakistani intelligence officials voiced their concern that the increase of American troops on the Afghan side of the conflict could push the Taliban further into Pakistani territory, a good thing for Kabul, bad thing for Islamabad, as these insurgent groups desperately try to maintain a sanctuary.  The intelligence report also acknowledges the growing dependency of Al Qaeda on its Taliban bretheren as the group is more and more desperate for protection and resources.  The Al Qaeda-Taliban partnership was “morphing into a monster and growing uglier,” said one senior Pakistani intelligence official.

Though I do not approve of the Obama administration’s use of  the term ‘Af-Pak’ to describe the regional conflict, (it is condescending to both states and undermines each’s soveriegnty when used in any official setting) this latest analysis of the conflict once again points out how connected one country’s stability depends on what’s going on in the other.  It would be great if the US/NATO/Afghan army could dislodge the Taliban insurgents from their territory, but what would this mean for Pakistan?  Where would these insurgents go?  It is obvious that a pincer move, giving the insurgents nowhere to go and hopefully forcing a truly negotiated peace, would be ideal, but this does not look possible, especially with the Paki government making deals like the one in the Swat region.

It is great that the drones are doing ‘their’ job and pushing Al Qaeda further and further to the brink, but now the Pakistani/Afghani governments and militaries need to do theirs as well.  And the US/NATO need to help them in any way they can to make sure that both sides become more stable with their sovereignty in tact.

*Update: Here is my review of Adeeb Khalid’s ‘Islam after Communism’ on the CA site.

Josh Hammer of FPA’s ‘Terrorism‘ blog, wrote a fierce criticism of the Pakistani governments move to grant the Swat region autonomy. Hammer rightly fears that this may lead to other such claims of autonomy in the tribal areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan and will let the Taliban have free reign to attack both the Paki/Afghan governments and NATO forces. Hammer provocatively asserts that this move by the Paki government could now provide the US with a legitimate claim that it is not attacking/violating Pakistani sovereignty, but Taliban sovereignty.

At the new ‘Rising Powers‘ blog, Christopher Herbert discusses the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Iran’s attempts to become a member. Iran as a member is always a hot topic, but what about Afghanistan? It is a ‘Contact’ member and the SCO has held at least one meeting discussing the nation’s stability. Long story short, as long as the US/NATO are in Afghanistan, it will not seek SCO membership.

Lastly, make sure to keep checking out the ‘Central Asia‘ blog. I will soon post my review of Adeeb Khalid’s ‘Islam after Communism’ on this site.

US Troops Headed to Afghanistan from Manas Airbase (NY Times)

The Kyrgyzstan Parliament finally passed a law requiring the United States military to leave the Manas airbase in 6 months, though when this clock starts ticking is unsure. The US has not given up however, and US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates stated yesterday that negotiations were still under way. Gates stated: “We have not resigned ourselves to this being the last word.” Gates went on to acknowledge that the US may need to up financial payments to keep the base humming on Kyrgyz territory, but asserted that the US would not go overboard in their efforts to maintain the outpost. “Manas is important,” he said, “but it is not irreplaceable.”

In that regard, the US military has already spoken with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even Russia about other locations for a transportation hub for the US military into Afghanistan. Uzbekistan would be the most likely and strategically useful of these options. However, it was only a few years ago when the US military was kicked out of that country for voicing concern over Tashkent government’s actions in Andijon, reportedly causing the deaths to hundreds of its own citizens.

On the Kyrgyz side, it appears President Bakiyev is still bargaining with Moscow, which promised $2 billion in loans and about $150 million in aid to the cash strapped nation weeks ago. Bishkek will definitely want to make sure Russia fulfills this financial promise before it kicks out the Americans. The Washington Post today offered America a inner glimpse of how the Kyrgyzs, or at least one, see this event transpiring. Baktybek Abdrisaev, Kyrgyz ambassador to the US from 1997-2005, details some of the inner workings of the Manas bases’ beginnings in 2001, through several shifts, and to this final conclusion. He emphasizes domestic politics and largely downplays power politics, though not convincingly. The most interesting aspect of his story is how he feels that the US let him and his country down because we stopped talking about democracy and human rights in Kyrgyzstan and just worried about security and Afghanistan progress. He argues that we started seeing Kyrgyz through the Afghan prism and ignored nearly everything else, and he seems to implicitly argue that this ‘detachment’ led to this strategic break we are seeing right now over Manas. Here’s his conclusion:

I will be sad to see the Americans leave Manas. But if the base’s closure results in the United States regaining its critical voice and once again taking seriously its advocacy of democracy and human rights, that would be a silver lining to this disappointing story. It would mean an America that values its allies’ long-term stability more than a single military installation — and that could be a better investment in a secure future for all of us.

