The president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan. The one thing everyone could agree on: None of the choices is easy.
AFGHANISTAN / PAKISTAN
White House Eyeing Narrower War Effort - Scott Wilson and Anne E. Kornblutm Washington Post. Senior White House officials have begun to make the case for a policy shift in Afghanistan that would send few, if any, new combat troops to the country and instead focus on faster military training of Afghan forces, continued assassinations of al-Qaeda leaders and support for the government of neighboring Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban. In a three-hour meeting Wednesday at the White House, senior advisers challenged some of the key assumptions in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's blunt assessment of the nearly eight-year-old war, which President Obama has said is being fought to destroy al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and the ungoverned border areas of Pakistan. McChrystal, commander of the 100,000 NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, has asked Obama to quickly endorse his call for a change in military strategy and approve the additional resources he needs to retake the initiative from the resurgent Taliban. But White House officials are resisting McChrystal's call for urgency, which he underscored Thursday during a speech in London, and questioning important elements of his assessment, which calls for a vast expansion of an increasingly unpopular war. One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the meeting, said, "A lot of assumptions - and I don't want to say myths, but a lot of assumptions - were exposed to the light of day."
McChrystal Rejects Scaling Down Afghan Military Aims - John F. Burns, New York Times. The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, used a speech here on Thursday to reject calls for the war effort to be scaled down from defeating the Taliban insurgency to a narrower focus on hunting down Al Qaeda, an option suggested by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as part of the current White House strategy review. After his first 100 days in command in Kabul, General McChrystal chose an audience of military specialists at London’s Institute for Strategic Studies as a platform for a public airing of the confidential assessment of the war he delivered to the Pentagon in late August, parts of which were leaked to news organizations. General McChrystal, 55, did not mention Mr. Biden or his advocacy of a scaled-down war effort during his London speech, and referred only obliquely to the debate within the Obama administration on whether to escalate the American commitment in Afghanistan by accepting his request for up to 40,000 more American troops on top of the 68,000 already deployed there or en route. But he used the London session for a rebuttal of the idea of a more narrowly focused war. When a questioner asked him whether he would support scaling back the American military presence over the next 18 months by relinquishing the battle with the Taliban and focusing on tracking down Al Qaeda, sparing ground troops by hunting Qaeda extremists and their leaders with missiles from remotely piloted aircraft, he replied: “The short answer is: no.” “You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish to be,” he said. “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
McChrystal Defends Military Goals in Afghanistan - Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times. Speaking in London, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said he opposes strategies that would require fewer troops and focus on fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership through drone attacks, airstrikes and similar approaches, according to transcripts and audio recordings of his remarks. Such an approach is favored by some Obama administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden. However, counterinsurgency advocates have said that a narrow war effort would leave the Afghan government unprotected from encroachment by the Taliban or other extremist organizations. The strategy debate is at the heart of a sweeping review requested by President Obama as the administration grapples with a tainted Afghan presidential election, escalating violence and mounting allied casualties.
General McChrystal: Success in Afghanistan is Not Assured - Jennifer Glasse, Voice of America. General Stanley McChrystal, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan says the situation there is serious and success is not assured. Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the general said it is the Afghan people who will decide who is winning or losing. General Stanley McChrystal says there is no simple solution in Afghanistan. "It is complex difficult terrain, both the land and the people, it is a tribal society with a culture vastly different from what most of us are familiar with and it varies around the country, so you cannot assume what is true in one province is true in another," he said. General McChrystal says who is winning right now depends on who you ask. He says it is not a game, but more like a political debate in which both sides claim victory. "We are not the scorekeepers, not NATO, ISAF, not our governments, not even our press. The perception on all those entities will matter, they will affect the situation, but in the end this is going to be decided in the minds and the perceptions of the Afghan people," he added. McChrystal says the force must focus on winning the confidence of the people. He says there have been improvements, in areas such as education and building infrastructure, but in other areas the situation is deteriorating.
US Needs to Redefine Afghan Fight, Top Commander Says - Fred W. Baker III, American Forces Press Service. The war in Afghanistan can be won if forces there change the way they fight, the top military commander on the ground said today. “We must operate and think in a fundamentally new way,” Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said in a speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank. In his first speech since submitting his recent assessment on the situation in Afghanistan, the general said that the fight needs to be redefined - more focused on earning the trust of the Afghan people and less on chasing out the Taliban. McChrystal called the situation in Afghanistan “serious,” and said that in some ways it is deteriorating. He also said that violence is up, not only because there are more troops on the ground, but also because the insurgency has grown. At the same time, McChrystal said, he can point to progress, such as in road construction, healthcare and education. The general said time is critical, and that the war will not “remain winnable indefinitely.” But it is not simply a matter of applying more force to the complex fight, he said. In fact, more is not necessarily better. “We can’t succeed by simply trying harder. We cannot drop three more bombs and have a greater effect; it is much more subtle than that,” McChrystal said. The Afghan people must be protected from all threats, he said. To do that, forces must be out, connected with the people. The Taliban many times rule, not because they are wanted, but because they offer protection and rule of law to the villagers.
Back Your General and Send More Troops, David Miliband Urges Barack Obama - Francis Elliott and Michael Evans, The Times. David Miliband urged President Obama to embrace a renewed “hearts and minds” strategy in Afghanistan as ministers indicated that they would not send more British troops unless the US adopted such an approach. The Foreign Secretary did not mention America by name but called on every government in the coalition to back troops, aid workers and diplomats in support of a clear plan. “We came into this together. We see it through - together,” he told the Labour conference in Brighton. His words reflect a growing concern in the Government over Mr Obama’s apparent reluctance to garner political consent for a troop “surge”, which commanders say is needed to build up the Afghan Army and defeat the Taleban insurgency. General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, wants a revamped counter-insurgency - more forces on the ground engaging civilians and persuading the Taleban to switch sides - as opposed to a counter-terrorism strategy focused on al-Qaeda - reducing troop numbers and attacking militants mostly with drone missile strikes. Last night, David Cameron said that that the first thing he would do if elected prime minister would be to form a war cabinet. He said that it would comprise his Foreign Secretary, Chancellor, Defence Secretary, Home Secretary and the heads of the Armed Forces, MI6 and MI5.
