The leaders of Britain’s government have been facing an increasingly skeptical citizenry in terms of the nation’s troop presence in Afghanistan, but they are fighting to keep morale and support for what they still believe is ‘the biggest source of threat to our national security’.  Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Minister David Miliband made a strong defense of Britain’s military presence in Afghanistan in back-to-back major addresses.  Here are some of the highlights of Brown’s speech:

“At every point in our history where we have looked outwards, we have become stronger. And now, more than ever, there is no future in what was once called ’splendid isolation.

When Britain is bold, when Britain is engaged, when Britain is confident and outward-looking, we have shown time and again that Britain has a power and an energy that far exceeds the limits of our geography, our population, and our means….”

“Make no mistake, Al Qaeda has an extensive recruitment network across Africa the Middle East, Western Europe - and in the UK. We know that there are still several hundred foreign fighters based in the FATA area of Pakistan travelling to training camps to learn bomb making and weapons skills. Al Qaeda also has links to the Afghan and Pakistan Taleban…..”

“Vigilance in defence of national security will never be sacrificed to expediency. Necessary resolution will never succumb to appeasement. The greater international good will never be subordinated to the mood of the passing moment.

So I vigorously defend our action in Afghanistan and Pakistan because Al Qaeda is today the biggest source of threat to our national security - and to the security of peoples lives in Britain… and tonight I can report that more has been planned and enacted with greater success in this one year to disable Al Qaeda than in any year since the original invasion in 2001.

Tonight I want to leave you with a clear summary of Britain’s case, and that of the coalition as a whole. We are in Afghanistan because we judge that if the Taleban regained power Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would once more have an environment in which they could operate. We are there because action in Afghanistan is not an alternative to action in Pakistan, but an inseparable support to it.”

While these speeches are definitely worth reading, not everything else is.  Case in point, Woody Harrelson is an idiot.  To make up for that and get us back to reality, here is a worthwhile Steve Coll piece in the New Yorker about the possible scenarios facing a ‘failure’ in Afghanistan.

The recent words of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on the issue speak volumes:

“An exit strategy is as important as ramping up troops.”

“It’s important to fully examine not just how we’re going to get folks in but how we’re going to get folks out.”

A story from Bloomberg.com also asserted that administration officials told them that the President was ’seeking an approach to eventually ending U.S. involvement in Afghanistan’. The New York Times also ran an article on Sunday about how the financial cost of the war was causing members of the administration to balk at sending more troops. Obama himself has definitely backtracked on the ‘necessity war’ talk, instead voicing concerns about Karzai, corruption, cost, etc.

Though it would be irresponsible for the Obama administration to not being working on a long-term plan featuring a US exit plan, when one combines this with the length of decision making process, the fact that it will be the administration’s second Afghan strategy in a year, the public outing of key figure opinions (Eikenberry, McChrystal, Emanuel, Axelrod, Kerry, Biden, etc.), a blurry, uninspiring picture emerges. After all, if Obama is to send thousands of more troops to attempt to bring stability and battle Al Qaeda, the US cannot at the same time appear to be always looking for a way out.  The Taliban have one thing to their advantage and that is time.  If the US sends signals, as I believe we are doing right now, that we want to get out as soon as possible, than that only strengthens the Taliban’s position as they now that with every attack, with every NATO death, they are closer to their goal.

For me, the surge in Iraq was largely successful because it told the Iraqi population, especially the Sunnis and Al Qaeda and the Sadrists, that the Americans were not going anywhere and they better either come along or lose their ability to influence their country’s future. In other words, time was not on their side anymore. A surge is not just an increase in troops and resources, it is tangible symbol of a commitment. A commitment to keep the population safe, battle the insurgents more aggressively and in more places, to give the young government time to prove itself to its citizens, and a commitment to the US public that we are in it not only because we need to be, but also to win. No one knows that such a similar policy will work in Afghanistan, but it does offer a fighting chance.

If the Obama administration does in fact decide an something close to McChrystal’s recommendations there will need to be a strong commitment by the administration to present a unified front and a persuasive argument to the US, NATO, and Afghan public. This will take some work as the dissenting voices of Ambassador Eikenberry and Vice President Biden, among others, have been very public. Respected envoy and Afghan expert James Dobbins has stated that the Obama review ”has gone on long enough and it is starting to create fissures”. Convincing the American public is another matter as the war in polls has dropped consistently. Obama will definitely need to utilize political capital and use his velvet sounding pipes to effectively defend his strategy choice.

