Small Wars Journal

Blog Posts

SWJ Blog is a multi-author blog publishing news and commentary on the various goings on across the broad community of practice.  We gladly accept guest posts from serious voices in the community.

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/27/2009 - 3:58pm | 9 comments
Surprising Results from Afghanistan Debate - James Corum, Daily Telegraph.

While the Obama administration endlessly dithers about the US committment to Afghanistan, it would do well to look at the surprising results of a major public debate on the issue. On 10 and 11 October, New York University and Newsweek Magazine hosted a formal debate on the participation of the US forces in the conflict in Afghanistan. At New York University on 9 October the propostion "America cannot and will not succeeed in Afghanistan/Pakistan" was debated before a large audience. The next day, Newsweek Magazine's national radio programme also hosted a dialogue with experts presenting their views on reinforcing the US forces in Afghanistan or withdrawing.

There was a strong speakers' card at the New York University debate, with Steven Clemons, a prominent defence analyst, and Ralph Peters, a retired US Army officer and newspaper columnist, speaking for the motion. The speakers against the motion included James Shinn, the former assistant secretary of Defence for Asia and my old friend, Lt Col John Nagl (rtd), who now writes on defence issues. I took part in Newsweek's radio debate as a supporter of reinforcing the Western effort in Afghanistan. My credentials to speak on the subject: I have taught courses on counterinsurgency to US and British officers since 1991, I have written three books on counterinsurgency, I served as a US officer in Iraq in 2004, and I am one of the main authors of the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency doctrine (Counterinsurgency FM 3-24) brought out under General Petreaus in late 2006...

More at The Daily Telegraph.

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/27/2009 - 9:08am | 0 comments
Parameters, Autumn 2009

A Strategy of Tactics: Population-centric COIN and the Army by Gian P. Gentile

In a sense, population-centric counterinsurgency has perverted a better way of American war which has primarily been one of improvisation and practicality.

Beyond Population Engagement: Understanding Counterinsurgency by Heather S. Gregg

The battle is not the war, however. The long-term goal of a counterinsurgency campaign requires the creation of a functioning state, a government that can stand on its own, provide for its citizens, and promote regional and international stability; this achievement is victory in a counterinsurgency.

Conventional Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age by Michael S. Gerson

Deterrence is once again a topic of discussion and debate among US defense and policy communities. Although the concept has received comparatively little attention since the end of the Cold War, it seems poised to take center stage in America's national security policy during the coming decades.

Playing for the Breaks: Insurgent Mistakes by Lincoln B. Krause

Insurgent leaders commit strategic mistakes that can significantly retard their efforts, and if properly leveraged by counterinsurgent forces, may lead to the insurgents' defeat.

Filling Irregular Warfare's Interagency Gaps by Lew Irwin

The US government has consistently failed to apply the full weight of its instruments of power during irregular warfare conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, largely due to an inability or unwillingness of various agencies to agree upon the ends, ways, and means needed to prosecute those wars.

The Defense Identity Crisis: It's a Hybrid World by Nathan Freier

The defense enterprise is abuzz with lively debates on "hybrid threats" and "hybrid war." Yet, newly emergent defense trends do not automatically merit exquisite definitions, new doctrine, or new operating concepts. As Frank Hoffman implies, such a caveat might be true of "hybrid warfare."

To Stay a Soldier by Chuck Callahan

A significant number of the medical hold soldiers were men and women caught in the mire of the Army's archaic physical disability evaluation system. This system's disability rating and arduous compensation processes were more than half a century out of date.

Review Essay

Editor's Shelf

Book Reviews

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/27/2009 - 7:31am | 8 comments
In Afghanistan, Real Leverage Starts with More Troops - Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, Washington Post opinion.

The president will soon announce the deployment of additional US forces to Afghanistan, in a speech likely to emphasize the importance of political progress there. Legitimacy is the most important outcome of a counterinsurgency strategy, not, as some have suggested, an input. It is unfortunate that much of the debate has ignored the role that additional military forces can play in building legitimacy and effective government in a counterinsurgency. Adding forces gives us leverage; military forces are vital to the success of any political strategy because they contribute directly to improving governance as well as to improving security.

