Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Wednesday
Sep022009

Mr Obama's War in Afghanistan: How Many Troops Will Be Enough?

Afghanistan: Beyond the Politics and Propaganda, The War of Logistics

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis


US TROOPS AFGHAN2Afghanistan's descent into the far-from-democratic realities of power politics and US military escalation continues. Today's stories of "Tribal Leaders Say Karzai’s Team Forged 23,900 Votes" --- instead of, by the way, delivering them en masse to challenger Abdullah Abdullah --- and "U.N. Agency Finds Evidence of Drug Cartels Forming in Afghanistan" are set next to the set-up articles for the entry of more American troops: "General [McChrystal]: Afghan Situation 'Serious'". In The Wall Street Journal, Bruce Reidel (who led President Obama's initial review group on Afghanistan that produced the March 2009 escalation) and Michael O'Hanlon (who will cherry-pick the 1 of 10 numbers that somehow proves victory is imminent) offer a cheerleading masterpiece for the build-up, "What's Right with Afghanistan".

There is still a chance of White House resistance to a large escalation of boots on the ground --- the sub-headline on the "General: It's Serious" story is "McChrystal Expected To Seek More Resources, But White House Is Wary" --- but likely prospect, as in March, is a "compromise" that ramps up the US presence in Afghanistan to close to 90,000 troops.

But here's the rub. Apart from the annoying political considerations that we've mentioned when it comes to an Afghanistan "solution", the declared American military strategy can't live with only 90,000 troops. Or 190,000 for that matter. Beyond McChrystal's public-relations guff that his approach is "new" because "we're going to protect Afghan civilians" (wasn't the US military supposedly protecting them since the Taliban's overthrow in Decemberw 2001?), the numbers of a "clear and hold" counter-insurgency approach are far beyond his reach. The following is from foreign policy analyst Donald Snow:

....The new emphasis of strategy in Afghanistan apparently is to place greater emphasis on securing and providing ongoing security for Afghan villages and villagers in areas of contention, which presumably means particularly in the rural parts of the country where the Pashtun are in the majority. This emphasis follows from the so-called COIN (conterinsurgency) doctrine found in the joint Army-Marine Counterinsurgency manual, Army FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5. This shifts the center of activity away from hunting down and killing Taliban faster than they can be replaced (the way much of Vietnam was fought), because, in McChrystal’s own words, the supply of replacement fighters is “essentially endless.” This admission in itself is telling and sobering: if the recruitment pool of new Taliban is so great, how can we ever expect to prevail, since the endlessness of that reservoir suggests either that the Taliban is very popular or that our presence is greatly opposed (or a combination of the two).

Accepting this reformulation, however, turns one strictly into the teeth of the numbers. As noted earlier (at at the risk of being a “nag” on the subject), the Counterinsurgency Manual embraces the idea of pacification but also points out that it is very manpower intensive. To reiterate, an effective COIN force, in the manual’s own estimate, requires 20 counterinsurgents for every 1,000 in the population being protected. As previously noted, that literally means a force of 660,000 counterinsurgents, given the size of the Afghan population. Even fudging on the numbers, that adds up to over one half million forces confronting the Taliban, whose numbers of full-time fighters has been estimated at as little as 20,000, not including part-timers.

How do the numbers match up to fill this bill? Here we need some new math. Currently, there are 62,000 American forces in the country, scheduled to expand to about 68,000 by year’s end. With other NATO contributions, the number swells to about 100,000, although the NATO numbers are likely to shrivel. Current projections call for an Afghan National Army (ANA) force of around 134,000 by the end of 2011. Given the progress in recruiting and training those forces (and especially in making them ethnically representative enough for the Afghans themselves to think of them as “national”), we are talking about a total force of less than 250,000 by the end of next year. That does not even come close.

It is clear, as been suggested here, that McChrystal will return to Washington later this year hat-in-hand and doing his best William Westmoreland imitation to ask for more troops. Clearly, he cannot ask for the roughly 350,000 new forces necessary to meet the COIN doctrine’s requisites, so he will almost certainly ask for a more modest number of “trainers” to help expand the ANA. If my numbers are correct, however, it will require an Afghan force that is THREE TIMES the force already planned to come even close to a half million total counterinsurgents, which is on the low side (a total force of slightly less than a half million).

