Mr Obama's War: Gareth Porter on the Afghanistan "Mini-Surge"

Gareth Porter, who is emerging as the best observer of the US military manoeuvres on Iraq and Afghanistan, looks behind President Obama's eventual decision to approve only part of the 30,000 extra troops request by US commanders for the Afghan War (Porter says 17,000 sent; we put the figure at just over 20,000). While the President has apparently drawn the line with the military, Porter warns, "Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month." And he has an analogy which is just short of terrifying:

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

 



'What is the End Game?': Why Obama Rejected a Bigger Surge in Afghanistan
Gareth Porter

President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.

But Obama is likely to be pressured by McKiernan and the Joint Chiefs to approve the remaining 13,000 troops requested after the completion of an Afghanistan-Pakistan policy review next month.

Obama's decision to approve just over half the full troop request for Afghanistan recalls a similar decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson to approve only part of the request for U.S. troop deployments in a parallel situation in the Vietnam War in April 1965 at a comparable stage of that war. Johnson reluctantly went along with the request for additional troops within weeks under pressure from both the field commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The request for 30,000 additional troops, which would bring the U.S. troop level in Afghanistan to more than 60,000, had been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as by Defense Secretary Robert Gates before Obama's inauguration. A front-page story in the Washington Post Jan. 13 reported that Obama was ready to "sign off" on the deployment request.

On Jan. 30 Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said between 20,000 and 30,000 more troops would "probably" be sent to Afghanistan and the figure would "tend toward the higher number of those two."

But on Feb. 9, Mullen indicated that the Pentagon would soon announce that three brigades, or about 16,000 troops, would be deployed to Afghanistan in the coming months.

What had changed in the nine days between those two statements, according to a White House source, was that Obama had called McKiernan directly and asked how he planned to use the 30,000 troops, but got no coherent answer to the question.

It was after that conversation that Obama withdrew his support for the full request.

The unsatisfactory response from McKiernan had been preceded by another military non-answer to an Obama question. At his meeting with Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon Jan. 28, Obama asked the Joint Chiefs, "What is the end game?" in Afghanistan, and was told, "Frankly, we don't have one," according to a Feb. 4 report by NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Obama had also learned by early February that earlier assurances from Petraeus of an accord with Kyrygistan on use of the base at Manas had been premature, and that the U.S. ability to supply troops in Afghanistan would be dependent on political accommodations with Russia and Iran.

The rationale from the military leadership for doubling the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even without a strategy or a concept of how the war could end, had been to "buy time" for an effort to build up Afghan security forces, as indicated by Mullen's Jan. 30 remarks.

The 17,000 troops, on the other hand, presented the upper limit of what Obama had pledged to add in Afghanistan during the campaign, according to Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, who was an adviser to Obama.

Korb told IPS that Obama's decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan, according to Korb. "There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets," said Korb.

McKiernan reminded reporters Wednesday that the 17,000 troops represent only about two-thirds of the number of troops he has requested. That complaint suggested that he had been given no assurance that the remainder of the troops would be approved after the policy review.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an administration official Wednesday as saying that the troop authorization addresses the "urgent near-term security needs on the ground," but "does not prejudge or limit the options of what the [Afghanistan] review may recommend when it's completed."

Obama may have become more wary of getting mired down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, despite his strong commitment to increasing troops to Afghanistan during the campaign.

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, on whom Obama has reportedly relied for advice on foreign policy, told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post Wednesday, "We have to decide more precisely what is the objective of our involvement. Because we are increasingly running the risk of getting bogged down both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan in pursuit of objectives which we are lacking the power to reach."

Brezinzski said the administration needed "very specific, narrow objectives".

Korb told IPS that the policy review will deal with political-diplomatic as well as military policy issues, including the option of seeking to incorporate at least elements of the insurgents into the government through negotiations. He recalled that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been advocating negotiations with the Taliban for two years.

Both Obama's decision to agree to just over half of his field commander's request for additional troops and the broader strategic situation offer striking parallels with the decision by President Lyndon B. Johnson in April 1965 to approve 36,000 out of a 49,000 troop request for Vietnam.

