Nicholas Thompson responds in this blog post to Andrew Bacevich’s article in The Washington Post about updating the Cold War doctrine of containment for the war on terrorism. He agrees that here is much in George Kennan’s original idea that could be applied to the present conflict with global jihad while suggesting that the effort be expanded to include soft power as well as traditional military based hard power. It’s nice to see the old strategies revived, after all, nothing succeeds like success.

President Obama is engaged in a comprehensive policy review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and meetings this week at the White House have produced a flurry of news reports about about the situation there. In this report in the LA Times, General Stanley McChrystal makes the case for a “troop-intensive counter-insurgency strategy” that would call for a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to counter the resurgent Taliban rather than the UAV drone-centered high-tech low-troop approach favored by some in the administration. Lest you think that the news out of Afghanistan is all bad, I’d like to point you to this video report from the BBC, which notes a recent success by allied forces in Helmand province working to rebuild a war shattered village. Can drones do that?

Admiral Mike Mullen said yesterday that he anticipates more troops will be needed in Afghanistan:

Admiral Mullen, called before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify for his nomination to serve a second term as chairman, said that no specific request for more troops had yet been received from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan. “But I do believe that — having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership — a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance,” Admiral Mullen said. Admiral Mullen’s comments were his most specific to date in a public setting on whether more troops would have to be sent to Afghanistan.

In What’s Really Happening in Afghanistan: A Report from the Front, Gilles Dorronsoro and Karen DeYoung, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,  examine the realities and challenges on the ground in Afghanistan and propose three solutions to the conflict.

As I try to wrap things up before departing on my holiday weekend I wanted to note one of the more interesting things that caught my eye in a week dominated by news of California wildfires and celebrity burials. As the U.S. military continues a top-level assessment of the war in Afghanistan the public debate has taken a surprising turn. I’m referring to George Will’s op-ed in The Washington Post in which he sounds a retreat from Afghanistan. As you know, Will is a noted conservative columnist and one could reasonably assume that he would be in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan and for increasing U.S. troop levels there. Surprisingly, he is calling for withdrawing troops and using drones and other stand-off weapons to accomplish U.S. military goals. In this report in Time Magazine Mark Thompson examines that idea to see if the U.S. really could do it all from a distance. This policy brief from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stops short of calling for a troop withdrawal and instead argues for a dramatic redefinition of the mission in Afghanistan, away from defeating the Taliban and toward securing urban centers and key roads so that the Afghan government can survive the eventual U.S. and NATO withdrawal. So, what do you think, send in the drones or keep boots on the ground?

Photo Credit: Danger Room

As we wait for Gen. McChrystal’s report on the war in Afghanistan I thought I would call your attention to this YouTube video in which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen invites questions from the public on national security and military personnel issues for an online discussion billed as a virtual town hall. The forum for submitting questions ends tonight at midnight, so be sure to get your question in. Admiral Mullen is in the news for his critique of recent U.S. efforts to counter Islamic extremism using “strategic communication,” efforts which he says lack credibility. His solution is to simply let our actions speak louder than our words. Wise man.

The election is Afghanistan is over and in an interesting twist, both candidates are claiming victory amid charges of ballot fraud. Before departing for his vacation, President Obama praised the election as a sign of progress while noting the important work yet to be done:

President Obama hailed Afghanistan’s election as an “important step forward” for the country. The president said in the Friday afternoon statement on the White House lawn that he was struck by the “courage” of Afghans who voted despite intimidation and violence perpetrated by the Taliban. [...] Mr. Obama also talked about the future of the country, and the continued presence of U.S. troops eight years after 9/11. “Our goal is clear: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and their extremist allies,” he said. “That goal will be achieved, and our troops will be able to come home as Afghans continue to strengthen their own capacity and take responsibility for their own future.” As the war in Afghanistan is also becoming more unpopular in the U.S., Mr. Obama also defended the reasons for continuing the fight. “This is not a challenge that we asked for. It came to our shores when Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. But America, our allies and partners and, above all, the Afghan people share a common interest in pursuing security, opportunity and justice,” he said.

