The different levels of strategy, and Iraq

At Arms and Influence, Kingdaddy has an excellent post on the different levels of strategy. He uses a recent CNN interview with Joe Lieberman to illustrate what is wrong with the manner in which many Americans see Iraq today, including presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain. During his interview with CNN, Sen. Lieberman while disputing Kyra Phillip's assertion that many Iraqis don't want another Republican president in the White House, said this:

...there will be genocide and bloodshed, and Iran and al Qaeda will win, and we'll loose.

According to Kingdaddy,

For sake of argument, let's agree with Lieberman. We leave, and Iran and Al Qaeda "win." (That's not necessarily true, especially for Al Qaeda, but let's not get off track.) By implication, the United States loses. But what did we lose?

Kindaddy argues that it is important to separate the different levels of strategy: Grand strategic, theater, operational, tactical, and technical, because "success at one level does not necessarily bring success at all the others" likewise, failure in one theater does not necessarily bring failure at all the others. With regard to Iraq, he argues

If the United States were to lose one part of its theater strategy for the Middle East, it does not portend a cataclysm for the United States in that region, or for the most recently added priority in American grand strategy, counterterrorism.

The United states may have to contain the consequences of occupation and withdrawal, but there are several outcomes that may be eminently tolerable for the United States. The Iraqi factions are likely to remain focused on each other, not the United States. Iran may gain power and influence within Iraq, but exactly how does this automatically translate into a catastrophic loss for the United States? Freed from the Iraq trap, the United States might be able to do more in the Middle East overall, instead of pouring more blood and treasure into a single country. Americans might live in less danger of terrorist attack, if the American occupation no longer inspires outrage against the United states.

As a means of understanding this let's look back at the British Empire in the late 1700's. In 1775 the American colonies declared themselves independent of the British Crown. For the next eight years the British expended blood and treasure to bring the American colonists back under the fold. Due to their superior naval strength, they were able to take over most coastal cities in America, but were unable to take the countryside, due to their small land army (in comparison to the landmass they had to control). In 1778, after the American victory at Saratoga, France signed a treaty of alliance with the new American republic and declared war on Britain later that summer. In the next two years, Spain and the Dutch also declared war on Britain. The war expanded from one between the British Crown and thirteen of its colonies, to a worldwide struggle for the empire. The French and Spanish attacked the British throughout the West Indies, and Gibraltar. The French also began to contest the control of India with the help of their allies in the Kingdom of Mysore (Southern India).

As if this was not enough, by 1781 French involvement made itself felt in the American colonies and was instrumental in the British defeat at Yorktown in that year. By 1783, the colonial war for independence was over. Freed from having so much of its military might occupied by a colonial uprising and though grudgingly accepting defeat, the British moved to reinforce their position at Gibraltar and other theaters, including India and the West Indies. The British were so successful in repositioning their forces, that not only did they retain control of India and Gibraltar, but by the end of the war they had returned the West Indies to the status quo ante, with Britain as the preeminent power in the region. In this instance, it is clear that the British defeat on American soil, far from being cataclysmic, actually allowed it to commit its forces to regions were they could have an impact. In fact, after 1783 trade between the United States and Britain grew overwhelmingly and continued to do so, until the War of 1812.

I'm not a scholar on the war of Independence, and relied heavily for this post on wikipedia, so if anyone finds any historical inaccuracies please alert me to them, and I will correct them at once. Also, this post is not arguing that we are losing in Iraq, though this blogger believes that unless more radical changes take place within the country, it is hard to see how we can win (at least in the manner defined by this administration). The post is only meant to highlight the most important points brought forth by Kingdaddy at Arms and Influence, while also providing one more example of how a defeat in one theater, does not necessarily mean a defeat for our global strategy.

In short, we need to move beyond the myopic view of win/lose with regard to Iraq, and focus more profoundly on what we need to do to correct our strategy and succeed in defeating the more potent threats we face in this misnamed global war on terror, while also managing the global order we underpin. We can't have that discussion until many on the right stop simplifying the Iraq war to slogans of win-lose, appeasers vs. patriots, etc. In like manner, we also need to move beyond what has become the slogan for many on the left "McCain wants 100 yrs of war." He does not, he merely compared the American presence in Iraq (at least how he would like to see it) to that of South Korea, Germany and Japan. That is, he looks forward to a time when the United States will have troops in Iraq, not fighting insurgents or militias, but merely as a guarantee of allegiance and aid for the government of Iraq. Can you attack him for wishful thinking, perhaps, but to dumb down a legitimate difference of viewpoint (that Iraq can achieve such stability) to the simplistic slogan noted above is not helpful to anyone, or our need to truly debate what it is we are going to do moving forward.

