Obama on Top of the World: Morning Update (29 January)

Latest Post: Battles Within Obama-Land: The Disputes over Iraq and Iran

Morning update (12:05 a.m. Washington): The significant overnight news is what was not said by President Obama.



A week after his National Security Council first sat down with military commanders, Obama had a two-hour meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the generals yesterday. His statement afterwards was leading but vague, ""We are going to have some difficult decisions that we are going to have to make, surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan most immediately."

As far as that can be read, it's an indication that there will be troop increases in Afghanistan in the next few months and there will be some decrease in Iraq. The numbers in each case, however, are still up for grabs, as is the strategic approach --- military-first? with or without Afghan President Hamid Karzai? with or without US efforts at nation-building? --- in Afghanistan. Put bluntly, the battles at the moment are not overseas, but within the Administration.

For a clue as to the next development, look for "spin" in The New York Times and The Washington Post in forthcoming days.

Meanwhile, Obama envoy George Mitchell moves to the West Bank today to talk with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Enduring America on the Road Today

I'll be in Dublin today for a one-day conference, held by our partners at the Clinton Institute, on the US and the World after Bush. It should be an eye-opener on how diplomats in Europe, as well as top US academics, are perceiving the new Obama approach, US-European relations, and the global American position.

Updates today and early tomorrow on Obama foreign policy and on the Middle East will be limited, but Canuckistan is keeping an eye out for any major news and you can help us out with tips in the Comment section. Meanwhile, we've got some great analysis coming out today on Iraq, Turkish-Israeli relations, and Life Beyond Mars in South Miami Beach.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (28 January)

Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (27 January)
Latest Post: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

6 p.m. The Guardian of London: "President Barack Obama's administration is considering sending a letter to Iran aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks." The letter would be in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Obama on 6 November.

2:20 p.m. We've updated this morning's story on the Obama strategy for Afghanistan.

2:02 p.m. Reports that President Obama will visit Canada on 19 February.

2 p.m. The Dennis Ross saga, which has given us nightmares, continues. He still has not been officially named as the State Department envoy on Iranian matters but "United Against Nuclear Iran", the pressure group which includes as members Ross and State's envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, either has outdated info or gives the game away:

United Against Nuclear Iran thanks Ambassadors Holbrooke and Ross for their commitment, service, and leadership and we congratulate them on their recent appointments to the Department of State.

1 p.m. Pick a Number, Any Number. A NATO spokesman claims that less than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in the organisation's military operations in 2008. That compares with an estimate in The New York Times of up to 4000 and by an Afghan human rights group, based on UN numbers, of almost 700.

11:30 a.m. On the Other Hand....Only two hours after we updated on Russia's cancellation of a deployment of missiles on the Polish border, thanks to the Obama Factor, another problem crops up:

NATO countries expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Russia plans to set up bases in Russian-backed breakaway territories in Georgia, a NATO spokesman said.

The specific issue is Russia's announcement on Monday that it intends to build a naval base in Abkhazia, which was part of Georgia but which Russia recognised as "independent" after last August's Russian-Georgian war.

10:35 a.m. It's not all bad news in Afghanistan. The Taliban have praised, "Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Unfortunately, the feel-good moment may be short-lived. The Taliban also insisted that, if the President wants "mutual respect" with Muslim communities, "He must completely withdraw all his forces from the two occupied Islamic countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and to stop defending Israel against Islamic interests in the Middle East and the entire world." And, as for Afghanistan, Obama should not send additional US forces as "the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

9:45 a.m. Score one diplomatic/victory for the Obama Factor.

An official from the Russian General Staff has told the Interfax news agency that Moscow will suspend deployment of missiles on the Polish border: "These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic." The news follows a conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Monday.

There are other US-Russian exchanges to watch. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister has told Iran that Moscow wants to broaden "political, trade, and economic cooperation". For the moment, however, the apparent rapprochement raises the question....

What exactly was the value of the Missile Defence pursued by the Bush Administration so relentlessly over the last eight years?

7:30 a.m. Is this for show for real? Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, contradicting the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday,  say they have no agreement with the Obama Administration allowing US missile strikes on Pakistani territory: ""There is no understanding between Pakistan and the United States on Predator attacks."

Of course, it could be the case that the American arrangement is with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, bypassing the Foreign Ministry. Alternatively, the Pakistani Government is trying to hold to the public line of "independence" while private accepting US operations.

6 a.m. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given a challenging but cautious response to President Obama's suggestion of engagement. Speaking at an election rally in western Iran, Ahmadinejad said:

We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track. When they say "we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change ... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad, clearly picking up on Obama's campaign slogan of "change", added, "[The US] should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

This is a significant rhetorical position that has been taken up by Iranian leaders in the past. Indeed, I suspect US policymakers will immediately think that at the end of the Clinton Administration, they made such an apology, albeit belatedly, for the 1953 US-backed coup. It should also be noted that this is a campaign speech, with Ahmadinejad staking out his foreign-policy position to the Iranian electorate.

This said, Ahmadinejad gave an important signal in a reference to Washington stifling Iran's economic development since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decoded, this may be indicating to Obama: if you want to engage, the US has to make a commitment --- possibly even in advance of negotiations --- to ease existing sanctions on Tehran.

