Mr Obama's War: Taliban at the Gates

CNN has a dramatic headline this morning: "Taliban Poised at the Gates of Kabul". The story is based on interviews with two very different sources, a Taliban leader and a Kabul police commander.

It's an atmosphere piece rather than a consideration of latest developments, but the conclusion is still significant in its focus on the local rather than on plans for the US military:

Coalition forces have no choice by to keep rooting for Kabul's cops. By the end of the year, NATO will hand over much of the responsibility for securing the capital to the city's police force. And that will be a crucial test to see if this city and this country can stand on its own, even with the Taliban standing at the gate.

Obama: Finding the Right Word for Russia

Related Post: Space War - Russia and US in Satellite Shoot-out?

The media are going ga-ga over an incident at yesterday's showpiece meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. Before their working dinner, Clinton handed Lavrov "a small green box with a ribbon. Inside was a red button with the Russian word peregruzka printed on it."

For many of us older than 35, it was a jaw-dropper in post-Cold War humour. Ohmygosh, Clinton just handed the erstwhile Soviet Commies the nuclear button! Go on, Sergei, push it. Push it with a smile and blow us to oblivion.

All right, it was meant to be a reassurance that Dr Strangelove and Mutual Assured Destruction is so yesterday. But the media, who must be younger than 35, were focused on some inadvertent humour.
l
With the gift, the Americans meant to indicate unsubtly that they wanted to "reset" relations with Russia. However, when Clinton asked if peregruzka was the right word, Lavrov --- obviously not just laughing about annihilation comedy --- replied, "You got it wrong. It should be perezagruzka. This says peregruzka which means overcharged."

Great. We'll now have days of bad political gloss upon the jokes --- Clinton already started it with, "We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the minister and I have an overload of work." Are we screwing the Russians by giving them the wrong change from the relationship? Will the US-Russia talks get too electric over issues like Georgia (the country, not the US state), Iran, and missile defence?

The right word, in fact, is the very boring realpolitik. Clinton's visit with Lavrov yesterday, and Obama's forthcoming meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the start of April, fulfil the long-expected Administration approach. The Bush policy, trying to ensure Russian co-operation by putting Moscow in a corner, is scrapped. The white elephant of Missile Defense is gone, although Washington will try to get some Russian reward for the "concession". NATO will not be pushed further onto Russia's doorstep with the entry of Georgia and Ukraine; indeed, the separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia will be quietly accepted.

Instead, Washington will be looking for Russia's assistance on a number of issues. Immediately, there will be hope that Moscow will help the US get supplies into Afghanistan. The bonus of Russia pull political, economic, and technological support from Iran is still envisaged, even if was not in the Obama letter to Medvedev sent last month. And the US will look for Russia to cause no problems over political and economic development in Eastern Europe.

All very sensible, but all obscuring the realism of realpolitik. Russia holds most of the political cards at the moment. Indeed, Moscow has been showing one of those cards on Afghanistan over recent weeks: no, you can't have your airbase in Kyrgyzstan, yes, you can have our support for non-military supply lines in Afghanistan, maybe you can have assured military routes if there are clear limits on the American bases in the region.

Vladimir Putin, the former Russian leader and still more than a political shadow, even had the cheek this week to point to the card up his sleeve. You know, he said quite loudly, we could hold up energy supplies to the Ukraine.

But you don't even have to look that far to see Moscow's smiling manoeuvres in the new relationship with the US. Hey, Mr Lavrov, now that we gave you that joke gift, how about cutting off Russian supplies for Iran's nuclear programme? The unfunny answer: The decision "will be made exclusively on the basis of law in accordance with Russian law, and will be under expert control, which is one of the strictest in the world and of course in accordance with international agreements."

That would be a No then. And, by the way, Sergei added, "We want our partners to act the same way and show restraint in military supplies to those countries where, including very recently, those weapons have been used very close to our borders."

That was the statement which led to the real comedy moment of the day --- watching State Department staffers burble that in no way was Lavrov thinking of Georgia. Nope, nope, nope.

There will be some screeching from Washington babble-ocracy today --- from some Congressmen, shout sheets like the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute --- that the Obama Administration has sold out to the Russians, handing them our new Eastern European partners, letting them off the hook on Iran. And some of those folks will pull out the argument that the Russian economy is in no shape to withstand a US kick-back against Moscow's intrigues.