McChrystal Urges European Allies to Show Resolve in Afghanistan - Anthony Faiola, Washington Post. As the White House deliberates over the future of US strategy in Afghanistan, the top American commander there issued a call in Europe on Thursday for "resolve" in the war effort, saying that "time does matter" in charting a new course in the escalating conflict. In his first major speech since issuing a stark assessment calling for up to 40,000 fresh troops within the next year or risk losing the war, Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned of the "serious" risks facing allied forces there. He said the current policy debate over the war may ultimately benefit military strategy by further clarifying the mission's goals. But McChrystal insisted on the need for unwavering commitment and speed in decision making, warning against a downgrading of the definition of success. "We must show resolve," he said before a group of academics, strategists and retired military officers at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. The British, who have the largest number of troops in Afghanistan after the United States, are closely scrutinizing the White House debate. "Uncertainty disheartens our allies and emboldens our foes."
Experts Caution Senators Against US Military Surge in Afghanistan - Cindy Saine, Voice of America. Experts at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday advocated a US strategy in Afghanistan that focuses more on political and economic initiatives than on a military surge. The hearing comes as President Barack Obama is meeting with his top advisers to help him formulate a new strategy for the region. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry began the hearing by highlighting what he called "a landmark change" in the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, as new legislation - co-sponsored by Senator Richard Lugar and approved by both houses of Congress - would triple non-military US assistance to Pakistan. "The Kerry-Lugar initiative signals our determination to put the relationship on a new foundation, with the aspirations of the people of Pakistan front and center," said Senator Kerry. The three experts invited to testify before the committee welcomed the increased aid to Pakistan. But in considering how the United States should move forward in Afghanistan, all three warned of the failure of other countries' attempts to deal with Afghanistan in the past - including occupations by the Soviet Union and Britain.
US Envoy: Bin Laden, Taliban Leadership Operating in Pakistan - Sean Maroney, Voice of America. A senior US diplomat says al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is alive and in Pakistan and fugitive Afghan Taliban leader Mohammad Omar is possibly hiding in the southwestern city of Quetta. Speaking to reporters in Pakistan's capital, US Deputy Chief of Mission Gerald Feierstein said the United States "strongly believes" Osama bin Laden is operating from Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border. He also said US officials believe Quetta has become the control and command center of the Taliban leadership. He said militants move freely across the border with Afghanistan and are responsible for attacks on US and Afghan forces. Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik disagrees, saying the US claims are "mere speculation." "We have categorically told them that [the militants] are not in Quetta. And if they have any real-time information, they should give it to us, and we will take action," he said. While rejecting the US claims, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit warned against any drone attacks in the region. "Baluchistan is not FATA. And so we are in touch with the US on this and we have conveyed our concerns. And we will continue to raise our concerns," he said. US unmanned aircraft, known as drones, have increased attacks recently on suspected al-Qaida and Taliban bases in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Officials say such strikes are believed to have killed several high-level militant commanders, including former Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. There are widespread fears in Pakistan the drones could be turned to focus on suspected Taliban hideouts in the southwestern province of Baluchistan, where Quetta is the capital.
Pakistan to Target Taliban ‘Epicenter’ - Ismail Khan, New York Times. After fighting peripheral wars against militants for the last several years, the military is poised to open a campaign in coming days against the Taliban’s main stronghold in Pakistan’s tribal areas, South Waziristan, according to senior military and security officials. For three months, the military has been drawing up plans, holding in-depth deliberations and studying past operations in the area, where previous campaigns ended in failure and resulted in some of the military’s highest levels of casualties. Even so, military officials said they expected stiff resistance once again in an area that one senior military official called the “epicenter” of the Taliban in Pakistan. It has also become a key base for Al Qaeda. “This is where we will be fighting the toughest of all battles,” the official said. He and other officials did not want to be identified while discussing confidential preparations for the campaign. But they said the military now seemed ready to try to re-enter the area, having decided it could wait no longer. “If we don’t take the battle to them, they will bring the battle to us,” the official said.
Bottomless Pit for US Aid - Kathy Gannon, Associated Press. The United States has long suspected that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India. Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming clear: From 2002 to 2008 - the period when al Qaeda built itself into the formidable group it is today - only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell the Associated Press. The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly, was backed up by other retired and active generals, former bureaucrats and government ministers. At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president, making it easier to divert money intended for the military to bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.
Hillary Clinton vs. Afghan Reality - Washington Times editorial. In a PBS interview on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton dismissed Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's detailed assessment of the situation in Afghanistan. "I respect that because clearly he is the commander on the ground," she said, "but I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counterinsurgencies that are the exact opposite." She said the administration's goal "is to take all of this incoming data and sort it out." We aren't sure what the secretary of state means by "the exact opposite" of Gen. McChrystal's assessment. He concluded that a change was needed in US strategy, further resources were required, the Afghan forces need to be made more effective and that success is achievable. Should we believe the exact opposite - that a change in strategy is not needed, resources are adequate, the Afghan forces are fine as they are, and we are headed for certain failure? Mrs. Clinton is correct that there is no lack of views on the subject. Counterinsurgency "experts" proliferated in Washington after the invasion of Iraq in the same way that the city was suddenly awash in counterterrorism "experts" after the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House is free to pick and choose from among them in the same way a patient can shop for doctors until he gets the diagnosis he likes. Unfortunately, this path is frequently fatal for the patient.
