Same Old Stories

How many organizations must sound alarm before Israel gets the message? Ignoring Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International is easy, but B’Tselem and the UN too? Is it possible that all these groups are lying about the Gaza war and that Israel’s version is the truth?

The human rights controversy has become a circle - Israel won't be able to elude the allegations without breaking them.

Why doesn’t Israel realize it has more to lose by dodging than confronting the mayhem of Gaza? Why does it overlook the benefits of ending this gruesome story? The questions never end, the doubts never end. Israel can proclaim the IDF is the world’s most moral army as America nods approvingly in the background, but doing so ignores basic principles of counterinsurgency. Nobody is listening.

Fundamentally Israel isn’t battling the UN, human rights groups, or even Hamas, but the Palestinian people and Muslims at large. Israel inflicts damage upon itself in the eyes of Palestinians when it criticizes human rights groups for their bias. In fact, Israel has cut itself numerous times in Gaza, another story stuck on repeat. The UN’s investigation is the latest example.

After three weeks of investigating, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of documents, a UN team headed by Richard Goldstone released its findings this week to little fanfare. The 574 page report devoted the majority of space to Israeli violations, immediately prompting condemnation from Israel and America, the only Western state to come to its rescue (another repetitive story.) State Department spokesman Ian Kelly called the report “one-sided,” but what else can be expected from a one-sided war?

The war crimes report is likely to be one-sided as well.

In line with most figures, the UN team concluded roughly 1,300 Palestinians died, several hundred of them civilians. Israel itself admitted that hundreds of civilians were killed along with a majority of Hamas members. But four Palestinians are enough to overcome the three Israeli civilians killed during the conflict. Israel complained that the mission’s mandate, “was clearly one-sided and ignored the thousands of Hamas missile attacks on civilians in southern Lebanon that made the Gaza operation necessary.”

Israel, in its own mind, has become a master of comparing a dozen Israeli deaths over a period of years to hundreds of dead Palestinians in a month. Such logic destroys any remaining strands of its credibility in the Middle East. Furthermore, the UN panel said Israel refused to respond to a list of questions, but that Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated. Israel, unwilling to validate the investigation, forfeited all possible influence in the process, guaranteeing the type of report it’s now condemning.

Israel seems to be extremely naive at times for a country surrounded by insurgencies. The collective eight months of war crimes allegations isn’t an independent entity, but an extension of the Gaza war and a continuation of guerrilla warfare. One battle ends and another begins, while the war never ends. Israel takes damage each time it condemns a human rights report or preaches a proportionate response proven invalid by the raw numbers. Hamas, much to Israel’s fury, isn’t judged by the same standard, but why does Israel insist on being judged like a terrorist organization in the first place? There is no counterinsurgency in this standard either.

Bringing up Lebanon is most foolish of all after its reaction to two rockets fired by an al-Qaeda offshoot. Israel cannot expect the UN to do anything in Lebanon when it ignores the UN in Palestine.

The truth is plain. Even if Israel successfully evades international courts until the end of time, it will forever be judged as guilty by Palestinians and Muslims. There is nowhere to run or hide, and no legal defense has any impact. Israel is so preoccupied with staying out of a formal court that it’s drowning in the court of public opinion. As in Lebanon, Israel is unlikely to ever face a real judge and a real court, nor does this really matter. Muslims have already cast their judgments.

Since Israel won’t put an end to its futile flight, the UN urged the world to act in its place. One would assume that America has incentives to pursue allegations of Israeli war crimes. Doing so would give more credibility to prosecuting Hamas members, as charging one side without the other is doomed to fail. And is it possible to sign a two-state solution with Gaza still unresolved? Perhaps, but the process would speed up without this giant pothole in the middle of the road map.

How to fill it then? Palestinians could exchange legal punishment of Israeli officials for an easing of the Gazan blockade. After all, they’ll never be tried anyway and many Palestinians believe the blockade is the true cause of the war. Walls don’t work - if anything, the blockade is the true war crime. The UN report recommended an ICC trial if the UN fails to act, but formalities are unlikely to combat insurgency as effectively as counterinsurgency. In light of Israel’s opposition to a settlement freeze, easing the blockade could be the only strategy to regain the trust of Palestinians, which Israel and America need to successfully negotiate.

Two arguments against the blockade contradict its purpose.

First, the UN’s conclusion that Israeli forces engaged in a deliberate policy of collective punishment and “an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population” is no surprise. The explicit message of Gaza’s rubble was, “don’t vote for Hamas or support Hamas in any way.” Though Israel claims to have learned from Lebanon, the plans were roughly the same. Punishing a population because of an insurgency contradicts basic counterinsurgency, where securing the population is the ultimate goal.

Second, the blockade isn’t stopping Hamas’s arms flow noticeably enough to impact its capabilities. Israeli officials recently threatened obliteration if Hamas fires its 60 km missiles, a tacit admission that Hamas is still growing stronger. And during a recent visit to Sudan, Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal told President al-Bashir’s party in a pre-recorded speech, “Your brothers in Palestine, despite the blockade and the closing of border passages... despite the fleets from east and west, despite all of this, we buy arms, we manage to produce arms and we smuggle arms.”

What is the point of maintaining the blockade when it doesn’t deter Hamas from acquiring arms, doesn’t cause an uprising against Hamas, attracts international scorn, and sabotages a two-state solution? With Hamas and Fatah tentatively agreeing to a Egyptian unity-proposal with elections in 2010, the blockade has also failed to permanently isolate Gaza from the West Bank.

In fact, the blockade seemingly has only one ability - a chance to end the repulsively repetitive story that is Gazan suffering. Israel needs to forget about the legal battle and remember that it’s fighting a counterinsurgency in Gaza.

COIN 101

It's hard to imagine American and coalition forces ever matching Taliban information. The latest attack on Italian forces has prompted the familiar political knee-jerk back home. Though these concerns will be brushed aside, the attack was shockingly precise. The Italian Defense Ministry confirmed that out of 6 dead soldiers, 4 were "senior" corporal majors.

Many mocked the Taliban's new rule book while it continued killing civilians, but high-value targets have certainly been eliminated with frightening efficiency and may be paying dividends.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi arrived in Brussels for an EU meeting and promptly told reporters,"We are keen to bring our boys home as soon as possible." After assuring that Italy would abide by NATO law and would only make a decision hafter consulting other member states, Berlusconi flatly declared, "We are all convinced that we have to get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible."

Not bad for one car bomb. Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reported that the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and warned, "the purpose is to show that there is nowhere safe in Afghanistan."

Mushrooms

Disinformation flows quickly in Somalia. The death of al-Qaeda commander Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan is "very significant," a progression in tactics from drones to special-ops, a call to war from al-Shabab or an inconsequential killing, depending on whom you ask. After exposing certain exaggerations and re-ordering President Obama's priorities, Nabhan's death becomes just another day in Somalia - complicated, provocative, and ultimately futile.

According to the AP, CNN, NYT, and Reuters, who all reported similar analysis, the choice of special-ops over drones to terminate Nahban is, "a shift by the Obama administration to go to greater lengths to avoid civilian deaths." Even a cursory glance at the situation dispoves this theory. Important as civilians are, President Obama had more pressing factors on his mind, like George Bush, Israel, and Afghanistan.

The simple fact that Nabhan had been hunted "for a long, long time," according to an American official, removes much of the decision from Obama's own will. Imagine if he vetoed the operation - the right would kill him for not protecting the world or being tough on terrorists. He also risks losing support in the military, particularly those involved in Nabhan's tracking and surveillance. He may disgree in public, but Obama is competing to be as tough as Bush. This operation was both a continuation of Bush and an attempt to keep pace with him.

Adding to the pressure was Nabhan's own operational history. Beyond a tentative link to the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, his primary crime was the 2002 bombing of the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel in Kenya. America will hunt any terrorist with equal vigor, but those targetting Israeli interests abroad may be subject to extra wrath at the urging of the Israeli government. Killing Nabhan settles a score for Israel, a bad time when Osama bin Laden's latest alleged tape blamed 9/11 on American-Israeli relations.

America just validated his claims to his receptive audience and maybe a few fence-straddlers.

Not coincidentally, the raid on Nabhan has plenty to do with Afghanistan. The AP speculated that, "the US government - haunted by the deadly US military assualt on Mohadishu in 1993 - is trying to neutralize the growing terrorist threat without sending in troops," while the NYT labeled the operation, "an indication of the Obama adminstration's willingness to use combat troops strategically against al-Qaeda's growing influence in the region."

Why exactly is President Obama trying to neutralize al-Qaeda's influence in Africa? Killing off al-Qaeda operatives is a goal in itself, but Obama's real intent is to eliminate al-Qaeda outside of Afghanistan in order to justify his surge. Currently his "war of necessity" is being undermined by the many al-Qaeda cells operationg outside Afghanistan. Somalia and Yemen debunk the theory that defeating al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is necessary. Obama hopes to bring verity to his focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan by corralling outside threats. Then Afghanistan would truly be the last stand, one worthy of fighting.