This report from CBS News indicates that the American public is growing increasingly concerned about the war in Afghanistan. Those concerns about the war are well expressed in this commentary from the Cato Institute that suggests that a war focused only on defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan without considering the larger strategic relationships with neighbors India and Pakistan is doomed to fail:

Unless Washington addresses Pakistan’s existential fear of India, and their military leadership’s continued support for the Taliban in order to counter India’s influence in Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops could fight for decades, win every discrete battle, and never come close to eradicating the militancy.

At a time when the probable U.S. response will be to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, that strategic vision is timely.  Adding India to the mix would be an important step in a comprehensive solution to the regional conflict. Indian concerns are well summarized in this report from Reuters. Perhaps India could be added to Ambassador Holbrooke’s portfolio? Special Envoy to Afpakindi has a nice ring to it.

Photo Credit: The Washington Post

The video above from MSNBC notes the surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and gives a quick update on the state of the war there. The U.S. Army is encouraging debate on the war in Afghanistan and in this blog post they note several different voices in the debate including those who ask if Afghanistan really matters. The debate is also taking place over at the Democracy Arsenal blog. This debate is interesting to me because it counters the idea that fighting the war in Afghanistan, no matter how long it takes, is directly justified by the 9-11 attacks. Even those who objected to the war in in Iraq generally saw Afghanistan as the “good war.” This op-ed in The Washington Post by the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan notes that the upcoming election in Afghanistan will be a turning point in the international effort to stabilize that country. Does the debate about Afghanistan signal a weakening of resolve, or a necessary reappraisal before we dedicate ourselves to a much more difficult, and deadly, phase of the war?

President Obama has completed his first ever Russia Summit dealing with The Big Issue. Actually, I guess the status of nuclear forces used to be The Big Issue, those days are gone. Still, I have to admit to a certain sense of expectancy at seeing the U.S. and Russian presidents meet to discuss nuclear weapons (historic agreements could be in the offing, after all), and a sense of disappointment to find that few share this feeling. After all, how important could it be if it’s not even a trending topic on Twitter? I’m also rather disappointed at the outcome of the summit. Jaded cynics who pay attention to these things learned long ago that countries often craft the summit declarations in advance of the meeting so that even if they fail to find agreement during their deliberations they can at least release to the press a nice communique about what they did agree on, and everyone walks away a winner. In this case, President Obama and President Medvedev reached an agreement to agree in the future to cut nuclear arsenals by a fraction of current levels. No actual treaty was signed, it’s just a basic understanding of what they want to do when they get serous about doing it…in the future. In that way the headline can read “US and Russia agree nuclear weapons cut,” which is true, sort of, even as the reality is much more complex.

So, that’s the good news from the summit, the bad news is that there was no agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, no agreement on European missile defense, and no agreement about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. And the worse news is that today Russia announced that the agreement of yesterday will be in jeopardy if the U.S. refuses to abandon missile defense. As summits go, I’m hard pressed to find the silver lining. Russia did agree to new transit rights to supply the war effort in Afghanistan, allowing up to ten flights a day through Russian airspace. So, we can point to one very practical accomplishment. Is that enough to call it a successful summit?

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

Today is AfPak Day at the White House as President Obama hosts the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is hoped that the summit will lead to new resolve to combat the Taliban and a new spirit of cooperation at the regional level. I’d like to refer you to this White House blog post in which President Obama announced his new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. What is so new about this? President Obama has appointed a regional envoy and made the strategic choice to deal with both countries together rather than as separate and disconnected security problems. It’s all about linkages.




Take a look at this video report from MSNBC about a new tactic the U.S. is using to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. The U.S. is attempting to interrupt the flow of money to the Taliban by burning the poppy fields. There’s no doubt that in a traditional war this would make sense: attack the enemy directly while destroying their supply lines. The poppy/opium trade is a multimillion dollar business, has been for years, and is believed to represent a substantial source of funding for the Taliban. I wonder, though, about the wisdom of this approach when it comes to fighting an insurgency. If we destroy the local farmers best cash crop, and thus their livelihood, is this more or less likely to diminish their support for the Taliban?