Obama v. The Military (Part 39): The Latest on the Afghanistan "Surge"

The military's effort, supported by some officials in the Pentagon, to bounce President Obama into an immediate troop increase in Afghanistan is now approaching soap-opera status. Obama discussed the situation with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Wednesday but no decisions were announced.



So in today's episode, "defence officials" have told The New York Times that Obama is "facing a choice on whether to grant commanders' requests" for up to 25,000 more soldiers and support units. They then offer the President a compromise: "Mr. Obama could choose a middle ground, deploying several thousand more troops there in the coming months but postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel until after the administration completes a review of Afghanistan policy".

The compromise would be "one or two additional brigades", with 3500 in each brigade, rather than the three requested by the military. This would be in addition to a brigade which was deployed in eastern Afghanistan in January.

The Pentagon's campaign is now so blatant that its press secretary even went public with it yesterday. Geoff Morrell said Obama "“could make a decision about none, one, two or all of the brigades....However, there does need to be a decision made about a couple of brigades sooner rather than later if you want them on the ground in time to make a difference in the security situation for the national election in late August.”

The White House response to the military's latest push? Stonewall. Just as Obama has spun out the process with an inter-agency review to be headed by Bruce Riedel (the Obama Presidential campaign's advisor on South Asia), so his unnamed spokesmen are ruling nothing in, ruling nothing out:

Several administration officials said it was also possible — though less likely — that [Obama] could postpone any deployments until after his review was complete....It is also possible that Mr. Obama will fill the request for all three brigades, administration officials said.

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (11 February)

Latest Post: US Engagement with Iran: Transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s Speech
Breaking News: Attacks in Afghanistan

Mr Obama's World Today: Uncertain

Evening Update (8:45 p.m.): The US Government will send a delegation next week to the six-party talks in Moscow on North Korean disarmament.

4:40 p.m. Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy notes the story that almost all media have missed today:  the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Saudi Arabia

4:25 p.m. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has said that President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Zardari have spoken by phone, ageeing to start addressing problems in the region with a "holistic strategy".

Afternoon Update (3:30 p.m.): A spike in violence from bombings and attacks today. In addition to the deaths in Afghanistan, a provincial minister has been killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. Bombs in Iraq have killed at least eight people, while gunmen have slain several others, including a senior engineer and a prominent local football player.

US envoy Richard Holbrooke has visited northwest Pakistan to view a Pakistani military installation. As with his talks with political leaders on Tuesday, Holbrooke would say no more than that he was on a "listening" tour.



11:35 a.m. The Russians really are playing this hand well on Afghanistan. Offering co-operation but also ensuring control and thus oversight of Moscow's interest, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, amidst meetings with a senior US diplomat, that Russian military aircraft could assist with the supply effort.

11:25 a.m. During a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, ""We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed. If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news." (cross-posted from US Engagement with Iran thread)

9:30 a.m. A revealing bit of information that did not make it into the morning papers: "A senior American diplomat will hold talks with Russian officials on Tuesday about opening new supply routes across Russian territory to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. embassy said."

The news indicates how serious the supply situation for Afghanistan has become, with the closure of the Pakistan routes and the threatened shutdown of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. And it shows how dependent Washington has become on Moscow's goodwill for a solution, which in turn has shaped the encouragement of President Obama and Vice President Biden for closer co-operation with the Russians.

8:45 a.m. Meanwhile in Pakistan.... In another sign that the Obama Administration is reviewing its options carefully before making any strategic decisions, envoy Richard Holbrooke limited his comments after meetings with Pakistani officials to, "[I was here] to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country".

In contrast, the priority of President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was clear: Give Us Money. Their recogition of "the importance of enhanced cooperation in defense and intelligence sharing" was followed by a request to Washington to "expedite" billions of dollars in aid.

7:55 a.m. The New York Times also has a shrewd reading of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's criticism of Vice President Joe Biden,  which we noted yesterday. Al-Maliki's response to Biden's complaints about the lack of Iraqi political and economic reform were offered during a visit to Baghdad by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French, as all 2003 critics of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" will recall, have had extensive economic interests in Iraq. Al-Maliki's comments, however, are not just a reach-out for investment for Paris; they signal Iraq's wish to move away from perceived political dependence on, even subservience to, Washington.

7:35 a.m. On the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia, an interesting insight into Administration strategy on China in The New York Times.

"Senior Administration officials", probably from the State Department, tell the Times, "The Obama administration plans to realign the United States’ relationship with China by putting more emphasis on climate change, energy and human rights, widening the focus beyond the economic concerns of the Bush years." By going for environmental issues rather than risking economic confrontation, the US can then seek leverage on political concerns: "A broader relationship with the Chinese could create opportunities for collaboration — not only on a response to the global economic crisis, but also on the environment and on security issues like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs."

