What Does It Mean To Support Terrorists? Posted by David Shorr

Thanks to a New York Times op-ed Monday by Georgetown law professor David Cole, debate has been renewed over last summer's SCOTUS decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and the question of what constitutes "support" for terrorists and can be prohibited. Can you, for instance, outlaw efforts aimed at steering terrorist groups toward seeking redress via peaceful means?

The news hook is the recent backing from prominent Republicans for an opposition group of Iranian exiles designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Rachel Slajda reported for Talking Points Memo about a trip to Paris last month by Rudy Giuliani, Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Frances Townsend to express their support for the Iranian group.

The case -- and Cole's op-ed -- raise important issues of free speech. What interests me, though, is the decision's gross misunderstanding of how political legitimacy works. Here's Cole explaining the way the Court equated outreach to terror groups undertaken with the best intentions as tantamount to material support:

Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that a terrorist group might use human rights advocacy training to file harassing claims, that it might use peacemaking assistance as a cover while re-arming itself, and that such speech could contribute to the group's "legitimacy," and thus increase its ability to obtain support elsewhere that could be turned to terrorist ends.

In other words, there's no such thing as an interchange that encourages groups with a history of terrorism to work via peaceful political means. Whatever the intentions -- indeed, regardless of the specific content or activity -- it will be subverted and have the net effect of enabling acts of terrorism. Before I get hit with the "liberals want to give terrorists therapy" line (maybe it's already too late), let me say that any such outreach to bin Laden's Al Qaeda would indeed be hopelessly naive, a fool's errand that few if any fools would undertake.

But the Supreme Court's reasoning isn't focused on bin Laden's grandiose death cult, effectively it's a claim about all movements that have resorted to terrorist attacks. No, it actually reaches further; it says that all elements within those movements must be considered monolithic, irredeemable, and untouchable for Americans. For one thing, I'd like someone to explain the process that led to peace in Northern Ireland, in light of the Court's theory of terrorism. More broadly, a monolithic notion of such movements seems at odds with any divide-and-conquer strategy, thus tying our own hand behind our back.

The White House's Growing 'Credibility Gap' on Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

A couple of months ago I wrote an article for Foreign Policy that argued only the US military is optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan. I noted that the apparent disconnect between public statements by the military and pretty much everyone else in Afghanistan is "increasingly bringing into question the very credibility of U.S. military statements about military progress in Afghanistan." 

Since then, things on this front have only gotten worse and the credibility gap has extended from the Pentagon to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has followed the military's lead by putting out a number of optimistic statements about the war in Afghanistan that, as difficult as it is to say, are misleading the American people about the actual security situation in Afghanistan.

First there was the White House's Afghan Strategy Review, which made the following assertions:

in Afghanistan, the momentum achieved by the Taliban in recent years has been arrested in much of the country and reversed in some key areas.

The surge in coalition military and civilian resources, along with an expanded special operations forces targeting campaign and expanded local security measures at the village level, has reduced overall Taliban influence and arrested the momentum they had achieved in recent years in key parts of the country. 

In Afghanistan last month, President Obama said; 

"Today we can be proud that there are fewer areas under Taliban control and more Afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future."

And Secretary Gates was even more specific:

"As a result of the tough fight under way, the Taliban control far less territory today than they did a year ago."

Nowhere in the review, and as near I can tell, the remarks of Gates and Obama is it reflected that in many parts of the country the security situation has actually deteriorated or that Afghan civilian deaths have increased significantly over the past year.

In fact, the statements above are contradicted by a litany of facts that offer a far more pessimistic view on the progress of the war. In fact, over the past week or so there have been several major pieces of evidence that demonstrate the extent to which the US military and now the White House are misleading the American people about the tenuous security situation in Afghanistan.

First the Wall Street Journal reported on a UN report about security in Afghanistan:

Internal United Nations maps show a marked deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan during this year's fighting season, countering the Obama administration's optimistic assessments of military progress since the surge of additional American forces began a year ago.

In the October map, just as in March's, virtually all of southern Afghanistan—the focus of the coalition's military offensives—remained painted the red of "very high risk," with no noted security improvements. At the same time, the green belt of "low risk" districts in northern, central and western Afghanistan shriveled considerably.

The U.N.'s October map upgraded to "high risk" 16 previously more secure districts in Badghis, Sar-e-Pul, Balkh, Parwan, Baghlan, Samangan, Faryab, Laghman and Takhar provinces; only two previously "high risk" districts, one in Kunduz and one in Herat province, received a safer rating.

Today, McClatchy reports on the findings of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office and in particular its reporting on deterioration in northern Afghanistan: (I heard similar things from their representative in Mazar in September):

"Absolutely, without any reservation, it is our opinion that the situation is a lot more insecure this year than it was last year," said Nic Lee, the director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, an independent organization that analyzes security dangers for aid groups.

While U.S.-led forces have driven insurgents out of their strongholds in southern Afghanistan, Taliban advances in the rest of the country may have offset those gains, a cross section of year-end estimates suggests.

Insurgent attacks have jumped at least 66 percent this year, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. Security analysts say that Taliban shadow governors still exert control in all but one of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.

"I can't understand how they can say it is more secure than last year," said Hashim Mayar, the acting director of the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief, an umbrella group that represents more than 100 Afghan and international aid groups working in Afghanistan. "Insecurity has extended to some parts of the county that were relatively safe last year."

Perhaps most damningly, a recent Pentagon report to Congress drew similar conclusions:

The insurgency’s capabilities and operational reach have been qualitatively and geographically expanding, as evidenced by a greater frequency and wider dispersion of insurgent-initiated attacks; however, that spread is being increasingly challenged by the ISAF surge forces conducting operations.  Despite the increase in ANSF and ISAF capabilities to counter insurgent attacks, the insurgents’ tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) continue to evolve in sophistication.  In addition, the insurgency continues to inhibit the expansion of a legitimate Afghan Government through an effective shadow governance process that provides dispute resolution, rule of law, and other traditional services in a number of areas.  