Sorry, folks. The Russian economy may be shaky, but it's a very large shaky economy. There's no way that the world, including the US, can afford for it to collapse, especially when Russia --- with its control of key resources --- can take some folks with it.

Welcome to the Reset of the New Realism. Somewhere Henry Kissinger is giving a chuckle, and not just because it's 21st-century leaders who have to deal with charges of war crimes.

Clinton to Iran: You Can Play in the (Afghanistan) Sandbox

This is getting just a bit silly. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has wagged her finger at Iran all week, stoking up ideas of a renewed Iranian-Arab conflict, trying it on with the supposed letter to Russia linking missile defence to a cessation of support for Tehran's nuclear and missile programmes, and re-applying the label of Iran as supporter of "terrorism" (Hamas). So what is her encore?

Setting up the prospect of its first face-to-face encounter with Iran, the Obama administration has proposed a major conference on Afghanistan this month that would include Iran among the invited countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday.

“We presented the idea of what is being called a big-tent meeting, with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan,” she said at a news conference here after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. “If we move forward with such a meeting, it is expected that Iran would be invited, as a neighbor of Afghanistan.”

In itself, that move is both wise and necessary. The Bush Administration never grasped, or chose to set aside, the significance of Iranian influence in the west of Afghanistan, and the recent travails of the US military --- supply lines closed, insurgency spreading, opium/heroin production out of control --- have only highlighted that Washington needs a regional strategy which includes Tehran.

But it's a bit rich, if not stupid, to do this after putting the rhetorical and diplomatic squeeze on Iran all week. The chances of a warm Iranian reception and possible attendance at the meeting, scheduled for the Netherlands on 31 March, would have been greater if the US Secretary of State had not spent the last 96 hours portraying Tehran as an untrustworthy, even pariah regime.

The resolution of this apparent contradiction in Washington policy is actually straightforward. What Clinton has attempted, rather crudely, is to define where the US will allow Iran to have influence. The Middle East, especially Israel-Palestine, is a no-go area. However, in Central Asia, Washington will accept that Iran has a role to play in logistics and support, while trying to ensure that Tehran has only a limited place in the re-arrangement of Afghan politics (and, of course, no place at all in US military operations in the centre of the country).

Clever, ain't it? Well, it would be, if you presume that Tehran will simply say, "Gee, thanks," and accept the American definition on where it is allowed to go. That's the naive response of The New York Times, which burbles, "Afghanistan may provide the most promising avenue for opening a diplomatic channel to Iran," --- and then forgets to mention Clinton's statements on the Middle East in the 1000-word article.

I could be wrong --- there might be winks, nudges, and secret discussions in which the Americans have tipped off Iranian colleagues, "OK, we're going to pose as if we really don't like you for a few days, but just go along with it until the next act" --- but I suspect the Iranian Government is going to bristle at the high-handed treatment since Monday. They may throw the Afghanistan offer back at the US; at the very least, I expect they will demand that Washington drop the hostile rhetoric on the Middle East and the Iran nuclear programme.

This latest Clinton move is the equivalent of a parent yelling at her child, "No, no, no!", then pointing the kid to the "right" place to play in. Well, I've done that, and I can tell you a litte secret:

The little b****** wouldn't stay in the sandbox.

Mr Obama's Doctrine: Josh Mull on US Grand Strategy in Pakistan and Beyond

Related Post: Mr Obama's War - Pakistan Insurgency "Unites" (You Heard It Here First)

"The 'Obama Doctrine' looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between 'walk softly and carry a big stick' and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror."

Yesterday Scott Lucas, in “Mr. Obama's War: The Fantasy of the Pakistan Sanctuaries”, analysed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' appearance on Meet the Press, pointing out the cognitive dissonance in Gates' assertion that the US understands safe havens in Pakistan because it has previously used those same Pakistani safe havens so effectively. Lucas also raises some very interesting questions, particularly over Gates' apparent non-answer to the question of the consequences for Pakistan of the US campaign. This is my attempt to answer those questions, as well as a proposal to parse out a broader US “grand strategy” from Gates' appearance.