IRAQ
Iraq's Maliki Unveils Broad Coalition - Elizabeth Arrott, Voice of America. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has announced a broad-based coalition to take part in general elections set for January. The bloc hopes to offer an alternative to sectarian-driven politics. The State of Law coalition includes Sunni Muslims, Kurds and Christians, people who have had little voice in Iraqi national politics since the 2003 US-led invasion. Announcing the formation of the broader group Thursday in Baghdad, Mr. al-Maliki said it represents an historic point in the establishment of a new Iraqi state. The coalition of 40 parties includes some of the Shi'ite prime minister's key allies, including oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani, as well as influential Sunni tribal leaders, including those who led the rebellion against al-Qaida inspired militants. The Shi'ite prime minister is also stressing the secular nature of the grouping, in a bid to court voters weary of years of sectarian violence. Reidar Visser is an academic specializing in Iraq with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. "The overwhelming tendency in Iraqi politics for the past two years at the popular level has been towards non-sectarianism, towards less emphasis of sectarian identities," Visser said. "But the political parties have been lagging behind in a way." The broadened State of Law coalition will go up against the leading Shi'ite bloc, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, former allies of Mr. al-Maliki who have the backing of conservative Shi'ite Iran.
Maliki Creates Coalition To Compete in Iraqi Vote - Anthony Shadid, Washington Post. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Thursday unveiled a coalition to compete in parliamentary elections in January that will decide whether he remains in power, as the focus of Iraqi politics moves from months of backroom negotiations over electoral alliances to a contest to sway a largely disenchanted public. Maliki's alliance, the State of Law coalition, continues to be led by his Dawa party, a venerable Shiite Muslim group that has lately sought to portray itself as less sectarian and more nationalist. Its leaders, part of a group critics have called the "impenetrable circle," shared the stage with the prime minister at the announcement. But Maliki has shown a shrewd understanding of political power in the country, and his alliance drew on support from personalities and tribal figures in all of the country's Sunni Muslim provinces. Politics here still follow a sectarian and ethnic formula - Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab and Kurd - but Maliki, himself once seen as an ardently sectarian figure, has wagered on a nationalist platform that stresses a powerful central government, reconciliation, sovereignty, and Iraqi and Arab identity. He is convinced it will help him prevail over his main rival, onetime Shiite allies joined in a coalition called the Iraqi National Alliance.
Iraqi Leader Creates Broad Coalition - Steven Lee Meyers, New York Times. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced the formation of a broad political coalition on Thursday, setting the stage for a parliamentary election campaign dominated by rival blocs claiming to appeal across Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic divides. Mr. Maliki, a Shiite seeking a second term, assembled an array of political figures and tribal leaders in a hotel ballroom inside the heavily fortified Green Zone and pledged that his coalition, State of Law, would represent those “believing in the unity of Iraq and its social diversity.” “The birth of the State of Law coalition is a historic turning point and a qualitative development in the building of a modern Iraqi state,” Mr. Maliki told the gathering. Mr. Maliki’s strategy is something of a gamble, especially after he refused to join a rival coalition, the Iraqi National Alliance, dominated by parties that represent Shiites, who make up a majority among Iraqis. A coalition with Mr. Maliki unchallenged in the top spot was not a surprise, but its unveiling on Thursday was a measure of his ability to draw support across the country, especially in areas where Shiites are a minority.
Maliki Coalition Tries to Bridge Iraq's Deep Sectarian Divisions - Gina Chon, Wall Street Journal. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced a broad new electoral coalition, made up of more than 40 parties, that he hopes will propel him to victory in next year's parliamentary polls. The coalition mirrors a nonsectarian agenda the Shiite prime minister campaigned on this year in local elections. It reaches across Iraq's deep ethno-sectarian divides to include prominent Sunnis, who may help him broaden support beyond his own Shiite constituency. The move comes amid efforts by Mr. Maliki and other politicians to capitalize on growing disaffection among voters over lackluster achievements by Iraq's traditional sectarian and religious parties that have dominated post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Mr. Maliki's State of Law slate enjoyed relative success in local elections in January, running on nonsectarian issues such as security gains. But his new alliance comes with risks, especially in Iraq's mostly Shiite southern heartland, where the political machines of Iraq's biggest Shiite parties are still effective vote-getters. On Thursday, popular Sunni tribal leader Sheikh Ali Hatem Suleiman and several Sunni politicians stood on stage at the Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad alongside Mr. Maliki and other Shiite ministers and lawmakers to announce the alliance.
Some Troops in Iraq May Face Deployment Extension - John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service. The deployments of about 1,600 US troops in Iraq could be extended in the weeks following the national election slated to occur in January, Pentagon officials said today. Some 1,000 soldiers from the Army’s 1st Cavalry Headquarters in Baghdad could be asked to stay up to 23 days longer and some 600 Marines from the II Marine Expeditionary Force in Anbar province could be extended up to 79 days, according to defense officials. Gen. Raymond Odierno said current military thinking is to maintain force levels between 110,000 and 120,000 troops for the two months after the January election but ahead of a massive US force reduction expected before next fall. “What we'll do is we'll hold that in place through the elections and about 60 days after the elections,” he told Pentagon reporters today. “And depending on how that goes, it's peaceful, and then we will make a determination of coming down to the 50,000-transition force by the first of September.” Odierno said he would prefer extending for a few weeks the deployments of soldiers already in Iraq over bringing in new troops during the critical post-election phase. “What I don't want to do is bring in a brand new division headquarters, for example, for the elections,” he said, noting that the troops subject to the extension are the exception, not the rule. “I just want to wait till a couple weeks after the elections.” The Marine extension, he said, is necessitated by the need for extra time to get equipment and materiel from the country as the Marine mission in Iraq comes to a close. The announcement of possible deployment extensions comes a day after Odierno told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the United States may be able to draw down troop levels in Iraq quicker than expected if progress there continues.