The recent American experience in Iraq illustrates how US forces and diplomacy helped correct the behaviors of a sometimes malign government in ways that helped neutralize insurgent groups. In early 2007, many Iraqi leaders were using instruments of state to support sectarian death squads. The dysfunctional government could not secure the population, pass laws or provide services to its people. The implementation of a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy - enabled by the deployment of nearly six additional US combat brigades - transformed Iraq's government within 18 months. Opponents of the surge argued that Iraqis would "step up" politically and militarily only if they knew that US forces would leave. Instead, before committing to the fight, political leaders and populations throughout Iraq assessed whether US forces would stay long enough to secure them. Iraqis stepped up precisely because of the absence of conditionality and time limits on US force levels...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Thu, 11/26/2009 - 10:31am | 0 comments
by SWJ Editors | Thu, 11/26/2009 - 3:25am | 0 comments
Obama's Skeptic in Chief - David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion.

With President Obama finally ready to announce his decision about Afghanistan, it's a good time to examine the role played by Vice President Biden, who emerged during the policy review as the administration's in-house skeptic - the "questioner in chief," as one insider puts it. Biden has been the point man in challenging some premises of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy, according to civilian and military officials involved in the review. He was dubious about committing more troops when the administration announced its initial strategy in March, and over the months his doubts came to be shared, increasingly, by the president. Biden's questions sometimes peeved advocates of the military buildup - one official describes a process of discussion that resembled bashing a pií±ata - and they added weeks of delay.

But administration officials argue that the review, protracted and painful as it has been, will produce an Afghanistan policy that can better withstand public scrutiny. Obama is still working on the final details, and one participant describes the narrow balance as "51-49." Officials predict that he will send some additional troops to secure Afghanistan's population centers, though probably not the full 40,000 McChrystal requested. Obama's support for the mission will be hedged and time-limited, as Biden has urged. Biden won his case against an open-ended commitment to a policy that, as even its strongest advocates concede, may not work. Instead, the president appears to have embraced Biden's demand for a "proof of concept" to test the strategy in the populated regions where the United States added troops this year. The time limit for this experimentation isn't clear yet, but it's likely to be less than the three to five years US commanders think is needed...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/25/2009 - 7:34pm | 0 comments
Continue on for a Voice of America update on Afghanistan...
by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/25/2009 - 2:05am | 3 comments

Happy Thanksgiving

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us."

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best."

"Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

--President George Washington, 3 October 1789

Secretary Issues Holiday Season Message - American Forces Press Service.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today issued a holiday season message giving thanks to the military men and women who put their lives on the line every day.

"This time of year calls on Americans to reflect on and give thanks for the freedoms and prosperity we enjoy. Of course, we can only do so because of those who put their lives on the line every day: the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who bear repeated deployments, hardships, and danger -- without fail and without complaint.

"Many have made the ultimate sacrifice. Our nation will always honor their memory. For the loved ones of the fallen, I offer my deepest sympathies and prayers for your loss. And, in the wake of the shootings at Fort Hood, know that I am committed to ensuring that our home bases are safe and secure.

"I know the holiday season can be especially difficult for service members and their families, who may be separated from each other by thousands of miles. To the families of our men and women in uniform: know that the American people are indebted to you for the sacrifices of your husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters.

"This will be my third holiday season spent as Secretary of Defense. During these years nothing has impressed me as much as the determination, resilience and good humor of those who defend our nation. This holiday season, along with "Happy Thanksgiving," "Happy Hanukkah," and "Merry Christmas," I would add two words on behalf of millions of your countrymen: "Thank you."

Obama, Mullen Send Thanksgiving Day Messages - American Forces Press Service.

President Barack Obama and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released Thanksgiving messages today.

Obama recalled that President George Washington proclaimed the first public thanksgiving, and President Abraham Lincoln established the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday to mend the nation during the Civil War.

It is Thanksgiving as a unique American tradition that "binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings," the president said.

Obama added, "As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year.

"In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day."

Mullen's Thanksgiving Day message follows in its entirety.