Where are all these extra forces going to come from? Thanks partly to Taliban harassment (as well as antipathy toward the government), it is proving difficult to meet current goals. How in the world can these be trebled? Moreover, who is going to pay for them if they can be found (we all know the answer to that one–us)? Further, all this will take time, and in the interim, it is difficult to imagine the Taliban will sit idly by and allow this expansion to occur: may they have won before this new force can be fielded?

Maybe I’m crazy, and maybe I am a victim of some old math that does not add up. At the same time, maybe those who think this is all going to work out well are privy to some new math that makes what seems impossible possible? If so, I’d like the tutorial.....
Wednesday
Sep022009

The Lockerbie Case: Did Libyan Oil get al-Megrahi Released?

FreeBritain_LOGOThe story over the release of Libya's Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, continues to the point of near-obsession in Britain. The latest framing is whether the British Foreign Office told Libyan counterparts that it, and the British Prime Minister, did not want al-Megrahi "to die in prison".

Ali Yenidunya keeps his eye on the wider story over the economic context for the al-Megrahi case --- WSL.

Oliver Miles, the former UK ambassador to Libya, has told The Times that the Scottish and UK governments may have done “some kind of deal” with Libya to release Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

Miles, noting al-Megrahi’s lawyers applied on 12 August to the Scottish court to drop the appeal appeal against his conviction, even as the BBC was breaking the news that he was to be released, said, "I think there may have been some kind of deal. One part of the deal was to have the appeal dropped and the other part was the release on compassionate grounds." However Miles accepts the legal context of a release of al-Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds:
I don’t think there was a deal involving business. I think on that ministers are telling the truth. What they are saying is perfectly compatible with what the Libyans are saying.

However, leaked letters between Jack Straw, the British Justice Minister, and his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill do point to an economic incentive for al-Megrahi's released. The exchange states that the return of the Lockerbie bomber to his home was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom”.

On 26 July 2007, Straw had written to MacAskill to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi. At the same time, a May 2007 deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, between British Petroleum and the Libyan Government was being held up by Tripoli.

On 19 December 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill to abandon the exclusion of Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement:
I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.

So, in this case, did oil and politics mix?
Tuesday
Sep012009

The Latest from Iran (1 September): The Ripples of Debate Continue

UPDATED Iran: Law & Politics – Misinterpreting Mortazavi
NEW Iran Special: Taking Apart the Regime’s Defenses (Shahryar v. Afrasiabi)
The Latest from Iran (31 August): The Debate over the Cabinet

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

RUHOLAMINI

2010 GMT: On a relatively quiet evening, the Comedy Moment of the Day comes in. The Supreme Leader's representative to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Hojatoleslam Ali Saeedi, explained that the reason for the "quick confessions" of political detainees was the “humane and Islamic” behaviour of the Revolutionary Guard.

1810 GMT: Scoop of the Day. The Times of London "Terror suspect Saeed Jalili set to become Ahmadinejad's Defence Minister". (Saeed Jalili is the secretary of the National Security Council. The nominee for Defence Minister is Ahmad Vahidi, who is wanted by Interpol for alleged involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Argentina.)

1720 GMT: During this lull before tomorrow's votes of confidence, here's one story, originally in Farda News, to make you go Hmmm.....
Mohsen Kouhkan, a spokesman for the Majlis governing body, said lawmakers were asked to turn down any dinner invitation other than those coming from parliament or the presidential office until after the vote-of-confidence session for the 10th cabinet has taken place.

“As minister designates and lawmakers may be invited to Iftar [breaking of the daily Ramadan fast] parties held outside Parliament, the Majlis governing body has sent a text message to all lawmakers asking them to refrain from participating in any dinner parties outside of parliament and the presidential office,” he said.

1705 GMT: The office of Mehdi Karroubi has published an open letter declaring that Saeed Mortazavi, then Tehran Chief Prosecutor and now Iran's Deputy Prosecutor General, is responsible for any suffering of abused detainees or their families. Karroubi has written the director of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting asking for airtime for his representative to present evidence of abuse.

1655 GMT: One disturbing story to note. As Iranian universities prepare for the start of the academic year, Gooya reports that dozens of Tehran University students have been summoned to the Ministry of Intelligence for questioning.