You may have noticed, however, the troublesome phrase in the spin. "Human rights"? Is Washington really going to press issues such as Chinese control of Tibet and jailing of dissidents?

The balancing act was demonstrated on Tuesday when State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told CNN, ""We are disturbed that prominent Chinese human rights activist Huang Qi remains in detention. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Huang as soon as possible."

7 a.m. Repeating the latest in the battle within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan strategy. Countering President Obama's attempt to take more time through an inter-agency review, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared, ""I think that there is a realization that some decisions have to be made ... before the strategic review is completed. [Obama] has several options in front of him."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, joined in the pressure on Obama. US military commanders "had this request out for many months and those working through the request recognize that the sooner the better with respect to this. I'm hopeful that we can get them there as soon as absolutely possible, but, again, that's a decision for the president of the United States, not for me."

Meanwhile, the US and Canada kept up the pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Mullen said in Ottawa on Tuesday, "As we look at the challenges that we have in 2009-2010 ... I think the lack of governance tied to the corruption that exists (in Afghanistan), is going to be the number one challenge that we have."

Morning Update (6:45 a.m. GMT; 1:45 a.m. Washington): Another day focused on the economy. President Obama's economic stimulus package moves from the Senate, where it passed yesterday, to the House of Representatives.

"A senior US official" has told CNN that American satellite photography shows possible preparations for a North Korean missile launch. Telemetry equipment is being assembled at the launch site, although there is no sign yet of a missile being moved. The last launch from the location, in 2006, was of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which flew for 40 seconds before crashing.

The US Government's reaction has been measured, focusing on diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Tuesday:

Well, since the first time that they launched the missile, it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across to the -- to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization.

Obama v. The Military (Again): The Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Binyam Mohamed at Guantanamo Bay: “I Know Beyond A Doubt He Was Tortured”

Andy Worthington lays out the narrative of the military's attempt to undercut President Obama's order for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in 12 months. Worthington's analysis is that Bush Administration political appointees within the Pentagon have been trying to find a way around Obama's command to suspend Military Commissions.

Worthington also reveals an important story missed by most of the media: the month-long hunger strike of at least 42 detainees. The lawyer for British resident Binyam Mohamed has claimed that at least 20 are in critical condition.

Who's Running Guantanamo?

On January 20, the answer to that question seemed obvious. In his inaugural speech, with George W. Bush standing just behind him, President Obama pointedly pledged to "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" -- a clear indication that, as he promised in a speech in August 2007, he would dismantle the extra-legal aberrations of the Bush administration's "War on Terror":

When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again ... As President, I will close Guantánamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions ... We will again set an example to the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

The next day, President Obama requested the military judges at Guantánamo to call a halt for four months to all proceedings in the Military Commissions at Guantánamo (the terror trials conceived by Dick Cheney and his close advisers in November 2001), to give the new administration time to review the system and to decide how best to progress with possible prosecutions.

The day after, he signed his first executive orders, stating that Guantánamo would be closed within a year, upholding the absolute ban on torture, ordering the CIA to close all secret prisons, establishing an immediate review of the cases of the remaining 242 prisoners in Guantánamo, and requiring defense secretary Robert Gates to ensure, within 30 days, that the conditions at Guantánamo conformed to the Geneva Conventions.

At first, everything seemed to be going well. Two judges immediately halted pre-trial hearings in the cases of the Canadian Omar Khadr and the five co-defendants accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and the President even secured an extra PR victory when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed architect of 9/11, who had been seeking a swift trial and martyrdom in the discredited Commission system, expressed his dissatisfaction to the judge. "We should continue so we don't go backward, we go forward," he said.

The first sign of dissent from the Pentagon

However, on January 29, the Commissions' recently appointed chief judge, Army Col. James M. Pohl, provided the first challenge to the President's plans, when he refused to suspend the arraignment of the Saudi Prisoner Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri, scheduled for today, February 9, stating that "he found the prosecutors' arguments, including the assertion that the Obama administration needed time to review its options, to 'be an unpersuasive basis to delay the arraignment.'"

Suddenly, urgent questions were raised about who was running Guantánamo, as it transpired that, although Barack Obama could request what he wanted, the Commissions, as Col. Pohl pointed out, had been mandated when "Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which remains in effect." He added, "The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future."

Moreover, the only official empowered to call off al-Nashiri's arraignment was Susan Crawford, the Commissions' Convening Authority, who retains her position as the senior Pentagon official overseeing the trials, even though she is a protégée of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and a close friend of Cheney's Chief of Staff, David Addington, the two individuals who, more than any others, established the "arbitrary justice" that Barack Obama pledged to bring to an end.

