I have two meaty excerpts from Obama’s foreign policy address as regards to policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, which I have long argued are the real nexus of where our attention needs to be. The excerpts are important reading to get a sense of what Obama’s priorities are with respect to the War on Terror.
Two other tidbits from the speech are also worth mentioning. First, his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is on the order of 1-2 brigades a month, not a precipitous drawdown. Enough troops will be left behind in Iraq proper, however, for basic security in the Green Zone (to protect the Iraqi government as well as our own diplomats), and a counter-terrorism strike force for rapid response against Al-Qaeda. Given the progress in Iraq in training Iraqi police reported by Michael Yon and Michael Totten, it’s clear that they are finally ready to assume the responsibility for more granular security duties.
Second, Obama will increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000. That in itself is significant, and suggests a fairly robust intention with regard to rooting out terror enclaves in Afghanistan.
Overall, the theme is clear: Iraq is a distraction from the real central front.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments }
Aziz,
What do you understand his policy towards Iran to be. In my mind, this is even more central than Afghanistan or Pakistan.
how is iran more central than the two biggest strongholds of al-qaeda?
Why is withdrawal from Iraq even being discussed? Is Obama in possession of information the sitting President isn’t as to make him believe such a course of action is prudent? talking about moving out of Iraq by any presidential candidate at this point only serves one purpose: to appease the anti-war left.
And if Obama would make such a weighty decision without all the facts, what makes you think he’d do the right thing even will all the evidence is at his disposal?
And you say Bush is an idiot. Whatever.
Hmm. When did I say Bush was an idiot?
seems to me its you calling Obama the idiot.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..defining a muslim Left III: a muslim bloc?
zach,
I believe a nuclear Iran would be a bigger threat to the US than even Al Qaeda.
Aziz – it is a legitimate point of view to stress that there is a lot going on in the GWOT beyond Iraq, and an arguable point of view that Iraq is not the central front (at this point, Pakistan). But it is a significant overstatement (to say the least), IMO, to offer that “Iraq is a distraction from the real central front.” It’s still a central front.
Given the progress in Iraq in training Iraqi police reported by Michael Yon and Michael Totten, it’s clear that they are finally ready to assume the responsibility for more granular security duties.
I’ve spent about a month and a half in 2007 with the Iraqi police, Iraqi Army and their trainers, as well as interviewed high level commanders responsible for the advisory programs. I’ve written about elements beyond “attitudes and atmospherics,” to include examining supply chains, administrative demands, etc. And I can say that they are not ready to take responsibility for “more granular security duties,” depending on what is meant by “more granular security duties.”
They’ve grown and gotten a lot better, and many units function independently in an operational capacity (some still do not), but they are fundamentally dysfunctional from a logistics and intelligence standpoint, and thus heavily reliant on US support.
Changing this reliance into self-sustainability will take another few years, possibly 2012, as Anthony Cordesman has written. This means a commitment beyond a few US units in the green zone. A drawdown can occur, but a drawdown at the rate Obama is advocating is madness. I pray he’s just being cynical to win the primaries.
To say otherwise and assume Iraq will be ok is so much impatient wishful thinking (and/or policy).
Trust me.
And finally, I HIGHLY recommend this editorial in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031902908.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Bill, Cordesman’s analysis carries a great deal of weight with me (in fact, I promoted his piece about “The Need for Strategic Patience in Iraq” quite heavily.) Note that the timeline that Obama proposes is about 16 months, presumably starting in 2009, and would be a gradual drawdown of a brigade per month. Part of the rationale for the drawdown is because the military simply is under too much strain (a point that Phil Carter has been an excellent resource on, I encourage you to check out his blog Intel Dump). So, a troop reduction – a gradual one – is necessary and will still last well into 2010 anyway, so its not like the Iraqi police will be on their own after Inauguration day. With a firm schedule in place, we can relieve teh pressure on our own forces, and give the iraqis a kick in the pants aboiut when they do need to assume total granular control.
I also very much doubt that we will ever fully withdraw from Iraq; the remainder force will still be available to assist eth iraqi forces.
It shoudl also be noted thta Obama has said explicitly that he reserves the right to change his mind about withdrawal and schedule if events on teh groundwarrant. If 2010 rolls around and the iraqi police arent coping well, i can see him decding to rotate some troops back (a “surge”), especially since some of those troops will be more rested having been rotated out earlier.
We cannot sustain the present level in Iraq. At some ppoint, less will have to be more. I am against abandoning Iraq but I am coming around to the argument here that we cant sustain the footprint we have there now – and as I have argued enough times previously so’s not to bother relinking, no Democratic president will ever fully leave Iraq. I dont think they are hiding that, either – the far left reads what they want into it.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..defining a muslim Left III: a muslim bloc?
Does he mean any of it? Simple question.
I read the wapo editorial, bill, and i think it’s off base. For one thing, there is zero chance that al qaeda can establish bases i Iraq, regardless of our presence or not. The Iraqi govt, the shia militias, and the anbar tribes all are the primary players.
