Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (31 January)

Current Obamameter: Good

Related Post: And on the Eighth Day - Hopes and Fears over the Obama Foreign Policy

4:30 p.m. Two Iraqi policemen have been killed by US soldiers in the north of the country.

4 p.m. President Obama has issued a statement "congratulat[ing] the people of Iraq on holding significant provincial elections today. This important step forward should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future."

3:20 p.m. How far has US foreign policy come in less than two weeks? Well, at least on Somalia, 180 degrees' distance. The US Embassy in Somalia has welcomed the election of President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, leader of the Islamic Courts Movement that Washington overthrew (behind Ethiopian troops) in 2006.

3 p.m. Another positive for the US Government on Election Day in Iraq: the monthly death toll in the country from violence is at its lowest level since 2003, according to icasualties.org.

10:15 a.m. The polls for provincial elections in Iraq have closed without any reports of serious violence.

10 a.m. Taliban leader Mullah Mohamad Rasul has warned President Obama that the despatch of more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to bloodshed: "During the Bush administration the suicide bombers were registering individually, but now they are coming in groups. The whole nation is ready for the fight."

6:30 a.m. This may be the biggest news that goes unreported today by many in the media in the US and Britain. Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has been sworn in as President of Somalia. Ahmed, who heads the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, won the run-off vote of members of Parliament by 293 votes to 126 over the son of ex-president Mohamed Siad Barre.

Ahmed's election effectively undoes one of the most ill-considered policies of the George W. Bush Administration. He leads the Islamic Courts Union, which was overthrown in 2006 by US-backed Ethiopian forces.

A Somalian journalist reports celebrations on the streets of Mogadishu: ""[Somalians] think he is the best leader ever [to be] chosen as president of Somalia since 1960, when the country gained independence."

Ahmed's election, however, only raises the next question. The vote was held in Djibouti, where the Parliament has been isolated since Islamic insurgents took over the Somalian capital Baidoa last week. So can he reconcile the different Islamic factions?


Morning update (2 a.m. Washington): Iraq returns to centre-stage today, with the first major elections since January 2005. If all goes well in the votes for provincial representatives, it will be a major public relations victory for US foreign policy.

Amidst tight security, the only attacks reported so far are three mortar shells fired in Tikrit. There were no casualties.

Battles within Obama-land: The Foreign Policy Disputes on Iraq and Iran

Two major stories on US foreign policy, highlighting two critical policy choices on Iraq and Iran:

The New York Times features "On Iraq, Obama Faces Hard Choices".  (Since I wrote that, the Times has gotten to the point: "Obama Seeks Accord With Military on Iraq.) That rather obvious headline is followed by a detailed description of the tension within the White House, a tension we have been highlighting for a week.



Obama's campaign promise for a 16-month withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq is now being confronted --- publicly and blatantly --- by military commanders. General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in Iraq, indicated yesterday that "it may take a year to determine exactly" when US forces can be withdrawn. Although he said there would be a reduction this year, he pointedly used the word "slowly" when describing the transition from counter-insurgency to stability operations.

Describing last week's National Security Council-military meeting as "a very elevated conversation" does nothing to reduce the suspicion of a battle between the President and the military. Nor does sniping from the sidelines by former Dubya advisors like J.D. Crouch III, who was instrumental in pushing General David Petraeus and Odierno to their current command positions.

Meanwhile The Guardian splashes a Page 1 exclusive on a draft Obama letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, replying to Ahmadinejad's congratulations to Obama in November on his election. The letter could signal the opening of US engagement with Iran, but if you read further, it seems that this too may be the start of a battle within the Administration:

The letter is being considered by the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as part of a sweeping review of US policy on Iran. A decision on sending it is not expected until the review is complete.

Obama may be saved in this case, however, from an immediate conflict because of timing. Ahmadinejad faces re-election this spring, and the US decision may be to hold off on an approach until then. Then again (and this has not been noted by the media), if the US is planning to "surge" in Afghanistan, it would seem prudent to open some discussion with Tehran, which has significant influence in the west of the country.

Morning update ( 12:05 a.m. Washington): The significant overnight news is what was not said by President Obama.

A week after his National Security Council first sat down with military commanders, Obama had a two-hour meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the generals yesterday. His statement afterwards was leading but vague, ""We are going to have some difficult decisions that we are going to have to make, surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan most immediately."