Johnson's decision, like Obama's, was made against a background of rapid deterioration in the security situation, worry that the war would soon be lost if more U.S. troops were not deployed, and an unresolved debate over how the troops would be employed in South Vietnam. Some of Johnson's advisers still favored a strategy of protecting the key population centers, whereas the field commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, was calling for a more aggressive strategy of seeking out enemy forces.

Another parallel between the two situations is high-level concern that too many U.S. troops would provoke anti-U.S. sentiment. That was the primary worry of some of Johnson's advisers about the effect of deploying three divisions in South Vietnam.

Similarly, Gates said Dec. 14 he would be "very concerned" about deploying more than the 30,000 troops requested by McKiernan, because, "At a certain point, we get such a big footprint, we begin to look like an occupier." Gates repeated that point in Congressional testimony Jan. 27, in which he again stressed the failure of the Soviet Union with 120,000 troops.

McKiernan, on the other hand, said Wednesday, "There's always an inclination to relate what we're doing with previous nations," he said, adding, "I think that's a very unhealthy comparison."

Johnson was worried about sliding into an open-ended commitment to a war that could not be won. But two months later he gave in, against his better judgment, to a request from Gen. William Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, for "urgent reinforcements". The escalation of the war continued for another two years.

Obama now faces the prospect that the Joint Chiefs will renew their support for McKiernan's request for the remaining 13,000 troops next month. And if the full 30,000 troop increase proves to be insufficient, he is likely to face further requests later on for "urgent reinforcements."

Mr Obama's War: US Special Forces Training Pakistani Units, US Military Pressing Pakistani Allies

Related Post: Josh Mull on "Mr Obama's War" in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Related Post: Ceasefire in NW Pakistan; More on US Drone Strikes
Related Post: Mr Obama's War - Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan

The New York Times reports this morning, from US military sources, "More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas."

The secret task force, overseen by US Central Command and Special Operations Command, was created last summer. The US military that the task force training and information from the CIA has helped a new Pakistani commando unit to kill or capture up to 60 militants, including at least five high-ranking commanders, since last July.

This, however, is only the headline story. Underneath is an effort by the US military to put pressure on Pakistan. The sources claim that the task force "was launched with the support of the Pakistani Government and military". However, the Pakistanis still are holding back from an all-out offensive against the insurgents:

The main commanders of the Pakistani Taliban, including its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, and its leader in the Swat region, Maulana Fazlullah, remain at large. And senior American military officials remain frustrated that they have been unable to persuade the chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, to embrace serious counterinsurgency training for the army itself....
The American officials acknowledge that at the very moment when Washington most needs Pakistan’s help, the greater tensions between Pakistan and India since the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November have made the Pakistani Army less willing to shift its attention to the Qaeda and Taliban threat.

It is no coincidence that Kayani is in Washington this week for the White House review on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He will be having direct meetings with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the US Joint Chief of Staff.

Bottom line? Expect more US-backed attacks on the military front against the bad guys and expect more psychological warfare against any Pakistani officials who appear reluctant to get on with the campaign, either by holding back on the battlefield or by offering political concessions to the local "Taliban" groups.

Mr Obama's War: Expanding the Enemies in Pakistan

Saturday's New York Times offers confirmation that, even as he holds back from the full "surge" requested by the US military in Afghanistan, President Obama is happy to widen the battle across the Pakistan. Two missile strikes in the last week have been aimed not at Al Qa'eda or Afghan Taliban but Pakistani insurgents led by Baitullah Mehsud.

The distinction is important, especially as the media's easy label of "Taliban" across a number of religious groups obscured the distinction between Mehsud and Afghans in a Pakistan "sanctuary". The Bush Administration never authorised missile strikes against Mehsud's camps, even though, after his alleged ordering of the assassination of from Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, he was included on a list of opponents whom the CIA was authorised to capture or kill.

The Times notes that the expanded American operations are occurring even as the Pakistani Government is seeking cease-fires with Pakistani "Taliban" movements in the region, but it makes no connection between the American military effort and Pakistan's political initiative. Thus it is unclear whether the US strategy co-exists with Islamabad's effort, reaching accommodations with some local groups while striking at others, or whether it is in direct conflict with an effort to defuse tensions with insurgents. That key issue becomes even murkier in The Times' account:

According to one senior Pakistani official, Pakistan’s intelligence service on two occasions in recent months gave the United States detailed intelligence about Mr. Mehsud’s whereabouts, but said the United States had not acted on the information. Bush administration officials had charged that it was the Pakistanis who were reluctant to take on Mr. Mehsud and his network.