Host David Gregory asked Gates on Sunday, “The trouble and consequences of jihadists making significant gains in either Afghanistan or Pakistan is perhaps more acute in Pakistan given its nuclear potential. True?” In reply, Gates' offered this:

Well, as long as we’re in Afghanistan and as long as the Afghan government has the support of dozens and dozens of countries who are providing military support, civilian support in addition to us, we are providing a level of stability in Afghanistan that at least prevents it from being a safe haven from which plots against the United States and the Europeans and others can be, can be put together.

The key is this: Gates isn't answering the question about Pakistan to David Gregory. He's answering the question about Pakistan directly to the Pakistanis.

I decoded Gates' reply as: "Well, as long as I can go on a Sunday morning Prime Time talk show and say 9/11, Taliban, and Osama bin Laden and as long as my Commander-in-Chief can draw crowds of 200,000 screaming Europeans, Pakistan can suck it up and deal with whatever we want to do, including destabilizing or overthrowing their corrupt government and/or stealing or destroying their illegal nuclear weapons, which by the way, I already have the authority to do from a little thing called the Lugar-Obama bill to secure weapons of mass destruction."

In short, it's not the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to keep Pakistan stable, it is his responsibility to attack extremist safe havens in Pakistan in order to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack against the US, Canada, or the European Union. President Obama, and by extension the plans of his Secretary of Defense, enjoys bipartisan political support as well as stable international credibility. Accordingly the US will act, as Lucas said in his article, as if “there are no consequences whatsoever for the internal Pakistani situation" or, more appropriately, without regard to these consequences.

But there is more we can glean from Secretary Gates' interview than it appears. Beyond the purposes Lucas pointed out --- pitching Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan and articulating US Afghanistan policy --- it's possible Gates was offering us, and the international audience, insight into the broader strategic calculations of the United States, particularly the role of the Department of Defense and US military power abroad.

President Obama has shown himself to be somewhat of a Centrist, if only in regard to his desire to hear from all sides of an argument or debate. One thing all foreign policy and national security analysts, from the Conservative "Fall of Rome" crowd to the Realist "Second World" types all the way to the Neoconservative "Team America" folks, can agree on is this: the United States of America is now and will continue to be Earth's preeminent military force, at least for the foreseeable future.

There is a saying amongst foreign policy elites:  "Who has the world's largest air force after the US Air Force? The US Army."

With Pakistan, Gates is essentially saying that, as long as the US, Canada, and Europe are threatened by extremist attacks from Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US will continue to act aggressively with its military force. It will do so in any manner and on any territory of its choosing, provided it has the support and cooperation of Europe and NATO (whose members will suffer from terrorism long before the US).

What's absent is any mention of India, which implies the support of India in Afghanistan and protection from Pakistan-launched, "Mumbai-style" attacks are not part of the US calculation. ("Your problem, not ours.")

It may seem like Gates casually forgot to mention India and Mumbai in his response on Pakistan. After all, "AfPak" is an extremely complicated subject, and it's easy to leave things out or get things mixed up. At least, that will be the talking point if this becomes an issue. However, we know two things: first, India and Pakistan are inextricably linked together in any strategic calculus, and second, that this wasn't just a casual visit to Meet the Press by Bob Gates. It was the public coming-out ceremony for George W. Bush's former and now President Obama's current Secretary of Defense, civilian leader of the United States Military.

The importance of this public appearance can't be understated. It was not necessarily designed for the domestic audience of NBC viewers, but rather was aimed at a more global audience and, directly, to the Pakistanis. This is what makes the apparently deliberate absence of India from the “AfPak” equation so significant. The absence, the answer, and the entire interview together could lead us to presume that Gates is articulating the prototype for what will later be called “the Obama Doctrine”.

The “Obama Doctrine” looks something like this: the United States will continue to use its military power as its premier tool in international affairs and may even act preemptively. However, it will not  do so on issues it deems outside of reasonable American national security concerns, and it will act only with support and cooperation from the international community. To put it frankly, this is something like a cross between “walk softly and carry a big stick” and the Buddy System. While still violent, imperial, and aggressive, it is a marked departure from the so-called Bush Doctrine and even the Global War on Terror.