Keep in mind, this is a Pentagon report - and it appears to directly contradict the words of the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

So what you have is a mountain of evidence indicating that the security situation in Afghanistan is worsening; that in particular, insurgents are making serious in-roads in the north and west of the country and putting once secure regions in greater risk; even as the US is putting greater pressure on Taliban insurgents in the South and East. 

While it may be factually correct for Obama and Gates to suggest that the Taliban "control" less territory than they did before the surge this is a highly dubious claim since the Taliban's effectiveness is not really defined by territory as much as it is the ability to intimidate and influence the population, exert its influence in local communities and spread instability. This is a fact that is almost certainly understood by our military commanders in Afghanistan.

The simple fact is that the Administration's efforts to put a more positive spin on the increasingly tenuous security situation in Afghanistan is to gloss over the truth. Perhaps the most important story of the past year in Afghanistan is that even with the inclusion of more than 30,000 more US and NATO troops the security situation has worsened dramatically.

Now one can argue that this is a means to an end; a first stop on the road to progress. I don't find that personally credible, but it's certainly a legitimate argument for the Administration to make.

But it's quite another thing to play down the deterioration around the country; to cherry-pick improvements in areas of the country inundated with US troops as a reason for overall optimism; and to provide the American people with a decidedly one-sided and incomplete view of the war in Afghanistan. This, unfortunately, is what the White House and the military are trying to do. 

To be blunt, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take anything the White House or the military says about the war in Afghanistan seriously.

New START Reflections and Kudos Posted by David Shorr

The issues of nuclear weapons and arms control are basically where I got my start (sorry) in foreign policy. My formative experiences as an advocate were in the early-80s nuclear freeze movement. The core argument was pretty straightforward: there was no valid military or security rationale for having the tens of thousands of n-weapons already in the US and Soviet arsenals, never mind adding a lot of new ones. Added nuclear forces would literally be overkill -- the capacity to "make the rubble bounce," as we used to say. That's why my nomination for Quote of the Debate goes to Sen. Lamar Alexander, who argued that New START deserved support because...

it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come

That pretty much says it. As long as we have enough to retaliate and deter, the rest is tougher-than-thou political posturing. It was clear from the outset that this treaty would separate the sober-minded from the alarmist. The support for New START from the traditional Republican mandarins and military leaders was no surprise. Just as predictable were the conjured imbalances and vulnerabilities. The Right just moves farther and farther right; have they really been complaining about a far-Left agenda? Really?

Critics seem to have lost sight of the real problem: stemming the spread of nuclear arms to countries like Iran and North Korea. This is their blind spot. They seem oblivious to the connection between our own credibility -- for which disarmament is the good faith price under the NPT -- and our ability to forge a united international front and keep the heat on Iran. Oblivious might be too strong a word. Last night I watched Sen. Thune propose an amendment that sought guarantees of continued Russian support for the Iran effort. Rather than merely continue down the path of cooperation with Moscow, let's subject our bilateral arms control to constant tests and demands of Russia's reliability on Iran. Talk about what-have-you-done-for-me-lately... 

But back to the celebration and some well-earned kudos. Part of my excitement about the Senate vote traces to my role in the election of one of the new senators. For several years I was Sen. Al Franken's main foreign policy adviser before and during his campaign, so I take special pride in his vote to ratify New START.

Finally, I want to sing the praises of key voices for this debate particularly here on the blogosphere. First off, Max Bergmann of the Think Progress Wonk Room (and a Democracy Arsenal alum) has been all over this issue from the start beginning. On the journalistic side, Josh Rogin has provided terrific coverage on his Cable blog over at Foreign Policy. Right here at DA, Kelsey Hartigan has done a great job as our resident New START watcher. And last but not least, Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione as been a relentless tweeter. While I've focused my plaudits on the blogosphere, this has clearly involved huge efforts by the administration to negotiate and push the treaty forward, by senators and their staff to debate and ratify it (THANK YOU, Senators Kerry and Lugar), and the advocates and analysts of the arms control community to open the political space and spur things along.

New START Daily Wrap: Day 7 Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Cloture invoked:  “victory for common sense” ahead.  Hours ago, the Senate voted 67 – 28 to close the floor debate on New START and move towards a final vote.  Senators now have up to 30 hours to wrap up the floor debate, though Hill observers expect the final vote to come sometime Wednesday.  Five senators were absent for today’s vote—and at least three, Sens. Wyden, Bayh and Gregg—plan to vote for the pact tomorrow.  Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) released a statement today after the vote, saying, “We are on the brink of writing the next chapter in the 40-year history of wrestling with the threat of nuclear weapons… All eyes will be on the Senate in these last hours of debate and all will see a victory for common sense and the Senate act in its best traditions.”

GOP support pours in for New START.  As top military officials continued to urge the Senate to ratify New START, conservatives were clearly feeling the heat.  Editorial boards across the country lambasted treaty opponents. “Enough posturing,” write the LA Times. “A party that claims to oppose political gamesmanship and favor a strong national defense is giving itself a black eye.”  By the end of the day, eleven GOP senators – Lugar, Alexander, Bennett, Brown, Cochran, Collins, Corker, Isakson, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich – all announced they will support the treaty’s final passage and voted to close off debate today.  Additional support could come tomorrow. 

Treaty opponents cling to partisan frame.  Rich Lowry wrote this morning on the National Review Online, “Republican opposition to New START is collapsing.” Lowry further suggested that the New START debate has been a “dismaying rout” for conservative opponents.   As The Cable points out, , “Everyone here on Capitol Hill is beginning to see the ratification of New START as increasingly inevitable – everyone, that is, except for Sen. Jon Kyl.” Greg Sargent further notes, “It seems particularly ludicrous that at a presser today, Senator Lindsey Graham actually apologized to Jon Kyl on behalf of the rest of the Senate, because it isn't doing his bidding and instead is ratifying New START.”