I’ll end with some curt advice offered to the President by Washington Post columnist David Broder:

If we can’t afford to lose, then play to win.

Thank You

Happy Veteran’s Day! In honor of all American vets, and the foreign vets who have fought by our side in many wars, especially in Afghanistan, I would like to highlight President Obama’s Ft. Hood Memorial speech. Obama’s Memorial speech was one of his best and he really touched on why/how special the US military has been throughout our history. It has been a force for protecting our American way of life and for helping millions around the world have a chance of their own to live in freedom and prosperity. Here are some of the most moving parts, including my favorite highlighted in bold:

Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that is their legacy…..

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people…..

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

Very true.

A British Army explosives specialist who became a legend by risking his life to defuse more than 60 Taliban roadside bombs was killed in Afghanistan during his final mission before he took leave, the Times of London reported Tuesday.

The specialist’s name was Staff Sergeant Olaf “Oz” Schmid (picture below), and he was thirty years old. The heroic self-sacrifice of thousands of NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan is to often easily lost in the constant discussions about US/NATO policy, strategy, elections, security, dithering, quagmire, etc., and this is unfortunate to say the least.

I would like to take this moment to offer a special thank you to the American foreign partners fighting and dying in Afghanistan, especially among the British, Canadians, Dutch, who have been battling insurgent and Al Qaeda forces in some of the most dangerous areas of the conflict for years now.  These soldier’s dedication to their country, fellow citizens, democracy, freedom, international security, and of course to their fellow brothers in arms is a value worth treasuring.  Thank you and your families for your sacrifice.

"Five more years, baby!"

Would be presidential runoff challenger Abdullah Abdullah is out and Hamid Karzai is staying in.  Everything is now all cleared up.  Right?  What?  There are issues still left to settle? Even solve?!? The near and long term future hold the answers to….President Obama’s new Afghan strategy decision and implementation? Will a second term Karzai be like the first term?  In other words, will he prove effective in actually ‘governing’ parts of country?  Will he make substantial moves to stem the eroding force of corruption?  What is Abdullah Abdullah’s future?  Will he participate in Karzai’s government or lead a constructive/destabilizing opposition movement?  All of these issues are strongly connected to the recent election’s conclusion and their answers will be vital to Afghanistan’s future.

The Obama administration has sent mixed signals in the past few weeks about how important the election’s outcome was to their choice about McChrystal’s strategy, but it clearly weighed heavily on their minds.  The administration had been much more critical of Karzai than the Bush White House and has emphasized the importance of a viable and legitimate partner government in Kabul and their first response to the news of Abdullah’s abdication was rather lukewarm.  From the State Department’s Hillary Clinton came this terse statement:

I recognize the decision by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah not to participate in the second round of balloting in the Afghan presidential elections.

He ran a dignified and constructive campaign that drew the support of Afghan people across the nation. We hope that he will continue to stay engaged in the national dialogue, and work on behalf of the security and prosperity of the people of Afghanistan.

It is now a matter for the Afghan authorities to decide on a way ahead that brings this electoral process to a conclusion in line with the Afghan constitution. We will support the next President and the people of Afghanistan, who seek and deserve a better future.

President Obama followed this with a more unequivocal congratulations today and reached out to Karzai as a partner in what is shaping up to be a  crucial next few months for both of their interconnected governments.  Obama called for a ‘new chapter’ in relations, while calling for Karzai to follow up this reelection with a strong effort to improve his leadership:

“But as I indicated to him, the proof is not going to be in words; it’s going to be in deeds. And we are looking forward to consulting closely with his government in the weeks and months to come, to assure that the Afghan people are actually seeing progress on the ground.”

With the Afghan presidential election finally over (believe it or not it started to seem like it was lasting as long ours do), attention will now even more intensely focus on the Obama administration’s military strategy in the conflict. Many constituents are waiting for an answer, from Republicans, anti-war activists, European governments, NATO, let alone the citizens and leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Republican Rep. John Boehner immediately asserted that now Obama has no more ‘excuses’ for delaying announcing a decision, while the administration continued to state that their comprehensive process was still ongoing.  Obama’ Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that a decision was still probably weeks away, with some speculating that a decision will probably come after Obama’s trip to Asia in mid-November.

In any case, the clock is indeed ticking, as this seemingly small bit of evidence appears to show me:  Here is the lead in a New York Times front page story announcing Abdullah’s withdrawal…See if you can see what I saw?