So if this is accurate, the US lost a base in Uzbekistan in 2005 because we cared too much about human rights and democracy, and now in 2009 we are losing another base in Kyrgyzstan because we cared too little. Do you agree with this assessment?

**Welcome!!!  My Foreign Policy Association ‘Afghanistan and Central Asia’ blog has been split in two and I will be the main blog writer for this Afghanistan blog.  I will write up a quick summary of what I plan to cover and emphasize on this site in the next couple days.  Glad you’re here.**

President Obama fulfilled one of his main campaign promises on Tuesday, a major increase of US soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.  The US plans to send 8,000 this spring, followed by groups of 4,000 and 5,000 during the summer, for a total of about 17,000 troops, or about 50% of the 36,000 Americans already stationed in the volatile country.

The attention, or more accurate, the lack there of, this has gotten in the media is appalling.  On the day of the announcement, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric had it as the fourth storyline of the day, behind the Stimulus passage (ok) and the Aroid scandal (not ok).  And today, the second news morning after the announcement, not one story from any major newspaper (realclearpolitics).  Heck, I write a blog called ‘Afghanistan’ and I didn’t even write about it until today!  The Iraq ’surge’ was just a little over 20,000 troops and I recall it being a ‘big deal’.  Not only should the media do its job of examining the how’s, why’s, and the ‘what’s’ of this Afghan troop surge, but it also owes it to the men and women who are about to do tremendously difficult work in a dangerous and unstable region.  

Anyway, what really concerns me is that there does not seem to be a comprehensive strategy to go along with these troops.  In a written statement, (no time for a press conference or speech), Obama really only justifies the troop surge as ‘necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation.’  Obama and his JCS have already leaked that they are likely to have a more ‘realistic’ approach to the conflict, trying to bring stability and security first, democracy and Afghan good governance second, but I want to hear some explanation how these troops will lead to that.  The Iraqi surge did come with a General Petraeus counterinsurgency plan attached to it and had his rock solid leadership.  

I have long advocated for a more sophisticated and comprehensive view of the challenges US/NATO/Afghan/Pakistani government face in this conflict, and despite the recent lackluster of coverage, I believe it has started to happen.  After all, I support sending more troops to Afghanistan, and have for awhile, I just know that it will take much more than just fresh soldiers on the ground to bring peace and stability to the region.  

Here’s a rundown on the problems these new soldiers and the US military faces in Afghanistan:

a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain.

We need a strategy.  We cannot just double-down on the Petraeus Iraqi counterinsurgency strategy, though some of its ’secure and hold’ methods will be useful, many others won’t in the Afghan conflict.  The Bush team held a top secret comprehensive review of the Afghan situation and I know that Obama has it on his table right now, but we in the public have still been kept in the dark.  

What will be the overriding use of these troops? Will they protect Kabul and its surrounding area, like the first group of soldiers sent in January, or will they be sent to volatile south?  Will the US back Karzai in the upcoming election or try someone with less baggage (remember all those calls for Maliki’s head in Iraq?)?  Will raids into Pakistan continue, increase?  Are we okay with Pakistan government’s recent deal with in the Swat region, allowing Sharia and Taliban law? (Holbrooke says‘no’)  What will be the counter narcotics strategy?  How will aid more effectively reach the Afghan citizens and improve their economy?What will be expected from the other NATO members?  And HOW LONG will US troops be stationed in Afghan?  Are we there until Afghan is stable?  Al Qaeda is defeated?  The Taliban are defeated?  Afghanistan is a democracy?  We run out of money and men?  The San Francisco Giants win the World Series?  (Don’t worry, that’s next year!)

Too many questions left unanswered.  The Afghanistan conflict will indeed be a stiff test for Obama, America, NATO, and of course those in the region seeking peace and freedom.

Welcome to the Foreignpolicyblogs.com blog, the latest addition to the Foreign Policy Blogs network.