Words of Wisdom from America’s Military Leaders. Again. Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Over the past week, leading uniformed officials have continued to urge the Senate to ratify New START.  There is a reason the tide has turned and additional GOP senators have gone on record to say they will support New START:  The treaty has the entire support of the United States military leadership. Despite desperate attempts to drag this debate into partisan waters, New START has the bipartisan support it needs.  So take heart, America – there is at least two-thirds of the United States Senate that won't put politics above  national security. 

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense:  “I strongly support the Senate voting to give its advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty this week.  The treaty will enhance strategic stability at lower numbers of nuclear weapons, provide a rigorous inspection regime including on-site access to Russian missile silos, strengthen our leadership role in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and provide the necessary flexibility to structure our strategic nuclear forces to best meet national security interests.”

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:   “The Joint Chiefs and I are confident that the treaty does not in any way constrain our ability to pursue robust missile defenses… I continue to believe that ratification of the New START Treaty is vital to U.S. national security. Through the trust it engenders. The cuts it requires, and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards. The sooner it is ratified, the better.”

Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, Commander of Global Strike Command, the command that oversees the Air Force's nuclear enterprise:  "I think the START Treaty ought to be ratified and it ought to be ratified right now - this week… I think it's absolutely essential that we reestablish that cooperative, collaborative relationship and the START Treaty is the core, the nexus, around which that dialogue can take place. That's why I'm such a strong supporter and think the treaty ought to be ratified.”

Gen. James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “All of the Joint Chiefs are very much behind this treaty, because of the transparency, because of the reality that both the United States and Russia are going to have to recapitalize their nuclear arsenals, both the delivery vehicles and the weapons.  To have transparency, to understand the rules by which to put structure to that activity, we need START and we need it badly.”

Afghanistan Misson Creep Watch Redux Posted by Michael Cohen

So apparently a few senior members of the US military have lost their minds:

Senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas, a risky strategy reflecting the growing frustration with Pakistan’s efforts to root out militants there.

The proposal, described by American officials in Washington and Afghanistan, would escalate military activities inside Pakistan, where the movement of American forces has been largely prohibited because of fears of provoking a backlash.

The plan has not yet been approved, but military and political leaders say a renewed sense of urgency has taken hold, as the deadline approaches for the Obama administration to begin withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan. The Americans are known to have made no more than a handful of forays across the border into Pakistan, in operations that have infuriated Pakistani officials. Now, American military officers appear confident that a shift in policy could allow for more routine incursions.

The decision to expand American military activity in Pakistan, which would almost certainly have to be approved by President Obama himself, would amount to the opening of a new front in the nine-year-old war, which has grown increasingly unpopular among Americans. It would run the risk of angering a Pakistani government that has been an uneasy ally in the war in Afghanistan, particularly if it leads to civilian casualties or highly public confrontations.

Angering the Pakistani government is putting it mildly; how about creating the risk of a military confrontation between the United States and Pakistan. Where does one begin to count the ways that this undertaking could go badly astray? What happens if US forces find themselves confronted by Pakistani soldiers - our allies?

And how exactly does this further US interests vis-a-vis Pakistan? It's hard to see how this might help in the process of getting Pakistan to crack down on Afghan Taliban safe havens. If anything, one could very easily imagine that it will have the precise opposite effect; further embittering Pakistan and making cooperation on confronting the Afghan Taliban that much less likely. If one of the stated purposes of the US mission in Afghanistan is, in part, to stabilize Pakistan . . . well how does this further that goal? Indeed, these cross-border raids could actually risk destabilizing Pakistan politically.

Other than all that seems like a good plan.

And to what end would be contemplating this dangerous escalation of the war. If the Times reporting is to be believed what is driving this now is the nearing "deadline" for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan. What this seems to suggest is that you have folks in US leadership positions who are so desperate for a "win" in Afghanistan that they are willing to risk sparking a military conflict with Pakistan in order to "show progress" - any sort of progress against the Taliban.

If ever there was a moment to step back and fully consider the potential consequences of our actions in Afghanistan it is right now. If a cross-border attack is the only way to "defeat" the Taliban then its time to contemplate the possibility that the current strategy has more costs than it does benefits. It's moment like these when cooler heads must prevail and the civilian leadership needs to put its hand on the brake. 

Because, to a large extent, the very fact that ideas like these are being floated in the New York Times is indicative of how precisely out of control and divorced from US interests, are policy there has become. In the minds of some policymakers, the desire to win in Afghanistan seemingly trumps all other US interests in the region - heck across the globe. At the precise moment when the US desperately needs to be de-escalating in Afghanistan; there are those in the senior ranks of the military who would dangerously ratchet up the conflict and put the US and Pakistan on a collision course to open conflict.

Mr. President, you need to get control of your generals and this war. Because what is being contemplated here is insane.

New START Daily Wrap: Day 6 Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Military leaders continue to urge swift passage of New START.  Admiral Mullen reiterated the military’s unanimous call to ratify New START as soon as possible.  “The sooner it is ratified, the better,” Adm. Mullen said in his letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA). 

Gen. Scowcroft on GOP obstructionism:  “It’s baffling to me.”  General Brent Scowcroft (ret.), the former National Security Advisor to both Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, expressed dismay on Monday with his fellow Republicans.  “I just don’t understand the opposition. Some of it with John McCain is (opposition to the repeal of) Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, some of it is politics. But to play politics with what is in the fundamental national interest is pretty scary stuff.”

GOP Senators say New START will pass easily.  The Hill reports today that, “GOP senators — including those who plan to vote for the treaty and those who say they’ll oppose it — have told The Hill they expect it to pass easily.”