1630 GMT: We're back after an afternoon break for an EA staffer's birthday but, to be honest, there's very little to update on the domestic front, since the votes of confidence on Cabinet appointments will be tomorrow rather than today. Instead, the two stories causing chatter amongst "mainstream" media are on the international front: the Iran Government's announcement that President Ahmadinejad will attend this month's United Nations General Assembly (which isn't news at all, since he was always intending to go) and the declaration by the Government that it has "prepared an updated nuclear package" for Wednesday's meeting of the "5+1" countries (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) in Frankfurt on Wednesday.

And to be honest, while the nuclear proposal will dominate media headlines over the next 24 hours (since US media, in particular, find the script easier with the Nuclear Threat story than with the complex politics inside Iran), it isn't news either. The Iranian Government has been sending out signals for a few weeks that it might like to sit down and chat about the nuclear programme, not as much as a response to Western threats of sanctions as much as a diversion from internal conflict.

1040 GMT: The BBC reports, "[Nominee for Minister of Defence] Ahmad Vahidi faced no opposition from MPs on the third day of a debate on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's choices for his new cabinet."

1030 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi has met with the three-member panel appointed by the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, to discuss his evidence of detainee abuse. The Judiciary First Deputy Chief Ebrahim Raeesi, in a subsequent interview, assured that Larijani had ordered all laws and judiciary regualtions upheld" in a full investigation which ensured the rights of detainees.

0930 GMT: Reports are emerging of secret meetings last week between Ahmadinejad's office, pro-Government senior clerics, and "principlist" MPs. Allegations are being made that the President's camp has been using bribery to assure votes of confidence in his Cabinet nominations.

0900 GMT: An Urgent Correction. Press TV's report (see 0640 GMT) is wrong: Marziyeh Vahid-Dastjerdi did NOT get a vote of confidence as Minister of Health. All voting will take place tomorrow.

0830 GMT: In addition to the Ruholamini death-in-detention story (see 0535 GMT), featured from The New York Times to CNN, international media are featuring the testimony of a woman ("Minoo") about rape in prison. France 24 carries the story and video.

0640 GMT: Press TV reports that Marziyeh Vahid-Dastjerdi has been given a vote of confidence as Minister of Health. The approval came despite reports of widespread opposition to all of Ahmadinejad's three female nominees. Fars News also concentrates on the remarks of Vahid-Dastjerdi to the Majlis.

0535 GMT: We are now caught in a period, with displays of mass opposition constrained during Ramadan, of trying to look below the ripples on the surface of the regime. Once again, today's first place of observation will be the Parliament, where discussions of individual Cabinet nominees are due to end in votes of confidence. However, as the complications of the appointment of Saeed Mortazavi and the speculation over the statements and initial actions of Sadegh Larijani have illustrated (see separate entry and yesterday's updates), significant (if still inconclusive) changes are occurring in locations like the judiciary.

There were actually signs of a reconciliation yesterday between the Supreme Leader and the President, through the rhetoric of a war against "soft power". The nominee for Minister of Intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, put the case for a new strategy and instruments to the Parliament yesterday. As long as this does not descend into renewed, specific arrests against supposed planners of "velvet revolution" --- measures that the Supreme Leader warned against last week --- but remains at the level of vigilance against opposition, there may be an emerging compromise between Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad.

Do not mistake this, however, for a resolution. Detentions, confessions, and abuses are still the political Achilles heel of this regime. Many in the media this morning are headlining yesterday's leaked confirmation that Mohsen Ruholamini (pictured), the son of a key "conservative" advisor to the Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, died from beatings in detention rather than "meningitis". Behind those headlines are a much more significant story: Ruholamini's death galvanised opposition to Ahmadinejad from within the Establishment. Further revelations or even suspicions may ensure that the President can never be secure in his claim of authority.
Tuesday
Sep012009

Torture and Lies: Confronting Cheney --- 7 More Points to Note

Torture and Lies: Confronting Cheney

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

We've already vented frustration and anger this morning in our introduction to the excellent piece by Dan Froomkin on Dick Cheney's public-relations campaign to sweep away torture. So we'll just add this article from the investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill:

Seven Points About Dick Cheney and Torture

First of all, Dick Cheney has all sorts of nerve purporting to speak in defense of the CIA. His administration outed a senior CIA operative, Valerie Plame, in retaliation for her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, exercising his freedom of speech (because he exercised it to criticize the Bush administration’s lie-filled, one-way propaganda train to the Iraq war).