"On behalf of the Mullen family, I wish all of you serving in uniform today -- as well as your families -- a very safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

"We certainly have much for which to be grateful. Today, due in no small measure to your dedication, our nation -- indeed the world -- is a safer place to live. All around the globe and in all manner of ways, you stand a vigilant watch. From Afghanistan to Iraq and a thousand places in between, you help ensure peace and stability in places that have historically known neither. Giving hope to those in need and pause to those who threaten us, you make sure the fight remains on the enemy's doorstep and that lives torn asunder by war and natural disaster are restored and renewed.

"The people you have helped are grateful ... Americans everywhere are grateful ... and I am grateful for your service.

"That service, of course, can and does demand the highest of sacrifices. We should be especially mindful this year of those families who will have one less chair at the table, as well as those who have no chair at all, much less a home in which to keep it. Theirs will be a particularly poignant holiday, and I ask you to keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

"We live in a country that doesn't force its young men and women to pick up arms. You do it willingly, even eagerly -- not because you enjoy danger or killing or sacrifice, but rather in spite of those things. You and your families serve and work so hard so that someday perhaps your children and grandchildren might not have to. That is the greatest gift you can give a grateful nation.

"Again, from my family to yours, thank you for all you do."

by SWJ Editors | Tue, 11/24/2009 - 7:32pm | 1 comment
Via Zenpundit - Going Dark - First Chet Richards and now Abu Muqawama.
by Robert Haddick | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 12:33pm | 2 comments
Here are three recent stories on Mexico's troubles that are worth reading in full:

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on Richard Padilla Cramer, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who then spent over two decades working for U.S. Customs on the Mexican border. To his colleagues, friends, and family he was the ultimate warrior against the drug smugglers, having worked undercover, busted corrupt officials, and held an important diplomatic post in Mexico. Now it is Cramer who stands accused of corruption and will stand trial for having secretly been himself a drug mafioso.

Writing in The Atlantic, Philip Caputo, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and author of A Rumor of War, ventured south of the border to see Mexico's war for himself. Everyone is now counting on Mexico's army to fight the war Mexico's police long ago abandoned. But Caputo hears rumors that the army may now be in the drug business as deeply as any cartel is. Caputo reports that in Mexico it is dangerous to know, let alone say, the truth.

Finally, at FPRI, George Grayson, one of the leading scholars on Mexico's drug violence, writes about the rise in self-organized defense, aka vigilantism, in Mexico. Some such groups have come out in the open. Grayson predicts that vigilante self-defense organizations in Mexico will soon become a major growth industry.

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 8:56am | 11 comments
How Some Retired Military Officers Became Well-paid Consultants - Tom Vanden Brook, Ken Dilanian and Ray Locker, USA Today.

... As "senior mentors," as the military calls them, the retired officers help run war games and offer advice to former colleagues. Some mentors make as much as $330 an hour as part-time government advisers, more than triple what their rate of pay was as high-level, active-duty officers. They earn more - far more, several mentors said in interviews - as consultants and board members to defense companies.

Retired generals have taken jobs with defense contractors for decades, reaping rewards for themselves and their companies through their contacts and insights. But the recent growth in the use of mentors has created a new class of individuals who enjoy even more access than a typical retired officer, and they get paid by the military services while doing so. Most are compensated both by taxpayers and industry, with little to prevent their private employers from using knowledge they obtain as mentors in seeking government work.

Nothing is illegal about the arrangements. In fact, there are no Pentagon-wide rules specific to the various mentor programs, which differ from service to service...

More at USA Today.

Old Soldiers Never Cash Out - New York Times editorial.

For all the stars of ranking generals and admirals in Washington, it turns out there's still a higher grade - "senior mentor." These are retired brass enjoying lucrative compensation as part-time Pentagon advisers, who, in most cases, also draw VIP pay from companies seeking defense contracts. The mentor cohort has quietly grown in recent years from a handful to at least 158 ranking retired officers - 80 percent of whom hire on at the same time with defense contractors.

There is nothing illegal about the double-dipping. But few people in Congress or elsewhere knew about it until now because there is no requirement to tell anyone, even the Pentagon. As Pentagon advisers, mentors are paid hundreds of dollars an hour for offering counsel to former colleagues on war games and other specialties. As defense contract consultants, they can make considerably more. It's time to closely manage the retirees' good deal, documented in a report by USA Today...