John McCain submits a missile defense amendment to the resolution of ratification.  After denying that he was negotiating an amendment to the resolution of ratification – which, unlike his amendment to alter the preamble, would not kill the treaty – John McCain submitted a missile defense amendment today.  Senators Kyl, Graham and Kirk co-sponsored the amendment with Sen. McCain.  Hill observers predict an agreement to move forward is in the works.

Sen. Brown (R-MA) announces that he will support New START. "I've done my due diligence, and I’m going to be ... ultimately supporting the START treaty," Brown told reporters after emerging late this afternoon from a closed-door intelligence briefing for all senators. "I believe it's something that’s important for our country, and I believe it’s a good move forward to deal with our national security issues."

New START Daily Wrap: Weekend Edition Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

President Obama sent letters to Senators Reid and McConnell about the U.S. missile defense plans.  President Obama reiterated, "Regardless of Russia's actions in this regard, as long as I am President, and as long as Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy the effective missile defenses to protect the United State, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners."
 
Killer amendment, killed.  Senators voted 59 to 37 to kill Sen. McCain's amendment to strike the language in the preamble that acknowledges "the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms." George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice all acknowledged this reality during their tenure. 
 
"It's time to get this done."  In his weekly address, President Obama urged senators to come together and pass New START.  "Ratifying a treaty like START is not about winning a victory for an administration or a political party, it is about the safety and security of the country."
 
Sen. Risch's "killer" amendment would only make reducing Russian tactical nuclear weapons more difficult.  As its name indicates, New START deals with strategic arms, and does not address tactical nuclear weapons. Failure to ratify New START would only hinder efforts to reduce Russia's tactical nuclear arsenal. Our NATO allies recognize this as well, which is why they fully support New START. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has explained, "This is a key concern for allies - not only those closest to Russia's borders - in light of the great disparity between the levels of Russian tactical nuclear weapons and those of NATO. But we cannot address this disparity until the New Start treaty is ratified. Which is another reason why ratification would set the stage for further improvements in European security."

New START Daily Wrap: Day 3 Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

18 European Foreign Ministers:  New START Matters.  The foreign ministers wrote:  New START will "have a positive impact on American, European and wider international security. Its impact on international security goes far beyond Europe - it is global. That is why we all share an interest in seeing the new treaty ratified and implemented."
 
Killer amendment, killed?  After complaining that New START was too important to consider on a dual-track process, Sen. McCain introduced an amendment that would kill the treaty.  The perambulatory language that acknowledges "the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms" is merely a statement of fact-which George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld both acknowledged during their tenure. Amendments require 51 votes to be defeated, a reality the treaty's opponents seemed to recognize as they refused to agree to a time limit, stretching the debate well into Friday evening. 

Backing down.  Sen. Corker threatened to hold New START hostage if Democrats moved forward with the DREAM Act and repealing DADT.  McCain rejected this notion on the Senate floor, saying, "there continues to swirl allegations that there is going to be a vote for or against because of another piece of legislation... I reject that allegation... I know that every member of this body is making the judgment on this treaty on its merits."  Sen. Corker was forced to call back the Washington Post and walk back his comments.  Sen. Lindsey Graham also rejected the threat.

The Short Life and Timely Death of Pop-Centric COIN Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at the Nation, I have a new piece looking at the evolution of counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan - from McChrystal-esque hearts and minds to Petraeus-style, kinetic action:

What is happening in Afghanistan is an embrace of the aggressive approach to counterinsurgency once publicly dismissed by FM 3-24 advocates. This is not to suggest that US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have given up on trying to reach hearts and minds. But their embrace of techniques they once argued against is an implicit acknowledgment that the population-centric tactics of FM 3-24 have only marginal effectiveness in a nonpermissive environment like that of Afghanistan today. Like so many counterinsurgents before them, US generals are finding that the carrot is far less effective than the stick.

Their actual approach bears startling resemblance to the smaller-military-footprint counterterrorism strategy outlined by Vice President Biden during last year's strategic review debates. Put aside for now are dreams of state-building in the Hindu Kush or the belief that only by turning the people away from the insurgents can America secure its interests. Instead, military planners have shifted their focus to an end-game strategy of using lethal force to drive the Taliban to the negotiating table.

The shift in emphasis toward a more traditional conflict is compelling evidence of the disconnect between the theory of population-centric COIN and actual US capabilities—and an unstated recognition that FM 3-24 has so far not succeeded. This hasn't stopped COIN advocates from arguing that the shift in military emphasis is all part of the larger COIN effort; after all, they claim, direct military action is a crucial element of counterinsurgency. But these are self-serving and deceptive arguments, intended in part to mask the failure of the military to capture Afghan hearts and minds.

You can read the whole thing here . . . and please do!

 

The Civilian Side Needs Advocates Posted by Jacob Stokes

Dan Drezner has a good roundup on the challenge of breaking the civilian agency “feedback loop,” which he aptly characterizes as, “State loses operational authority and capabilities because of poor funding, which leads to more tasks for Defense, which leads to even more lopsided funding between the two bureaucracies, which leads to an even greater disparity in responsibilities, and so forth.”

What Drezner describes is a phenomenon, but it’s also the strategy for those who want to turn the Department of Defense into the Department of Everything. (Mitt Romney epitomizes this position in his book, “No Apology.”) You starve the civilian side of foreign policy, then lambast it for being ineffectual.

Drezner asks the right question: Will the QDDR do anything to tip the balance back towards the civilians:

Will the QDDR change that? That's sorta the point of the whole exercise -- the phrase "civilian power" appears 281 times in the QDDR. I'm dubious -- the only way this works is through greater staffing and greater funding for U.S. foreign aid, and in this Age of Austerity, the first things that get cut are.... diplomats and foreign aid funding.

I'd love to see Hillary Clinton make the case to Congress than an extra $50 billion for State would improve American foreign policy enough to cut, say, $100 billion for DoD. I'd love a free pony too, for all the likelihood that this will happen.