Here's the full version of what Sen. Lieberman said. The statement referenced in this post, and Kingdaddy's comes near the end of the interview. The video itself is from ThinkProgress, hence my rant above on moving away from sloganeering as they once again repeat the strawman attack that McCain wants us in Iraq for 100yrs of war.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Hamid Karzai escapes Taliban attack (Updated)

The ceremony in Kabul, was commemorating the 16th anniversary of Afghanistan's victory over the Soviet invasion, which is also known as Victory Day/Mujahideen Day and consists of a parade where Afghanistan showcases its military power, including troops, tanks and aircraft. Just as the national anthem ended, shots rang out from abandoned houses a few yards from where the VIP's were seated hitting the back of the stage. The press is reporting that at least 3 people were killed and 9 wounded; among the dead, a small child and a parliamentarian (the latter died from wounds sustained during the attack).

According to the AFP, there were also large explosions, likely caused by rocket propelled grenades, which landed near the stage. Although President Karzai appeared in a news conference following the attack to state that everything was calm and that some of the perpetrators had been captured, the Taliban issued a statement saying that the purpose of the attack was not to kill any high level target, including Hamid Karzai, but was merely a means to show that it could attack anywhere in the country with impunity.

Indeed, the attack seems to have achieved the Taliban's stated objective as they were able to execute it, despite tightened security provided by Afghan and allied forces, and in the midst of a display of Afghanistan's military power. What's more, a Taliban spokesman claimed to have had help from within the Afghan security forces, bringing into question not only their ability to fight the insurgency, but also, their loyalty. It remains to be seen what the psychological shock of the event will be, both within Afghanistan (President Karzai and his security forces have been embarrassed on a day that was supposed to showcase their power), and NATO member states, particularly those who have been reluctant to increase their military presence in the country, or to engage in a more serious counter-insurgency effort.

Even more importantly, given President Karzai's recent criticism of US and British military operations as undermining his authority and preventing him from negotiating a cease-fire with insurgents, it remains to be seen what the impact of this attack will be. Additionally, on the American side, this latest attack will likely harden its position against negotiating with the Taliban, something it has criticized the British and Afghan governments for doing at various points. In addition, the manner in which the latest attack will impact upon the upcoming election in Afghanistan is important since support for President Karzai is flagging and as a result, relations between the US, Britain and his government are increasingly strained. Even more importantly, the attack happened even as the US and Afghan forces not only tightened security, as mentioned above, but also despite raids conducted in the preceding days, such as that in Kapisa, where Taliban militants were believed to be planning attacks for today's celebrations.

India and Pakistan have both expressed outrage over the attack, but given relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, at least one of these will get short shrift (even though relations between the two seem to be improving under the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani).

The attack also demonstrates how much still remains to be done to secure Afghanistan from the Taliban and al Qaeda, and how our efforts are being hampered by our continued presence in Iraq, where the host of enemies we are fighting, be they the PKK in northern Iraq, al Sadr's Mahdi army in southern Iraq, and Sunni tribesmen, who with the exception of AQI, have little or nothing to do with our larger war against al Qaeda. Additionally, one of the things this attack brings to the fore is the importance of Hamid Karzai to US plans in Afghanistan, or our over reliance on single political figures in countries in the region, be it Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, or Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq. A weakness al Qaeda and others will continue to go after, until the US moves to crafting overall strategies divorced from specific political/military figures in these countries.

The BBC has a set of 8 images documenting the parade and attack here.

