November 04, 2009

Gates gets H1N1 vaccine; Obama does not

Believe of not, who gets an H1N1 (Swine Flu) vaccine – and who chooses not to in light of the vaccine shortage – has become a political issue in this town.  The White House announced that President and Mrs. Obama would not get the vaccine until “needs of the priority groups identified by the CDC – including young people under the age of 24, pregnant women, and people with underlying conditions – have been met.”  A White House physician administered vaccines obtained through the D.C. Department of Health to the Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha. 

On Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that he believed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates received the vaccine, even though the military only has enough of the vaccine to supply half of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And according to the priority list Morrell outlined to reporters at the briefing, as a DoD civilian Gates was third of the list of five groups who should receive the vaccine when it becomes available. Those in uniform, of course, have the first priority, followed by health care workers who support them.

According to the government’s website on the issue Gates needs the vaccine less than most. “People age 65 and older are not at high risk of getting H1N1. They are not in the initial target groups for vaccination, but may get vaccinated when supplies become available,” the website states.

Gates is 66.

Now, perhaps Gates has an underlying condition that demands he get the vaccine first (Morrell has yet to answer my query about this.) Or perhaps Gates was able to get the vaccine outside his capacity as Secretary of Defense.

But if Obama won’t get it and Gates will, it begs the question: Should our national leaders be a priority on the vaccine list?  Should a war-time president and secretary of defense do everything they can to take care of themselves so their focus on the wars?

Or is it every Cabinet member for him/herself?

UPDATE: From Geoff Morrell about why the secretary got the shot. "It's not a political issue. He did it because he is the Secretary of Defense. He is the conduit through which the president gives orders to this department And at a time when we have security challenges around the world, even beyond wars we are fighting, the secretary thinks it is the responsible thing to do."

November 02, 2009

Iraq combat deaths near record low

Reporting from Baghdad -- With U.S. military fatalities in Afghanistan at all-time highs, and terrorist attacks like last week's spectacular bombing against government ministries still common in Iraq, it's easy to overlook one important face: U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are at their lowest level since the March 2003 invasion.

In October, there were two U.S. combat-related fatalities in Iraq, according to the website Globalsecurity.org. That continues a trend that began last year, and accelerated with the departure of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities in June 30 of this year.

According to icasualties.org, another excellent source of data about U.S. and coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were four U.S. combat casualties each in August and September, and five in July.

Publicly available data sources differ a little bit, so we hesitate to be categorical about this, but October 2009 just may have been the safest month for American troops since the invasion, 6 1/2 years ago. (It's important to remember that non-combat operations can be dangerous, too. There were more non-combat deaths in October, from vehicle accidents and other causes, than combat ones.

One marked difference from my last, very brief, visits to Iraq in 2004 and 2006 is the absence of a visible U.S. military presence on Iraq's streets. They've been replaced by Iraqi security forces, mostly dressed in crisp new uniforms, whose performance is under stepped-up criticism since the October 25 bombing which killed 155 Iraqi civilians.

Thanks to that bombing, and other attacks, the trend for Iraqi civilians is not so good. According to this story today from Reuters, there were 343 Iraqi civilian deaths from political violence in October, a reversal from the downward trend of recent months.

(McClatchy special correspondent Mohammed al Dulaimy contributed).

October 22, 2009

Cheney attacks Obama on Afghanistan: rewriting history.

