Petraeus V Obama: It Ain't Over

In January/February, we paid close attention to a running battle between General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, with his President over Obama's plans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It appeared, however, that the compromise over the Iraq withdrawal and last week's Obama announcement of the Pakistan-Afghanistan strategy established consensus. Indeed, Petraeus had won a quiet victory. The headlines said Obama had approved an extra 17,000 troops; in fact, if you include support forces, the boost was 30,000, the amount that military commanders had been seeking. No wonder Petraeus even went alongside Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke on the Sunday talk shows to promote the plan.

All right then?

No.

On Wednesday Petraeus was back to his My Way approach on the US military approach in Afghanistan: "American commanders have requested the deployment of an additional 10,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, [although] the request awaits a final decision by President Obama this fall."

Dave couldn't have been clearer: if you want his plan in Afghanistan (which his spin machine is assuring you is the case), then give him more soldiers: "The ratio of coalition and Afghan security forces to the population is projected through 2011 to be significantly lower than the 20 troops per 1,000 people prescribed by the Army counterinsurgency manual he helped write."

How brazen, even defiant, is this? Consider that on Sunday the President tried to hold the line against precisely this "bit more, bit more, OK, a bit more" demand. He said he had "resourced properly" the strategy and pre-emptively warned his generals, "What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation ... There may be a point of diminishing returns."

Michele Flournoy, the Undersecretary of Defense, tried to maintain this position in the Congressional hearing. She insisted that the US plan was to concentrate forces in "the insurgency belt in the south and east," rather than (Petraeus' preference) throughout Afghanistan. "Troops would arrive, as planned, in 2010."

The "comprehensive strategy" announced last Friday means different things to the President and Petraeus. For Obama, the troop increase has to be integrated with the non-military measures. If those measures, then the military approach also has to be reconsidered, not necessarily for another "surge" but for an "exit strategy".

For Petraeus, "comprehensive" means military-first. And, if the violence continues and even increases, then that will be his rationale for yet more soldiers into the conflict.

Lace up your boots, folks. There may be a war brewing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but there is also one underway in Washington, D.C.

Engagement Dance: The US-Iran Meeting on Afghanistan

Perhaps the most naive summary of the exchange between American and Iranian officials at The Hague conference on Afghanistan came in the opening sentence of The New York Times account: "It was brief, it was unscheduled and it was not substantive."

Anyone with a shred of diplomatic experience or perception would recognise that the "encounter" between Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh (pictured) was far from accidential. The choreography behind the meeting would have done Twyla Tharp proud.

Because the Iranians had held back from sending their Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to maintain, "I myself did not have any direct contact with the Iranian delegation.” Because of domestic politics in both countries and because neither side wants to be see as approaching the other cap-in-hand, the Iranians officially denied these were "talks" and Clinton insisted, "“It was cordial, unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch." And to cover the Obama Administration's claim that any engagement will cover concerns over human rights, Clinton added that a letter setting out US concerns over Iran's detention of Roxana Saberi and student Esha Momeni and the fate of the missing Robert Levinson.

To get behind the dance, you only have to note the public Iranian position: "Iran pledges Afghan help in new gesture to U.S." Akhondzadeh told the conference that Tehran was ready to help fight Afghanistan's opium trade and to assist in reconstruction.

That is an opening position for "engagement" which is Spockian logical. The flow of drugs across the border has caused major social problems in Iran, and reconstruction of areas in western Afghanistan offers the prospect of financial benefit and enhanced Afghan-Iranian trade.

At the same time, Iran's position set outs to the US that it wants to move on specific issues rather than discuss the general American position, especially on the military side. Leave aside the obvious that the domestic audience in Tehran would be resistant to any Iranian support of the expansion of the American force. The experience of the US occupation in Iraq is enough to ensure both that Iran will want no association with a military intervention which can turn sour and that it will take advantage of any political vacuum/turmoil that results.

No, Mr New York Times. This was carefully scripted and it was very substantive. The silver lining of the past and possibly future debacle in Afghanistan is likely to be a US-Iranian rapprochement. If that is to occur, however, it will face a specific and limited Tehran agenda vs. the general ambitions of Washington in its "re-development" of Afghanistan and Central Asia.