After a few fraught days, Crawford was evidently prevailed upon to call off the arraignment, which she did on February 5, dismissing the charges without prejudice (meaning that they can be reinstated at a later date). She refused to comment on her decision, and in fact has only spoken out publicly on one occasion since being appointed in February 2007, when she admitted, in the week before Obama's inauguration, that the treatment to which Saudi prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani was subjected amounted to torture. Instead, a Pentagon spokesman stepped forward to state, "It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the President has issued an executive order which mandates that the Military Commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantánamo."

This was hardly sufficient to assuage doubts about why a Cheney protégée was still in charge of the Commissions, and these doubts were amplified when the Associated Press announced that two more Bush political appointees -- Sandra Hodgkinson, the former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs, and special assistant Tara Jones -- had been moved to civil service jobs within the Pentagon. Hodgkinson had spent several years defending the Bush administration's detention policies, and Jones, as the AP explained, worked for a Pentagon public affairs program "aimed at persuading military analysts to generate favorable news coverage on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo and other efforts to combat terrorism," which was "shut down amid fierce Capitol Hill criticism and investigations into whether it violated Pentagon ethics and Federal Communications Commission policy."

The mass hunger strike

However, while Col. Pohl's dissent and the continuing presence of Susan Crawford raise serious doubts about the Pentagon's ability -- or willingness -- to embrace President Obama's post-Bush world, the most troubling developments are at Guantánamo itself. Although Robert Gates, the only senior Bush administration official specifically retained by Obama, has shown a willingness to adjust to the new conditions (which is, presumably, what encouraged Obama to retain him in the first place), it seems unlikely that, even with the best will in the world, he can address the problems currently plaguing Guantánamo in the remaining twelve days of the time allotted to him to review the conditions at the prison.

A month ago -- inspired, in particular, by the seventh anniversary of the prison's opening, and by the change of administration -- at least 42 prisoners at Guantánamo embarked on a hunger strike. According to guidelines laid down by medical practitioners, force-feeding mentally competent prisoners who embark on a hunger strike is prohibited, but at Guantánamo this obligation has never carried any weight. Force-feeding has been part of the regime throughout its history, and was vigorously embraced in January 2006, in response to an intense and long-running mass hunger strike, when a number of special restraint chairs were brought to Guantánamo, which were used to "break" the strike.

As I reported last week, the force-feeding, which involves strapping prisoners into the chairs using 16 separate straps and forcing a tube through their nose and into their stomach twice a day, is clearly a world away from the humane treatment required by the Geneva Conventions, as are the "forced cell extractions" used to take unwilling prisoners to be force-fed.

Now, however, Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, the military defense attorney for the British resident Binyam Mohamed (whose "extraordinary rendition" and torture set off a Transatlantic scandal last week), has reported that conditions inside the prison have deteriorated still further. In an article in yesterday's Observer, Lt. Col. Bradley, who indicated that her client was "dying in his Guantánamo cell," reported on a visit to the prison last week, and stated,

At least 50 people are on hunger strike, with 20 on the critical list, according to Binyam. The JTF [Joint Task Force] are not commenting because they do not want the public to know what is going on. Binyam has witnessed people being forcibly extracted from their cell. Swat teams in police gear come in and take the person out; if they resist, they are force-fed and then beaten. Binyam has seen this and has not witnessed this before. Guantánamo Bay is in the grip of a mass hunger strike and the numbers are growing; things are worsening.

It is so bad that there are not enough chairs to strap them down and force-feed them for a two- or three-hour period to digest food through a feeding tube. Because there are not enough chairs the guards are having to force-feed them in shifts. After Binyam saw a nearby inmate being beaten it scared him and he decided he was not going to resist. He thought, "I don't want to be beat, injured or killed." Given his health situation, one good blow could be fatal.

Lt. Col. Bradley added that Mohamed's account of the "savage beating" endured by a fellow prisoner was the "first account [she had] personally received of a detainee being physically assaulted at Guantánamo."

And yet, although Lt. Col. Bradley's account indicates that the crisis in Guantánamo is such that ongoing discussions about implementing the Geneva Conventions should be replaced by urgent intervention to address the prisoners' complaints (and alleviating the chronic isolation in which most of the prisoners are held would be a start), the conditions in Guantánamo have been met with a resolute silence from the Pentagon and the White House.

Will it really take another death in Guantánamo -- the sixth -- to provoke an immediate response?

Update on Obama v. The Military: Where Next in Afghanistan?

Is President Obama preparing to stall out the military's request for 25,000 more US troops to Afghanistan?