    Bush administration veterans and their partisans have launched a frontal assault on President Barack Obama over the war in Afghanistan and what former Vice President Dick Cheney called Obama's "dithering" and "waffling" on whether to send more U.S. troops.
    Do we smell a campaign of historic revisionism by those widely seen as primarily responsible for the disaster in Afghanistan that has prompted Army Gen. Stanley A. McCrystal's request for up to 80,000 more soldiers?
    It was, after all, the Bush administration that failed in 2001 to deploy U.S. forces to stop Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahri, Mullah Mohammad Omar and thousands of their followers from escaping into Pakistan and then diverted U.S. troops, time, resources and energy to the 2003 invasion of Iraq before the al Qaida and Taliban threat was eliminated.
    It was also the Bush administration that empowered the return of the warlords whose deprivations sparked the Taliban's formation in the early 1990s. And it was the Bush administration that helped bring to Afghanistan and maintain in power the corruption-rife government of Hamid Karzai.
    As late as December 2005, despite official warnings about the Taliban resurgence and a lack of U.S. resources for critical reconstruction programs, the Bush administration planned to reduce the 19,000 U.S. troops then in Afghanistan by 2,500 soldiers in order to bolster hard-pressed U.S. forces in Iraq.
    And even after seven years of war _ and the deaths of 630 U.S. service members, more than 400 other coalition soldiers and thousands of Afghans _ the Bush administration lacked strategies for dealing with the al Qaida and Taliban safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where it backed a military dictatorship, or building Afghan security forces, according to the Government Accountability Office.
    The Bush administration's last secretary of defense - who happens to be Obama's first secretary of defense - Robert Gates last month described the Bush administration's approach to Afghanistan as a "holding action" that lacked "a comprehensive strategy" or enough soldiers.
    By the time Obama administration took office, the Taliban-led insurgency infected huge swaths of  Afghanistan while allied extremists held sway in virtually all of Pakistan's tribal areas and were imposing hard-line Islamic rule in the Swat Valley, 60 miles from Islamabad.   
    Yet there was Cheney, receiving the "Keeper of the Flame Award" on Wednesday night from the right-wing Center for Security Policy, accusing Obama of jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops, hurting U.S. allies and encouraging the insurgents by delaying a decision on McChrystal's request.
    The White House response?
    "I think it's a curious comment. I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan," said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. "Even more curious, given the fact that a increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the Vice President's, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March."

October 21, 2009

The State Deparment says invest in Iraq -- sort of

This week, Washington hosted a U.S.-Iraqi business conference, which featured such notables as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, President Barack Obama’s national security advisor. The message was clear: Iraq is a vibrant country now filled with investment opportunities! Get in on the ground floor!

Here’s what Clinton had to say:  “We believe strongly that Iraq is a land where generations of scientists, doctors, astronomers, engineers built a tradition of scholarship and inquiry that lives on in the Iraqi people today.  And now is the time for both Iraq and its friends, like the United States, to demonstrate how there can be a new, more prosperous, peaceful future for Iraq.”

There’s just one problem: The department that Hillary runs says in its travel advisory that Iraq remains a dangerous place for Americans. The advisory, last updated in June, begins by saying, “The Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens of the dangers inherent in travel to Iraq and recommends against all but essential travel in country given the fluid security situation.  Numerous insurgent groups remain active throughout Iraq.  Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)-led military operations continue, and attacks persist against the ISF and U.S. forces in many areas of the country.”

So which is it? Is Iraq a place where Americans should consider exploring new business opportunities or a place one should not travel to except for essential reasons?

October 19, 2009

Where's Dick?

 

We're in the midst of the biggest political crisis in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001. Pakistan has launched a major offensive into the South Waziristan tribal area, a move that was preceded by a string of murderous terrorist attacks against Pakistani security forces. U.S.-Pakistani relations almost went thermonuclear over a U.S. aid bill that Pakistani military saw as a hammer against it.

Where then is Richard C. Holbrooke, the president's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The hard-charging Holbrooke is hardly known as a shrinking violet, and he has a legendary reputation for working the news media, including special briefings for his favorite reporters. But his public profile has gone from hero to zero in recent weeks.

A quick check of the State Department web site shows that Holbrooke's last public appearance before the media was nearly a month ago, during the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

Coincidence? We thought not. And after a couple of phone calls, Warren and Jon here at N&S figured out what's up.

Three administration officials, who asked not to be identified by agency, told us that, while Holbrooke is laboring away hard behind the scenes, he's received direct orders from the White House to cool it publicly while Washington desperately tries to unscramble the Afghan electoral mess between President Hamid Karzai and his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

"This process is so sensitive. He'd love to deal with this. The White House thinks ... it's not the time for him" to be out front, one of the officials said of Holbrooke.