More at The New York Times.

Retired Generals Getting Rich from Conflicts of Interest - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.

... There will be a bunch of outraged responses about 30 years of dedicated service and how dare people question their ethics. My test on this is easy: Would George C. Marshall have accepted such payments? I doubt it. (Remember, he declined to write a memoir that would have made him wealthy because he thought it would have been improper to get into the failings of some of his comrades.)

By the way, if the New York Times can win a Pulitzer for its story about generals going on TV too much, this one should win two.

More at Best Defense.

The Greed of the Generals (II): Two Questions - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.

I'm interested that in all the e-mails I've gotten, and responses posted on this blog about triple-dipping retired generals getting paid to "mentor" the active duty military while at the same time working in the defense industry, and also collecting their pensions, not a single person has contended that, yes, George Marshall would approve of this behavior. As a friend of mine says, this is a good gut-check: WWGMD?

Also, another friend points out that one of the dangers of this whole "mentoring" this is that if you are not careful, you wind up bringing in people who simply reinforce existing prejudices, instead of challenging them...

More at Best Defense.

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 7:58am | 4 comments
The Battle Over 'Hearts and Minds' - Newsweek opinions. Two fathers of fallen soldiers weigh in on the war. 'You Can't Fight a War on the Cheap' by David Brostrom and 'The Military Command Is Making Bad Choices' by John Bernard.

David Brostrom:

Wanat, and a host of similar incidents in Afghanistan, are grim reminders that you can't fight a counterinsurgency war on the cheap. When a four-star Army general called to offer his condolences, I asked him about our strategy's shortcomings. He conveyed that the Army was not about to "knee jerk" more troops into a place like Afghanistan and upset the "dwell time" the Army had worked hard to schedule. He said that, unfortunately, Afghanistan had become an "economy of force" with no clear "end-state." But the goal shouldn't be to achieve success with less. Months before Wanat, Gen. David McKiernan requested that 30,000 more troops be sent to Afghanistan. The Bush administration shunned him. It shouldn't have - and the current administration should not second-guess Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for about 40,000 troops. As the president weighs his options, more soldiers and Marines die fighting without the resources and strategic vision they need.

John Bernard:

General McChrystal is too enamored with "hearts and minds"; hearts and minds is not a strategy. To be clear: I don't say this solely because my son was killed implementing this idea. Weeks before Josh's death, I sent a letter to the office of my congressman, Mike Michaud, outlining my worries about counterinsurgency strategy and the rules of engagement. The approach denies our men artillery and airstrikes when they need support. (For example, the day before Josh's death, his unit was fired on from a nearby cave. But an airstrike was denied because the rules of engagement were not met; the pilot couldn't see the enemy.) It encourages the Taliban to take up offensive positions in populated areas and attack from points off-limits to US forces.

Much more at Newsweek.

by SWJ Editors | Mon, 11/23/2009 - 7:18am | 0 comments
In 3 Tacks for Afghan War, a Game of Trade-Offs - Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times.

Should President Obama decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 troops to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces. The rest could be deployed flexibly across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.

If Mr. Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand Province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops and would remain largely as they are today. Such trade-offs are part of the discussions under way in the West Wing and at the Pentagon as Mr. Obama and his top advisers debate escalating the eight-year-old war. And they drive home the basic point that while the numbers will dominate the headlines, what is really at stake is how to fight the war...

More at The New York Times.

Pricing an Afghanistan Troop Buildup is no Simple Calculation - Christi Parsons and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times.

As President Obama measures the potential burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions: the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops. The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama's budget experts size it up at twice that much. In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have different priorities as well as different methods. The president's advisors don't want to underestimate the cost and then lose the public's faith.

The Pentagon worries about sticker shock as commanders push for an increase of as many as 40,000 troops. Both sides emphasize that their figures are estimates and could change - in fact, a Pentagon comptroller assessment this month put the number closer to that of Obama's Office of Management and Budget. Still, budgeting and politics are entwined, and numbers can always support more than one point of view...

More at The Los Angeles Times.

by SWJ Editors | Sun, 11/22/2009 - 5:46am | 0 comments
No Substitute for Victory - William Kristol and Frederick W. Kagan, Weekly Standard opinion.