As far as that can be read, it's an indication that there will be troop increases in Afghanistan in the next few months and there will be some decrease in Iraq. The numbers in each case, however, are still up for grabs, as is the strategic approach --- military-first? with or without Afghan President Hamid Karzai? with or without US efforts at nation-building? --- in Afghanistan. Put bluntly, the battles at the moment are not overseas, but within the Administration.

For a clue as to the next development, look for "spin" in The New York Times and The Washington Post in forthcoming days.

Meanwhile, Obama envoy George Mitchell moves to the West Bank today to talk with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama on Top of the World: Morning Update (29 January)

Latest Post: Battles Within Obama-Land: The Disputes over Iraq and Iran

Morning update (12:05 a.m. Washington): The significant overnight news is what was not said by President Obama.



A week after his National Security Council first sat down with military commanders, Obama had a two-hour meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the generals yesterday. His statement afterwards was leading but vague, ""We are going to have some difficult decisions that we are going to have to make, surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan most immediately."

As far as that can be read, it's an indication that there will be troop increases in Afghanistan in the next few months and there will be some decrease in Iraq. The numbers in each case, however, are still up for grabs, as is the strategic approach --- military-first? with or without Afghan President Hamid Karzai? with or without US efforts at nation-building? --- in Afghanistan. Put bluntly, the battles at the moment are not overseas, but within the Administration.

For a clue as to the next development, look for "spin" in The New York Times and The Washington Post in forthcoming days.

Meanwhile, Obama envoy George Mitchell moves to the West Bank today to talk with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (28 January)

Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (27 January)
Latest Post: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

6 p.m. The Guardian of London: "President Barack Obama's administration is considering sending a letter to Iran aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks." The letter would be in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Obama on 6 November.

2:20 p.m. We've updated this morning's story on the Obama strategy for Afghanistan.

2:02 p.m. Reports that President Obama will visit Canada on 19 February.

2 p.m. The Dennis Ross saga, which has given us nightmares, continues. He still has not been officially named as the State Department envoy on Iranian matters but "United Against Nuclear Iran", the pressure group which includes as members Ross and State's envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, either has outdated info or gives the game away:

United Against Nuclear Iran thanks Ambassadors Holbrooke and Ross for their commitment, service, and leadership and we congratulate them on their recent appointments to the Department of State.

1 p.m. Pick a Number, Any Number. A NATO spokesman claims that less than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in the organisation's military operations in 2008. That compares with an estimate in The New York Times of up to 4000 and by an Afghan human rights group, based on UN numbers, of almost 700.

11:30 a.m. On the Other Hand....Only two hours after we updated on Russia's cancellation of a deployment of missiles on the Polish border, thanks to the Obama Factor, another problem crops up:

NATO countries expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Russia plans to set up bases in Russian-backed breakaway territories in Georgia, a NATO spokesman said.

The specific issue is Russia's announcement on Monday that it intends to build a naval base in Abkhazia, which was part of Georgia but which Russia recognised as "independent" after last August's Russian-Georgian war.

10:35 a.m. It's not all bad news in Afghanistan. The Taliban have praised, "Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Unfortunately, the feel-good moment may be short-lived. The Taliban also insisted that, if the President wants "mutual respect" with Muslim communities, "He must completely withdraw all his forces from the two occupied Islamic countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and to stop defending Israel against Islamic interests in the Middle East and the entire world." And, as for Afghanistan, Obama should not send additional US forces as "the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

9:45 a.m. Score one diplomatic/victory for the Obama Factor.

An official from the Russian General Staff has told the Interfax news agency that Moscow will suspend deployment of missiles on the Polish border: "These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic." The news follows a conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Monday.

There are other US-Russian exchanges to watch. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister has told Iran that Moscow wants to broaden "political, trade, and economic cooperation". For the moment, however, the apparent rapprochement raises the question....

What exactly was the value of the Missile Defence pursued by the Bush Administration so relentlessly over the last eight years?

7:30 a.m. Is this for show for real? Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, contradicting the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday,  say they have no agreement with the Obama Administration allowing US missile strikes on Pakistani territory: ""There is no understanding between Pakistan and the United States on Predator attacks."

Of course, it could be the case that the American arrangement is with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, bypassing the Foreign Ministry. Alternatively, the Pakistani Government is trying to hold to the public line of "independence" while private accepting US operations.