IRAN
World Powers and Iran Agree to More Talks on Nuclear Issues - Lisa Schlein, Voice of America. In a sign of progress, six world powers and Iran have agreed to meet again in the coming weeks to discuss nuclear weapons and other issues. The meeting took place after a 15-month pause in which concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions have grown. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and Iran agree that the meeting laid the groundwork for an ongoing, productive dialogue. European Union Foreign Secretary, Javier Solana calls it the start of an intensive process. He says all issues related to Iran's nuclear program were put on the negotiating table, including a detailed review of the six-powers' freeze-to-freeze proposal. Under this proposal, Iran would agree to freeze its uranium enrichment program in exchange for a freeze on sanctions and a package of economic incentives. Iran did not respond to the proposal when it was made last year. Solana says the parties have agreed to intensify dialogue in the coming weeks.
Iran, Major Powers Reach Agreement On Series of Points - Glenn Kessler, Washington Post. The United States and Iran tentatively stepped back from looming confrontation on Thursday, as the Islamic republic reached an agreement with major powers that would greatly reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium and reset the diplomatic clock for a solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. The outcome, which President Obama in Washington called a "constructive beginning," came after 7 1/2 hours of talks in an 18th-century villa on the outskirts of Geneva that included the highest-level bilateral meeting between the two countries since relations were severed three decades ago after the Iranian revolution. But the difficulties that lie ahead were illustrated when the chief Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, held a triumphant news conference at which he denounced "media terrorism," insisted that Iran has always fully met its international commitments, and refused even to acknowledge a question from an Israeli reporter. The sudden show of cooperation by Tehran reduces for now the threat of additional sanctions, which has been made repeatedly by the United States and others over the past week after the revelation of a secret Iranian nuclear facility. The United States will need to keep the pressure on Iran to avoid being dragged into a process without end.
Iran, World Powers Plan Second Round of Nuclear Talks - Paul Richter and Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times. Iran and the major powers will hold another round of negotiations on the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear program, officials said today after completing talks in Geneva, where representatives of Washington and Tehran held a rare one-on-one meeting. Iran also said it would allow the inspection of its uranium enrichment plant near Qom, said Javier Solana, the EU's top foreign policy official. That could come within weeks, he said, adding that the next talks among Iran and six world powers will be held this month. US officials were cautiously upbeat about the talks, but added that they waited to see what Iran actually does. "Today's meeting was a constructive beginning but it must be followed with constructive action by the Iranian government," President Obama said this afternoon. Obama said Iran must grant "unfettered access" to the Qom site. Iran must also demonstrate its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Obama mentioned that Iran had agreed in principle to allow enrichment of a small amount of uranium for medical research outside the country. That is considered a positive sign because it could eliminate the need for Iran to have an enrichment program of its own. But the president warned that US patience was not infinite.
Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia - Steven Erlanger and Mark Landler, New York Times. Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said. Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing - if it happens - would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit. If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded. The officials described the long day of talks here with Iran, the first such discussions in which the United States has participated fully, as a modest success on a long and complicated road. Iran had at least finally engaged with the big powers on its nuclear program after more than a year and had agreed to some tangible, confidence-building steps before another meeting with the same participants before the end of this month.
Iran Agrees to Transfer Uranium Abroad - Marc Champion and Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal. Iran agreed to transfer the bulk of its known nuclear fuel to other countries to enrich it, Western officials said. The officials said the surprise move could temporarily reduce Tehran's potential to make bombs, but analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program. In Tehran's first face-to-face talks with the Obama administration and allies over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government also agreed to allow United Nations inspectors to visit a previously clandestine uranium-enrichment facility near Qom in north-central Iran, which the US and Europe exposed last week and fear could be used to bring the nation closer to an atomic weapon. The parties also agreed to more talks this month. The steps had the potential to lead to a diplomatic shift after many years of bitter stalemate. But critics warned the apparent concessions offered by Iran could represent a strategy to play for time and dodge sanctions or other repercussions, while avoiding any pledge to generally scale back its nuclear ambitions.
Obama: Iran Must Give Inspectors Complete Access To Nuclear Plant - Kent Klein, Voice of America. US President Barack Obama is demanding that Iran give international inspectors complete access to its newly-disclosed nuclear facility. The president spoke after Iranian representatives met in Switzerland with the US and five other world powers. President Obama says Thursday's meeting was a constructive beginning, but he says the Iranian government must now take constructive action. Specifically, he wants Iran to allow United Nations nuclear inspectors complete access to its recently-revealed atomic facility. "Since Iran has now agreed to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks," he said. The US, Britain and France recently presented evidence that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility in the city of Qom. Mr. Obama is calling on Iran to demonstrate that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. "If Iran takes concrete steps and lives up to its obligations, there is a path toward a better relationship with the United States, increased integration for Iran within the international community, and a better future for all Iranians," he said.
Israel's Doubts On Talks Allayed - Howard Schneider and Joby Warrick, Washington Post. When President Obama announced efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program through diplomatic engagement, the concern in Israel was that open-ended talks would allow the Islamic republic time to continue toward its suspected goal of developing a nuclear weapon. But as that engagement took its first major step Thursday in meetings in Geneva, the Israelis were tempering their doubts. The recent disclosure of a second Iranian uranium-enrichment plant appears to have stiffened the resolve of the United States and other Western powers, Israeli officials and analysts said. While many here see the plant's existence as proof that the Iranians were moving beyond an energy program to produce bomb-grade uranium, the United States' apparent new determination has alleviated some fears that the talks would lead nowhere. "Most people in Israel were a little surprised by the new tactics Obama was proposing. He wanted to engage Iran, seemingly hopeful that by offering carrots and not wielding a stick he could do business with them," said former Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens. "I think now that the president and the people around him have been disabused of this view."