We are left with a footnote to watch: as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a joint meeting on Thursday with Afghan and Pakistani foreign ministers, the head of the Pakistani Army, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the head of Pakistani military intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, will meet Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Oh, yes, another little quibble with The Times story and, possibly, the Obama strategy. For The Times, the only consequences of the missile strikes are the death of 2a number of senior Qaeda figures". Nowhere does the article mention the tiny consideration that lobbing missiles at Mehsud and his followers might take out a few bystanders, as has repeatedly been the case in Afghanistan.

And, far from

Mr Obama's World: Updates on US Foreign Policy (20 February)

Evening Update (8.30 p.m. GMT / 1.30 p.m. Washington): Amnesty International and a Tibetan rights group are reported to be "shocked" by Hillary Clinton's decision not to press China on human rights today. Clinton believes that "We pretty much known what they are going to say."

Perhaps proving Clinton right, China today deployed thousands more troops to Tibet to stave off unrest.

In Poland today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told NATO allies that the Obama administration was expecting significant contributions towards troop levels in Afghanistan, however some are calling Gates' appeal for a contribution towards non-combatant, civilian roles a tacit admission that troops are unlikely to be forthcoming.

Back in Washington the White House has announced that it will today "refine" its legal position on detainees held at Bagram air base. Over 600 people  are detained at the base outside Kabul, and under the Bush administration they were deemed not to be entitled to US legal rights. At present it is not known whether Obama's break with Bush on the rights of 'enemy combatants' at Guantánamo Bay will extend to Bagram.

Afternoon Update (2.30 p.m. GMT / 7.30 a.m. Washington): Clinton has arrived in China on the final leg of her Far East tour. The economy, human rights, the environment and North Korea could all be on the agenda.

Speaking to CNN Clinton said that North Korea was "miscalculating" if it thought it could "drive a wedge" between the US and South Korea. Clinton suggested that North Korea deploys two different approaches to its neighbours, alternating between sabre-rattling and appeasement in order to gain diplomatic leverage.

Clinton has also appointed former ambassador to South Korea Stephen W Bosworth as a special envoy to Pyongyang, with the aim of getting the North back to the negotiating table.

Elsewhere, the Kyrgyzstan Government has signed the bill closing the US Manas airbase.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that the US will consider Russian concerns over missile defence.

Morning Update (5:30 a.m. GMT; 12:30 a.m. Washington): A relatively quiet start to the foreign-policy day, but we're keeping a close eye on the reaction to the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iranian nuclear production, released on Thursday. We've got the text of the report and an immediate analysis.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured) visits South Korea, the headlines are on North Korea's latest belligerent posturing, threatening an "all-out confrontation" with the South, and the possibility that Pyongyang will test a long-range missile.

This is more sound than fury. North Korea is now pulling back a bit, saying it will be testing a satellite, and it is unlikely that Clinton will go beyond general references to the need for regional security and alliance with South Korea. Seoul doesn't want a showdown with the North, China --- where Clinton heads next --- will emphasise the need for engagement, and Washington is still signalling that it prefers diplomacy to the image of confrontation.

On his first visit as President to a foreign country, Barack Obama has denied asking Canada for any additional troops in Afghanistan: ""I certainly did not press the prime minister on any additional commitments beyond the ones that have already been made."

It is a shrewd political move, as any proposed increase would prompt a Canadian political crisis and possibly doom the government, but it raises the question of whether the US can get any significant military backing for its "surge" this year. Canada has 2700 troops in Afghanistan and is committed to withdrawing them by 2011.

Meanwhile, another sign of the US escalation in Afghanistan: plans are underway to double the size of the detention facility at Camp Bagram. The facility currents hold more than 600 detainees in conditions which have been criticised as a deprivation of basic human rights.

Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, has criticised the Pakistan Government's allowance of local autonomy, including sharia law, in the northwest of the country: "I am concerned, and I know Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton is, and the president is, that this deal, which is portrayed in the press as a truce, does not turn into a surrender." Holbrooke added that Pakistani President Asif Zardari had assured him the arrangement was temporary.