With the White House’s reluctant embrace on Sunday of Hamid Karzai as the winner of Afghanistan’s suddenly moot presidential runoff, President Obama now faces a new complication: enabling a badly tarnished partner to regain enough legitimacy to help the United States find the way out of an eight-year-old war.

This is a ‘news’ article, not an editorial, that states ‘help the United States find the way out of….war’.  David Sanger, one of the Times’ most prominent journalists, did not say ‘change course’, ’stabilize’, ‘turn around’, or ‘win’ an….war, but ‘find a way out’.  Either Sanger wants to get the US out of Afghanistan or he thinks the Obama administration does.

Though I can normally read Onion pieces and just let myself go and enjoy the hysterical satire, but I couldn’t quite relax fully while reading this one.  Here’s an excerpt:

“We’ve spent a lot of time and money fostering the turmoil and despair necessary to make this a sustaining quagmire, and we’re not going to stop now,” President Barack Obama said in a national address Monday night. “It won’t be easy, but with enough tactical errors on the ground, shortsighted political strategies, and continued ignorance of our vast cultural differences, we could have a horrific, full-fledged quagmire by 2012.”

Added Obama, “Together, we can make Afghanistan into a nightmarish hell-scape Americans will regret for generations to come.”

This is witty stuff, but I think the constant flow of negative news regarding the situation in the country, which is before my eyes on a daily basis, has made me unable to separate myself from the real situation.  And I’m safe in the United States!  What do you think?

In the past week or so there have been growing signs that the Obama administration is likely to choose an Afghan strategy closer to McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan than VP Joe Biden’s counterterrorism stance.  However, most of these signs do not come directly from the administration as they have been rather tight-lipped and mainly just voiced a defense of their decision making process.

Many actors involved in partnership with the United States in Afghanistan, and even more importantly many high level Afghans themselves, have made several implicit and explicit moves to show that they support Gen. McChrystal’s recommendation for the increase of troops to implement an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign.  After a NATO summit last week in Slovakia, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated that their was “broad support from all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach.”  Gen. McChrystal himself later made it to the meeting and gave briefing of how his strategy would play out, and reports are that the audience was impressed and voiced their backing.  Of course, whether or not the many European states within NATO would put their money (and men) where their mouth is is another question.  US Defense Secretary Robert Gates did state: “There were a number of allies who indicated they were thinking about, or were moving toward, increasing either their military or their civilian contributions, or both.  And I found that very heartening.”  Nevertheless, pronouncements such as this take domestic political capital (think Germany, Britain, etc.) and should be seen as a positive sign if the Obama administration decides to take this route.

There have been other high level signals of support for the McChrystal plan that could provide cover and legitimacy to Obama if he makes this decision.  The British government has agreed to send 500 more troops into the fight and it would be hard to believe they wouldn’t have some American assurances that they will be joined by many more Americans.  UN representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, has put his approving position out in the public’s view as well, asserting “I do believe that additional international troops will be needed in the future.”  Lastly, Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai’s competitor in the early November runoff, told the American public in an interview with Fox News on Sunday, “The need for more troops is there in order to reverse the situation.”

So how do these just mostly ’statements’ portend an Obama administration leaning toward giving McChrystal the troop numbers and strategy backing he’s asked for?  Well, for one thing, they give the US administration support from the allies that McChrystal and these new troops will be fighting with.  News reports of the Germans, Brits, Italians, etc. shouting ‘get us out’ make Obama and the US seem alone in the fight and this is disheartening to many American citizens who are already war weary.  Hearing that NATO allies, European powers, powerful Afghan and Pakistan leaders (President Zardari has spoken out about how dangerous it would be if the US did not commit itself to the fight), and UN officials state their approval provides more backbone to the administration’s final decision.  Obama clearly needs some domestic political cover from large swaths of his base that have shown to be anti-surge in various polls and the more international backing the better.

The decision has yet to be made, (it after all may still be weeks away), and their are definitive signs that the administration could go either way, but I’m starting to think the McChrystal is going to get something close to the 40,000 troop surge he asked for.  These troops will likely not all come at once, the numbers may end up looking a little fudgy to look smaller, and the results and aftereffects of the runoff election will definitely play a part, as the administration will be weary of an ineffective and illegitimate partner in Kabul, but I think McChrystal will get his chance.