Israel Tones Down Warnings of Strike on Iran as Diplomatic Efforts Intensify - Luis Ramirez, Voice of America. Israel has for some time warned it is ready to launch preemptive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities at any time. With international pressure growing on Iran to freeze its nuclear program, analysts say Israeli leaders are toning down those warnings and giving diplomacy a chance to work. Iran's Islamist leaders have for decades called for Israel to be eliminated from the pages of history, fueling calls by many Israelis for their government to strike and destroy the Iranians' ability to make nuclear weapons. For months, Israel warned it was ready for an immediate preemptive strike on Iranian targets much like the ones it conducted in the past against Syria, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Recent remarks by Israeli officials, however, indicate Israel may be toning down its approach. A major Israeli newspaper last month quoted Defense Minister Ehud Barak as suggesting Iran is not such a big menace to the Jewish State. The paper quoted Mr. Barak as saying he does not think Israel is on the brink of a new Holocaust in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat. The remark appeared to be a retreat from earlier statements in which the Israeli government presented Iran's nuclear ambitions as a threat to the existence of the Jewish State.
This Year in Geneva - Washington Post editorial. The Obama administration's first formal diplomatic encounter with Iran had much in common with the Bush administration's last one. On July 19, 2008, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns joined officials from five other nations in Geneva as they presented Iranian representative Saeed Jalili with a proposal they called "freeze for freeze." On Thursday Mr. Burns, now representing the Obama administration, joined the same five governments in the same city with the same Iranian official - and once again "freeze for freeze" was on the table. The proposal calls for Iran to stop expanding its uranium enrichment operations for six weeks in exchange for a halt in sanctions action by the UN Security Council; during that time the two sides would discuss a full suspension of Iranian enrichment in exchange for the negotiation of a package of economic benefits and security guarantees.
Springtime for Mullahs - Wall Street Journal editorial. From Geneva yesterday come all kinds of good diplomatic vibrations. Iran may allow UN inspectors into a recently unveiled uranium-enrichment plant "within two weeks." Another meeting will be held before month's end. A "freeze" on sanctions was bruited about. In an appearance at the White House, President Obama sounded sober but hopeful, calling the direct American talks with the Islamic Republic "a constructive beginning" toward "serious and meaningful engagement." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was presumably in even better spirits at his remarkable change of fortune. A month ago, Iran's president was struggling to cement his grip on power after stealing an election and repressing nationwide protests. A week ago, the disclosure of the secret facility near Qom highlighted Iran's chronic prevarication and raised calls for more sanctions. By yesterday, all that had changed. At the 18th-century Villa Le Saugy, Iran's representative sat among the world's powers as a respected equal. Responding to an overture from the Obama Administration, the Iranians even talked about the future of the UN and other nonnuclear issues. Meanwhile, Washington was "buzzing" (as one newspaper put it) that a one-day visit by Iran's foreign minister might signal more detente to come. Back in Tehran, Mr. Ahmadinejad floated a tete-a-tete with the US President. In short, this engagement conferred a respectability on his regime that Mr. Ahmadinejad could only have imagined amid his vicious post-election crackdown.
Obama's French Lesson - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post opinion. When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable." You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions. Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia ... what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority -- and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.
The Power, and Threat, of Iran - Alastair Crooke, Los Angeles Times opinion. It was pure drama: The leaders of the United States, Britain and France stepped onto the stage at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh last week to unveil Western intelligence that showed Iran had a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility under construction, a fact Iran had declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency the preceding Monday. The Western leaders implied that their revelation was devastating for Iran as a credible player. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates subsequently pronounced Iran to be "boxed in" and "in a very bad spot now." But anyone who listened to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with Time magazine the day of the presentation, and to subsequent Iranian statements, will be clear that Iran, at least, does not see itself as boxed in. Far from it. Ahmadinejad exuded confidence and simply - and nonaggressively - counseled President Obama not to go down this route. It might seem counterintuitive to most Americans and Europeans, but Ahmadinejad's advice might be worth pondering.
Leaving Israel With No Choice? - Michael Gerson, Washington Post opinion. On June 7, 1981, Israeli F-15s and F-16s took off for the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, after the pilots were emotionally briefed that "the alternative is our destruction." In fact, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had no idea whether the raid would stop the Iraqi nuclear program or merely slow it. But slowing it was reason enough. Since the George W. Bush administration, the American military has estimated that an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would only delay the development of its program. "The reality is," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said recently, "there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so." But for several months, high-ranking Israeli officials have been telling American visitors that buying time may be worth it. The Osirak raid, after all, turned out to be an unexpectedly decisive blow. And who knows what political changes might take place in Iran during a few years of nuclear breathing space? Not many Israelis would need to be convinced by this argument - a recommendation would go from the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to the security cabinet and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Perhaps a dozen people could shake the world.
UNITED STATES
GOP Targets Obama's Foreign Policy - Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times. As he embraces direct talks with Iran and weighs his strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is facing a new political threat from Republicans: Be hawkish on foreign policy or risk letting your party be painted as weak in next year's midterm elections. Top Republicans have adopted that line of attack in recent days, led by congressional leaders and at least two of the party's possible 2012 presidential contenders. Their warnings to the president mark a shift in tone and tactics for a Republican Party that had been largely supportive of Obama administration policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP lost its long-held advantage as the party of national security when the public rejected the policies of former President George W. Bush in the 2006 and 2008 elections. But now, Republican strategists say that foreign policy could prove to be a potent weapon in 2010. The Republican strategists are poring over Obama speeches, such as his June address to the Muslim world, that they can portray as apologies for American actions abroad. Additionally, GOP strategists are homing in on Obama's recent policy shift on missile defense, in which the administration decided to cancel a radar installation in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland that had been proposed by Bush to protect Europe from Iranian long-range missiles. Obama wants to focus instead on combating short-range missiles that some intelligence officials say are a more likely threat.