3:50 a.m. Glimpse the Future. Just to highlight our top post this morning on Afghanistan and the problems of the Obama strategy: "American officers distributed $40,000 on Tuesday to relatives of 15 people killed Jan. 19 in a United States raid."

The US military wasn't exactly generous in its apology, holding to the claim that a "militant commander" died along with 14 civilians. While a colonel told villages, "If there was collateral damage, I’m very sorry about that,” a US military lawyers made clear that "he payments were not an admission that innocents had been killed".

3:30 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry highlighting the apparent White House strategy in Afghanistan: ramp up the military effort, leave nation-building to others, and ditch Afghan President Hamid Karzai if necessary.

Morning Update (1:45 a.m. Washington time): It looks the campaign, pursued by some in the Pentagon, to undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay within a year has been checked. The New York Times and CNN began running a "backlash" story yesterday that the Saudi programme for rehabilitation of terrorists was actually very, very good with only nine participants, out of hundreds, returning to their evil ways. The significance? The original spin was that two ex-Gitmo detainees who had rejoined Yemeni terrorist cells may have gone through the Saudi programme.

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying to Congressional committees, gave full support to the closure plan: ""I believe that if we did not have a deadline, we could kick that can down the road endlessly."

The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

Update: In a sign of division in the Obama White House, officials are back-pedaling away from this morning's story. A White House official, dropping the Karzai-must-accept line and the military-only approach, said, "President Barack Obama will press Afghan President Hamid Karzai to extend government control beyond the capital and fight corruption under a new U.S. policy with a "significant non-military component." He added, with respect to the Times article, "There is no purely military solution to the challenge in Afghanistan so there will be a significant non-military component to anything that we seek to undertake." A Pentagon spokesman added, ""That story, to me, seemed to suggest that we had some sort of view on the specific outcome of the election in Afghanistan. I don't believe that to be true."

Regular readers know that our primary concern with the Obama Administration is the foreign-policy priority of a military-first approach to Afghanistan.



Well, the White House spinners have now used The New York Times to set out the plans, and it's worse than we thought. Not only will there be war, but the US Government is prepared to push aside Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he has anything to say about it:

President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Karzai is now seen as a potential impediment to American goals in Afghanistan, the officials said, because corruption has become rampant in his government, contributing to a flourishing drug trade and the resurgence of the Taliban.

Among those pressing for Mr. Karzai to do more, the officials said, are Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Richard C. Holbrooke, Mr. Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Indeed, the approach appears to be a replication of General David Petraeus's model for Iraq, "with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government". And, in case you thought Obama was going to at least complement the military strategy with a political and social approach to the turmoil in much of Afghanistan, the White House aides emphasised:

[We will] leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces [can] focus on the fight against insurgents.

Obama advisors appear to be so clueless --- sorry, but that seems to be the appropriate word --- that they are replacing all local considerations with a sweeping portrayal of "us v. Bin Laden" as the central issue: “What we’re trying to do is to focus on the Al Qaeda problem. That has to be our first priority.”

Beyond the military question --- can you really defeat the Taliban and other insurgents head-on, rather than trying to build up a base of support in the villages through development of infrastructure and social programmes? --- Obama may be shattering a fragmented country. The "ditch Karzai" approach may have merit in light of the corruption and inefficiency allegations, but if it effectively sets aside a national government --- which the US threatened but never did in Iraq --- then what hope of a unified long-term campaign against insurgency?

And no amount of extra US soldiers --- 20,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 --- is going to offer a magic answer to that question.

Keeping the Gaza-Iran Link (and Dispute) Alive

Update: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responds to Obama offer of engagement

Related Post: The Linking of Clenched Fists: Israel, Gaza, and Iran

Even while President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are talking of engagement with Tehran, others are keeping the pot simmering for a possible showdown.

Yesterday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, claimed, "The United States did all it could to intercept a suspected arms shipment to Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but its hands were tied." Mullen was referring to the seizure of a Cypriot-flagged ship, which we noted at the time, which was intercepted by a US patrol in the Red Sea, taken to a port, and searched for two days. Reports at the time said "artillery", which Hamas does not use in Gaza, was found; Mullen referred to "small munitions".

Explanation? If US forces had found parts for rockets, their headline claim of Tehran support for Hamas, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to seize them and hold them up to world scrutiny --- it's not as if US "hands are tied" these days regarding international waters or even national sovereignty (for example, Pakistan). On the other hand, "small munitions" --- handguns and ammunition, for example --- isn't worth the fuss; better just to big up the incident (see the Sunday Times "story" by Uzi Mahnaimi that raised our eyebrows) to keep pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, from the Iran-Is-Just-Possibly-Planning-to-Kill-Us-All newsdesk: The Daily Telegraph plays up a section of the International Institute for Strategic Studies report, "Military Balances 2009", which say Iran may have an amount enriched uranium sufficent for weapons production by 2010.

The appropriate response should be: And so....? Enriched uranium is essential, of course, for domestic nuclear energy production, so this development on its own says nothing about Iran's military intentions. The key question is still whether Iran has resumed research and development of nuclear fuel production for warheads. While there is a major effort underway to trash the US National Estimate of December 2007, which said Iran had suspended the military process in 2003, there is no evidence yet to refute its conclusions.