Clinton’s recent piece is Foreign Affairs was an attempt to make just such a case: that diplomacy and development are not only humanitarian, warm-and-fuzzy efforts. They’re hardheaded investments aimed at solving problems before they descend into the expensive and bloody conflicts that truly require a military response. (As Matt Yglesias wrote this week in the Prospect, the late Richard Holbrooke personified this viewpoint.)

New START Daily Wrap: Day 2 Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Military leaders continued to express support for prompt ratification.  Today the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, dismissed GOP attempts to delay New START and urged prompt ratification of the treaty at a White House press conference, insisting, “We need START, and we need it badly.”

Sen. Isakson appeared to break with Sen. Kyl, suggesting that the junior senator from Arizona is becoming increasingly isolated.  Sen. Isakson made an emboldened defense of the treaty and stressed the need to reinstate the verification regime, saying, "I went through interviews with Sam Nunn, listened to the chairman and the ranking member, listened to the testimony, read the documentation which everybody else can read, in the secure briefing room, I came to the conclusion that verification is better than no verification at all. Transparency is what prevents things like 9/11 from ever happening again.”

Republicans wasted time, failed to offer amendments to treaty.  Sen. John Kerry opened debate on New START with repeated calls for amendments. After Republicans failed to offer a single amendment, Sen. Kerry called out his Republican colleagues who were wasting time, saying, “We're ready to vote on the treaty. The only thing we're waiting for are the people who say we don't have time.”

The Afghan Strategy Review That Wasn't Posted by Michael Cohen

So I just got done reading the White House's Afghan Strategy Review and it is as depressing as it is unserious.  In general, this is a report intended more for public consumption than a serious reading of the situation in Afghanistan; and frankly its goal is more to deceive the public than to level with it. (Considering that now 60 percent of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting it's not difficult understand the White House's motivation).

Reading this review one would not know that Afghan governance remains a serious obstacle to this US strategy, relations with the Karzai government are badly frayed, training of the ANSF and Police is showing, at best, halting progress, the Taliban have made significant inroads into Northern Afghanistan, in effect nationalizing the insurgency and as Rajiv pointed out the other day, the tactical gains that the US has made are a result of overwhelming US military power that is likely not sustainable or able to be replicated across the country.

These are all serious impediments to the achievement of US goals in Afghanistan and they go unmentioned in the review. Consider this paragraph:

While the momentum achieved by the Taliban in recent years has been arrested in much of the country and reversed in some key areas, these gains remain fragile and reversible. Consolidating those gains will require that we make more progress with Pakistan to eliminate sanctuaries for violent extremist networks.

Unmentioned here is that in Northern Afghanistan and elsewhere the security situation has significantly worsened or even that in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan while security in places where US troops are located has gotten better, overall civilian casualties and American military deaths have jumped significantly. 

On the subject of Afghan Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan yes more progress needs to be made in dealing with them, but unmentioned in the report is any sense of how that might happen. I see no reason to believe that Pakistan is on the verge of dealing with this problem and if the White House does, it's not saying.

Now I obviously get the fact that the White House wants to put a positive spin on things, but this report presents the American people with a completely one-sided - military-centric - view of the situation in Afghanistan that highlights the halting tactical successes and largely ignored the strategic roadblocks that are undermining US policy objectives. This, to put it bluntly, is not change I can believe in.

Moreover, the report's focus on Pakistan is telling - the report is certainly correct in suggesting that additional pressure is being put on al Qaeda in Pakistan, but what any of this has to do with the war in Afghanistan is not clear. None of the gains made in Pakistan have much of anything to do with the war in Afghanistan - and they could just as easily be accomplished with a smaller military footprint on par to what Vice President Biden was suggesting last year. If anything, the large US troop presence is probably roiling US-Pakistan relations as much as it is helping them. 

Nowhere in the report is a larger explanation for how the giant US presence in Afghanistan is furthering US national security or frankly is necessary to uphold these interests. 

When I read this report I see an Administration searching fitfully for a way to argue progress is being made in Afghanistan and justify a continued US presence and the President's decision to escalate the war- against a lot of evidence to the contrary.

In other words what I see here to coin a phrase from the 2008 campaign is, more of the same.

 

New START Myths Debunked, Missile Defense Edition Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

As the Senate moves to offer the advice and consent of Congress, legislators need to distinguish between dangerous myths and reality.  Here are the facts:

Myth:  New START limits our ability to deploy missile defenses.

Reality: New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses.  New START does not limit U.S. missile defense systems or in any way diminish our ability to protect and defend our allies.  Our leading uniformed officers have repeatedly stressed that New START does not constrain the missile defense plans of the United States.  In fact, the U.S. now has the freedom to conduct certain tests that were limited by the previous START agreement. 

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger and Colin L. Powell:  “The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans. Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes.” [Kissinger, Shultz, Baker, Eagleburger and Powell, 12/2/10]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses.” [Sec. Gates, 6/17/10]

Reality:  It is quicker and less costly to construct new launchers for U.S. missile defense systems.   The U.S. has no plans or desire to convert additional ICBM silos into missile defense interceptors, or vice versa.   Article V, paragraph 3 grandfathers in the five ICBM silos at Vandenberg AFB that were converted into missile defense interceptors and prohibits these sites from being inspected by the Russians.  As Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly testified, it costs $20 million less to build new Ground-Based Interceptors.  Gen. O’Reilly further concluded that converting ICBM or SLBM launchers would not be “prudent or operationally effective.” [Lt. Gen. O'Reilly, 6/16/10]

Myth: A unilateral statement by Russia will allow Russia to veto U.S. missile defense.