Related Links

Long War Journal

President Karzai escapes assassination bid, parliamentarian killed

Abu Muqawama

The Latest Attack in Kabul

These spectacular attacks in the cities will undermine support for the government and the Coalition. The Taliban are now nationally an advanced phase II (Strategic Stalemate) insurgency with an increasingly capable propaganda capability. They face a Coalition and government without a comprehensive strategy (we'll see if ISAF signs on to the recently approved Afghan National Development Strategy after the Paris Conference). The chief of the Coalition, GEN McNeill, has just reminded the country that the international community does not plan to stay by suggesting a name change from "International Security Assistance Force" to "Interim Security Assistance Force." What better way to reinforce the standard Taliban propaganda that the Coalition may have the watches, but the Taliban have all the time.

Registan.Net

Karzai Lives to Rule Kabul for Another Day

This is, sadly, an enormous propaganda coup for the Taliban, who have seen their cachet in Afghanistan increase during an escalation of activity over the last year that had previously peaked at the attack on the Serena Hotel. The implications are dire: for years, the running joke has been that Karzai is only the Mayor of Kabul and not President of the country; this attack, which is the second deadly attack on high-profile targets in Kabul in four months, demonstrates just how little control he has even over Kabul. What’s worse is, the apparent ease with which two fire teams got within a few hundred feet of the President indicates that increasing segments of the population are allowing militants to roam freely.

AP video: Taliban attack on Afghanistan's Victory Day parade.

Read More...

Snippet only...

On the State of the Union speech

In this post, I won't focus too much on the President's domestic agenda. Instead, I just want to highlight a few items he mentioned in his State of the Union address with regard to foreign affairs, which I consider important.

One of the most important policy initiatives the President mentioned was Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance, which he mentioned right after asking Congress to pass the Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The FTA's are important, particularly as the US tries to stem the tide against Hugo Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution, which has spread from Venezuela to Bolivia, Ecuador and to a lesser extent Nicaragua. To be fair, there are many issues within these countries that have aided Chavismo in its pursuit, but Colombia, and Mexico have served to a large extent as bulwarks against Chavez' influence. Passing the FTA with Colombia rewards a strong ally, and one who has also taken on extremely difficult issues within his own country; issues that have cost him politically, both in stature, but also in political allies who have been forced to resign from his government for their ties to right-wing military groups accused of egregious human rights violations. These issues, however, would be better explored in a post solely dedicated to Colombia.

With regard to South Korea, the FTA is much warranted, as that country has seen much of its investment flowing to China to take advantage of the opportunities that the Chinese juggernaut presents. Opening markets, preferentially to South Korea would aid them in attracting more FDI as China, among others try to take advantage of the opportunities the FTA provides for South Korean exporters. It would also likely make South Korea a bit more cooperative on the issue of North Korea's nuclear disarmament, which is likely to be a very important issue as a new president takes office come next January.

Reform Trade Adjustment Assistance would make the passage of these FTAs easier, as it would address at least one aspect of concern for members of Congress who are less than enthusiastic about passing another FTA, for fear of the job losses the US is likely to incur as a result. The program, if funded, can help Americans so affected by providing with among other things, rapid response assistance, reemployment services, job search allowances, relocation allowances, training and income support. I suspect that even this may not be enough to get these FTAs passed through Congress, as there is much anti-Free Trade sentiment there nowadays, mostly due to out current economic woes.

Perhaps the most important policy initiative put forth by the President in this State of the Union, one Tom Barnett has repeatedly and forcefully argued for, is that of purchasing food aid, not from American farmers, but rather from local farmers in the countries to which the aid is going. In this way, we not only provide famine stricken areas with food aid, but also jump start their local economies thereby reconnecting them, ever so slightly to the global market. It was unclear from the president's statement, whether the food aid would be purchased from farmers in the specific country we are trying to help, or from the third world in general. The distinction is important as purchasing food aid from emerging agricultural power houses would aid these in achieving first world status. This policy proposal will now doubt be fought tooth and nail by our agricultural lobby, and powerful congressmen such as Tom Lantos, who have opposed such initiatives in the past. However, if there's a proposal specifically designed to shrink the Gap, and truly focus our development aid (and humanitarian aid) where it is most needed, this is it. The President being a lame duck at this point is unlikely to gain much traction on this issue, but it is at least noteworthy that he mentioned it.