Can the United States win the war in Afghanistan? The antiwar left has long held the war is unwinnable. Now some conservatives are arguing that President Obama's weakness and indecision forecast American failure- - and that, if we're going to fail, we should just get out now. We would be the last to defend Obama's indefensible dithering. But the war in Afghanistan remains both winnable and worth winning - even with Obama as president. And no form of withdrawal or defeat is consistent with safeguarding key American interests in a volatile and dangerous region of the world.

President Obama's apparent reluctance to pursue the fight does not inspire confidence. But he did send General Stanley McChrystal to take command, along with 21,000 additional troops. Despite efforts by political operatives around the president to push him toward withdrawal now, the president may yet do the right thing - soon, please! - and provide General McChrystal with the forces he needs to pursue decisive operations in 2010. And the president might put real effort into explaining his decision and the war's importance to the American people. In any case, to the extent the administration doesn't seem sufficiently stalwart or —to provide those in the field the resources they need, a loyal opposition should press the administration to do the right thing, rather than relieving it of its responsibilities by preemptively deciding it won't...

More at The Weekly Standard.

by SWJ Editors | Sun, 11/22/2009 - 4:09am | 0 comments
Afghan Tribes to the Rescue? - David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion.

While military officers wait for President Obama to conclude his agonizingly slow review of Afghanistan policy, they've been reading a paper by an Army Special Forces operative arguing that the only hope for success in that country is to work with tribal leaders. This tribal approach has widespread support, in principle. The problem is that, in practice, the United States has often moved in the opposite direction in recent years. Rather than supporting tribal leaders, American policies have sometimes had the effect of undermining their ability to stand up to the Taliban.

The paper by Maj. Jim Gant, "One Tribe at a Time," has been spinning around the Internet for a month. It contends that in an Afghanistan that has never had a strong central government, "nothing else will work" than a decentralized, bottom-up approach. "We must support the tribal system because it is the single, unchanging political, social and cultural reality in Afghan society," he insists. Gant recounts his experience leading a Special Forces "A-team" in Konar province in 2003. His soldiers briefly became part of the Pashtun tribal family, fighting alongside a local leader whose followers straddled the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's a passionate story that evokes an Afghan warrior culture that has enticed foreign adventurers for 150 years...

More at The Washington Post.

by SWJ Editors | Sun, 11/22/2009 - 3:51am | 2 comments
As Afghans Resist Taliban, US Spurs Rise of Militias - Dexter Filkens, New York Times.

American and Afghan officials have begun helping a number of anti-Taliban militias that have independently taken up arms against insurgents in several parts of Afghanistan, prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban. The emergence of the militias, which took some leaders in Kabul by surprise, has so encouraged the American and Afghan officials that they are planning to spur the growth of similar armed groups across the Taliban heartland in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

The American and Afghan officials say they are hoping the plan, called the Community Defense Initiative, will bring together thousands of gunmen to protect their neighborhoods from Taliban insurgents. Already there are hundreds of Afghans who are acting on their own against the Taliban, officials say. The endeavor represents one of the most ambitious - and one of the riskiest - plans for regaining the initiative against the Taliban, who are fighting more vigorously than at any time since 2001. By harnessing the militias, American and Afghan officials hope to rapidly increase the number of Afghans fighting the Taliban...

More at The New York Times.

by Dave Dilegge | Sat, 11/21/2009 - 8:21am | 0 comments
Via Kings of War and Colonel Phil Ridderhof, USMC, (H/T to both) - The UK's Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 3-40: Security and Stabilisation: The Military Contribution.

JDP 3-40 provides joint, operational level doctrine for the military contribution to stabilisation.

This will usually take place during or immediately following conflict and in the context of weak or failed states that face a range of challenges to governmental authority that range from criminality to insurgency.

JDP 3-40 identifies the general priorities for stabilising failed or failing states, and determines the nature, level, principles and priorities that govern the UK military contribution and the guidelines governing transition to civilian and host nation control.

Download Joint Doctrine Publication (JDP) 3-40: Security and Stabilisation: The Military Contribution.

by Robert Haddick | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 7:00pm | 2 comments
Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy:

Topics include:

1) What happens when the U.S. and Pakistan split up?