Dexter Filkins’ ‘Stanley McChrystal’s Long War‘ is an excellent profile of America’s top commander in Afghanistan and clearly showcases the challenges of going ‘all-in’ and ‘getting out’.  McChrystal comes off as vibrant, smart, and worthy General, but the task ahead of him is depicted as seemingly insurmountable. Here are some choice bits…

McChrystal on counterinsurgency:

“The insurgency has to have access to the people,” McChrystal told me. “So we literally want to go in there and squat among the people. We want to make the insurgents come to us. Make them be the aggressors. What I want to do is get on the inside, looking out — instead of being on the outside looking in.”

McChrystal on negotiating with parts of the Taliban:

“Pashtun culture adjudicates disagreements in a way that mitigates blood feuds. The Pashtun people go out of their way not to do things that cause permanent feuds. They have always been willing to change positions, change sides. I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven; I think they are practically driven. I’m not sure they wouldn’t flip to our side.”

Filkins felt that McChrystal had undervalued the importance of Karzai’s legitimacy:

But increasingly, McChrystal, as well as President Obama and the American people, are being forced to confront the possibility that they will be stuck fighting and dying and paying for a government that is widely viewed as illegitimate.

When I asked McChrystal about this, it was the one issue that he seemed not to have thought through. What if the Afghan people see their own government as illegitimate? How would you fight for something like that?

“Then we are going to have to avoid looking like we are part of the illegitimacy,” the general said. “That is the key thing.”

Filkins does a fair job in showing both sides of the debate facing the Obama administration right now, more troops to fight the Taliban or a more Al Qaeda-focused counterterrorism strategy, but the aspects that stayed with me the most were the words of Afghans in the Taliban controlled south who voiced their concern that the US could not be trusted because there was no telling how long they would be there.  On the other hand, the Taliban weren’t going anywhere.  This factor alone affects nearly all other strategic inputs and outputs.

With just a quick glance at today’s news (Karzai relents and a runoff election against Abdullah is set for early November, Secretary Gates says the war strategy decision will not depend on the election while Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says it must, Pakistan’s military continues their offensive in South Waziristan, while terrorist attacks continue all over the country, and the US military is growing weary over Obama’s extended time frame for making a final call), one can see that Gen. McChrystal has a lot on his plate.

Regarding the Afghanistan’s Electoral Commission coming report about a possible runoff in the presidential election:

“…we’re not positive what the election commission will recommend. But clearly, whatever their recommendation is, I believe should be followed. And if that requires a second round, that is what should happen. I think that the President is well aware of all the permutations of what can happen in the election. It is likely that they will find that President Karzai got very close to the 50+1 percent. So I think one can conclude that the likelihood of him winning a second round is probably pretty high. But I think the ballots have been printed, and certainly the military, through NATO and through our own troops, is looking at how you would secure such a second round.”

What about Hillary’s role in the ongoing strategy debate?

QUESTION: And yet, you said in an interview this week that you haven’t given him your – offered your best advice to the President. Why not? Why not yet? When are you going to do it and what are you going to tell him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the process that we’ve pursued, which I really believe has been not only useful but quite informative to all of us, is leading up to where we will give our best advice. But it would have been premature because we wanted to examine every assumption. There were no questions or topics off limits. Everybody came to the table with all of their concerns that were laid out. I think we’ve done a thorough job of analysis, and now we’re moving into the decision phase, and I’m sure that the President’s going to be asking all of us what is our advice to him, and then when he makes a decision, what is it we are all going to contribute to actually executing his decision.

Sounds like Mrs. Clinton has not had a big say in the decision making so far.

Clinton also brought focus on the importance of Pakistan in the future of peaceful and secure Afghanistan.  After arguing that the relationship between the security of Afghanistan and Pakistan were under appreciated under the Bush administration (a somewhat dubious claim), the Secretary of State gives her views of the Pakistani military’s recent offensive in Swat Valley and itself being a victim of several terrorist attacks:

QUESTION: Just a few months ago in Pakistan, just a few months ago, you said that Pakistan is in danger of falling to the terrorists. Now we’re having attacks every single day. Are you sure that that government is able to really keep control over the country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m very impressed with the commitment that the Pakistani Government – both the civilian leadership and the military – have made. When I said what I said some months ago, there was not the full commitment of going after those who were threatening territory and authority inside Pakistan. There is now. And I think the military in Pakistan has proven its effectiveness in going into Swat.

From what I read in the paper, they’re very much focused on also going into the heartland of where the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida are located and where these plots and these attacks are planned and directed. So I think that they understand that there is a direct threat to them, which they are addressing, which I think is all to the good.

Read the whole interview here.

If you have some more time also check out Steve Coll’s ‘The Case for Humility in Afghanistan‘ piece at Foreign Policy.