Reality: Unilateral statements are not legally binding. Such statements have accompanied treaties for years and do not affect the bounds of the treaty. As Sen. Lugar has explained, because the missile-defense statements are outside the main text, “they are in essence editorial opinions.” As the administration has explained, "The Russian government made a statement about missile defense with which the United States did not, and does not, agree.  If we had agreed to it, the issue would be put into the treaty text, or issued as a "joint" statement.  In fact, the United States issued its own unilateral statement, indicating that it plans to continue to develop and deploy its missile defense systems in order to defend itself.  Neither the Russian statement nor the U.S. statement is legally binding on the other party.  But each side is making its intentions clear -- to the other party, and to the world."  [Sen. Lugar, 3/24/10. White House, 4/8/10]

Myth:  The treaty's preamble ties the hands of the U.S. and limits our missile defense options.

Reality:  Perambulatory language is merely a statement of fact.  As in previous U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreements, New START contains perambulatory language that acknowledges the “the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms.”  This is a matter of reality, not a limit.

New START Daily Wrap: Day 1 Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Key procedural vote on New START passes strongly.  The final vote count was 66-32, which represents a two-thirds majority of the 98 senators who were present-enough to ratify the agreement, and far more than the 51 votes that were required to begin debate.  Nine Republican senators -- John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Robert Bennett, Lisa Murkowski, Scott Brown, George Voinovich, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Richard Lugar - all voted to bring New START to the Senate floor.
 
Delay tactics unsuccessful.  Sen. DeMint called off his threat to force the Senate to read the entire treaty out loud after the White House rebuked him, saying "This is a new low in putting political stunts ahead of our national security, and it is exactly the kind of Washington game-playing that the American people are sick of."
 
Echoing Brig. Gen. John Adams, Majority Leader Harry Reid blasted Senators Kyl and DeMint after they suggested working into Christmas week was offensive to Christians.  As Brig. Gen. John Adams said, "We have one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand US warriors doing their job over Christmas and the New Year; the U.S. Senate should do its job - and ratify this treaty." Sen. Reid denounced the duo, saying, "People who are lucky enough to have a job in these trying times need to work extra hours to make ends meet. So it's offensive to me and millions of working Americans across this country for any senator to suggest that working through the Christmas holidays is somehow sack sacrilegious. If they decide to work with us, we can all have a happy holiday. If they don't, we're going to continue until we finish the people's business." 
 
Looking ahead, tomorrow's threatened attempts to kill the treaty by amending the preamble are stunts that can be easily defeated.  As our military leaders have explained, the perambulatory language is merely a statement of fact and in no way inhibits U.S. missile defense plans.

Kyl: Doing My Job Would Be Offensive to Christians Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

About a month ago, Sen. Lugar (R-IN) sharply rebuked members of his own party for attempting to delay the ratification process for New START.  "Every senator has an obligation in the national security interest to take a stand, to do his or her duty. Maybe people would prefer not to do his or her duty right now," he said. "Sometimes when you prefer not to vote, you attempt to find reasons not to vote."

Jon Kyl’s latest excuse to delay?  Working would be offensive to Christians.

"It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out," Kyl said today, "frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff."

New START is a matter of national security.  Every day, the men and women who defend our country do their job.  Jon Kyl and his fellow Republicans should consider doing theirs. 

As Brig. Gen. John Adams explained on Dec. 13th: 

“We have one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand US warriors doing their job over Christmas and the New Year, the U.S. Senate should do its job – and ratify this treaty.”

The Emerging Consensus on Afghanistan Posted by The Editors

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Paul Eaton and DA's own Heather Hurlburt have written an op-ed in Politico laying out eight points of agreement that constitute a growing consensus on the way forward in Afghanistan. Basically, if the think tank community had done an interagency review, here's what it would have looked like:

As the Obama administration prepares to release its third strategy review of the war in Afghanistan, discussion of U.S. policy focuses on three conflicts. First, the actual military campaign against Afghan and Pakistani insurgents. Second, the political jockeying among Afghan President Hamid Karzai, his countrymen and international groups attempting to get a handle on massive corruption and poor governance. And third, the Washington shadowboxing between factions supporting “double down” or “out now.” 

Meanwhile, a growing progressive-realist-centrist axis of agreement has emerged. This fall, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress, the Afghanistan Study Group and theCenter for a New American Security all issued reports on Afghanistan that share a stunning amount of agreement. As a group, they offer a way forward that could be effective, affordable and sustainable.

Read the whole thing here.

Richard Holbrooke: A Memory and A Charge Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Before he went into the Obama Administration, Richard Holbrooke served on NSN's advisory board.  He is already being remembered as a brilliant diplomat and a larger-than-life figure.  We had the chance to see him in a rather different light -- as mentor and guide to those who came behind him, something I also saw in his outreach to foreign policy students at Brown University, where he was an active alumni presence while I was an undergrad research assistant in the late 1980s.

One day in mid-2008, he paid a visit to NSN's offices.  Let's just say that we haven't received too many Secretary-of-State hopefuls in our little warren.  He strolled magesterially into one office where three very young staffers were clustered around the computer.  (A side note:  two are now in Administration jobs, and a third is rumored to be headed that way imminently.)  What are you working on, he asked.  Oh, we're coming up with a policy for Afghanistan, my confident team of millenials replied.

Having seen both the brilliant and the savage sides of Holbrooke during the Clinton Administration, I winced and ducked for the door.  But Holbrooke was urbane.  "Oh, really?  When were you last there?"

Embarrassed silence from my team.

"No, really, how much time have you spent there?"

"Umm, none" someone finally said.

"Well, I just got back, and..." was the opening to a masterful ten-minute diagnosis of all that was wrong in the region, and that years of neglect in favor of Iraq had done to worsen the political and military situation.  After about the second minute, all you could hear was the frantic scratching in notebooks.  People from other offices gathered round to listen.

Two weeks ago, I spoke to someone who'd briefed Holbrooke's team, and commented on their courage and determination in keeping going even when they didn't necessarily have the resources or attention or priority they needed to create the civilians-first vision of Afghanistan that many of us hoped for.  That, too, is a credit to him.