6 a.m. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given a challenging but cautious response to President Obama's suggestion of engagement. Speaking at an election rally in western Iran, Ahmadinejad said:

We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track. When they say "we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change ... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad, clearly picking up on Obama's campaign slogan of "change", added, "[The US] should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

This is a significant rhetorical position that has been taken up by Iranian leaders in the past. Indeed, I suspect US policymakers will immediately think that at the end of the Clinton Administration, they made such an apology, albeit belatedly, for the 1953 US-backed coup. It should also be noted that this is a campaign speech, with Ahmadinejad staking out his foreign-policy position to the Iranian electorate.

This said, Ahmadinejad gave an important signal in a reference to Washington stifling Iran's economic development since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decoded, this may be indicating to Obama: if you want to engage, the US has to make a commitment --- possibly even in advance of negotiations --- to ease existing sanctions on Tehran.

3:50 a.m. Glimpse the Future. Just to highlight our top post this morning on Afghanistan and the problems of the Obama strategy: "American officers distributed $40,000 on Tuesday to relatives of 15 people killed Jan. 19 in a United States raid."

The US military wasn't exactly generous in its apology, holding to the claim that a "militant commander" died along with 14 civilians. While a colonel told villages, "If there was collateral damage, I’m very sorry about that,” a US military lawyers made clear that "he payments were not an admission that innocents had been killed".

3:30 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry highlighting the apparent White House strategy in Afghanistan: ramp up the military effort, leave nation-building to others, and ditch Afghan President Hamid Karzai if necessary.

Morning Update (1:45 a.m. Washington time): It looks the campaign, pursued by some in the Pentagon, to undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay within a year has been checked. The New York Times and CNN began running a "backlash" story yesterday that the Saudi programme for rehabilitation of terrorists was actually very, very good with only nine participants, out of hundreds, returning to their evil ways. The significance? The original spin was that two ex-Gitmo detainees who had rejoined Yemeni terrorist cells may have gone through the Saudi programme.

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying to Congressional committees, gave full support to the closure plan: ""I believe that if we did not have a deadline, we could kick that can down the road endlessly."

The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

Update: In a sign of division in the Obama White House, officials are back-pedaling away from this morning's story. A White House official, dropping the Karzai-must-accept line and the military-only approach, said, "President Barack Obama will press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to extend government control beyond the capital and fight corruption under a new U.S. policy with a "significant non-military component." He added, with respect to the Times article, "There is no purely military solution to the challenge in Afghanistan so there will be a significant non-military component to anything that we seek to undertake." A Pentagon spokesman added, ""That story, to me, seemed to suggest that we had some sort of view on the specific outcome of the election in Afghanistan. I don't believe that to be true."

Regular readers know that our primary concern with the Obama Administration is the foreign-policy priority of a military-first approach to Afghanistan.



Well, the White House spinners have now used The New York Times to set out the plans, and it's worse than we thought. Not only will there be war, but the US Government is prepared to push aside Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he has anything to say about it:

President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Karzai is now seen as a potential impediment to American goals in Afghanistan, the officials said, because corruption has become rampant in his government, contributing to a flourishing drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban.

Among those pressing for Mr. Karzai to do more, the officials said, are Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Indeed, the approach appears to be a replication of General David Petraeus's model for Iraq, "with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government". And, in case you thought Obama was going to at least complement the military strategy with a political and social approach to the turmoil in much of Afghanistan, the White House aides emphasised:

[We will] leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces [can] focus on the fight against insurgents.

Obama advisors appear to be so clueless --- sorry, but that seems to be the appropriate word --- that they are replacing all local considerations with a sweeping portrayal of "us v. Bin Laden" as the central issue: “What we’re trying to do is to focus on the Al Qaeda problem. That has to be our first priority.”

Beyond the military question --- can you really defeat the Taliban and other insurgents head-on, rather than trying to build up a base of support in the villages through development of infrastructure and social programmes? --- Obama may be shattering a fragmented country. The "ditch Karzai" approach may have merit in light of the corruption and inefficiency allegations, but if it effectively sets aside a national government --- which the US threatened but never did in Iraq --- then what hope of a unified long-term campaign against insurgency?

And no amount of extra US soldiers --- 20,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 --- is going to offer a magic answer to that question.