The President also seemed to bring to the fore a new "Axis of Despotism(?)," by naming Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Burma, at least three if which don't get much time in the American press, as countries where the US supports freedom. However, it is unlikely that any new initiatives will pass during the next 11 months that would seek to implement any policy with regard to these states. That may be a good thing, since given the changing political dynamic within Cuba, at least, the worst thing we could do is give the new leadership an excuse to close themselves further, or to rally nationalist sentiment against the US. The least we intervene in Cuba, the more they have to focus on their internal problems, as Iran has demonstrated to some extent following the lowering of tensions between the US and Iran. Of course, the President, seemingly failing to heed the message, directed some of his comments to Iran, something that can only help Ahmedinejad in rallying conservatives and nationalists to his side once again; people who have seemingly abandoned him as of late, due to his incompetence and mismanagement of the Iranian economy (among them, Ayatollah Khamenei). As others will likely note, asking Iran to give up its Ace before sitting at the negotiating table, will not happen. It's nuclear program is leverage, without which it knows it can't get what it wants. This however, is also a subject best tackled in its own post as it is too complicated to flesh out in a paragraph.

One of the few points where I disagreed with the President was on this overtly broad statement:

In the past seven years, we've also seen the images that have sobered us. We've watched throngs of mourners in Lebanon and Pakistan carrying the caskets of beloved leaders taken by the assassins' hands.

We've seen wedding guests in blood-soaked finery staggering from a hotel in Jordan, Afghans and Iraqis blown up in mosques and markets, and trains in London and Madrid ripped apart by bombs

We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear.

....that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories.

I don't much disagee that we are indeed fighting terrorists in some of these places, my problem, rather is from his using the "terrorists" to describe them all, lumping separate conflicts under one banner while also seeming to tie them to al Qaeda. In Lebanon, the major is not against al Qaeda, but rather against Iran and Syria's attempt to increase their influence in the country and aid their quasi-proxy, Hezbollah. That conflict is intimately tied to Iran's rise and the reshaping geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, in what Vali Nasr has termed the Shia Revival. Being Shiites, or secularists in the case of Syria, these countries see al Qaeda as enemies, not allies. To boot, Iran helped us during the Afghan campaign because al Qaeda, being a Sunni fundamentalist entity and ideology sees Shiites as worst than even the infidel West.

Iraq, for the most part, has become part of that struggle, with Sunnis seeking a better contract than the one they were presented with following the toppling of Saddam Hussein. It is also a conflict between and among Shiites, who have differing visions of the future of Iraq. It also involves the Kurds and their own dreams for self-actualization, and the security interests of Turkey, Iran and Syria, all of which have a substantial minority Kurdish population. Al Qaeda in Iraq, is but a minor player, powerful to be sure, but surrounded by enemies on all sides, including now, the Sunnis who have chosen to side with the US against their one time ally.

The Palestinian territories have more to do with Israels right to security and Palestinian's valid claims for nationhood. Most of the violence there centers on intra-Palestinian issues that have little, if nothing, to do with our GWOT against al Qaeda.

In fact, of all these, only Afghanistan and Pakistan have major problems with al Qaeda and the Taliban, and hence, the terrorists who attacked on us on September 11, 2001. Even here, however, there are deeper issues centered on Pakistan's need for a friendlier, neutral government in Afghanistan so as to avoid the prospect of a two front war, if it were to start one with India. So long as we don't address some of Pakistan's security needs in Afghanistan, it is unlikely that they will do much to stamp out the Taliban, or al Qaeda, as they would see these (particularly the Taliban) as a means of retaining influence in Afghanistan. In lumping all of these different conflicts together under the moniker of terrorism, the President makes it seem as if they are all related to the main fight against al Qaeda. They are important, to be sure, but thinking of them solely in terms of al Qaeda or the GWOT obscures far too much nuance and information we need to ensure that we craft strategies that address the problems we face, and not those we imagine. Most of these topics deserve their own posts, and not merely one or two paragraphs in a large post. However, I just wanted to highlight these for readers, as those I thought were the most important aspects in the President's State of the Union speech.

Read More...

Snippet only...

More on Benazir Bhutto's assassination

More information is emerging with regard to what actually killed Benazir Bhutto. Yesterday, it was reported that she was shot in the neck and chest by various outlets, and I posted so as well here. Today, the Pakistani Interior Ministry has reported that former Prime Minister Bhutto died from a skull fracture, and not from bullet wounds as initially reported (the WAPO has a story today detailing wounds it now appears never happened). According to the Interior Ministry, the three shots fired at her missed their mark. The shock waves from the suicide bomber exploding knocked her back, as she tried to duck the shots and she hit her head against a lever attached to the sun-roof. The whole thing is strange, since the Prime Minister acknowledged that Bhutto's husband refused to allow an autopsy.

