The big news is, of course, President Obama announcing that we will be sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and that our allies will be sending ~5k to make up some the difference between what Gen. McChrystal asked and what he’s getting.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578686,00.html
These NATO troops, excluding Britain, have a spotty record. Most of them are governed by much stricter Rules of Engagement (ROE) and are therefore kept in quieter areas where they provide logistical support that reduces the chance anyone will shoot at them.
Gen McChrystal supported this in his interview with the media, but realistically, it’s either that or resign. He’s already been taken to the woodshed once for embarrassing the administration, and the left wing blogosphere is calling for his head already. Note that he singles out the 2011 withdrawal timeline in particular. This is the piece that makes most COIN experienced military observers (including myself) scratch their heads a bit. 18 months is a VERY short time frame to achieve sweeping societal changes, especially when your opponent already has the upper hand. This is an Information Operations campaign…pure and simple. The Taliban wants to convince the public that the government can’t protect you from us, Americans are satanic pagan invaders, and that even if they can protect you in the short run they’ll be leaving soon and we’ll be there when they do. The Allies have to convince the population the government can protect them, and that the government will protect the populace when we leave.
Quick show of hands…who thinks the U.S. has the easier task? Anyone? Bueller?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/mcchrystal-absolutely-supportive-timeline-afghan-surge/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/open-letter-president-obama-michael-moore
The complete withdrawal deadline of 2013 seems more or less politically motivated. The bulk of the drawdown will occur during the election cycle of 2012, and the negative repercussions of the withdrawal will not happen until after all the ballots have been cast. Now, the counter argument is that the administration is setting metrics for our withdrawal, so we won’t leave if we’re still needed. However, keep in mind that redefining metrics, keeping the thresholds low, or altering the way you count data can easily give you the stats you want, and allow you to tell the narrative you’re aiming for.
To whit: in Iraq aircraft battle damage assessors were under a lot of pressure to categorize small arms hits on helicopters as “celebratory fire” due to the Arabic habit of spraying machine gun fire randomly into the air at weddings, at the birth of a son, funerals, religious holidays, etc… This served to make the situation look much more stable on paper, because it appeared that the number of aircraft being hit by hostile fire or being shot at dropped by 75% overnight….
A few weeks ago I commented that it looked to me as though our DoS and DoD guys in Afghanistan neither see eye to eye, nor do they particularly feel like communicating or playing nice with each other/ Senator McCain confirmed as much with some very pointed comments for Amb. Eikenberry.
This is one of those times when I wish I'd been wrong, because implementing a coherent strategy and message in Afghanistan is going to be a lot harder if these two offices aren't even speaking to each other.
As a side note on Afghanistan, comparing it to Iraq is a bad idea. They are radically different in terms of culture, history, ethnicity, language, literacy, education, brand of Islam, ethnic fractionalization, linguistic fractionalization, etc… A recent article I read highlights the dangers of using a one size fits all strategy in COIN.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/army-researchers-warn-against-tribal-war-in-afghanistan/
On the Iranian front:
Iran has basically gone off the reservation and believes that they are untouchable, that given the Russian and Chinese dependence on Iranian petroleum, the sanctions, whatever they may be, will not sting enough to set them back significantly in any regard (economically, regime stability, militarily, etc…)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578712,00.html?test=latestnews
Meanwhile, the White House continues to isues the same stern warnings that is has been since 2005.
Apparently telling Iran "Stop! Or I'll yell "Stop!" again" doesn't work. Actually, it hasn't worked the last 50 or so times we said it. Weird, huh?
The biggest news is in Iran is the continuance of the marginalization of the traditional Iranian police force and military by the Revolutionary guards and their offshoot organizations (such as the Basiji). The Revolutionary Guard Navy has taken over all of the critical areas of Naval Operations, and the regular navy assigned areas of far less concern (such as the Caspian Sea.). Imagine in Germany if the Gestapo, Brown Shirts, and SS were all wrapped up into one organization. Then you’d have the Revolutionary Guard. Unlike the previous fascist state, the internal fighting between controlling organizations is much less prevalent.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-restructuring-its-naval-forces-19168.html
No comments:
Post a Comment