2) America's Asian allies examine their options.

What happens when the U.S. and Pakistan split up?

How close is the U.S.-Pakistan security relationship to a break-up? Self-interest, not affection, seems to keep the partnership going. That's fine until a better arrangement for one side comes along or emotion overrides logic. An even larger U.S. military expedition in Afghanistan will be at the mercy of this fragile bond.

The reasons for cooperation are well known. The United States could not prosecute its war in Afghanistan without access through Pakistan. Washington hopes the Pakistani government will deliver up more al Qaeda terror suspects to join Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The U.S. engages Pakistan on a variety of levels to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpile under control. Indeed, notable U.S. analysts such as Stephen Biddle and Steve Coll believe that stabilizing Pakistan is the best justification for continuing the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

For its part, Pakistan counts on the United States to moderate its friction with India. More recently Pakistan has exploited its intelligence and military connection to the U.S. to target the Islamists at war with Pakistan's government. But Pakistan's enduring interest in America seems mostly to be about money.

Click through to read more ...

by Dave Dilegge | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 6:20pm | 3 comments
U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Workshop Videos - Watch the presentations from the COIN Center's COIN Leaders Workshop held 27 - 29 October 2009. Includes a COIN Center overview, COIN doctrine, urban simulation, COIN lessons learned from OIF and OEF, the Soviet approach to COIN and border operations in Afghanistan, security architecture and COIN in Pakistan's tribal belt, why Pakistan is secure, Air Force Special Operations Command overview and an address by General Jim Mattis, Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command.

West Point's Combating Terrorism Center's CTC Sentinel - The November 2009 issue includes the following articles: Lashkar-i-Tayyiba: One Year After Mumbai, Success of the Meta-Narrative: How Jihadists Maintain Legitimacy, AQIM and the Growth of International Investment in North Africa, Allah's Domestic Containment and Regional Expansion Strategies, Jihadist Radicalization and the 2004 Madrid Bombing Network, The Past and Future of Deobandi Islam, Maintaining the Message: How Jihadists Have Adapted to Web Disruptions, and Recent Highlights in Terrorist Activity.

On the Knife's Edge: Yemen's Instability and the Threat to American Interests - Read this new Center for a New American Security policy brief by Andrew Exum and Richard Fontaine. This brief addresses the deteriorating situation in Yemen, which includes a growing al-Qaeda presence, a separatist movement in the South, and an active insurgency in the North, and the authors' opinion that the situation demands immediate U.S. attention.

New DoD Social Media Hub - Right now mostly feel good stuff and warnings - "How to Avoid Internet Coal in Your Stocking" is an example. That said and possibly of good use is the site's registry of DoD social media sites. RUMINT has it that the new DoD social media policy may make its debut here in the near future -- or not. Will check back and file a full report.

David Petraeus For D.C. Metro Police Chief - On the lighter side, or maybe not - might be a "progressive" and great idea - Spencer Ackerman spins off a Washington Times op-ed "lavishing praise on the greatest Army officer of his generation for his farsightedness in demonstrating how a thorough security presence/posture combined with bolstered support for a host nation's institutions of governance and rigorous subsidization of the tools for economic prosperity leads to a situation where a community comes "together to oppose and to confront the extremists."" Salinas, CA, seems to think this type of approach has merit.

by SWJ Editors | Fri, 11/20/2009 - 8:09am | 0 comments
Positive Petraeus Lessons - Mary Claire Kendall, Washington Times opinion.

The essence of counterinsurgency strategy (COIN), integral to defeating Sept. 11, 2001-type extremists infecting various Middle East countries, is building confidence among the population. The key is working hand-in-glove with the respective military and civilian authorities to help stabilize their combustible nations so they might be free of the specter of extremist violence, thereby enabling the buildup of family, community and nation, according to each culture's unique and beautiful character. This new, irregular warfare is fought largely on human terrain, about which Gen. David H. Petraeus has written in the COIN bible, aka "FM 3-24" - Field Manual 3-24.

He recently affirmed for me during the American Veterans Center conference that official Washington - far from bloviating when asserting what they would do to win these wars - "gets it" on the fundamentals of COIN and that it is reflected in Situation Room deliberations on Afghanistan. Fortunately, given the high stakes, especially vis-a-vis nuclear Pakistan, when it comes to executing COIN - not just bloviating, er, talking about it - Gen. Petraeus is an impresario...