Only underneith these plots do we find concern for civilians, but this care is also flimsy. Nabhan was targeted once before and missed by a drone in 2008. The special-ops force had more to do with confirming his death than preventing innocent deaths. And though limiting civilian casualties could temper the ensuing controversy, coming onto land - Islamic soil - is likely to be even more offensive. At least one witness and a Somali minister claimed the six attack helicopters launched from a warship flying a French flag. Not so farfetched given how toxic the stars and stripes are in Somalia.

Furthermore, though protests broke out over the last drone America has no reputation to salvage anyway. Those Somalis who don't like al-Shabab will come to hate America's minimalist approach. The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan, reporting from Mogadishu, said the raid has already upset Somalis, "who fear attacks by foreign forces may help fuel the insurgency they are designed to combat." Hassan grabbed the heart that killings are only that, not solutions to Somalia's problems, and will only enflame the insurgency.

Compare the death of al-Qaeda commander Aden Hashi Farah in 2008 with the current level of fighting; al-Shabab surged after his death. Nabhan was reportedly around 30. Though his connections may be missed in the short term he will still be replaced, and soon. "Neutralizing the growing terrorist threat without sending in troops" is fatally flawed, a cheap delusion. Killing remains America's only answer to the obvious necessity of nation-building. Why care about 20 civilians when six million are displaced or starving?

Herein lies President Obama's problem. Killing Nabhan in the chosen manner will likely draw parallels to Bush's own methods, which Obama repeatedly chastised. The Israeli connection won't go unnoticed either, and al-Qaeda will continue to infiltrate other states to counter Obama's emphasis on Afghanistan. But targeted assassination as a strategy is his downfall. The conditions that spawn terrorism and extremist ideology remain - yesteray, today, and tomorrow are all the same. A limited approach forges more enemies, not peace or stability.

al-Shabab spokesman Sheikh Bare Mohamed Farah Khoje told Reuters, "We wish we could eradicate them all [Americans]. We will never forget our brothers who were targetted illegally by the United States." Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal, chairman of Amal Islam and ally of al-Shabab, vented, "the United States never abides by internationalaw. We condemn America. All these raids show its war on Islam."

If al-Shabab and al-Qaeda had any distinction before, they are the same now.

President Obama is walking down the wrong path in Somalia. He could lose his legs by dipping his toes in. Though one al-Shabab official bemoaned, "We are very upset, very upset... this is a big loss for us," the mother of Israeli victims knows better. Ora Anter, who lost two boys in the Paradise Hotel bombing, stressed, "This isn't something you can feel happy over, that they have been killed and are no more. Unfortunately there will be more, they rise up like mushrooms."

COIN 101

It's a bad sign when Republicans arguing for war don't understand counterinsurgency. During Joint Chief of Staff Michael Mullen's confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham probed the Taliban's capabilities in bewilderment. According to Slate,

"He began his questioning of Adm. Mullen by asking whether the Taliban had any tanks. No, Mullen replied. Graham then asked how many airplanes they have. None, the admiral answered, perhaps wondering where this line of inquiry was going.

Then Graham zeroed in. If that's the case, he asked, how is it that the Taliban are gaining ground? The problem isn't the Taliban, it's the Afghan government, isn't that right?

Mullen agreed. The problem, he said, "is clearly the lack of legitimacy of the government."

The problem is partly due to a lack of legitimacy, but Mullen either deliberately played down the Taliban or is disturbing naive in its capabilities. Graham, lately the right arm of Senator John McCain on his war tours, may just being coy, but his conclusion is abominable: if the Taliban has no tanks or planes then it shouldn't be allowed to gain ground. The Taliban has no need for tanks and planes, they are like heavy rocks to guerrillas unless used in a specialized attack. One must pray that Graham, an ardent supporter of deploying more troops, knows more about counterinsurgency than he's letting on.

Underestimating the Taliban is a fundamental error. This excerpt of an AP report on literacy gives a basic but pinpoint account of Taliban tactics that requires no modification:

"Most Taliban guerrillas also can't read and write, but they don't need to as much. Understanding maps and signs is important for the Afghan army, which is supposed to deploy anywhere government control is challenged.

The Taliban, however, strike on their own timetable — usually wherever government and NATO forces are weakest. They move among friendly, generally ethnic Pashtun communities and rely on local guides. Many Taliban fighters operate in areas of the country where they grew up, making maps and compasses unnecessary.

The Taliban also generally operate in small units. They use hit-and-run insurgency tactics or lay bombs along roads, highly effective techniques that don't require the same level of sophistication and attention to detail as conventional military tactics, which often use helicopters, artillery, armored vehicles and large numbers of troops."

A Shadow Army.

Beneath Sweet Bait

Who is to blame for a rampant rumor, those who spread the rumor or those who fail to rectify it? For months media speculation over America’s new embassy - or super-fortress - in Islamabad, Pakistan has escaped control of US officials. August began to boil and caution quickly degenerated into panic and tirades. Officials tried to squelch the rumors at lower levels, but naturally the word didn’t reach all 180 million Pakistanis.

The ensuing propaganda battle has seen little more than finger pointing as each side tries to pin blame on the other, but are they missing the real point?

Pakistani public concerns have been overblown according to US and Pakistani officials. US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson told reporters that Marines would total “less than 20” instead of 1,000 and wondered where the exaggeration came from. Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik insisted, “Blackwater is not operating in Pakistan. We have our own system, rules and regulations. We will not allow anybody to operate from here.” US officials maintain that expansion is necessary to handle a tripling of humanitarian aid. Pakistanis shouldn’t be concerned since America is only trying to help them.

Yet rumors persist as the press argues that their concerns are legitimate. A partial reason is a failure to confront the rumors head on, allowing to swell and build momentum. Malik tried to extinguish the controversy on August 26th, months after it began, and Patterson didn’t address the media until August 29th. The press pointed out that Pakistani officials are, “unable to speak the truth, conveying an impression as if they have something to hide.” The Pentagonisation of Pakistan easily finds a home in many Pakistani minds.

While ambassador Patterson took too long to give few details, and additionally suffers from poor relations with the press, at least she admitted, “We all are responsible for this bad image and are making efforts to remove this perception.” US embassy spokesman Richard Snelsire took the opposite route, claiming, “'The government is showing a lot of ineptitude. They should not create the impression that they are helpless, and they cannot tell the real story. There is a lot of, frankly, just misinformation out there, and it keeps getting published just over and over by a few journalists.”

Thus the real fault lies with Pakistan’s government, the media, and conspiracy theorists, not America. Beyond poor counterinsurgency, Snelsire’s outlook fails to recognize the depths of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.

America and Pakistan are both justified and guilty in their actions. More resources are likely needed to handle increased relations, though exactly how many troops and buildings are necessary remains irritatingly ambiguous. Pakistan’s government has every right to work with America, but it can’t ignore the mood of its people. Pakistan's media is running wild, but it wasn’t corrected for months, a terrible indication of America’s propaganda capabilities. Though Pakistanis have a thousand reasons to distrust America, their fears are also overplayed - or perhaps misplaced is a better word. It seems America and Pakistan are both stuck on the surface.

They need to peak underneath and realize that the new embassy is a giant red bulls-eye. Now everyone has a reason to keep the project as minimalist and transparent as possible.

Though the threat may never materialize it stands to reason that if average Pakistanis oppose a high profile, controversial American embassy, it will also go on the target boards of militant groups. American embassies already make good targets, as seen in Beirut, Kenya, and Yemen. The new embassy in Islamabad is begging for a blast which America certainly doesn’t want. Or does it? One conspiracy theory leads to another.

Pakistanis have misplaced their fears. America couldn’t take over Pakistan with a 1,000 Marines if it wanted to. Pakistan won’t fall to the US embassy any more than Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will fall into terrorist’s hands. Even if Blackwater is entering the country the CIA has been operating undercover for decades. What Pakistanis should worry about is a militant attack on the embassy, for this may be used to justify a true increase in US military presence. Beneath sweet bait lies the poison.

Of course America would never admit to such a plan, and perhaps it doesn’t exist consciously, but only a fool could miss the potential for disaster. US embassies are bombed where extremism is active and anti-American sentiment runs high. Pakistan easily meets both requirements. America ideally wants more troops at the embassy and in the country in general, but has to refrain because of public opposition. An attack provides America with the best opportunity increase its presence; it certainly wouldn’t pack up and leave like after Beirut. However such a plan is sure to backfire. A terrorist attack would likely be met with indifference, not a boost of Pakistani support.