AFRICA
US Delays Somalia Aid, Fearing It Is Feeding Terrorists - Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times. One in five Somali children is wasting away from malnutrition. Tens of thousands need urgent medical care to survive. The whole middle belt of the country is teetering on the brink of famine. United Nations officials say Somalia has not been in such perilous shape since the central government collapsed in 1991 and is in desperate need of help. But right now that help is being delayed, they say, at least partly because the American government is worried that its aid is going to feed terrorists. American officials are concerned that United Nations contractors may be funneling American donations to the Shabab, a Somali terrorist group with growing ties to Al Qaeda. United Nations officials say the American government has been withholding millions of dollars in aid shipments while a new set of rules is worked out to better police the distribution of aid. Few aid officials believe that the American government will actually shut off the spigot of life-saving assistance to Somalia when a punishing drought is sweeping across the region. But at least $50 million in American aid has been delayed as talks continue, United Nations officials said. Meanwhile, there is only enough emergency food to last Somalia four more weeks, they said.
AMERICAS
Kerry's Attempt to Block DeMint's Honduras Trip Reveals Policy Feud - Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post. A simmering feud over US policy toward Latin America burst into the open Thursday when Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) tried to prevent a fact-finding trip to Honduras by a Republican senator who is blocking two important diplomatic appointments. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) denounced Kerry's move on the Senate floor and sought the intervention of the minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Republican leader appealed to the Defense Department to provide an aircraft for DeMint's trip and the Pentagon agreed to do so, according to the South Carolina senator's office. "These bullying tactics by the Obama administration and Senator Kerry must stop, and we must be allowed to get to the truth in Honduras," DeMint said in a statement. His spokesman, Wesley Denton, called Kerry's action "unprecedented." Kerry fired back in a news release: "Senator DeMint's statement wins an A for 'audacity.' Thanks to his intransigence, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can't even hold hearings on our policy in Central and South America."
At 3 Inches Tall, La Morenita Casts a Big Shadow in Honduran Crisis - Nicholas Casey, Wall Street Journal. In the past three months, a slew of Latin American presidents, foreign ministers, ambassadors and even a Nobel Peace Prize winner, have failed to find a solution to the political standoff that has split Honduras. Now, many despairing Hondurans say, may be time for a little divine intervention. So every day, more and more Hondurans are calling on the Virgin of Suyapa, a 3-inch statuette of the Virgin Mary, made of dark wood and nicknamed La Morenita, or the Little Dark One, for help. Over the centuries, La Morenita, which was found on a hillside in 1747 and now makes its home at a small whitewashed colonial church near the capital, has been credited with sundry miracles, from curing kidney stones to ending a brief war. "I've asked her to intervene," said Abad Zelaya, 42 years old, a pharmacist and no relation to ousted President Manuel Zelaya, who has been holed up in the Brazilian embassy for more than a week since he sneaked back into Tegucigalpa. Mr. Zelaya's ouster three months ago has led many countries, including the US, to suspend aid to one of the hemisphere's poorest countries.
Ecuador's Shuar Gird for Conflict After Protest - Associated Press. Several hundred Shuar Indians wearing black war paint and toting wooden spears on Thursday reinforced a highway blockade that police failed to break up earlier in a bloody melee that left one Indian dead and at least 40 police injured. Police pulled out of the southeastern jungle region on orders from leftist President Rafael Correa, who is in an intensifying dispute with indigenous groups that say proposed legislation would allow mining on their lands without their consent and lead to the privatization of water. The Shuar maintained a traffic blockade of burning tires and wire fencing they had mounted on Monday, and vowed not to lift it until he comes to negotiate with them - personally. Correa says talks can't start until Indians abandon the blockades. ''With us its all dialogue, no force,'' Correa told Publica radio Thursday. Ecuador's government and indigenous groups traded blame for Wednesday's clash in which police used tear gas to try to break up the roadblock. The government says Indians responded with shotgun fire. Ecuador's Amazon Indian federation, CONFENAIE, said 500 police provoked the violence by attacking the Shuar and one indigenous leader accused Correa of ''declaring a civil war.''
ASIA PACIFIC
China Is Wordless on Traumas of Communists’ Rise - Andrew Jacobs, New York Times. Unlike in other cities taken by the People’s Liberation Army during China’s civil war, there were no crowds to greet the victors as they made their triumphant march through the streets of this industrial city in the heart of Manchuria. Even if relieved to learn that hostilities with Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Army had come to an end, most residents - the ones who had not died during the five-month siege - were simply too weak to go outdoors. “We were just lying in bed starving to death,” said Zhang Yinghua, now 86, as she recalled the famine that claimed the lives of her brother, her sister and most of her neighbors. “We couldn’t even crawl.” In what China’s history books hail as one of the war’s decisive victories, Mao’s troops starved out the formidable Nationalist garrison that occupied Changchun with nary a shot fired. What the official story line does not reveal is that at least 160,000 civilians also died during the siege of the northeastern city, which lasted from June to October of 1948.
Myanmar Court Rejects Dissident’s Appeal - Associated Press. A court in military-ruled Myanmar rejected opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi's latest bid for freedom Friday, turning down the Nobel Peace laureate's appeal of her most recent sentence of house arrest, her lawyer said. Suu Kyi was convicted and sentenced in August for briefly sheltering an uninvited American at her home earlier this year, in a verdict that drew international condemnation and ensured that she would not be able to participate in elections scheduled for next year. She argued in the appeal that the conviction was unwarranted, but the Yangon Division court ruled against her, lawyer Nyan Win said. He said Suu Kyi's legal team would file a new appeal to the Supreme Court within 60 days, and that Friday's proceedings had opened a new possibility for the defense's legal arguments.
