Obama v. Petraeus, Round 3: The Battle over Iraq

Here we go. This morning we noted the President's jab at General David Petraeus, the US head of Central Command, discreetly telling the general that Obama would not rubber-stamp "surge" plans in Afghanistan and letting it be known that envoy Richard Holbrooke was the man with White House authority.

Hours later, we learn more about another ongoing Obama-Petraeus battle, this one over Iraq.

Three days ago we reported that, in response to President Obama's plans for a withdrawal of US combat troops within 16 months, the alternative timetables of 19 and 23 months were being reviewed. At the time, we also noted that one version had the military putting forth the timetables without Obama's knowledge; another that Obama had ordered a review of all three possibilities.

Now we have an explanation for what happens and, if true, it confirms the political manoeuvring and even duplicity --- which we have been noting for several days --- of Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq, and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

Gareth Porter reports that he was told by a military source, "We were specifically asked to provide projections, assumptions and risks for the accomplishment of objectives associated with 16-, 19- and 23-month drawdown options." Petraeus, Odierno, and Crocker had reached a "unified assessment" and had forwarded them to the chains of command.

However, a White House source told Porter, "The assessments of the three drawdown dates were not requested by the president. He never said, 'Give me three drawdown plans'." Obama asked for a review of the "pros and cons" of one and only one plan, the original proposal for withdrawal of all combat troops within 16 months.

Porter adds further background on an Obama-Petraeus confrontation, including Thomas Ricks' just[published storyabout Obama's July 2008 interrruption of a lecture by Petraeus to say he would need to take "a broader strategic view" than the commander.

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

Latest Post: The Guardian - British Officials Devised Torture Policy for Detainees
Related Post: US Government Documents - Proof of “Ghost Detention”, Torture, Death



Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley, the lawyer for British resident Binyam Mohamed, has just spoken to Britain's Channel 4 News about the condition of her client, who is supposedly near death in a hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

CHANNEL 4's JON SNOW: "This is a terrible situation. In some ways it looks almost as if they [the US authorities] would rather he died in custody."

BRADLEY: "I put everything on the table. That's the million-dollar question: Why is he there?"

The story and interview are at the 4:00 mark of the clip.

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.

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?

The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (9 February)

Evening Update (11:30 p.m.): Tonight brings another Hamas report that gaps between Israel and the Gazan leadership are narrowing and a cease-fire agreement could be arranged within days. The specifics on border crossings and a prisoner swap are still unclear, although it is now reported that there would be a 300-meter "buffer zone" on either side of the border from which "militants" would be excluded.

6:45 p.m. Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk has told The Daily Telegraph that the situation in Gaza "can only be dealt with by period of calm between the two sides". According to the Telegraph, Hamas is offering Israel a Tahdia, a period of non-aggression, while the cease-fire of a Hudna, or ceasefire, awaits an agreement in which Israel withdraws from Palestinian territory.



5:55 p.m. Hamas has returned United Nations stocks of food and blankets that it had seized in two raids last week. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency will now resume deliveries throughout Gaza.

Afternoon Update (4:45 p.m.): A Meeting to Interpret. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met Monday in Paris, with the main topic Cairo's brokering of discussing between Hamas and Israel. Mubarak kept details close to his chest, however, saying, "We discussed the date at which a return to calm could come. Perhaps starting next week."

The Palestinian organisation Popular Resistance Committees, which coordinated with Hamas in the seizure of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006, said Monday that there had been no progress on a prisoner swap involving their captive.

CNN offers an update on this morning's Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.

9 a.m. An Israeli tank shell has killed a man in northern Gaza, following Israeli airstrikes on two targets in the south, including a Hamas security compound.

Morning Update: Will there be an Israel-Gaza agreement put to Tel Aviv today? The Egyptian newspaper al-Gomhouria reports that a Hamas delegation including top official Mahmoud az-Zahar will return to Cairo today, bringing a "positive answer" to proposals discussed over the weekend. The paper reports that agreement on a cease-fire of at least 12 months could be arranged in the next 48 hours.