Ultimately the stiffest pressure falls on the Pakistani government, which has to juggle legitimate American diplomatic relations with rampant anti-Americanism. It can’t refuse America’s advances because it needs military and economic aid, but a potential attack will rip the war open even wider. Surely the government doesn’t want that either, as it would be threatened by renewed attacks and once more labeled a puppet regime. Neither America or Pakistan’s interests are furthered by this perception.

What is to be done then? Honesty alone won’t help, it must be quick honesty. Rumors are like freight trains and must be stopped before they leave the station. And words by themselves won’t suffice. America has no goodwill stored in Pakistan, so popularity must be hard-earned through action; keeping the embassy to its minimum specifications is essential. The Pakistan government must hold America accountable. America shouldn’t offer itself as bait, Pakistan can’t allow it to, and the militants shouldn’t bite such an obvious trap.

But these steps are still inadequate. Eventually America must find a way to escape from Afghanistan because Pakistani hatred will burn as long as the occupation continues. The tide has turned against the Taliban, but America is just as unwelcome in the region. The current heavy-handed approach is unsustainable in the long term, as it contradicts the will of Pakistan.

COIN 101

12:45 AM 9/13/09: 50 militants have reportedly died in a battle in Farah province near Bala Baluk, site of the June massacre. Taliban soldiers ambushed a US-Afghan patrol with IED's, gunfire from multiple directions, and RPG's. 3 US soldiers and 7 Afghan soldiers fell in combat. Overwhelmed by Taliban numbers, who were grouping too closely, air-strikes were ordered in to kill dozens of militants. At least one bomb hit a home and killed a woman and a teenage girl, said Afghan police spokesman Raouf Ahmadi.

"The combined ISAF and Afghan force was receiving significant small-arms, RPG and indirect fire throughout that time frame," U.S. military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said.

While air-strikes are standard procedure these missiles seemed to have extra bite. Today was another bloody day in Afghanistan: 8 US soldiers, 30 Afghan army and police, 20 civilian according to the AP. This battle was likely a reaction to today's Taliban onslaught, the final straw after another complex ambush. The Taliban attacked coast to coast, from Farah to Orūzgān to Kabul, to Kunduz to Kunar. US commanders certainly don't like taking a Taliban attack lying down and probably received a message from above to strike back and even the score. Their response is predictable and not necessarily harmful, but they must be careful not to let vengeance get the best of them. The slightest overdoing will leave civilians dead and contradict the entire point of the mission.

4:02:58 PM 9/12/2009: A "Wave of Attacks" engulfing Afghanistan has sent the American press into a loop, terrified that the Taliban continues to intensify and spread across once peaceful provinces. Possibly unbeknownst to the press they're doing half the Taliban's job for them, hyping up the threat and portraying the Taliban increasingly unlikely to be defeated. When the NYT reports that the attacks "seemed to emphasize the ability of the Taliban," it also means the Taliban preplanned on using the American media to spread terror as it always does

Read the list of attacks for yourselves as there is no point in detailing them all. The NYT correctly singled out the most noteworthy attack, in Kunduz province, but since it failed to analyze the conclusion Octopus Mountain will finish the job.

According to the report, "Early Saturday morning, one of the district policemen poisoned the eight other police officers assigned to a guard post about 12 miles south of the district’s government center, said the Emam Sahib district police chief, Juma Khan Baber. The turncoat officer killed his commander on the spot, and then called his true comrades: the local Taliban. The militants entered the guard post and dragged away the seven other policemen, who were beheaded or shot, the district chief said. Then the Taliban burned down the guard shack."

Infiltration has always been a problem for the Afghan security forces, with this attack being the latest example, but the threat of spies is likely to rise in the coming years, not decrease. With US officials pushing for another increase in Afghan forces, not to mention speeding up their training by several years, the result could be a lot of poorly trained fighters with a lack of oversight. Recruiting more Afghans and training them faster will expose the system to increased Taliban infiltration. In fact, it's likely already formulating such a plan. Knowing that America is growing desperate and now trumpeting the Afghan security forces as its exit strategy, the Taliban will make redoubled efforts to flood their ranks.

Infiltration should theoretically increase as more Afghan forces are recruited and trained in a faster time. America must consider the alternative of better training and equipping the troops it has now. A "surge" in Afghan forces is extremely vulnerable to the Taliban's tricks.

Two other incidents warrant mentioning. The Taliban ambushed a truck carrying private security guards in Kunar Province, killing five of them and wounding 10. The security guards had been hired to protect workers building a road. America must realize its hope doesn't lie in security guards, which make easy targets for the well-organized Taliban. Afghanistan is still destabilizing with US troops and an army of private security. No other conclusion can be reached: if America wishes to stay then it needs more troops, though this is only a means to not lose, not to win.

Winning is a foolish word to speak of in Afghanistan after cultural atrocities like the following. The AP reports, "In Kabul, an American service member and an Afghan police officer got into an argument because the American was drinking water in front of the Afghan police, who are not eating or drinking during the day because of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. The police officer shot the American and seriously wounded him, while other American troops responded and seriously wounded the police officer."

First, American troops shouldn't be doing anything to offend Afghans, especially during Ramadan. That the offended ones were Afghan police is all the worse. While understanding the emotions of the US soldiers who returned fire, this too is a counterinsurgency error. Do not return fire, it won't heal your fallen comrade or benefit Afghanistan in any way. That incidents like this still occur on a semi-frequent basis, 8 years after the war began, shows that America isn't learning the culture as fast as it would like to believe. Counterinsurgency isn't about retaliation, but awareness.

Full Disclosure

Enough is enough. The American people have suffered eight years of muddled strategy in Afghanistan, an ambiguity that has attributed to the more vicious suffering Afghans and Pakistanis have endured. With a president that campaigned on transparency, Americans still impatiently wait in the dark. Once again the answers we were expecting have been delayed until further notice.

It’s time for President Obama and Congress to stop thinking about their next election and do what’s right for America and the Middle East.

Americans had hoped that, good news or bad, they would finally hear the future of Afghanistan, but a few irregularities have morphed into a full blown pattern. General McChrystal’s troop assessment, which floated around the media all summer, was expected in August. A fragile election led to a delayed release, irritating but reasonable considering the political atmosphere in Afghanistan. US officials then admitted that McChrystal’s assessment ignored troop levels, to be considered in a separate troop-to-task process later this month that won’t be made public.

But this week White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that "several different assessments that will happen" prior to a troop request. No decision on troops is expected for “weeks and weeks.”

“I think it will be many weeks of evaluation and assessment," Gibbs said in his press briefing. “I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion.”

While Americans undoubtedly share trepidation towards increasing US troop levels, it's impossible ignore an endless string of reports citing support for more troops inside General McChrystal’s review team, the Pentagon, and the White House. We are not fools, yet we are still treated as such. Congress, already eager to delay troop requests, jumped at the opportunity to postpone the debate.

A day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned of low Congressional support for more troops, Senate Arms Forces Chairman Carl Levin sought to push the debate back to 2010 at the earliest. Instead of more troops, Levin proposed shifting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, extra outreach to “moderate” Taliban, and speeding up the training of Afghan forces beyond an already breakneck pace.

“I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion,” Senator Levin said.

Now holding off on a commitment is one thing, but not debating one at all is another beast entirely. Levin claimed, “We should implement these steps on an urgent basis, before we consider an increase in U.S. ground combat forces beyond what is already planned by the end of this year.” He added that Congress wants to evaluate the effects of the full deployment, of which the last portion isn’t to arrive until November, before considering new troops, effectively pushing the debate into 2010 where it could be delayed again.

Such a strategy is headed for disaster. It has become overtly clear that President Obama is shunning a debate out of political fear. Meanwhile Congress has turned Afghanistan into a campaign issue, not a matter of war. Opposition to increased troop levels is legitimate - opposition to the debate itself is cowardly. It’s time for President Obama and Congress to face the American people and forget their political careers; Afghanistan is bigger than any one individual.

This means the American people have a critical responsibility themselves.

Fear caused by political disapproval is marring the debate over Afghanistan. In a rigorous task, the American people must be open and rational about Afghanistan. The anti-war movement cannot automatically stonewall the slightest whisper of escalation. Hawks can’t keep screaming 9/11 as if it were a strategy or comparing the Iraqi surge to Afghanistan when the environments are so different. America usually faces domestic difficulty with its wars because ideology often trumps reality. We must demand and give the government a civil but uninhibited discourse.

In return we expect full disclosure, not security through obscurity. President Obama and Congress neglect that failing to be truthful with the American people is more damaging than speaking candidly and will drive public support down further. Delay tactics will only build pressure on the government and undermine its credibility; anger at the present silence will increase. Avoiding a dreaded decision makes the choice harder, not easier. And health care isn’t an excuse. This is America, we must be able to solve two crises at once.