In Sumatra, a Search for Quake Survivors - Andrew Higgins, Washington Post. A powerful earthquake on the Indonesian island of Sumatra has left a vibrant port city heaped with corpses sealed in canary-yellow body bags as soldiers and rescue workers searched for life early Friday beneath rubble entombing possibly thousands of people. Officials said at least 777 people died in a 7.6-magnitude quake Wednesday that flattened schools, shops and a hospital in Padang, a city of 900,000 on the west coast of Sumatra. They predicted that the death toll would rise. The quake also shook Singapore and Malaysia's capital, Kuala Lumpur. A second, less severe quake hit another part of Sumatra on Thursday. Often armed with little more than their bare hands, Padang residents labored through the night to find relatives and friends buried in the ruins. Sirens wailed as ambulances wound through wreckage-strewn streets and scattered fires flared from broken fuel lines. Power cuts and a shortage of medicine forced surgeons to halt operations in a hospital overflowing with gravely injured people.
EUROPE
Poland, Czech Republic May Get Roles in Missile Defense - Walter Pincus, Washington Post. Poland and the Czech Republic are being offered roles in the Obama administration's new plan to defend Europe against Iran's development and deployment of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, senior administration officials told Congress on Thursday. Obama's decision two weeks ago to halt the Bush administration's plan to put 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic was based on a new intelligence assessment in May that said Iran has slowed its development of an intercontinental ballistic missile that could strike the United States. Instead, the report said, Iran is focused on rapid production of a shorter-range missile that could be used to attack Israel and other countries in the region where US forces are stationed. On Thursday, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen O. Tauscher, told the House Armed Services Committee that the new plan, which is to use ship-based Aegis radars and their related Standard missile interceptors, would be "a very robust system that deals with the current threat now and protects NATO allies first." Tauscher said the multiple Iranian missile launches earlier this week "visibly demonstrate the nature of this threat."
That Nasty Little War - New York Times editorial. A report by the European Union on last year’s brief but nasty war between Russia and Georgia confirms what we have long suspected: everyone is to blame. Georgia is to blame because its blustering president, Mikheil Saakashvili, initiated a foolhardy attack into South Ossetia; Russia because it bullied and goaded Mr. Saakashvili and then used the attack as an excuse to invade Georgia; the United States because it tacitly encouraged Mr. Saakashvili for far too long; and Europe because it did nothing at all. None of that may be surprising. But the report is still worth reading as an anatomy of a post-Soviet mess that was allowed to fester for too long - and could erupt again unless all sides show a lot more sense. Unfortunately, neither the Russians nor the Georgians seem interested in learning anything. The Georgian government continues to insist - despite the report’s findings - that the Russian invasion was already under way when it decided to send in its own troops. Georgia’s ambassador to the European Union said that if the investigators didn’t think Georgia’s citizens deserved protection “then that’s a matter of opinion.”
MIDDLE EAST
Obama Keeps Israel's Nuke Secret - Eli Lake, Washington Times. President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said. The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama conveyed the message when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May. Under the understanding, the US has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs. Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The US and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.
Palestinians Halt Push on War Report - Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times. In a startling shift, the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council dropped its efforts to forward a report accusing Israel of possible war crimes to the Security Council, under pressure from the United States, diplomats said Thursday. The Americans argued that pushing the report now would derail the Middle East peace process that they are trying to revive, diplomats said. “We don’t want to create an obstacle for them,” Ibrahim Khraishi, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, said by telephone from Geneva, where the Human Rights Council is based. “We want to get a strong resolution to deal with the report in a good manner to get a benefit from it.” The report - produced by a panel of investigators led by an internationally respected jurist, Richard Goldstone - found extensive evidence that both Israel and Palestinian militant groups took actions amounting to war crimes during the Gaza war last winter. Israel says that it acted only to halt missile fire from Gaza that terrorized Israeli civilians.
BOOKS
Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan - Doug Stanton.
Horse Soldiers tells the important story of the Special Forces soldiers who first put American boots on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. Fighting alongside the Northern Alliance, the troops, often riding on horseback, achieved several important victories against the Taliban.
War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age - Thomas Rid and Marc Hecker.
War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age argues that two intimately connected trends are putting modern armies under huge pressure to adapt: the rise of insurgencies and the rise of the Web. Both in cyberspace and in warfare, the grassroots public has assumed increasing importance in recent years. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Web 2.0 rose from the ashes. This newly interactive and participatory form of the Web promotes and enables offline action. Similarly, after Rumsfeld's attempt to transform the US military into a lean, lethal, computerized force crashed in Iraq in 2003, counterinsurgency rose from the ashes. Counterinsurgency is a social form of war - indeed, the US Army calls it armed social work - in which the local matrix population becomes the center of strategic gravity and public opinion at home the critical vulnerability.
The New Counterinsurgency Era: Transforming the U.S. Military for Modern Wars - David H. Ucko.
Confronting insurgent violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military has recognized the need to "re-learn" counterinsurgency. But how has the Department of Defense with its mixed efforts responded to this new strategic environment? Has it learned anything from past failures? In The New Counterinsurgency Era, David Ucko examines DoD's institutional obstacles and initially slow response to a changing strategic reality.
Journey into Darkness: Genocide in Rwanda - Thomas P. Odom.
In July 1994, Thomas P. Odom was part of the US Embassy team that responded to the Goma refugee crisis. He witnessed the deaths of 70,000 refugees in a single week. In the previous three months of escalating violence, the Rwandan genocide had claimed 800,000 dead. Now, in this vivid and unsettling new book, Odom offers the first insider look at these devastating events before, during, and after the genocide.
