More at The Times.
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.
More at The Washington Post.
More at The Washington Post.
Much more at Westwrite.
More at McClatchy Newspapers.
Topics include:
1. The Saudi-Iranian proxy war escalates: good news for the U.S.,
2. Sri Lanka's civil war is not really over.
The Saudi-Iranian proxy war escalates: good news for the U.S.
A sectarian rebellion in northern Yemen has now become an open contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence over Yemen and the Gulf of Aden region. This week the Saudis brought their air and naval power to bear against Yemen's Houthi rebels -- Shiite insurgents very likely supported by Iran -- after a Houthi incursion into Saudi territory. Iran responded by warning Saudi Arabia to stay out of the conflict. What remains to be seen is whether this conflict will create and harden a Sunni-Arab alliance that might someday effectively contain Iran.
According to the New York Times, the Houthis captured a strategic mountain near the Yemen-Saudi Arabia border and clashed with a Saudi border patrol on Nov. 3. The Saudi response was a sustained air and artillery campaign against Houthi positions inside Yemen. On Nov 10 Saudi naval forces began a blockade of Yemen's coast in order to cut the Houthis off from resupply. The Saudi and Yemeni governments believe that Iran is supplying the rebels with weapons, though Tehran denies it.
Why has Saudi Arabia felt the need to overtly intervene in what was previously an internal Yemeni dispute?
Click through to read more ...
ABC News has procured Taliban video of the 2008 attack on COP Wanat.
For background, see here, here, and here.
More at DoD Buzz.
Barack Obama 'Risks Suez-like Disaster' in Afghanistan, Says Key Adviser - Ewen MacAskill, Guardian.
A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise. David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers. The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed. The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government...More at The Guardian.
Gates went on to say:
The question, [Gates] said, comes down to "How do we signal resolve, and at the same time, signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?"If President Obama and his team are waiting until they come up with an answer to that dilemma, it is no longer a mystery why the review is taking so long. Sorry, you can't commit to both the long road and the exit ramp at the same time -- you have to pick one or the other.
The very fact that the administration is still trying to figure out an elegant solution to this insoluble dilemma sends a strong signal, a signal that explains and motivates the behavior of various actors in ways unpleasant to the administration. Examples include:
1. Pakistan hedging its bets by continuing to protect the Afghan Taliban,
2. Providing the Afghan Taliban with an excellent recruiting and motivational tool, and guidance on how to adjust the tempo of their operations,
3. President Hamid Karzai hedging his bets by cutting side deals with Afghanistan's power players,
4. Local Afghans accepting U.S. assistance but also hedging by not resisting the Taliban (as reported by Bing West in his trip report),
5. U.S. conventional combat units doing their own form of hedging by getting passive and increasingly just going through the motions (also reported by West),
6. Anonymous leakers inside the administration attempting to preemptively cripple policy options they don't like.
When Gates said, "signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended," I assume the Afghans he had in mind were Karzai, other top officials in the Afghan government, and officers in the army and police. He apparently wants to motivate those particular Afghans to make a better effort defending their country.
I doubt he was referring to the Taliban and the broad civilian population. They too are Afghans and have very likely received the message that "this is not open-ended."
More at The Washington Post.
Doubts on Karzai Complicate Troop Plan - Peter Spiegel, Wall Street Journal.
President Barack Obama expressed fresh doubts about the credibility of Afghanistan's government in high-level discussions Wednesday over what troops to send there, after his ambassador to Kabul warned against any reinforcements until the Afghan regime cracks down on corruption. US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent two classified cables to Washington in recent days raising serious concerns about the military's recommendation to increase troop levels, according to three US officials. Mr. Eikenberry criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent behavior as well as corruption in the top ranks of his administration, according to an official who saw the memos. Mr. Karzai has in recent interviews lashed out at the US and blamed corruption on international organizations working in his country.In Wednesday's meeting, which Mr. Eikenberry attended via videoconference, Mr. Obama discussed options for adding troops for nearly 2½ hours. Two of the options were previously proposed by his top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. A new "hybrid" option has recently gained momentum at the Pentagon, combining significant numbers of troops with trainers to improve Afghan forces' capability to secure the country themselves. A White House official said Mr. Obama made requests that could lead to significantly altering any or all of the choices, changing the number of troops involved and the length of their deployment. The official said Mr. Obama asked for specific timelines in each scenario for when US troops would turn over security to Afghan forces. In the past, senior military officials have resisted such timelines...More at The Wall Street Journal.