More at The Washington Times.

by Robert Haddick | Thu, 11/19/2009 - 1:34pm | 23 comments
The massacre at Fort Hood is a reminder that the War on Terror is not fought just in south Afghanistan or Mosul. It is a global war also fought in an office building inside a military base in Texas. Many counter-terror analysts focus on the Pakistan connection and preventing The Big One that could top 9/11. But the real problem may well be the self-motivated "small ball" players like Major Hasan or a future disciple of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. "Small ball" terrorism won't have the economic, political, or strategic impact that 9/11 did. But if there is enough of it, the public will eventually find political leadership that will provide an adequate response to the problem.

What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of "market-state terrorism" he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.

After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt's theories.

Major Hasan's case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don't know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?

Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won't be just theory for much longer.

by SWJ Editors | Thu, 11/19/2009 - 1:28pm | 0 comments
Counterinsurgency: The Challenge for NATO Strategy and Operations (250 pages - pdf). Produced by the NATO Defense College and edited by Dr. Christopher Schnaubelt, this document includes an introduction and 11 chapters covering NATO's COIN challenges and implications, lessons from Afghanistan, hybrid adversaries, balancing civil-military operations, measures of effectiveness, local security forces in Afghanistan, NATO special forces in Afghanistan, police training in Afghanistan, and COIN foreign assistance.
by SWJ Editors | Thu, 11/19/2009 - 7:15am | 0 comments
Mr. Obama's Task - New York Times editorial.

There is no doubt that the prospects for success in Afghanistan are so bleak right now because former President George W. Bush failed for seven long years to invest the necessary troops, resources or attention to the war. But it is now President Obama's war, and the American people are waiting for him to explain his goals and his strategy. Mr. Obama was right to conduct a sober, systematic review of his options. We all know what happens when a president sends tens of thousands of Americans to war based on flawed information, gut reactions and gauzy notions of success. But the political reality is that the longer Mr. Obama waits, the more indecisive he seems and the more constrained his options appear.

It has been more than eight months since Mr. Obama first announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, warning Americans that, for them, the border between the two - where Taliban and Qaeda forces have found safe haven - is "the most dangerous place in the world." And it has been more than a month since his top general in Afghanistan asked for 40,000 more troops, warning that "failure to gain the initiative" over the next year could make it impossible to defeat the Taliban. Americans are deeply anxious about the war. As the debate among his advisers has dragged on, and became increasingly public, many are asking whether the conflict is necessary or already a lost cause. Democratic leaders are among the loudest questioners.

It has become a cliché in Washington that there are only bad choices in Afghanistan. But it seems clear that this is not the time for a precipitous withdrawal, nor can the United States cling to the status quo while the Taliban gains ever more territory and more power. To move forward, Mr. Obama needs to explain the stakes for this country, the extent of the military commitment, the likely cost in lives and treasure and his definition of success...

Much more at The New York Times.

Debate Shifts to Afghan Exit Plan - Peter Spiegel and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal.

President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have turned the focus of Afghan war planning toward an exit strategy, publicly declaring that the US and its allies can't send additional troops without a plan for getting them out. The shift has unnerved some US and foreign officials, who say that planning a pullout now - with or without a specific timetable - encourages the Taliban to wait out foreign forces and exacerbates fears in the region that the US isn't fully committed to their security. "It's not a good idea," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D., Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "When the area has been stabilized...then it's time to go home. But to set up a timetable for people in that neck of the woods, they'll just wait us out," said Rep. Skelton, a prominent supporter of proposals by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Kabul, to send more troops for a counterinsurgency campaign.

Mr. Obama isn't asking for the firm, publicly declared handover dates in Afghanistan that were the feature of early Iraq war plans, according to senior administration and military officials. Instead, the officials said, the administration wants the Pentagon to identify key milestones for Afghanistan to meet, in its governance and the capability of its security forces, and then give a rough sense of when each objective is likely to be achieved. Reaching these goals would allow the US role to shift away from direct combat, allowing troop levels to decline...