Perhaps it was that reported shouting match in Kabul a few weeks back between Karzai and Holbrooke?

Instead, it's Sen. John Kerry - a man not known for shouting - who has been in the Afghan capital, dickering with Karzai in the hopes of getting him to accept a run-off, or a compromise with Abdullahx2.

To be fair -- and we do try to be fair here at N&S, we're told that the White House orders are not directed at Holbrooke alone. Everyone involved in Af/Pak policy has been told to keep a lid on it while President Obama deals with the difficult decision of how to keep the situation there from dropping into the abyss and whether to send more American servicemen and women to Afghanistan.

The orders followed remarks a few weeks back by Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to the effect that a "counter-terrorism" strategy, relying on fewer troops and more Predator drone strikes, wouldn't be effective. The remarks were widely seen as limiting the president's options.

"McChrystal got ahead of the process and was pulled back," said a second U.S. official. "In light of that, we have said to all of the people who are involved in the review process: your words should be directed to the president and the principals (senior advisers) and not to the public. This has not been directed at Richard, but to all of the officials involved in the process."

"The idea here is to leave the prerogatives to the president. By accident, McChrystal was seen as jamming the commander in chief."

  

October 16, 2009

Afghan run off election likely

This weekend, we expect to hear that the Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission will call for a run off presidential election , saying that while the U.S. backed-incumbent Hamid Karzai won 54.6 percent of the vote, too many of those ballots were fraudulent, and therefore he didn’t get the majority of votes. The top two candidates, Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, should therefore face a run off.

But will this lead to more political stability or less?

At best, the run off will be held off in about a month, during Afghanistan’s brutal winter, which will mean lower turn out.  Moreover, many Afghans dismiss the process entirely calling their election system inherently fraud. That is, their vote is no more likely to count the next time as it did the first. This piece captures the sentiment amongst Afghans beautifully.

Many, particularly the Americans, had hoped Karzai and Abdullah would agree to some kind of reconciliation government so that the run off would not be necessary precisely because of the reasons listed.

Before the election, officials here in Washington insisted that it was critical that the elections be seen as legitimate. That now seems impossible. I can’t help but wonder if in hindsight, Afghanistan should have been declared a state of emergency until the country could better hold elections.

Either way, most agree the Obama administration cannot seriously consider its options in Afghanistan until this weekend’s announcement. So for all the meetings and discussions, in some ways the debate about what the United States should do next in Afghanistan, amidst rising violence and a resurgent Taliban, starts anew this weekend. It will all hinge on what the commission says and how the candidates and their supporters respond.

October 12, 2009

British Afghanistan commander resigns over "lack of clear policy"

Thanks to Peter, a thoughtful reader, a true newhound who sent me a story about a very important development over the weekend on the other side of the pond. The British Army confirmed that its top Afghanistan commander for its 8,000 troops serving there, Maj. Gen. Andrew Mackay, resigned for “personal” reasons.  But according to some reports, he resigned because he felt his troops were not getting the kind of support, both in terms of equipment and strategy, that they need and deserve.

The Independent reported that he was disturbed by a “lack of clear policy.” And the Times piece says that he felt his repeated warnings of the state of the war went unanswered.

(As an aside, Britain’s Sun newspaper reports that Mackay was Prince Harry’s commander during his brief stint of service in Helmand province.)

Mackay presided over the deadliest year for British troops since the war began more than eight years ago, including the death of seven British troops in one week. That deadly July week sparked a nationwide protest over the British involvement in the Afghanistan war.

Mackay is the fifth British commander in Afghanistan in two years.

What does this portend for the rest of the coalition? Many countries – including Germany, Canada and Italy – are facing growing opposition within their populace about the war in Afghanistan. I fear that as the United States contemplates the way ahead in Afghanistan, it may also increasingly have to consider going at it largely on its own.