In so many ways, Holbrooke personified 50 years of American foreign policy, and 50 years of struggle, failed as often as not, to use our brains as often or as well as our brawn.  He never gave up.

 

Rooting for Dick Holbrooke Posted by David Shorr

Democracy Arsenal being what it is -- and with the founding mother who started it off -- if DA was capable of having sentiments of its own, it would really be pulling for Ambassador Holbrooke to pull through. In fact, counting on him to do so.

China's Nobel Ceremony Loyalty Test Posted by David Shorr

A good post from Mark Lagon on China's reaction to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to dissident Liu Xiaobo, and particularly what it means for China's international image. As Mark notes, there was a lot of potent symbolism in Oslo in terms of who was absent from today's award ceremony.

The ceremony was noteworthy for its empty seats, especially those for Liu himself or any relative to be permitted by the winner's country to travel to Oslo to receive the award (the first time since Nazi Germany prevented a dissident from attending to receive his prize in 1936).

Symbolism matters in the responses of other world leaders too. So the empty seats at today's ceremony, reportedly including those of representatives from U.S. allies Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, speak volumes.

What Lagon alludes to is the diplomatic full-court press Beijing mounted in an attempt to persuade other governments to boycott the ceremony. It's worth emphasizing how this international bullying compounds the prior infractions of Liu's imprisonment and the travel ban on his family. Chinese leaders have only underscored rather than reduced their legitimacy problem.

In fact, I'd say there's an axiom of international legitimacy in this episode. When a powerful nation appeals for support on the basis of testing others' loyalty, it has already conceded the weakness of its case. If your argument is that you're verifying who are your real friends, you're only telegraphing that in the court of world opinion, your influence is made of very brittle stuff.

How Afghanistan Is Like The Ex-Girlfriend That Broke Your Heart Posted by Michael Cohen

Over at abumuqawama, Andrew Exum has just returned from Afghanistan and in his trip report he makes a rather startling discovery

"We have two "Achilles heels" in the current strategy: Afghan governance and insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan."

Huh, you don't say? Calling these two Achilles heels is a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln,"other than that how was the play?"

Moreover, while these are two of the Achilles heels in our mission in Afghanistan, I would add two more - lack of an effective military and police force as well as a coherent justice system. But these two are insurmountable enough that they are a useful jumping off point for a discussion.

Indeed, Exum follows up on this declaration by making the following depressing statement, "I'm going to be honest and say that I do not see a coherent or otherwise effective strategy for dealing with the sanctuaries in Pakistan."

Couldn't agree more. But here's the problem, Exum is the author of a new report that makes the following recommendation to the US government

"The United States should use greater political,military and economic leverage over its allies in Pakistan to drive more aggressive action against violent extremist organizations in the region." And the report also says this, "The United States must now take a tougher stand with Pakistan – if necessary, in public."

Huh? Why exactly do we think this would be successful when for the past, not two years, but 8 years, we've never been successful in putting pressure on Pakistan to do this. The only times Pakistan has acted against extremist organizations is when they've threatened the Pakistani state (and then only begrudgingly). In other words Pakistan acts against extremist groups when they feel it is in their best interest - not when the US pressures them. The only possible exception being September 2001 - and that is a rather limited, pretty hedged exception.

Only compounding the confusion is that while there is a recognition above that governance in Afghanistan is a major problem the other key political recommendation of Responsible Transition is  . . . . to improve governance in Afghanistan.

Now granted the CNAS solution is to focus on local governance rather than top down governance, but why would that be any easier to carry out? In fact, wouldn't trying to improve local governance be demonstratively more difficult and require a longer trajectory? At the very least it requires a level of sophistication in US operations in Afghanistan that we've basically never witnessed.

So to sum up: governance and Pakistan support for insurgents are huge problems; they don't lend themselves to easy or quick fixes (or maybe any fix at all) . . .

. . . but going forward, with the political clock ticking, let's focus on governance and eroding Pakistani support for Taliban insurgents.

Sometimes when I read this stuff I feel like Afghanistan is like an ex-girlfriend that broke up with you. You're still really in love with her, but she has clearly moved on and you keep coming up with ways to win her back, and maybe for a brief time you patch things up . . . but in the end she kicks you to the road because she just really doesn't think you're the one. So instead of moving on to greener pastures, you keep trying to convince her that she made a huge mistake all the while failing to recognize reality.

Yup, that's my analogy for Afghanistan! We keep thinking of new ways and new ideas to try and do something that simply can't be done there. But instead of recognizing that our new ideas and ways aren't going to work; that Afghanistan really isn't interested in reforming its governance structure, that Pakistan really doesn't want to crack down on Afghan Taliban safe havens we keep hoping against hope that maybe the next time will be different.

Or we come up with a few discrete examples of tactical progress: "things in the Arghandab River Valley are really looking up;" "we're getting really good at COIN," but that have absolutely nothing to do with the obvious strategic roadblocks that are preventing us from making progress.

As Andrew points, "if you are winning "tactically" but losing "strategically," you are ... losing."

Exactly. So that means you should change the strategy and yet for some reason this sort of connection never seems to get made. We keep trying to fix problems that clearly can't be fixed and that have never lent themselves to US-led solutions in the outside hope that again "this time will be different."

At some point you just have to realize that Afghanistan is really not that into you.

Leaders Urge Senate to Ratify New START Before Year's End Posted by Kelsey Hartigan

Yesterday, more than 30 leading civil, scientific and religious leaders sent a letter to Sens. Harry Reid, Richard Durbin and Charles Schumer urging them to move New START forward before the end of the year. 

“Failure to act on the New START treaty this year would undermine the country’s national security interests, as both our military leadership and numerous former Republican officials have noted.”