Much more at The Wall Street Journal.

by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/18/2009 - 1:09pm | 5 comments

Understanding the Surge from ISW on Vimeo.

The Surge: the Untold Story is a 34 minute documentary produced by the Institute for the Study of War. This video documents the Iraq Surge as part of a population-centric counterinsurgency approach and features many of the top commanders and others responsible for its implementation - including GEN Jack Keane (Ret.), GEN David Petraeus, Amb. Ryan Crocker, GEN Raymond Odierno, GEN Nasier Abadi (Iraq), COL Peter Mansoor (Ret.), COL J.B. Burton, COL Ricky Gibbs, COL Bryan Roberts, COL Sean MacFarland, COL James Hickey, COL David Sutherland, COL Steven Townsend, LTC James Crider, and LT James Danly (Ret.).

by SWJ Editors | Wed, 11/18/2009 - 3:57am | 0 comments
Afghan Corruption Concerns US Policy Planners - Gary Thomas, Voice of America.

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has been roundly criticized in the international community for presiding over a corrupt government. A new report reinforces the perception of widespread corruption in Afghanistan, naming it the second most corrupt country of all those surveyed. That worries American policy makers as they deliberate on the future US strategy in Afghanistan. In Transparency International's just-released 2009 survey of world corruption, Afghanistan was only one step above the bottom rung, ranking 179th out of 180 countries surveyed. According to the group's report, only another war-ravaged state, Somalia, is perceived as being more corrupt.

President Barack Obama is considering whether to send more troops to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban. Dispatching more troops would further commit the US to a strategy of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The central premise of counterinsurgency is to win hearts and minds and weaken popular support for the insurgents. Georgetown University Security Studies Professor Christine Fair points out corruption concerns policy makers because it undercuts Afghans' support for their government and support among Western nations for the enterprise in Afghanistan...

More at Voice of America.

Afghan Minister Accused of Taking Bribe - Joshua Partlow, Washington Post.

The Afghan minister of mines accepted a roughly $30 million bribe to award the country's largest development project to a Chinese mining firm, according to a US official who is familiar with military intelligence reports. The allegation, if proved true, would mark one of the most brazen examples of corruption yet disclosed in a country where the problem has become so pervasive that it is now at the heart of Obama administration doubts over Afghan President Hamid Karzai's reliability as a partner. The question of whether Karzai can address his government's graft and cronyism looms large as he prepares for his inauguration Thursday for a new term, and as President Obama completes a months-long strategy review that will define the future of US involvement in Afghanistan after eight years of war.

Karzai is coming under intense international pressure to clear his cabinet of ministers who have reaped huge profits through bribery and kickback schemes. Although he announced a new anti-corruption unit this week, the president has been reluctant to fire scandal-tainted ministers in the past, and it is unclear whether he is ready to do so now. Meanwhile, Afghans' perceptions that they are ruled by a thieving class have weakened support for the government and bolstered sympathy for the Taliban insurgency...

More at The Washington Post.

Ridding Afghanistan of Corruption Will Be No Easy Task - Alexandra Zavis, Los Angeles Times.

Afghans have a name for the huge, gaudy mansions that have sprung up in Kabul's wealthy Sherpur neighborhood since 2001. They call them "poppy palaces." The cost of building one of these homes, which are adorned with sweeping terraces and ornate columns, can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many are owned by government officials whose formal salaries are a few hundred dollars a month. To the capital's jaded residents, there are few more potent symbols of the corruption that permeates every level of Afghan society, from the traffic policemen who shake down motorists to top government officials and their relatives who are implicated in the opium trade.

Cronyism, graft and the flourishing drug trade have destroyed public confidence in the government of President Hamid Karzai and contributed to the resurgence of the Taliban by driving disaffected Afghans to side with insurgents and protecting an important source of their funding. With casualties mounting and a decision on military strategy looming, President Obama and other Western leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to justify sending troops to fight for a government rife with corruption...

More at The Los Angeles Times.

by SWJ Editors | Tue, 11/17/2009 - 8:58am | 0 comments
The latest U.S. Army / Marine Corps COIN Center SITREP - Includes Counterinsurgency, Stability Operations, and Security Forces Assistance updates.