President Obama and Congress should get the country used to the discussion of more troops. 2010 is an unacceptable wait for the American people, who will ultimately bear the war in Afghanistan. Afghan forces aren’t a good bet in the next two years - America in all probability needs more troops to fill the security vacuum. Another deployment may not be necessary, but the topic should be on everyone’s tongue in case it is.

Peace with Palestine, Not War with Iran

Defense spokesman Geoff Morrell had told reporters that his boss, Secretary Robert Gates, was keen to address Al Jazeera. The Arab media giant couldn’t be ignored he said in a backhand way. With such a high platform, Gates unfortunately cast himself into the sweeping tide of war against Iran when peace is the only feasible solution in the Middle East.

“One of the pathways to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security,not enhance it,” Gates said in wide ranging interview. “The more that our Arab friends and allies can straighten their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their cooperation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.”

Gate’s plan falls in line with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent slip of a Eurasian defense umbrella. The Pentagon is similarly considering speeding up development of its bunker busting 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). Under stifling pressure from Israel, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns admits that the Obama administration is preparing Iranian sanctions for 2010 in return for a temporary settlement freeze.

Israel is trading 1 apple for 5 apples and fleecing America, but the reason holds a key to why Iran’s nuclear program isn’t about Iran’s nuclear program. Israel has turned a Palestinian demand into leverage against America, exploiting the conflict by tying Iranian weapons into a two-state solution to further its outside interests. Israel demands a security guarantee against Iran to end its occupation, overlooking that a fully functioning Palestinian state equals true security.

This charge isn’t leveled lightly, but Israel is apparently stalling on a Palestinian state as a means to disarm Iran. Not long ago Iran was thought to be years away from a nuclear bomb, yet the cries suddenly grow urgent again. US envoy Glyn Davies recently told a UN meeting, "We have serious concerns that Iran is deliberately attempting, at a minimum, to preserve a nuclear weapons option.”

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Sayad Fayyad recently gave two years as his deadline for a Palestinian state, which President Obama matched with his own two year deadline. Israel, then, has only two years to play the war card because Iranian animosity could dry up with the official recognition of a Palestinian state. In fact US officials have never clearly explained why Iran has any intention of attacking Europe, and the only reason for attacking Israel is the Palestinian plight.

“First of all,” Gates insisted, “it's the Iranian leadership that has said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those threats have not been made in the other direction. It is the Iranian government that is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions with respect to these programs, so focus needs to be on the country that is feuding the will of the international community and the United Nations.”

Not only is being told to focus solely on Iran an automatic red flag, Israel itself is guilty of feuding with the international community and the UN over its various wars. Israel also makes routine threats against Iran and allegedly funded it to continue to its war against Saddam Hussein hoping they would destroy each other. The West must come to realize that the Iranian threat is a two way street. Iran will remain hostile as long as no Palestine exist and since Israel needs Iran to remain hostile, it must delay the creation of Palestine.

Conversely a Palestinian state would relieve tensions throughout the region, from Egypt to Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Iran to Pakistan. Iran would lose its main cause for hostility, removing Israel’s justification to disarm Iran via preemptive strike or outright war. Thus Israel isn’t just acting out of self-defense - it wants to disarm Iran permanently, regardless of a real threat.

Yossi Levy, the Foreign Ministry's spokesman, recently urged, “The Iranians have been trying for a long time to stall, and the world is obligated to stop them immediately. This is a historic crossroad for world peace.”

Israeli officials have a habit of speaking of others and themselves at the same time. Most Palestinians believe Israel is stalling to expand its grip on the West Bank before withdrawing. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently called on Israel to stop settlements immediately. It’s painful that the obvious is so overlooked, but war isn’t a crossroads for peace - Palestinian and Israeli states, living side by side in autonomy, is that crossroads.

Disarming Iran’s nuclear program through war won’t lead to peace nor will covering the Gulf with a defense umbrella. The media in states Secretary Gates is likely considering have already expressed concern over pitting Arabs against Persians, such as Al Jazeera and the Jordan Times. The Khaleej Times, in the UAE, explicitly warned, “Gates' jingoism will be nothing but suicidal.”

War will only militarize and split the region into deeper alliances. America must convince Israel that a Palestinian state is the best means of neutralizing Iranian hostility. The West should emphasize a two-state solution instead of wasting energy by formulating crippling sanctions and battle-plans.

COIN 101

Almost as soon after two Katyusha rockets fell harmlessly on Israeli fields, Israeli and American officials went to work lobbying for UN Resolution 1701 in Lebanon. Gabriela Shalev, Israel's envoy at the UN, faxed a letter to her American counterpart, and soon after Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced, "The parties must fully adhere to Security Council resolution 1701 and respect the cessation of hostilities agreement."

Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley would add, "We strongly condemn these attacks which were in clear violation of the cessation of hostilities called for in UNSC (UN Security Council) resolution 1701." He said the incident, "highlights the urgent need to put arms in Lebanon under control of the state and the need for the international community to remain fully committed on supporting UNIFIL which is the UN mission in Lebanon."

There's just one slight problem - the rockets may not have been Hezbollah's, which is presumably who everyone is talking about. According to the Haaretz, "Channel 10 reported that a Palestinian faction in Lebanon has claimed responsibility for the rocket fire, while military sources said that a global jihad terror group was likely responsible, according to Army Radio."

Israel is certainly correct for holding Lebanon accountable seeing that it cannot secure its own territory. This is a known fact, and accomplices within the army are likely as well. It's simply amusing how quickly Israel and America turn a random jihadist attack into a call to disarm Hezbollah. Perhaps Hezbollah aided the militants in their attack, one can never be sure. What is known though is that Israel and America will never disarm Hezbollah through the UN, they are merely yelling to raise international attention. Propaganda is powerful but it doesn't take weapons out of a guerrilla's hands.

And neither will war. At least 15 Israeli rockets have reportedly struck a village near the site of the attack, in what the IDF described as retaliatory fire. Yes, this should win the people's support. The missiles probably failed to hit the perpetrators and likely damaged innocent property. This is a pointless counterinsurgency tactic as it won't deter small bands from firing random rockets. True disarmament runs through the Lebanese people and friendly Israeli-Lebanese relations.

Disconnect the Dots

Upon first glance at the headline, The Pentagon’s Newest Weapon Against Pirates, two thoughts comes to mind - Somalia and Predators. Luckily Time's report veered off in another direction towards the Seychelles Islands, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, but the distance between them isn’t that far.

American officials must keep their focus on Seychelles and not wander off towards the world’s most dangerous coast.

Viewed through the smallest goals, a US mission to Seychelles benefits both parties. With only 176 square miles of land, Seychelles must police its exclusive economic zone of over 500,000 square miles. Mahé, the main island, is home to the capital, Victoria, along with 90% of the population. Heavily dependent on imports and located in the furthest reaches of the archipelago, most ships must traverse a no-mans sea. Smaller boats have no protection beyond the endless blue.

“Our isolated geographic position and our limited economic and military resources will never allow us to patrol our vast territorial waters," one Seychelles lawmaker said during a July debate on American assistance. "Foreign military help in patrol and surveillance of our waters is today a necessity.”

Naturally the US military jumped at the opportunity to increase its reach across the globe; establishing a worldwide surveillance and communications network to strike any target is one of the Air Force’s primary goals. America and Seychelles are a growing symbiotic relationship that nurtures both sides with little to no repercussions. America needs more of these relationships in Africa and the Middle East where every deal seemingly comes with a price, all the reason to prevent future discord.

America and Seychelles have been working on a defense agreement for several years, but only now has Somali piracy pushed the deal into reality. After America dispatched a mission in May (that was debated in July), Seychelles President James Michel met with US Chargée d’Affaires Mrs. Virginia Blaser and AFRICOM commander General William E. Ward in August. The result: P-3 Orion’s and a fleet of MQ-9 Reapers. While the Reapers are reportedly unarmed in accordance with international law, they’re the latest militarization off the African coast.

Vince Crawley, a spokesman for US AFRICOM, explained, “The Seychelles have been increasingly concerned about piracy in their waters.” Helping other states is key to American policy, but altruism is usually accompanied by ulterior goals. Crawley said Seychelles, “makes an ideal platform for observing the vast ocean and maritime corridors in the Indian Ocean region and assisting in counter-piracy efforts.” In other words, America’s medium-term goal is using Seychelles as a test of the Reaper’s ability to police piracy.

While every pirate isn’t Somali, their mother-ships have encroached on Seychelles in the last few years. That the increase stems in part from Somalia will inevitably tempt US eyes to view Seychelles a means to an end, not an end itself, but America mustn’t mistake patrolling Seychelles’ waters for policing Somalia. Seychelles is worlds apart from Somalia with a GDP per capita of $21,000, 73 year life expectancy, 91% literacy, 2% unemployment, and no anti-American sentiment. Seychelles simply neighbors an unstable region. Drones don't qualify as nation-building. Reapers may bring security to Seychelles, but they’ll only wrought carnage if applied to Somalia.