October 08, 2009

Obama’s book club selection and what it says about strategy

The Wall Street Journal had this fabulous piece about some of the books members of the Obama administration are grabbing from D.C. bookstore selves as they consider a new Afghanistan strategy. Believe it or not, what books leaders have sitting on their bedside is an interesting barometer of how they are thinking about the challenges before them. And according to the Journal piece, the Obama administration is looking at Afghanistan through the prism of Vietnam; both books mentioned in the piece study the civilian and military leaders of that war, particularly in the second half of the conflict.

 “Lessons of Disaster” dissects the failings of McGeorge Bundy’s leadership from his eyes; “A Better War” celebrates Creighton Abrams’ leadership.

I know this may seem like a trivial discussion topic, but I think it is telling. Consider the Bush administration reading list. Among the books people like Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld turned to was “Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime” by Eliot Cohen.

I just read that book, and it is a fascinating read indeed. It looks at how Abraham Lincoln, Georges Clemenceau, Winston Churchill and David Ben Gurion led during wartime.  Each war and leader are different indeed, but Cohen eloquently ties the leaders’ experiences together. What he concludes ultimately is that generals are too often more confident then they should be, and as such ask for more troops and weapons then they should. So it falls on the civilian leaders to keep them in check.  It is not a surprising conclusion coming from a hawk like Cohen, one could argue.

Soon Rumsfeld and Cheney were arguing for a streamlined military. Rumsfeld said that the military needed far fewer troops than the generals said. And the era of military transformation was born. 

So what does this administration’s reading list tell us? Perhaps that they know that for all the planning, meeting and strategizing, counterinsurgency may hinge on the leaders on the field and in the White House.

October 06, 2009

The heart of the Afghan debate

As most of you know, Washington is engulfed in a prolonged debate about the way ahead in Afghanistan. It occurs to me that very few have properly articulated to you, dear reader, what is at the heart of the debate. Let me take a stab at it. It gets down to this: What is the current relationship between al Qaida and the Taliban?  The answer to that questions leads to the following question:  Is an Afghanistan under Taliban control really a threat to the security of the United States?

We know of course that the Taliban and al Qaida worked hand-in-hand in the run up to 9/11.  But the relationship isn't really so clear  now.  Back then, the Taliban turned to al Qaida for financial support, for example. Today the Taliban generates, by some estimates, as much as $400 million in annual revenue. Indeed, some believe the Taliban is now subsidizing al Qaida. So if Afghanistan fell to Taliban rule again, we know now  they  need al Qaida  a lot  less than they did eight years ago to survive.  

And according to Ret. Marine Gen. Jim Jones, the National Security Advisor, al Qaida is not as dependent on Afghanistan as it once was.   Before 9/11, al Qaida had large-scale training camps in Afghanistan;  but Jones  said in an interview Sunday with CNN”s John King , that no more than 100 al Qaida operatives work out of Afghanistan  now . The rest have moved to Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Europe and yes, even the United States.  That is, al Qaida needs Afghanistan as a sanctuary less today than it did eight years ago.

Jones also tackled the uncertainty of the relationship between the two groups. He said that the Taliban does not pose a threat to anyone outside of Afghanistan. And he said al Qaida cannot launch any kind of major attack on the United States from Afghanistan. In other words, neither group pose an immediate that, at least within the Afghan border. 

King asked Jones: “Does the return of the Taliban in your view, sir, equal the return of a sanctuary for al Qaida?” 

Jones had a two - word answer: “It could.”   

Well, until that is clear, what the U.S. goals are in Afghanistan remain muddled. 

Without the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, the Taliban might return to power. Should the United States care?  That depends on whether a Taliban victory would mean a welcome for al Qaida. And if the administration determines that the Taliban won’t welcome al Qaida  back, it begs the ultimate question: Why is the United States in Afghanistan?

Petraeus diagnosed with prostate cancer

Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, was diagnosed in February with an early stage prostate cancer and has since received treatment, according to reports that first appeared in the New York Times.

Petraeus, 56, underwent two months of radiation treatment at Walter Reed but continued working, according to a statement. While he notified his chain of command, he is considered it a personal issue and chose to keep it private.

His treatment was successful, the statement said.