Today in Mr Obama's Neighborhood: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (9 February)

Related Post: Binyam Mohamed at Guantanamo Bay - “I Know Beyond A Doubt He Was Tortured”
Related Post: Obama v. The Generals (Again) - The Closure of Guantanamo Bay

The Neighborhood Today: An Economy Day, But Clouds over Afghanistan

Evening Update (11:25 p.m.): Move Along, Nothing to See Here. Genius/General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, and Frnech Defense Minister Herve Morin discussed Afghanistan today in a meeting in Paris. Of course, Petraeus told reporters afterwards, they did not talk about the issue of troop reinforcements: "That wasn't part of the discussion today. What we were doing was discussing how we perceive the 20 countries in the central command area of responsibility."

Which is sort of the equivalent of visiting the Pope and not mentioning Catholicism.



6:55 p.m. Either the Obama Administration is playing a good cop, bad cop game from Iran, or the departing US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, is being none-too-subtle in his distance from the White House and, I suspect, his alliance with American military commanders.

As the White House talks of engagement with Iran, Crocker has told Al Arabiya Television that Tehran is still supporting Iraqi insurgents, despite US-Iran talks over the security situation: ""There is also what I would call a terrorist element from some Shia extremists and we believe that they are supported still by elements within Iran...The question is what decisions the Iranians are going to make about their future relationship with Iraq."

6:50 p.m. Reports indicate four US soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter have been killed in a suicide car bombing in Mosul in northern Iraq.

6:15 p.m. Interesting twist in the drama over the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. The Cable, the blog of the journal Foreign Policy, claims that the dispute arose in part because more than $100 million in American payments did not go to the Kyrgyzstan Government but to the family of former Kyrgyz leader Askar Akayev. The US failure to renegotiate agreements to ensure its payments made it to the correct location, i.e., the Kyrgyz Treasury, prompted Kyrgyzstan to take action.

Afternoon Update (4:30 p.m.): It appears there are further manoeuvres around the closure of the US Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. A Parliamentary vote has been delayed because the Kyrgyz Government is "sending more paperwork" to the parliamentarians.

Russian sign of goodwill for the Biden speech? Kyrgyz horse-trading for more income? Your speculation is as good as mine.

11:40 a.m. The BBC has just released a poll of more than 1500 Afghans on the political, economic, and military situation. The percentage who think the country is "headed in the right direction" is falling. While there was a 2:1 margin saying Yes two years ago, opinion is now evenly divided.

Support for the Afghan Government is still high, although it is declining. Perhaps most provocatively, given the debate in Washington, is this finding: "Support for the presence of foreign troops is also strong but declining."

11:25 a.m. South Korean Lee Myung-Bak has vowed to take a "firm" stance against North Korea's suspension of all political and military agreements.

11 a.m.: Juan Cole has an interesting analysis of former President Mohammad Khatami's declared candidacy for June's Iranian presidential election. It's an optimistic assessment: "Could Khatami be Iran's Obama?"

6:30 a.m. GMT: The general talk of US engagement with Iran, buttressed by Vice President Joe Biden's speech on Saturday, prompts some frankly ludicrous speculation on Iranian politics and society. Michael Ledeen is howling at the Tehran moon: "The terror masters in Tehran believe [Iran's] satellite has an even greater significance -- another step toward the return of the Shiite messiah, or Mahdi, the long-vanished 12th Imam." Worst Sentence of the Day comes from Roger Cohen in The New York Times: "The core debate is: can Iran manage a Chinese-style reform where its Islamic hierarchy endures through change, or does opening to America equal Soviet-style implosion?"

So let's get to the important, unresolved question: did Iranian officials meet US counterparts privately in Munich this weekend? Any clues most appreciated....

There is a tantalising story in The Wall Street Journal today highlighting the link between Iran and Afghanistan. US officials have told the paper that Obama envoy Richard Holbrooke will "engage Iran as part of a broad effort to stabilize Afghanistan and combat the country's growing drug trade". The article notes that one of Holbrooke's advisors is Professor Vali Nasr, who has written extensively on Iran.

Morning Update (5:30 a.m. GMT; 12:30 a.m. Washington): US politics will be pre-occupied today with the Congressional debates over the Obama economic stimulus package, giving us a bit of space to read the developments after this weekend's Munich Security Conference.

As we updated last night, the President v. military contest over American strategy in Afghanistan is taking on the look of a centrepiece, with envoy Richard Holbrooke bigging it up as "tougher than Iraq". The latest development, however, gives more weight to the argument that the idea of a military-first surge is in trouble: the Germans have let it be known that a new political approach, rather than an increase in troops, is the best way forward, and the French Defense Minister, Herve Morin, has repeated his statement of two weeks ago that Paris will not send additional forces.

Politically, the reaction to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech needs to be watched, given his attempt to take the initiative from the Americans with the proposal of talks with "moderate Taliban". Given the implications of that suggestion, and Karzai's tenuous position with Washington, there is surprisingly little response in US and British media this morning to the speech.

Meanwhile, the talk of Genius/General David Petraeus in Munich seems to have slipped by most journalists. What coverage there is offers Petraeus' Afghanistan-surge-as-Iraq-surge rationale, a situation that "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" in a "downward spiral of security", and the close-to-useless summary, "Terrorism – the be-all and end-all of policy towards the region under President George Bush – is now seen as much as a product as a cause of Afghanistan’s instability. National reconciliation is to be pursued as the longer-term objective."

For better or worse (in my opinion, worse), the Obama Administration has welded the Afghanistan issue to Pakistan as "Afpak", so envoy Richard Holbrooke starts in Islamabad today. White House staff are telling media that the Pakistani situation is the one that "scares" Obama, but it is clearly unclear what Washington is proposing to do --- the politics inside the country, be they at national level or in the regions, seem to beyond US grasp at the momen. So is the fighting: the military approach appears to be in suspension after the two missile strikes just after Obama took office, while dozens have died this week in battles in the Swat Valley between local insurgents and the Pakistani Army.

The New York Times' overview of Holbrooke's visit is simple but concise:

On almost every front, Pakistani leaders are calling for less American involvement, or at least the appearance of it. The main reason for the swell in resentment here is the very strategy that the United States government considers its prime success against Al Qaeda: missile strikes delivered by remotely piloted aircraft against militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.