Second, CIA interrogators themselves have said that they believed that Cheney’s torture policy put individual CIA personnel in legal jeopardy. As Greg Sargent has pointed out, on page 94 of the recently released Inspector General’s report, we learn the following:
“During the course of this Review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC program….One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some “wanted list” to appear before the World Court for war crimes…”

This is not even to mention, in a broader sense, the risk to any US personnel that possibly ended up in “enemy” hands where captors of US prisoners could justify their own acts of torture by pointing to US tactics.

Third, Dick Cheney showed utter contempt for the CIA when he went not once, not twice, but more than a dozen times to Langley to pressure analysts to fit intelligence to his political agenda. He and his top aide Scooter Libby were “attempting to pressure analysts on the subject of weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, according to Vincent Cannistraro, a former counterterrorism chief at the CIA. So when Cheney talks about being “offended as hell,” let’s remember how much faith Cheney had in the CIA in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. I’m sure the CIA analysts who he tried to manipulate were “offended as hell” by Cheney’s actions. “The visits were, in fact, unprecedented,” wrote Ray McGovern, who was vice president George HW Bush’s national security briefer. “During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.” Those personal visits were in addition to the ones Cheney received at home. “I enjoyed having the CIA show up on my doorstep every morning, six days a week, with the latest intelligence,” Cheney said on Fox News Sunday.

Fourth, the tactics Cheney apparently loves were a violation of US law, international law and conventions that the US has ratified—including the Convention Against Torture ratified under the militant leftist regime of Ronald Reagan. That dovish draft-dodger who wouldn’t know torture if he endured it for several years, John McCain, pointed out the lawless aspects of Cheney’s torture program on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan,” said McCain. “I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq… I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members.”

Fifth, there is no evidence—none—to suggest any of this torture produced any actionable intelligence. “I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country,” Cheney told Sean Hannity back in April on Fox News. “I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.”

Well, those documents were released last week. Cheney, clearly knowing that many “journalists” apparently wouldn’t bother reading them, was all over the media claiming the documents absolve him and that torture worked. The problem is, they showed nothing of the sort and actually—upon a close read—indicate that techniques that did not involve torture produced better results. Some portions “actually suggest the opposite of Cheney’s contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA’s interrogations,” as Spencer Ackerman observed in the Washington Independent.

Let’s remember: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a blowhard braggart long before he was taken prisoner by the US in March 2003, as Jane Mayer has pointed out. Al Jazeera did not need to waterboard him or put a drill to his head or threaten to rape his wife before he bragged about being the mastermind of 9/11 on the network before being captured. “[T]here’s no evidence that I see in [the declassified documents] that these things were necessary,” observed Mayer. “I spoke to someone at the CIA who was an adviser to them who conceded to me that ‘We could have gotten the same information from tea and crumpets.’”

Also, Mohammed told the International Committee of the Red Cross that he gave misinformation to US interrogators as well. “During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop,” Mohammed told the ICRC. “I later told the interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I’m sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order tomake the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the US.” This raises an unanswerable question: Who knows how many US lives were put at risk because of bad intelligence obtained from torture?

One of the few people that had actually seen the documents to which Cheney was referring before they were released and had the courage to speak up was Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. In May, he said: “I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, and I can tell you that nothing I have seen, including the two documents to which [Cheney] has repeatedly referred, indicates that the torture techniques authorized by the last administration were necessary or that they were the best way to get information out of detainees.” Now that the public has had access to these documents, it is clear, as Feingold said months ago, that Cheney was “misleading the American people.” And, with the cooperation of a lazy and pliant media, Cheney continues to run his own televised miseducation camp. And let’s be honest: It ain’t just Fox News. The Washington Post now appears to be a private little Pravda for Cheney and his tiny group of minions formerly employed by the CIA. “The Post management, it seems, is determined to return to its past practice of acting as stenographers for the CIA’s PR machine,” McGovern, the former CIA analyst, recently wrote.