“We have to get at the root causes" of Somali piracy said Mary Yates, deputy commander of AFRICOM until June 2009, "and the root causes are on land."

Long-term implications seemingly jar with this reality President Michel announced that, “The piracy problem has transformed into an opportunity for us to strengthen maritime surveillance in the western Indian Ocean... It is clear that the Seychelles has become a strategic location for maritime security... we are well on the way to sealing a maritime fortress around the Seychelles islands.”

The opportunity is President Obama’s, not President Michel’s. America, the EU and India aren’t building a fortress purely out of charity. Seychelles appears on its way to becoming a major surveillance and naval base for future operations against Somalia, “a surveillance hub for international forces in Seychelles,” lauded Michel. Leveraging piracy for Western support is a win-win for him, while the West gets to use his country towards its own ends - the dead end that is Somalia.

Seychelles has the makings of a test run. Somalia and Seychelles may look like dots to connect, but they’re dots in different puzzles. Any connection is superficial and potentially destructive.

The Wrath of Khan

Dr. AQ Khan has some Che Guevara in him, a villain and hero, rogue and savior. The schism he’s created is unlikely to ever mend, but this gulf is losing relevance. Pakistan’s nuclear father has taken a beating from Western governments and the media: anxiety from NPR, anger at the WSJ, the latest scathing NYT editorial. Just last week an anonymous State Department official said, “We believe he remains a serious proliferation risk.”

But he who laughs last laughs loudest.

Dr. Khan’s statements are difficult to take at face value given a history of doublespeak and forced confessions. He also has a strong motive for revenge after being so heavily targeted by the West, but his account of Pakistan's nuclear program is impossible to ignore after hearing his version of history. America is likely do to everything possible to cover up his story since it contradicts American law, strategy, and common sense.

“I maintain that the war [Soviet invasion of Afghanistan] had provided us with space to enhance our nuclear capability," Dr. Khan said in a recent interview to AJJ TV. “Given the US and European pressure on our program, it is true that had the Afghan war not taken place at that time, we would not have been able to make the bomb as early as we did.”

Dr. Khan’s testimony punches a hole through US policy in Pakistan, turning deep flaws into abysmal disasters. America had legislated laws to prohibit military and economic transfers, excluding humanitarian aid, to countries developing or possessing nuclear weapons outside of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The $3.1 billion in economic assistance and $2.19 billion in military assistance America gave to Pakistan from 1980 until 1990 was made possible only by executive waivers. Ronald Reagan claimed he had no verification of a Pakistani bomb, as did George Bush until the war ended allowing him to pull the plug.

Contrary to estimates that Pakistan was developing nuclear weapons throughout the 1980’s, Dr. Khan claims the first bomb was ready for testing in 1983.

Dr. Khan went beyond duty to his country if he actually proliferated nuclear material to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. But his recklessness was equally matched by American policy, played first by the Mujahideen and then the real puppet master, Pakistan President and General Zia. Some Pakistani officials questioned the cost of a nuclear program and consequence in an impoverished country. America halted aid in 1979 under the Symington Amendment, but once Pakistan persuaded American officials that it would help fight the Soviets, $3 billion was on the way by 1981. Pakistani skeptics eased off their concerns with this new found cash flow.

“We were allying with the United States in the Afghan war,” he said. “The aid was coming. We asked General Zia and his team to go ahead with the test, but they said they could not conduct the test as it would have serious repercussions. They argued that since the United States had to overlook our nuclear program due to our support in the Afghan war, it was an opportunity for us to further develop the program. They said the tests could be conducted any time later.”

America had abandoned its laws as soon as self-interest encroached, rationality obliterated by desperation. The American people were lied to each time the president claimed Pakistan wasn’t developing or possessive of nuclear weapons, contrary to intelligence reports and compromising regional and global security for personal gain. A destabilized Afghanistan would be the final nail in the Soviet coffin, but it spawned 9/11 and seemingly infinite nightmares in Asia.

America sacrificed the long term for the short term at every turn. Nuclear transfers to Iran and potentially North Korea were the price of a Soviet defeat. Aid to Pakistan was terminated almost as soon as the war ended resulting in a lost decade of US-Pakistan relations that haunts the region. Not only did Pakistan’s feeling of isolation lead to present ties between the ISI and the Taliban, China emerged as a new source of nuclear material and a growing threat to US influence. America became distracted as it often does, unable to simultaneously wage war in Afghanistan and police Pakistan’s nuclear program, to look near and far.

“They could not outmaneuver us,” Dr. Khan said of US inspections, “as we remained a step ahead always.”

An earlier discovery would've been useless anyway with America so reliant on Pakistani support against the Soviets. Sadly this type of relationship has been mimicked, not rectified, in the future. America came roaring back to Pakistan after 9/11 and essentially took over after a “with us or against us” ultimatum. Musharraf would aid America’s fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in return for domestic political cover. Short term necessity eventually led to a meltdown in Pakistani politics and resulted in a whole new wave of anti-American sentiment targeted at US support for Musharraf. Now Pakistan’s future is shrouded in darkness.

Is Dr. Khan a proliferator? Maybe, though he claims Musharraf was the “Big Boss” and himself the scapegoat. But his testimony reveals the latest failings in the US-Pakistani saga, that America is complicit of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Observe the results 20 years later: a resurgent Russia, chaos in Afghanistan, hatred in Pakistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, all for a war America eventually became mired in itself.

Never has the need been higher for foresight in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now American officials have swung to the opposite extreme, promising long term commitments when Afghans and Pakistanis want America to fix the problems it created and leave the region. Khan, a free man, is probably laughing in the shadows. His mission is over while America’s is just beginning.

COIN 101

Today was a terrible day to be a US soldier; four of them fell in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was also not a good day to be an American or European politician, as the events suggest increasing destabilization. Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a U.S. military spokeswoman, only said troops in Afghanistan came under "a complex attack" in Kunar province, which is far from Helmand and Kandahar. Kunar is also an alleged hideout of Osama bin Laden according to Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik. "Complex attack" means ambush, another bad sign. IED's are one of the many evolving Taliban tactics.

Bombings in Iraq are equally disturbing despite their simplicity, coming as they did near Baghdad and Kirkuk. Insurgents retain a presence throughout the country and are alternating their signals. Sometimes they appear to be lying in wait for America to leave, content to wage a low-intensity conflict in the meantime. Other days spill blood around the country. Today an IED killed the head of an Iraqi anti-terrorism police unit and four of his bodyguards. Three more IED's killed policemen, soldiers, government officials, and civilians.

"August was the third deadliest month for Iraqis this year," according to an AP count, "with at least 425 people killed. Only June with 448 casualties, and April with 451, saw more people killed. So far this month at least 63 Iraqis have been killed." Six US troops have also been killed.

While the fact that Iraqi violence has ebbed since its peak levels of 2006 and 2007 cannot be disputed, the current level of violence is still unacceptable to any modern society. Though al-Qaeda's ranks may have dwindled in Iraq, plenty of native militants remain to carry out the insurgency and are better candidates to do so. This turns the question of Afghanistan upside down. America will leave enemies in Iraq - why is this so unacceptable in Afghanistan?

Iraq is also experiencing another problem American officials should take note of. Following up the August 19 bombings of government ministry buildings that killed over 100 people, Major General Qassim al-Moussawi said 29 police and army officers responsible for security in the areas had been arrested and charged with negligence. In the worst terms possible, he admitted, "Absolutely, what has been achieved so far in the intelligence and security efforts is below expectations. There is a review to all security plans with the supervision of the prime minister."

Iraqi security forces have been trained for years now. US officials hail their abilities while cautioning their greenness, and many Iraqis make outstanding soldiers and policemen. But the danger of infiltration and ineptness obviously persists. America is helpless when Iraqi security is bypassed by militants or corruption and the same will prove true in Afghanistan. America must fastidiously recruit, train, and instill a sense of unity into the Afghan forces, a daunting task. Failure to do so, no matter how large the army becomes, will lead to security failures. If Iraq is still suffering them, Afghanistan is likely over a decade away from competent security forces.

Above these tactical concerns. lies a strategic breakdown. Iraq isn't in imminent danger of backsliding into its Hyde form, but security and political progress has underwhelmed US expectations. Complications are natural as US forces pull out of Iraq's cities, but that hasn't stopped them from dying. There is still a war in Iraq, America hasn't left.Iraq is also a moderate nation-building project to accompany the Frankenstein experiment that is Afghanistan. Without sufficient knowledge of nation-building and how to implement it, how does America plan to do so in two states at once? Reality is being stretched thin.

And wouldn't it be ironic if Iraq destabilized because President Obama turned his attention to Afghanistan?