In northwest Pakistan, at least 18 people have been killed and many others wounded after a sucide bomber exploded at a funeral procession for a Shia Muslim.


The Obama Administration continues its slowdown of the Bush Administration's Missile Defence scheme. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Thursday that "the U.S. would consider whether the system was affordable and technologically feasible" and would try to reopen talks with Russia over the project.

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (19 February)

Latest Post: Engagement with Iran? An Additional View of Professor Gary Sick’s Analysis
Latest Post: Muntazar al-Zaidi - Shoe-Throwing Trial Starts Today in Iraq

Evening Update (8:30 p.m.): Al Jazeera has a useful summary of the challenge facing the US military "surge", not from the enemy but from its allies. A two-day meeting of NATO defence ministers in Poland is highlighting that few, if any, members are eager to raise their troop levels beyond token commitments. Even John Hutton, the blowhard British Minister of Defence who talked about "a struggle against fanatics that...challenges our way of life in the same way the Nazis did", is saying it is up to other NATO countries to take the first step.

As Damascus makes a major play for leadership in Middle Eastern politics, the United Nations may revive an inconvenient incident. It is reporting additional nuclear particles from a Syrian facility bombed by Israel in September 2007 and noting that the particles cannot have come from Israeli missiles.

The Pentagon is playing for time after this morning's Parliamentary vote in Kyrgyzstan closing the US airbase within six months: "We continue to consider what we might be able to offer the (Kyrgyzstan) government but we're not prepared to stay at any price and we continue to look at other options that are available to us."



Afternoon Update (1:15 p.m.): The Afghanistan Foreign Ministry has tried to take advantage of President Obama's inclusion of Kabul in the US strategic review by claiming a lead role on issues of security, development, and reconstruction: "Since a new page has been opened with America and we have had the opportunity as an ally to raise our points, we are repeating them for we believe they are essential in bringing security."

Afghanistan will also be pressing the US to extend its operation against "sanctuaries" in Pakistan.

A series of roadside and car bombs have killed seven Iraqi soldiers and policemen and wounded more than 20 people.

North Korean military spokesmen welcome Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's forthcoming visit with the declaration: "[South Korea's] group of traitors should never forget that the Korean People's Army is fully ready for an all-out confrontation."

Morning Update (6 a.m. GMT; 1 a.m. Washington): A Surge is Not a Surge. Now that President Obama has approved an additional 21,000 troops for Afghanistan this year, bringing the US force close to 60,000, the military are putting out the line that this is a long-term commitment. General David McKiernan, the commander of US and NATO forces in the country, emphasized, "This is not a temporary force uplift. It will need to be sustained for some period of time, for the next three to four to five years." While some units would be in place, especially in southern Afghanistan, by the summer, "Even with these additional forces,...2009 is going to be a tough year."

McKiernan then added a statement which, if anyone is watching carefully, exposes the difficulties of the surge which is more than a surge. The general cited the causes of turmoil as "three decades of low literacy rates and rampant poverty and violence". These would seem to require more than a show of US force, but McKiernan pressed on, "We do see, with these additional forces, an opportunity to break this stalemate, at least in terms of security conditions in the south."

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has set up another test of the US strategy, calling on NATO allies to increase their military presence: "The [US] administration is prepared... to make additional commitments to Afghanistan, but there clearly will be expectations that the allies must do more as well." The call to arms may be met with less-than-enthusiastic responses: Italy said yesterday that it would send more 500 troops, and Georgia, angling to join NATO, has announced it will despatch 200. However, British Foreign Minister David Miliband stalled with the claim that there had been request for more UK forces. With Barack Obama in Canada today, it will be interesting to see how Ottawa, which has been on the front-line of the Afghan effort, responds.

The Kyrgyzstan Parliament is likely to deal another blow to US plans today when it approves the Government proposal to close the US Manas airbase, a key supply line for the military in Afghanistan.

Egypt has released the opposition leader Ayman Nour from detention because "health concerns". Nour was sentenced to five years on forgery charges in 2005, months after he finished second to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in elections. His case has been a prominent symbol for activists pressing for democratic reform and human rights.