The 111th Congress has held 18 hearings, dozens of briefings and meetings, and received answers to over 900 questions for the record.  New START has been thoroughly vetted and it is time for the Senate to vote. 
 
“We urge you to take up and approve New START now, if need be by extending the Senate in session beyond December 17.”

A group of 15 former senior military officers also sent a letter to senators yesterday, saying, “The Senate must move decisively to ratify the New START treaty before the end of 2010. For the sake of America’s global leadership role and future security, we cannot afford to delay.”

Leaders of the business community further encouraged the Senate to ratify New START before the end of the year.  Klaus Kleinfeld, the CEO of Alcoa, wrote yesterday in Forbes, “The new START agreement is more than just an important arms control treaty. It is the foundation of the U.S.-Russia "reset," which has provided new avenues for U.S. economic growth by deepening and expanding commercial ties with Russia. This is especially important now, when the U.S. economy is hurting, as Russia has vast natural resources and a large market. For that reason, the U.S.-Russia Business Council, which I chair, has urged the Senate to ratify START before the end of the year.”

The letter that the U.S.-Russia Business Council sent to Sen. Kyl in November is available here.


Full letter to Reid, Durbin and Schumer is after the jump:

The Montgomery Burns Party Posted by Michael Cohen

The mind truly reels:

Republican senators blocked Democratic legislation on Thursday that sought to provide medical care to rescue workers and residents of New York City who became ill as a result of breathing in toxic fumes, dust and smoke from ground zero.

And what's the reason - concerns that the bill's $7.4 billion provisions won't be paid for with other budget offsets. This by the way is the same political party that just fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years at a price tag of $100 billion.

So here's how the GOP does math - $100 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. For 9/11 responders and NYC residents - bubkes.

And to be clear it's not even that the GOP is voting against this legislation; they are preventing the Democrats from even holding vote on it.

What is perhaps most galling about this is that this is the same Republican Party that supported spending a trillion dollars to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to "prevent" another September 11th. Was any of that money offset with spending cuts and tax increases elsewhere in the budget? Ha!

Indeed, Republicans regularly demagogued any Democrat politician who spoke out against the unquenchable amounts of money we were spending on America's wars. And now when it comes to spending $7 billion for individuals who worked on the rescue operations at 9/11 the GOP all of a sudden puts on its deficit hawk hat and draws a line in the sand. Apparently all those rescue workers and residents who breathed in toxic fumes should have put on a military uniform - then the money would just start flowing.

It would be almost darkly comical if it wasn't actually happening. It's a telling reminder of the rot - and breathtaking hypocrisy - that exists at the core of the modern Republican Party.

 

Thoughts on Responsible Transition Posted by Michael Cohen

The folks over at CNAS have a new report on how the US can responsibly transition its military forces out of Afghanistan. To be sure I like to read anything on Afghanistan that makes the argument for moves away from a large-scale US military presence to a smaller footprint. But that laudable recommendation can't hide the fact that Responsible Transition fails to seriously engage on the most important question facing the US mission in Afghanistan - namely political reconciliation. 

This is a rather stunning and glaring omission. Indeed, the CNAS report does more than simply gloss over the issue; it seems openly hostile to the possibility of negotiation with the Taliban and/or potential reconciliation. 

In fact, much of the discussion of political strategy in the paper focuses on how the US and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan (ish) can put pressure on the Taliban to make concessions - rather than have the US, NATO or the Afghan government offer any sort of olive branch to the insurgents.

The report argues that their strategy "would add further momentum to prospects for reconciliation by extending the U.S. and allied presence in Afghanistan and disheartening insurgent groups that will have to convince their rank and file that another several years of hard fighting remain on the horizon."

Basically it's all sticks and no carrots for the Taliban.

This approach seems to directly reflect US and ISAF thinking, which according to the recent Wikileaks disclosures, rejects any option short of the Taliban's "surrender."

As I noted recently "what is lacking is a recognition that the Taliban will likely have a long-term role to play in Afghanistan's future - and that this is something that all sides in the conflict, particularly the US, are going to have to accept." Instead the CNAS report seems to reflect a vision of Afghanistan's future in which the US and NATO wins and the Taliban is defeated or at the very least routed.

How Not to Deal With Iran Posted by David Shorr

 Kudos to Kelsey Hartigan for her critique of this week's 5-senator letter to President Obama on the Iranian nuclear program, which is indeed wrongheaded and counterproductive. The signers of the letter published Monday by Josh Rogin's The Cable (Sens. Lieberman, Kyl, Casey, Gillibrand, and Kirk) lay out red-lines that leave the president scant room to reach a feasible diplomatic solution. It's a double whammy of a provocative strategy pointing toward an unworkable objective.

First, we strongly support the cascade of measures that have been put in place over the past several months by your Administration, in cooperation with our partners around the world, to increase the pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We applaud and are encouraged by the strong actions taken thus far by the Administration to secure meaningful economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Iranian regime, which are absolutely essential for any prospect of a peaceful resolution to this challenge.

Well that's darn charitable of them. Applause, mind you, from Senators Lieberman and Kyl! Just lovely. Ah, but the other hand takes away what the first has so generously given...

Second, we believe that it is absolutely essential that the United States and its partners make clear to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran that we intend to continue ratcheting up this pressure, through comprehensive enforcement of existing sanctions as well as imposition of new measures, until the full... [I'll come back to this next part later.]

Translation: the shelf-life of our "strong support" has just about expired; so it's time for more sanctions. Apparently the senators don't see any contradiction between all that "cooperation with our partners around the world" and insisting that "the pressure track should likewise continue on its current trajectory." I hate to break it to them, but the international support for those essential sanctions depends on their trust that the United States is being the reasonable party and that Iran has a fair opportunity to cooperate. If the US stays unrelentingly on the pressure track, making constant demands for major sets of new sanctions, we're likely to see weakening rather than strengthening support.