Genie in the Bottle

The chatter over Afghanistan (it can hardly be called a debate) is turning towards drones and special operations as an alternative to troop escalation. Americans, disapproving of escalation by a large majority, are bombarded by the government, its affiliated think tanks, and the media’s talking points. They can only sit and watch helplessly.

Few options are available, but there is none in the ultimate sense. Most officials inside General McChrystal’s review group favor more troops as does Joint Chief of Staff Michael Mullen. President Obama is reportedly leaning in this direction and hoping to sell his strategy to NATO. Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly plays down his desire for more troops, but he’s admitted more might be necessary. At the least, America isn’t withdrawing an inch.

“The notion that you can conduct a purely counter-terrorist kind of campaign and do it from a distance simply does not accord with reality,” Gates told reporters last week.

Even if the future of Afghanistan was yet to be finalized, Americans have scant power to make an impact. After everything has been reported, analyzed, hashed and rehashed, Americans aren’t going to turn to a lever and vote on the war. Letters to Congress are pointless anyway, but especially when its lost control of the war. Most Americans will never step foot in Afghanistan, they simply stare at the TV or computer in agreement or disagreement. Their only real power is in poll numbers and protests, potent but nebulous control devices. Sometimes presidents cave to political pressure and rule by polls, sometimes they view negative polls as a positive sign.

With little else to hold onto, knowledge becomes the last refuge. At least we can attempt to understand Afghanistan if we cannot have a say in it. The American people must know three things: defeating al-Qaeda requires the defeat of the Taliban, drones and special-ops aren’t substitutes for counterinsurgency or nation-building, and a political solution with Mullah Omar can potentially neutralize al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The necessary defeat of the Taliban is proven with a simple exercise. If America withdrew its conventional forces and operated off shore the Taliban will gain significant amounts of territory and power. With the government on the verge of fracturing and the army only half-trained, al-Qaeda will always have a home in Afghanistan as long as the situation holds. Only by denying the Taliban can al-Qaeda be denied its safe havens. The Taliban is the only group who can keep al-Qaeda out of their villages, mountains, and caves, or who can call off the jihad. That al-Qaeda has other havens is a separate discussion altogether.

Unfortunately for the anti-war movement more troops are necessary to defeat the Taliban. American troops are like those scrambled puzzles with one loose corner to move the pieces around and form a picture. When US and NATO forces moved into Helmand, Taliban fighters scattered to Kandahar, Paktika, and Laghman. The country needs to be filled to the point where the Taliban can’t slide from one province to the next. The Army’s COIN manual is already far below the minimum requirement and Gates’ intelligence complaints stem from insufficient troop levels. Intelligence is hard to gather with less than 5 soldiers for every 1,000 Afghans.

Offshore measures are also insufficient because they still imply the presence of foreign troops. The Taliban won’t be fooled if America withdraws its main body while leaving behind a residual force to hunt down al-Qaeda and possibly Taliban officials. The war will continue. Government officials will continue to be targeted. Civilians contractors will make easy prey if America and Europe wish to continue humanitarian work. Troops are required to secure their projects, as potentially corrupt Afghan police pose a danger. America seemingly has only two options - escalation or complete withdrawal - unless it’s willing to take a chance.

The two previous options are just as risky anyway.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda’s relationship has been twisted to serve the interests of pro-war advocates. Though al-Qaeda was formed long before Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar established a friendship, al-Qaeda was born from jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar remains “Commander of the Faithful” even to bin Laden and his followers. Pakistan’s Taliban pays similar homage as do the various nationalities of militants who flock to the resistance. It’s very possible that the Taliban inspires al-Qaeda and not the other way around.

That means Mullah Omar is the only man for America to talk to in Afghanistan, the only man with the slightest chance of granting America’s wishes. Al-Qaeda will only be disrupted and dismantled, never destroyed, without political reconciliation with the Taliban and its base. Negotiation with Omar, which he’s open to, requires complete withdrawal. However, these negotiations could encompass resolution with the Pashtuns, security promises for foreign civil workers, and the exile of al-Qaeda. The Taliban is already protecting foreigners for the right price, why not a political price? And with America gone, perhaps he can be convinced that he doesn’t need al-Qaeda. America has no chance of working off shore and slim chances on shore without Mullah Omar’s neutrality.

President Obama’s troop level is a Jupiter-sized debate, but Omar is the Sun.

Raekwon - House of Flying Daggers

Wu Tang keeps it real. Rated M.

Razor's Edge

The air-strike in Kunduz province has mushroomed from a basic counterinsurgency error to an international display of fragility. With anti-war pressure already mounting in Europe, Germany is headed into an uproar because of a single attack and is pulling down the rest of NATO. Undermanned in Afghanistan, America and its allies have no margin of error. One mistake can blow any war open, but those waging counterinsurgencies walk a particularly thin line.

Germany has gone on the offensive to defend its commander. After previously denying civilian casualties, a COIN no-no, German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung claimed the two tankers "posed an acute threat to our soldiers." German officials suspected the tankers were to be used as suicide bombs. "If there were civilian casualties or injuries, of course we deeply regret that. At the same time, it was clear that our soldiers were in danger. Therefore I regard the decision of the German commander's on location as correct. The air strike was absolutely necessary."

Jung added. "I can not comprehend how some can so quickly criticize the military action without knowing what the situation was or the background information."

Jung is in an unenviable spot, the position foreign officials often find themselves locked in by guerrillas. He is correct of course, the fuel tanks have suicide explosion written all over them. From a self-interest perspective, German deaths are more politically threatening than Afghan deaths. Watching the tankers being stolen and not acting, knowing how they'll likely be used, is incredibly difficult, but guerrilla war is a realm of paradoxes. Jung bluntly admits that he deems the protection of German soldiers above the local population, contrary to the laws of COIN. Afghans are unlikely to ever hear his explanations.

The press is reporting a US-German rift. German officials are evoking self defense and criticizing what they believe is a rush to judgment in the American media. American officials responded that German troops took too long to investigate the site, but they had come under fire when they did arrive and would likely have been shot had they arrived sooner. Even General McChrystal was kept from the site due to the threat of violence. US-German relations are surface waves, unlikely to suffer damage, but the individual issues have deeper meaning.

General McChrystal has come off the worst in this incident, causing the protective American media slant. His new directive calls for an investigation of the site within hours, but German troops didn't show up until noon the next day. When McChystal asked Col. Georg Klein, the commander of the German base in Kunduz, "Why didn't RC-North come here quicker?" Klein replied, "I can honestly say it was a mistake." While his admission is noble, it does nothing to correct the situation and undercuts McChrystal's range of influence.

The Washington Post then reported only one informant was used in the strike, a violation of General McChystal's new directive. "Col. Klein said his intelligence chief had spoken to an Afghan source who insisted that everyone at the site was an insurgent," read the report. "The description of the scene the source provided was similar to what Klein was seeing beamed from the F-15. 'The whole story matched 100 percent,' Klein said. But there was no way to tell whether the dots on the screen were insurgents, as the source maintained."

This news is especially disturbing. Intelligence is one of America's main problems. Not only is it susceptible to the politics of feuding tribes, America hasn't built a strong enough network within the local population. Technology will always be a cheap substitute for true relations with the people. That Kunduz, until lately a stable province, is in question bodes even worse. US officials reported an unexpected warmth from local leaders; if America cannot find reliable intelligence in Kunduz then how much less Kandahar?

The debate over troop levels must come to an end once and for all. Mistakes will continue without the proper resources. Octopus Mountain doesn't necessarily favor escalation, but as the situation stands President Obama will not achieve his goal to destroy al-Qaeda without more US troops. The defeat of al-Qaeda, says Obama, necessitates the destruction of the Taliban, which requires more troops. To secure and develop the country requires more troops. A lack of good intelligence is a cry for more troops. When the choice is letting the Taliban steal two time bombs or killing civilians to prevent their getaway, more troops are needed. Minimalism is idealism, a light foot print won’t work any better than a heavy footprint.

Octopus Mountain will go no lower than 110,000 total US troops.

Caribbean Tour

There are few good times to be a Haitian, but hurricane season is especially demanding. The storms add a Sisyphus element to the distressed island, periodically blowing away what little progress is made. Unpopular as the idea may be in Washington, it’s time to push Haiti over the hump of instability so that it can begin to recover properly.

Prizes await America upon a successful nation-building operation.

Naturally the Haitian people would have to approve of such a mission. President Rene Preval is on record for telling UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “if the Haitian people were asked if they wanted the UN forces to leave they would say yes.” However, the United Nations Stabilization Mission In Haiti (MINUSTAH) only functions as peacekeepers and distributes emergency aid. It’s a band aid on a gaping wound - intensive surgery requires a nation-building force. Not only is America the only actor capable of delivering this force, it’s also the most obligated.