US Afghan Envoy Urges Caution on Troop Increase - Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Landler, New York Times.
The United States ambassador to Afghanistan, who once served as the top American military commander there, has expressed in writing his reservations about deploying additional troops to the country, three senior American officials said Wednesday. The position of the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired lieutenant general, puts him in stark opposition to the current American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 more troops.General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces. This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said...More at The New York Times.
Continue on for A Soldier's Soldier...
More at The Wall Street Journal.
More at The Washington Post.
In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations..."
Continue on for Veterans and Remembrance Days at Small Wars Journal...
Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks
H/T Captain Crispin Burke.
The "Los Pepes" I refer to was the shadowy vigilante group that in the early 1990s methodically reduced Colombian drug baron Pablo Escobar from a Latin American emperor to a cornered animal. As described in Mark Bowden's brilliant Killing Pablo, Los Pepes, obviously enjoying access to the full intelligence file on Escobar's vast organization, systematically murdered or chased into exile the concentric rings of Escobar's supporting infrastructure. When he was finally gunned down, the former drug emperor was on the run in a Medellin slum with one bodyguard and two pistols. It is not an exaggeration to say that the murderous Los Pepes saved Colombia, where the police, army, and courts -- all thoroughly suborned by Escobar -- could not.
Will a new generation of Los Pepes be Mexico's salvation? Some Mexicans, including one city mayor, seem to think so, as described in this recent Wall Street Journal article:
Click through to read more ...
By Sean Maroney, Voice of America
Kabul
09 November 2009
As U.S. President Barack Obama debates with his advisers on whether to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan, Afghans have their own opinions.
This year has been the deadliest for foreign troops in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban government eight years ago.
For several weeks in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama has been hearing counsel from his advisers about the best course to take with the war-torn country. But half-a-world away, ordinary Afghans have their own advice for the U.S. president.
"Sending the troops to Afghanistan will not solve the problem. If the United States or Afghanistan start talks with the Taliban, it will be better," said Akhter Tutakhil, a medical student from Khost, a city in eastern Afghanistan.
Zainudin Wehadet is unemployed, living in the Afghan capital of Kabul. He says history has shown that no force can occupy Afghanistan. He says that no matter how many troops are sent, it will not end the fighting. He believes his government should start talks with the Taliban.
Ahmed Wali Mohmand is a student from Paktika province, next to the border with Pakistan. He says foreign governments should use their resources for something other than troops. "They should help with all our people and make universities and schools and other things which our people and society need," he said.
Daud Sultanzoi is a member of Afghanistan's parliament. He says he believes more foreign troops are needed and that the U.S. and Afghan governments have not done a good job of communicating the real reason for troops being sent to Afghanistan. "How can you build schools if you don't have security? How can you build schools if you cannot go to the districts to build them? You cannot build schools in a barrack and then transport it somewhere. You have to go to each district and secure those districts," he said.
Shenkai Karkhail also is a member of the Afghan parliament. She says she does not understand why weeks of meetings are needed in order for the U.S. government to make a decision. "They should be very much clear what they should do. Definitely they should send more troops here because the national army of Afghanistan is not in a position to really defend [from] this insurgency in this country," she said.
The United States has nearly 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and there are about 40,000 from NATO and other allied countries.
The top NATO and American commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned the coalition could lose the conflict if additional military forces are not deployed.
More Talking, Not More Troops - Graeme Smith
Prioritize in Afghanistan - J Alexander Thier
Nearly Anywhere Terrorists Operate - Michael Innes
It's Not About the Number of Troops - Gretchen Peters
An Articulate Plan for Security - Asma Nemati
Time for the Heavy Lifting - Peter Bergen
More at McClatchy.
More at Armed Forces Journal.
More at Armed Forces Journal.
The Bad - Michael Moss at The New York Times
The Ugly - Andrew Bast at Newsweek
And the Hero - Rich Shapiro at The New York Daily News