The Times of London, in an article that is not replicated elsewhere, thinks so. It asserts, on the basis of an unnamed source:

The Pentagon was set to announce the deployment of 17,000 extra soldiers and marines last week but Robert Gates, the defence secretary, postponed the decision after questions from Obama.

The president was concerned by a lack of strategy at his first meeting with Gates and the US joint chiefs of staff last month in “the tank”, the secure conference room in the Pentagon. He asked: “What’s the endgame?” and did not receive a convincing answer.

On its own, that's not strong evidence that Obama is going to block the military's insistence on a "surge" to be announced before the NATO summit on 5 April. However, the excellent Juan Cole stacks up the reasons why Obama might want to pull the plug on Genius/General David Petraeus's plan.

As we've noted for weeks, the US is in a real logistical bind. With the closure of its main supply route from Pakistan, it has to find an alternative for all those extra forces. Russia, however, is playing a double game: while it says publicly it will allow the US to move supplies across its territory, it has encouraged Kyrgyzstan to close the US Manas airbase that is needed for the effort. Meanwhile Uzbekistan, which did host US bases after 9/11 but then evicted American forces in 2005, is only prepared to allow non-military supplies across its supplies.

Conclusion? The US is going to have pay a very high price --- economic and political --- to get full support for an alternative supply route. That is --- and here's a crazy thought --- unless it's prepared to supply Afghanistan from the west via Iran.

But, as good as Cole's analysis is, I think it misses the wider political point. It's pretty clear that Washington would prefer to see the back of President Hamid Karzai, its choice to lead Afghanistan in 2001 but a leader who --- depending on your point of view --- is too tolerant of corruption or too critical of the US approach to be a solid ally in this new surge.

However, unless the US is prepared to abandon the semblance of national government, it needs someone to play the political partner in Kabul. And Karzai, who is getting bolder even as his position is more and more tenuous, has made the process more difficult by suspending elections for the foreseeable future.

That means that, short of a coup, the Obama Administration is encumbered by a national leader who is now an opponent of its plans. And that means that, even if the US can find short-term military success against the insurgents, it has no political "endgame" in sight.

I'm wary of the V-word as an analogy but, for students of history, it might not be a bad idea to revisit Ngo Dinh Diem and Saigon 1963. Let's hope that Barack Obama chooses to take a glance, and draw any suitable lessons, this week.

Afghanistan: The US Military to Obama - Make a Decision Now; Obama to Military - No

Throughout yesterday afternoon, the military leaks to the media and the Pentagon public statements began to fill the in-box. Several officials began putting out the story that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would soon give a secret report to President Obama. This would advise the President "to focus on ensuring regional stability and eliminating Taliban and Al Qaida safe havens in Pakistan, rather than on achieving lasting democracy and a thriving Afghan economy".



This recommendation in one respect is a smokescreen. As we noted when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke in the same vein before Congressional committees last week, the US has always sought "regional stability" in Afghanistan, even if it hasn't done very well in achieving it.

Much more important, when you decode, are these demands in the recommendations. Continue the airstrikes in Pakistan, whatever the domestic political cost. Let others worry about Afghan "democracy" and the "economy", i.e., the US will concentrate on military efforts rather than nation-building.

And, Mr President, immediately approve our request in full for more troops to Afghanistan: one brigade already sent, three more in the next weeks, a fifth in the summer.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell wrapped all of this up in a lot of jargon for reporters yesterday:

There needs to be established a baseline of security. We need to reverse the trend that we are seeing in some parts of the country in terms of a deteriorating security situation. That is accepted as the foundation on whatever the president decides to develop in terms of a further strategy.

Meanwhile, the White House is countering the military by leaking its own evaluation. In an article in today's Washington Post, Administration officials set out a 60-day timeframe for a decision, tied to the 3 April NATO summit. And they are making that it is Obama who is the Decider, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of Defense Gates:

The president . . . wants to hear from the uniformed leadership and civilian advisers as to what the situation is and their thoughts as to the way forward. But he has also given pretty direct guidance.

Just in case you missed that signal, the article shouts it out later:

Officials described Obama's overall approach to what the administration calls "Af-Pak" as a refusal to be rushed, using words such as "rigor" and "restraint." "We know we're going to get [criticism] for taking our time," said a senior official.

And there is even a clear hint that Obama is not on the same page as the Gates-military emphasis on Pakistan as a safe haven for Afghan operations:

Senior administration officials described their approach to Pakistan -- as a major U.S. partner under serious threat of internal collapse -- as fundamentally different from the Bush administration's focus on the country as a Taliban and al-Qaeda "platform" for attacks in Afghanistan and beyond.