America’s history on the island is too deep to recite; Dr. Paul Farmer, a long time Haitian activist, has needed multiple books to detail America’s unsavory foreign policy. Occupation from 1915 to 1934 exchanged infrastructure development for slave labor. Though publicly opposing the Duvalier dictatorship from 1957 to 1986, America continued exploiting Haitians for their cheap labor. Coups in 1991 and 2004, both overthrowing then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, have US fingerprints on them. Colin Powell and Scott McClellan, among others, decried reports that America forcefully removed Aristide from power. Both have since expressed remorse for lying for the Bush administration and anger for being lied to.

Gérard Latortue was installed as prime minister while still in America and left office in 2006 with a suspect human rights record. Why does America hesitate to rebuild but not exploit? In the politest terms America owes Haiti.

Haiti is certainly dangerous, but its armed gangs are unlikely to generate the systematic insurgency found in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia. A greater challenge lies in impression management. America’s history is still fresh in Haitian minds so a different entry is required. Radical as this sounds, America would ask to come in. The purpose of repaying Haitians for past errors must be explicitly stated. The mission would be explained in detail to the government and people before it began; it may even be put to a national referendum. Clauses should be drafted in the UN to expel US forces if they fail to meet their objectives. These measures would reduce anti-American sentiment.

Turning negatives into positives is a mandatory skill, and America must realize that Haiti is a gift in disguise. Nation-building will form the bulk of US military operations in the next century and, judging by Iraq and Afghanistan, America still has much to learn. Rebuilding Haiti would produce textbooks of lessons and provide invaluable experience to the military in a closer and less hostile environment than current American areas of operations. Haiti is a nation-building university.

Like many counterinsurgencies 80% of the Haitian population lives below the poverty line, 54% in abject poverty. Correcting this affliction would take first priority and requires integrated initiatives. Like Afghan opium, Iraqi religious division, and Somali pirates, Haiti provides a unique security challenge - deforestation, estimated at 98%. Villages are more vulnerable to floods and soil erosion lowers the overall productivity of the land by destroying dams, roads, and crop fields. Haiti’s environmental crisis is made all the worse as 66% of Haitians depend on the agricultural sector.

Similar to Afghanistan, America must develop innovative solutions to provide economic opportunity. Government and USAID efforts to re-grow the forests have fell flat from lack of funding, so America would infuse the mission with billions of dollars. An army of well-paid tree planters must work with a host of environmental planners and engineers in conjunction with the local population. Alternatives to charcoal must be introduced to limit logging, with solar cookers being one of many answers. Haiti must become the forefront of the reforestation movement.

Outside of agriculture are standard schools, hospitals, and roads; Haiti needs all three. Those working on the environment must be trained in other technical skills in their free time. An overdue gun buyback program presents a challenge America will find in most insurgencies. One fundamental goal in Haiti is breaking America’s habit of over-funding military operations and under-funding civil projects. Not only are economic, social, and environmental programs cheaper than supporting military operations, they’re more conducive to stability. They should form the majority of a nation-building budget.

Though US military focus would shift from destruction to regeneration, military training is still be gained. Haiti’s terrain is a counterinsurgency environment. As in Afghanistan’s mountains, bulky armored vehicles become less useful in the jungle. Most of Haiti is crisscrossed by shoddy roads and beaten paths that require foot travel. Moving around the island would be good training for US troops looking to get a feel for the insurgent; the best counterinsurgents move like insurgents, shades of Kaibiles. Haiti provides the US military an opportunity to embed itself within a local population, while urban gangs mimic urban warfare.

The cost of nation-building in Haiti is unlikely to run higher than a traditional insurgency. Most of the population isn’t targeted by militants - disease, starvation, and unemployment are the main demons and cheaper to combat. 40,000 American troops, in addition to 9,000 UN peacekeepers, would be more productive in Haiti than Afghanistan, and few are likely to die if they behave properly. Supply lines will also be cheaper and easier to maintain, and the exit closer. A bonus: air-strikes are probably unnecessary

A final prize awaits America, were it to restore life to Haiti. Successful nation-building would greatly enhance America’s standing in the world. Future candidates for nation-building will be more confident if America has a record of success. President Obama is well-received, but America as a whole is still distrusted in many countries. Assisting Haiti would truly announce a new America.

COIN 101

Getting closer to the truth. "The German military said they feared the hijackers would use the fuel tankers to carry out a suicide attack against its base nearby." The Taliban must have been planning a spectacular attack in a northern, supposedly "stable" province. They're acutely aware of the precarious political situations in America and Europe.

Bricks in the Wall

A debate has ignited over Afghanistan, but unfortunately it was full of hot air. The true debate is already over. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress today that withdrawing isn't an option. A week after Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen called for a debate, he told Congress, "I certainly don't think it's time to leave. There's no way to defeat al-Qaeda, which is the mission, with just that approach - you can't do it remotely, you can't do it offshore."

"Remotely" means drones. The Pentagon - with its non-elected officials - is in total control of the US military.

Meanwhile the America media continues its propaganda assault against the American people. A rash of stories debating troop levels, if read closely, contain no troop figures. The American people only receive rhetoric. Arguments repetitiously approve the war, state how many troops America currently deploys, then abruptly end by approving the war without details. This phenomena is universal, as found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. These reports are a fraction of a fraction. The Christian Science Monitor came closer to revealing the charade, but eventually fell prey.

The American government, academia, and media seem to believe American citizens have no purpose in foreign policy and need no information. Are we supposed to believe President Obama doesn't know now, but will know in two weeks? Or does he really believe the last 6,000 of the 17,000 troops, to be deployed over the next months, will suffice? 6,000 isn't close to adequate, meaning he's stalling.

Evidence is surfacing that he's is overwhelmed, but the mistake is his because Afghanistan should've been his first priority. Then there's this man who fails to consider true military strategy in any way. Withdrawal may not be the solution, but such close mindedness isn't real strategy. America doesn't look like it's going to have a true debate on Afghanistan, a bad omen from President Obama. The deep will stay hungry.

Octopus Mountain stands by its assessment of 50,000 US troops. The NYT reported that General McChrystal is considering three options: "The smallest proposed reinforcement, from 10,000 to 15,000 troops, would be described as the high-risk option. A medium-risk option would involve sending about 25,000 more troops, and a low-risk option would call for sending about 45,000 troops." Following this logic, 50-60,000 troops would be their ideal choice.

COIN 101

Al Jazeera is reporting that over 70 people have been killed in a NATO/German air-strike in Kunduz province; reports claim a US F-15E Strike Eagle ultimately dropped the bombs. The district police chief told the AP that 40 people had been killed while Govenor Mohammad Omar said at least 45 were killed. Another AP report listed the dead at 90, including 40 civilians; senior Taliban commander for the district, Abdur Rahman, and four Chechen fighters were killed. This story has multiple levels. If true, it shows the reach of Taliban AO's as Kunduz is on the northern border in Tajik territory. The death toll could be exaggerated, but this would mean America has already lost the propaganda battle, for now.

Denial isn't going to work. The German army said 56 Taliban militants after they attacked an alliance convoy. An army statement claimed, "There were no civilian casualties." This isn't the way to conduct counterinsurgency. An investigation should begin immediately.

The Taliban operation itself is most interesting. Stealing two tankers of fuel to give to a village sounds like propaganda. Is this a new tactic to win back popularity? The Taliban hasn't followed the manual discovered in May; while it succeeded in striking NATO convoys and high level targets, hundreds of civilians died in the process. General McChrystal has held back to make the gap seem larger than normal, with the result that the Taliban were responsible for most deaths this summer. Stealing fuel and giving it away is like Robin Hood.

Of course a sinister side exists to this incident. The Taliban, having lost the power to provoke air-strikes simply by running into civilian buildings, have taken to baiting NATO with theft and villagers with charity. By using fuel as bait the Taliban ensured an abnormal explosion. But the question remains to when the air-strike was dropped. Were the villagers nakedly bombed? Coalition troops sound like they still lack the resources to scope their target.

And America has another problem, either a security lapse, miscommunication, lack of man power, or combination of factors. The alleged driver of one of the tankers told reporters, "The Taliban were there from 2 p.m. yesterday. I informed the military about this and I told them they will hijack us. They told me that they will inform the (NATO) military about this. No one came to protect us."

New details are emerging. According to the NYT, "Late Thursday, a gang of Taliban guerrillas hijacked the two tanker trucks on the main highway south of Kunduz, Afghan and NATO officials said, and drove the trucks to Omar Kheil. But when they came to a river the trucks could not cross, they stopped and told villagers to siphon off the diesel fuel, Afghan officials said. Scores of villagers came out, carrying all sorts of containers." Al Jazeera claims the Taliban called out villagers to help push the tankers, but after no success, told the villagers to help themselves to the fuel. The air-strike occurred shortly after.