The role that the media should actually play in all of this was summed up well by Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who rightly points out that the tactics were not limited to waterboarding, but included “threats of rape, of killing children, of blowing cigar smoke into detainee’s faces until they retch, in addition to the power drills and mock executions:”
“We’ve long said that if you televise an execution that will be the end of public support for the death penalty. In a similar way, one hopes that the more the reality of torture is put before the American public, the less support there will be for it. When the issue is presented — as in the earliest leaked torture memos — as a legal abstraction, it’s easier for the public to rationalize the idea that nothing wrong is taking place.”

Sixth, at the end of the day, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the debate about whether torture actually worked is not the central point here:
The debate over whether torture extracted valuable information is, in my view, a total sideshow, both because (a) it inherently begs the question of whether legal interrogation means would have extracted the same information as efficiently if not more so (exactly the same way that claims that warrantless eavesdropping uncovered valuable intelligence begs the question of whether legal eavesdropping would have done so); and (b) torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don’t actually have a country (at least we’re not supposed to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes.  If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don’t already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just.  Let’s at least be honest about what we are.  Let’s explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan’s affirmation that ”[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever … may be invoked as a justification of torture” and that “[e]ach State Party is required [] to prosecute torturers.”

Seventh, one last point about Dick Cheney and his little toadie Chris Wallace when they talk about how there hasn’t been another attack since 9-11. Remember toadie’s sarcastic words: “I just want to point out to the audience that it is purely coincidental that this country has not been attacked since 9/11.” How about the more than 4,300 US troops that have been killed in Iraq as a result of the Bush-Cheney lie factory? That is more American dead than perished on 9/11. Those young men and women would not have died in Iraq had it not been for the policies of Bush and Cheney.
Tuesday
Sep012009

Middle East Inside Line: Fatah and Israel, US Withdrawal From Iraq to Turkey?, Israel-Sweden Fight (Round 3)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

adsızFatah Backs Away from Negotiations with Israel: Nabil Shaath, who was re-elected in August to Fatah's central committee and is a former Palestinian prime minister and foreign minister, dismissed a return to negotiations unless Israel endorses freezing of settlements both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; not temporarily but permanently.

During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama's special envoy George Mitchell in London last week, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, had showed willingness to meet Netanyahu at next month’s UN General Assembly session in New York.

Shaath’s recent statement plays down the importance of this expected meeting, especially if it does not reflect a consensus in the balance of power between the "new blood" and the veterans of Fatah.

Earlier US Withdrawal from Iraq? The Turkish newspaper Milliyet claimed on Monday that the Obama Administration is preparing to announce the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq eight months before the official date of August 2010 as a Christmas surprise to Americans.

The article claims that new landing fields and prefabricated houses are being constructed by American soldiers in the Incirlik base in Turkey. A report supposedly posted to Incirlik’s 39th Wing Commandership is calling for immediate preparations for the intake of 100,000 of the 142,000 US forces in Iraq.

Milliyet asserts that some high-ranking American soldiers believe the plans are not being disclosed because of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s insistence that the earlier withdrawal will prompt greater instability in his country.

Iraq - "Shoe Thrower" Al-Zaidi to Go Free: Iraqi journalist Muntazar al-Zaidi, will be released on 14 December 2009, exactly one year after he threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, after his three-year sentence was reduced for good behavior.

The Israel-Sweden Fight: Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt denied Haaretz's report that Sweden would work with Italy to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism at an upcoming European foreign ministers meeting.

The Swedish news agency TT reports the statement of the Swedish foreign ministry's head of communications, Cecilia Julin: "From the Swedish side we have no plans to handle this question through the informal foreign ministers' meeting in Stockholm." She added Bildt's suggestion that Italy Foreign Minister Frattini's comment must have arisen through an "Italian misunderstanding".

Swedish President Fredrik Reinfeldt also contributed to the discussion at a press conference in Stockholm. He said, "We cannot be asked by anyone to contravene the Swedish constitution, and this is something we will also not do within the European Union."

Israel's unofficial threat is on the table now. Bildt is supposed to visit Israel on September 11 for a one-day visit. According to Israeli diplomatic officials, "it would cast a serious cloud over the trip and Sweden's efforts to play a significant role in the diplomatic process" if there is no condemnation of the "stolen Palestianian organs" story from the Swedish side.