Additionally, the government has also released a transcript of a conversation between Baitullah Mehsud and another militant, where the former is heard boasting about the success of the mission.

According to the Interior Ministry, in addition to Bhutto, Sharif, "Fazlur Rehman, the leader of an Islamist opposition party; former Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, a close ally of President Pervez Musharraf; and former Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao," are also all under threat of militant attack.

In other news, caretaker Prime Minister Mohammadmian Soomro has indicated that elections will proceed as planned on January 8th.

It still remains to be seen whether President Musharraf will be able to weather this crisis or if his days are numbered. It seems as if he has either determined that postponing the elections, rather than help him find a new partner, would instead erode his legitimacy further or given the fact that Nawaz Sharif has indicated his party will boycott the elections, moving forward would leave Musharraf's party as the main beneficiary of the turmoil. That will likely not sit well with many Pakistanis, since Musharraf would seem to be benefiting from Bhutto's demise, and would likely add to speculation that he either had a hand in the assassination, or at the very least allowed it to occur through an opportune lapse in security. Such a move would also provide some leeway for him to claim that democracy had triumphed, even in the face of this terrorist attack. The international community, which has been calling for these elections, would be hard pressed to condemn the move because the elections would have proceeded as planned, and the boycott could be chalked up to a result of the attack, and not willful intent on the part of Musharraf and the military.

Moreover, the release of the transcript of Mehsud's conversation also raises questions as to how the Pakistani government got it so fast. If they were that efficient in tracking his phone calls after the fact, why didn't they get to him prior to the attack. There's a lot of anger in Pakistan right now, and these events are likely to add fuel to the fire. In some ways for Musharraf, he'd damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Had they not released the transcript, or said that elections would be postponed, people would cast doubt on the "sham" investigation, or in the case of the election say that he was using the tragedy to retard the return to democracy, if Pakistan's system qualifies as such.

For now, everything is conjecture as there are too many unknowns in the air. Though, given recent trends, Bhutto's death does seem to benefit the general in such a way that he remains blameless; thereby consolidating his power (through boycotted elections) and easing some of the pressure being exerted on him by the international community (having had elections). The only thing that would change that is if a considerable portion of the Pakistani electorate followed Sharif, and if the PPP joined as well, in boycotting said election.

I'm not saying that Musharraf planned this, and still think it highly likely that al Qaeda or some of its offshoots were involved, but some of these reports are beginning to make me wonder.

Update

I just wanted to update this post to reflect the 6 week delay of parliamentary elections in Pakistan. It is interesting to note the many contradictory reports that emerged from Pakistan, following Bhutto's assassination. At first Sharif wanted everyone to boycott the election, now that they've been postponed he says that they should have gone through. I imagine that part of this is political posturing on his part. It will be interesting to see how Bhutto's son, Bilawal, fares in the upcoming contest, and whether any more politicians lose their lives in Pakistan in the run-up to the February 18 electoral contest, after all, Sharif was reportedly also on the list of targets, not just Bhutto. It will also be interesting to see whether the faction of the Pakistan Muslim League loyal to Musharraf will remain so if they lose a lot of ground against both Sharif's smaller Pakistan Muslim League faction, and Bhutto's PPP. There have been rumors in the US that it is planning to expand covert operations within Pakistan following the recent turmoil (h/t Soob). It remains to be seen whether Pakistan's military will cooperate and to what extent.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Breaking News: Benazir Bhutto killed in Pakistan (Updated again)

According to early news reports, she was shot in the neck and chest before the gunman blew himself up, killing another 20 people. The repercussions of this assassination are deeply troubling for Pakistan.

Already, many Bhutto supporters are laying blame at the feet of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (indeed some people here in the states are already doing the same). Given the recently lifted state of emergency in the country, which many saw as a way for Musharraf to avoid legal challenges to his staying in office, some will likely point fingers at him and the military as the culprits of Bhutto's death; this, as she presented a challenge to his authority. This at least, is how her assassination will be seen in some circles in Pakistan. Even