Two tankers aren't worth the civilian casualties and bad publicity. The bombs absolutely should not have been dropped.

The White House and General McChrystal will learn that civilian casualties are inevitable in guerrilla war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates claims he is doing "everything conceivable" to prevent them, but his power is limited in a Washington office. He's relatively helpless when a NATO squad is tracking a Taliban group at night and a German commander calls in a strike. As for General McChrystal, he must stay sharp because the Taliban is going to bait his soldiers with every trick possible. That German troops were responsible is irrelevant; America is the QB in Afghanistan, liable to all credit and blame.

This news is spreading rapidly across the Internet, not a good headline when President Obama is already under fire in Afghanistan. His silence sometimes sounds like a cry for help. Octopus Mountain is committed to high quality analysis for his use.

A Tale of Two al-Qaeda's

What to make of the attempted assassination on Saudi Arabia Prince Muhammed bin Nayef? Was it a good or bad sign for America? Is it a dying lunge or a sign that al-Qaeda is as ingenious, ruthless, and active as ever despite rumors of falling ranks? Did al-Qaeda poke a finger into the eye of Afghanistan and the “War on Terror,” or is the attack an illusion designed to make us think that way?

Assume first that al-Qaeda is on the decline, systematically destroyed in Iraq and hunted down in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Intelligence officials claim Osama bin Laden’s network has been disrupted to the point of him operating as a figure head who can’t step foot into sight. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula specifically claimed responsibility, and Saudi authorities believe the cell operates under a higher ideology but is tactically independent.

Al-Qaeda certainly hasn’t done itself any favors in Saudi Arabia. The mayhem of 2003 and 2004, when militants detonated bombs, instigated gun battles across the country, and stormed the United States Consulate in Jidda, is a thing of the past. The attacks were well planned but their magnitude backfired. Saudi Arabia launched a crackdown that arrested thousands of militants connected to al-Qaeda. The group sought refuge in Yemen, where the Saudi Arabia and Yemen outfits combined in January 2009.

At this point a weakened al-Qaeda would be highly annoyed by the talk of its demise. Action would be required, proof of its invincibility, that there will always be enough hardcore fighters to continue a low-intensity war. Time to show the world we’re alive, determination mixed with desperation. Saudi officials believe al-Qaeda, having been prevented from large-scale attacks, has switched tactics to assassination. Prince Muhammed is evidence of this theory and a possible sign that al-Qaeda is running out of options to fight its war.

Hussein Shobokshi, a columnist for the London-based Asharq Alawsat Arabic newspaper, said the attack, “has also created an incredible amount of sympathy for the government.” He said the response will be “strong, consistent and with enormous popular backing.” Sure enough, a lightly-wounded Prince Muhammed said from the hospital, “This will only increase our determination to eradicate this [militancy.]”

America must hope this scenario is the truth because the alternative poses numerous threats to President Obama’s strategy in the Middle East.

Whether thriving or struggling, al-Qaeda seems to have an unlimited supply of daring and novelty. As usual the attack was meticulously planned months in advance. The bomber played on Ramadan and Saudi Arabia’s policy of accepting repentant terrorists, and supposedly flew in on a royal jet. His acting skills were good enough to convince Prince Muhammed of his sincerity and bypass security. Apparently he wasn’t a good runner though; he tripped and detonated before he reached his target. Al-Qaeda will likely learn from the mistake.

And what happens when Saudi Arabia adjusts to al-Qaeda’s new tactics? The group will likely adjust as well - a terrorism evolutionary arms race. Al-Qaeda can also regroup in the right conditions.

Raise yet another flag in Yemen. Feared as a new haven for al-Qaeda, the reality is more advanced than a beginning stage. The Sa’dah insurgency that began in 2004 has acted as cover and distraction for al-Qaeda’s movements. Fighting numbers are supposedly low but it enjoys popular support, and Islamic Jihad of Yemen has already joined the umbrella; other groups could follow. Al-Qaeda was open of its infiltration methods, bragging that it evaded two security checkpoints en route to the target. Rumors even claim the Yemeni government deploys Islamic militants to attract international aid, an easily corruptible system.

Is America prepared to use military force in any country that allows refuge for al-Qaeda? Yemen could become the next nightmare given enough time.

The failed attempt on Prince Muhammed’s head was meant for the West in general. Whether legitimate or exaggerated, the message is one of diversity. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, and Somalia aren’t part of the discussion. Occupy them and al-Qaeda will move to other conflicts. Victory in Afghanistan may not even stabilize Pakistan - it certainly won’t stabilize Yemen, persuade Israel to accept Palestinian demands, or quell Muslim tensions in Xinjiang. Al-Qaeda is taunting America that it can't be in all places at once.

An assassination attempt on a Saudi Arabian Prince by Yemen militants makes the “War on Terror” feel wider than ever. A nebulous al-Qaeda doesn’t seem to pose a lesser threat to global security, just a different type of threat. It's job was to launch the Jihad. Others are fighting the war now.

The Tortoise and Obama

Nobody likes anti-climax, except for maybe Israel. After heightened speculation that President Obama was hammering out his own Middle East peace plan, the smoke cleared and left nothing behind. Apparently Obama has no new plan, only the desire to mediate negotiations between Israel and Palestine. But was it wise to flicker out after all the buildup?

President Obama has very low odds of signing a two-state solution in two years, which apparently is the deadline he’s set.

Israel is more like the hare in this race, confident of winning and prone to lapses in judgement. Never believing the Palestinians will catch up, Israel has grown accustomed to acting unilaterally without fear of reprisal from America or the international community. But while Israeli is in a rush to beat the demographic trends of Palestinians, President Obama is in an even greater rush to win Muslim popularity. Everyone knows how this fable ends.

Obama will encounter fierce resistance from the Palestinians if his intention is to mediate a two-state solution within a two year deadline. Without a new plan Obama is signaling he’s going to stick with Israel, the only actor celebrating the status quo. Of all the arenas he has stepped into, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is most immune to Obama’s oratory. Beautifully crafted rhetoric won’t convince either side to compromise on core demands like Jerusalem or the rights of refugees. What he needed was a moderate plan and courage. Now President Obama is resting his full weight on the Arab Peace Initiative.

But the stress may prove too much.

The Arab Peace Initiative isn’t aligned with Israel’s demands. It must be modified to succeed, but weakening the Palestinian side of the Initiative is bound to insult King Abdullah. Palestinians aren’t likely to settle for anything less than the Initiative outlines either, leading one to wonder what President Obama is hoping to sell. Palestinians aren’t buying Israel’s arguments and continue to lose faith in fair negotiations. Settlements are the tip of the iceberg, buying refugees off is insulting, and Israel wants all of Jerusalem. The middle ground of this conflict is like hunting for Big Foot - it may not exist.

Especially confusing is why President Obama believes he can strike a deal based on the Arab Peace Initiative within two years when all evidence on the ground suggests a two-state solution is more than two years away. Obama can't even obtain a settlement freeze in eight months, so how can he finalize two states in two years? Only one factor truly dictates a rushed approach: the Gaza blockade. Gazans don’t have the time that West Bankers have, but as Obama still refuses to open a dialogue with Hamas, Gaza doesn’t seem to be his motivation.

The realist reason for such haste is Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s recent unilateral proposal for a Palestinian state. If the cause was noble, in that Obama wants the diplomatic process to align with PA movements on the ground, then pushing for two years to synchronize with Fayyad’s plan is a good idea. But this theory isn’t plausible. Rather, Obama has heard an outpouring of Israeli acrimony after Fatah's convention and is trying to fend off Fayyad’s momentum. He definitely put pressure on Israel, but then it passed to Obama. Now he's feeling the heat.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spearheaded the assault, telling reporters, “Palestinian unilateral initiatives do not contribute to a positive dialogue between the parties, and if the unilateral initiative presented by Salaam Fayad is promoted, it will not go unanswered.”

Palestinians can only laugh in uneasiness believing that most unilateral initiatives come from Israel, yet apparently they remain the problem. The peace process isn't’ moving anywhere at this rate.

President Obama must reconsider his strategy, which is too dangerous to employ. He seems to relying on personal character to mediate negotiations, ignoring the fact that this conflict isn’t about him. Yes he is popular around the world, but definitely not in Israel and only marginally in Palestine. Goodwill alone, even if he had Israeli favor, cannot alter the reality in Jerusalem. He’s going to need lots of time, so why set an impossible deadline?

It’s not easy coming up with alternative solutions in Israel and Palestine, but what can be helped is taking the foot off the gas. Obama and his team have been racing full speed for eight months and the peace process has barely moved. While he’s understandably eager to end the conflict and score Muslim popularity, he’ll only lose when he fails to meet his own criteria. Working with Fayyad may postpone his deadline - if progress is visible. Slow and steady is likely to win this race.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a marathon, not a sprint.