Overall, most of the editorials in wapo/other mainstream media seem written by political people rather than foreign policy analysts. I follow a half dozen sources daily that are far mroe rigorous and robust than this sort of stuff. I will make my reading list available again – and note that while the sources i use are definitely liberal in their leaning, they also are very emphatically against the total withdrawal fantasy of the far left.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..defining a muslim Left III: a muslim bloc?
urth, no of course not, he is lying, no matter what he says. sheesh. you arent going to vote for him anyway, why do you even pretend to be an honest critic?
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..defining a muslim Left III: a muslim bloc?
I am. And you should be too. Unless you believe he’s in possession of information the President doesn’t have he’s in no position to declair his policy on any foreign issue, especially one as important as an ongoing military conflict.
So, yes, he’s an idiot. And if you don’t believe so kindly explain to me how he could possibly know that pulling out of Iraq is the right course of action without having access to the daily intel and Pentagon briefings the President gets?
Short of CNN acting as his war cabinet, how can Obama possibly make an informed decision? And if he cannot, why is he speaking from a position of ignorance on such a weighty matter?
i had considered voting for him, seriously. but i’m not interested in my opinions or reactions here, just yours.
so again: do you have confidence in this being his ultimate position or do you think it will change?
fair enough urth. i take him at his word, but i read between the lines.
kevin, i dont think that the president alone is qualified to decide long term strategy, by virtue of intel. intel was wrong about wmd.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..defining a muslim Left III: a muslim bloc?
Kevin,
you could ask the same question of clinton or mccain. they take positions on these issues because they have to. people aren’t going to elect someone who says “wait ’till i get into office, then i’ll tell you what i’ll do.”
Also, it’s worth noting that all three candidates, as congress people, have access to more intel then we do, even if they don’t have access to the level of intel that the President does.
I also agree very much with Aziz that trusting that the President’s actions must be the most correct, just because he has access to intel we don’t, is foolish. One’s ability to make good decisions is not based solely on the quality of the information one has access to. More, and better, information definitely helps, but there are a million examples of people making stupid choices despite being presented with all the info. There are also recent examples, involving Iraq specifically, where the President’s intel didn’t turn out to be valid anyway. These incidents, in fact, severely draw into question Bush’s ability to translate his intel, as there have been a number of claims that his administration basically strong-armed the intelligence agencies to tell them what they wanted to hear, rather then giving honest assessments.
So right now, I’d actually probably trust ANY of the three Presidential candidates to make better choices, based on the intel they have as congress people, then Bush, even with the intel he has as President, because I believe all three of them are better equipped to deal with the intel then Bush is. Not because Bush is an idiot, but because he’s too arrogant to accept intel which denies the decisions he’s already made.
I’ve frequently mentioned that I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 but not so frequently that I opposed sending our troops to Afghanistan, too. Simple reason: there is no achievable mission in Afghanistan. Unless we’re willing to disrespect the borders in the area as much as those we’re opposing do, it’s whack-a-mole. I think hot pursuit into Pakistan (for example) would be highly imprudent.
Consequently, the most that can be achieved in Afghanistan is denial of territory. Fort Apache.
Does it make sense to advocate the rest of NATO sending more troops to Afghanistan if we don’t ourselves? Only if we think whatever mission there is there should be a multi-lateral one there. It’s not multi-lateral, it’s not a NATO mission if the rest of NATO is just there to hold our coats.
I think the conflict in Afghanistan can have purpose if, and only if, it’s combined with active support from the Pakistani government. This is something the Bush administration has been actively working on for a good 7 years now, and something which I think an Obama, Clinton or McCain administration would all continue to pursue.
We already have some limited presence in Pakistan. If we can convince them to let us increase that presence, and combine it with an increased presence in Afghanistan, which it sounds like at least Obama wants, then we could hopefully root the Taliban out of the border region.
The Taliban, of course, is the clearest enemy in the war on terror, because it’s the only government in the world that actively and openly supported Al-Qeada. (Some other governments likely offer them support, but not nearly so strongly and overtly as the Taliban did.) Since a re-instated Taliban government is one of the biggest single boons that Al-Qeada could hope for, it’s certainly in our best interest to deny them that.
The Pakistani government’s actions are a fan dance. If they drop the fans they have nothing left to sell. They can’t leave the stage and they can’t drop the fans. They just hope that we don’t notice that we’re not going to see anything worth seeing.
Pakistan has one thing to sell, and it’s precisely the thing that I mentioned in my last post: The ability to cut off the Taliban’s safe haven.
Admittedly, the Pakistani government can’t give that to us outright. If they could, then Musharaf would have done so ages ago. Unfortunately, the tribal regions where the Taliban has been hiding all this time are semi-autonomous. However, they’re only SEMI-autonomous, and they aren’t unanimously in support of the Taliban either. If we continue to work closely with Pakistan, and convince not just the government, but the people of Pakistan that America isn’t their enemy (a part of Obama’s platform that Punning Pundit just posted about today), then we should be able to gain increased access to that region, which will give us the power to put the squeeze on the Taliban effectively, and remove one of Al-Qaeda’s major basis of support.
Aziz -
Obama’s proposed drawdown is still too quick. His “reserve the right” comment is the only thing that gives me hope.
Re: broken army: Read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339296,00.html
Comments on this entry are closed.