The India-Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh) conflict is the perfect illustration. Under the old rules of the Bush Doctrine, the response to something like the Mumbai attacks might be airstrikes, special forces, or some other combination of clandestine military force. Under the “Obama Doctrine”, the Defense Department under Gates, and thus the US military, are not responsible for the India-Pakistan conflict. Rather this would fall under the portfolios of US Attorney General Eric Holder and his FBI as well US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her cadres of ambassadors and envoys,with support and cooperation from that throbbing heart of diplomacy in Brussels (the European Union), law enforcement agents with Interpol and NATO, and the mediation and oversight of the United Nations.

Obviously it's an extreme departure from George W Bush's radical Napoleonic-cum-Bolshevik strategy of the Global War on Terror, but that doesn't necessarily mean the “Obama Doctrine” will turn out any more successfully than the Bush Doctrine. In fact, the strategy is brimming with vulnerabilities.

The US may be the most powerful military, it is not the only military on the planet. In the fall of 2007 as civil unrest was broiling in Pakistan under General Pervez Musharraf, then-Senator now Vice President Joe Biden campaigned in the Democratic Party primaries on a promise to pull strategic military aid from Pakistan, that is weapons used against India, to pressure Pakistan to focus on the insurgency rather than more ethereal, strategic conflicts. In response, however, the Chinese offered to sell Pakistan a new fleet of MiG fighter jets, similar to the American planes Biden was threatening to withdraw. Now, as then, there is a constant danger that any diplomatic “sticks” threatened by the US can simply be neutralized by other international actors willing to take its place.

Furthermore there is the problem caused by the global financial meltdown and the massive economic depressions it is causing. While Secretary Gates may have it in his authority to bomb Pakistani safe havens as well as police the Straits of Malacca, the United States may not ultimately be able to afford the high price of imperialism. And if the US is forced to cut back on its imperalist designs, it will create some extremely uncomfortable strategic questions for policy makers. For example, what is the higher priority between preventing a bus bombing in London or preventing a missile exchange between Korea and Japan when you can't afford both?

So we don't end on such a morbid tone, let me point out that this prototypical “Obama Doctrine” has some very powerful advantages over the Bush Doctrine, the Global War on Terror, and the so-called Long War/Great Game theories. The most important advantage is that it is absolutely conscious of and constructed on the idea of a “Multi-Polar” world. Even though the US seeks to dominate international affairs, it acknowledges and plans for the participation of other actors, states, or non-states. By allowing for participation, it allows for competition, and as President Obama displays with his choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, competition has both winners and losers who can still join together for a common purpose. There is no absolute victory or defeat of good and evil, but rather a competition among partners.

UPDATED Afghanistan: Karzai's Pre-Emptive Political Strike

Update (3 March): Senior UN official Alain says it will be nearly impossible to hold credible elections in Afghanistan in April for logistical and technical reasons as well as the prevailing security situation.

In many "Western" systems, the "snap" election is a time-honoured prerogative of the President/Prime Minister. If a leader is in a strong but possibly short-lived political position, or conversely if he/she is in trouble but faces worse times ahead, then Parliament is dissolved and everyone heads to the polls. However, when an Afghan President, particularly one who has lost the support of the foreign governments who brought him to power, calls such an election, it's a much different matter.

On Sunday, Hamid Karzai wrong-footed diplomats, covert operators, and observers, as well as his domestic opponents by declaring he would go to the polls, four months earlier than expected. Legally, Karzai was not only within the letter of the Constitution but upholding it, as his term in office expires on 21 May. US and NATO representatives complained immediately, however, that they could not ensure security.

This, of course, is an excuse to cover political objections to Karzai's move --- the military campaign against the Taliban and other insurgents will be far from won by August. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, an opponent of Karzai's, was more honest in his criticsm: he declared that he would not stand in a "Zimbabwe-type" election designed to keep the current Government in power.

Karzai has calculated that, if only a portion of the stories of a political challenge backed and funded by the US and other foreign countries are true, he is better off not allowing the opposition five months to organise. Conversely, Washington now faces the prospect of several more years of an Afghan leader who has been far from unquestioning in his co-operation with American power.

So now we have the delicious --- if you go in for political intrigue --- prospect of the US working with Afghan representatives in their review of Afghanistan/Pakistan policy whilst having that policy reframed by Karzai's surprise initiative.

More than seven years ago, when Karzai emerged as the US choice to lead "liberated" Afghanistan, America praised his political acumen. One wonders if the word "irony" will creep into their reports today.