Joker One: A Marine Platoon’s Story of Courage - Donovan Campbell.
Donovan Campbell, first as a Marine and then as a writer, shows us that the dominant emotion in war isn’t hatred or anger or fear. It’s love. His story stands as a poignant tribute to his men–their courage, their dedication, their skill, and their love for one another, even unto death.
The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose - Anthony Zinni and Tony Koltz
The intellectual complement to Zinni and Clancy's bestselling Battle Ready (2004), a narrative memoir salted with specific policy recommendations, this volume provides the former US Central Command chief's analysis of America's current global position. Zinni begins by asserting that America's status as "the most powerful nation in the history of the planet" has created a de facto empire. The US has no choice: if it fails to take the lead, nothing significant happens. At the same time, Americans must recognize that, in a global age, there can be no zero-sum games.
The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier's Education - Craig Mullaney
The Unforgiving Minute is the ultimate's soldier's book - universal in its raw emotion and its understanding of the larger issues of life and death. Mullaney, a master storyteller, plunges the depths of self-doubt, endurance, and courage. The result: a riveting, suspenseful human story, beautifully told. This is a book written under fire - a lyrical, spellbinding tale of war, love, and courage. The Unforgiving Minute is the Three Cups of Tea of soldiering.
Great Powers: America and the World after Bush - Thomas P.M. Barnett
In civilian and military circles alike, The Pentagon’s New Map became one of the most talked about books of 2004. “A combination of Tom Friedman on globalization and Carl von Clausewitz on war, [it is] the red-hot book among the nation’s admirals and generals,” wrote David Ignatius in The Washington Post. Barnett’s second book, Blueprint for Action, demonstrated how to put the first book’s principles to work. Now, in Great Powers, Barnett delivers his most sweeping - and important - book of all.
The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One - David Kilcullen
A remarkably fresh perspective on the War on Terror. Kilcullen takes us "on the ground" to uncover the face of modern warfare, illuminating both the big global war (the "War on Terrorism") and its relation to the associated "small wars" across the globe: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Chechnya, Pakistan and North Africa.
The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 - Thomas Ricks
Thomas E. Ricks uses hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews with top officers in Iraq and extraordinary on-the-ground reportage to document the inside story of the Iraq War since late 2005 as only he can, examining the events that took place as the military was forced to reckon with itself, the surge was launched, and a very different war began.
Why Vietnam Matters: An Eyewitness Account of Lessons Not Learned - Rufus Phillips
Phillips details how the legendary Edward G. Lansdale helped the South Vietnamese gain and consolidate their independence between 1954 and 1956, and how this later changed to a reliance on American conventional warfare with its highly destructive firepower. He reasons that our failure to understand the Communists, our South Vietnamese allies, or even ourselves took us down the wrong road. In summing up US errors in Vietnam, Phillips draws parallels with the American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and suggests changes in the US approach. Known for his intellectual integrity and firsthand, long-term knowledge of what went on in Vietnam, the author offers lessons for today in this trenchant account.
Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander's War in Iraq - Peter Mansoor
This is a unique contribution to the burgeoning literature on the Iraq war, analyzing the day-to-day performance of a US brigade in Baghdad during 2004-2005. Mansoor uses a broad spectrum of sources to address the military, political and cultural aspects of an operation undertaken with almost no relevant preparation, which tested officers and men to their limits and generated mistakes and misjudgments on a daily basis. The critique is balanced, perceptive and merciless - and Mansoor was the brigade commander. Military history is replete with command memoirs. Most are more or less self-exculpatory. Even the honest ones rarely achieve this level of analysis. The effect is like watching a surgeon perform an operation on himself. Mansoor has been simultaneously a soldier and a scholar, able to synergize directly his military and academic experiences.
The Strongest Tribe: War, Politics, and the Endgame in Iraq - Bing West
From a universally respected combat journalist, a gripping history based on five years of front-line reporting about how the war was turned around - and the choice now facing America. We interpret reality through the clouded prism of our own experience, so it is unsurprising that Bing West sees Iraq through the lens of Vietnam. He served as a Marine officer there, and he thinks politicians and the media caused the American public to turn against a war that could have been won. Now a correspondent for the Atlantic, West has made 15 reporting trips to Iraq over the last six years and is almost as personally invested in the current conflict as he was in Vietnam; this book, his third on Iraq, is his attempt to ensure that the "endgame" in Iraq turns out better than in his last war.
Tell Me How This Ends: General David Petraeus and the Search for a Way Out of Iraq - Linda Robinson
After a series of disastrous missteps in its conduct of the war, the White House in 2006 appointed General David Petraeus as the Commanding General of the coalition forces. Tell Me How This Ends is an inside account of his attempt to turn around a failing war. Linda Robinson conducted extensive interviews with Petraeus and his subordinate commanders and spent weeks with key US and Iraqi divisions. The result is the only book that ties together military operations in Iraq and the internecine political drama that is at the heart of the civil war. Replete with dramatic battles, behind-doors confrontations, and astute analysis, the book tells the full story of the Iraq War’s endgame, and lays out the options that will be facing the next president.
The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008 - Bob Woodward
Woodward interviewed key players, obtained dozens of never-before-published documents, and had nearly three hours of exclusive interviews with President Bush. The result is a stunning, firsthand history of the years from mid-2006, when the White House realizes the Iraq strategy is not working, through the decision to surge another 30,000 US troops in 2007, and into mid-2008, when the war becomes a fault line in the presidential election. As violence in Iraq reaches unnerving levels in 2006, a second front in the war rages at the highest levels of the Bush administration. In his fourth book on President George W. Bush, Bob Woodward takes readers deep inside the tensions, secret debates, unofficial backchannels, distrust and determination within the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the intelligence agencies and the US military headquarters in Iraq. With unparalleled intimacy and detail, this gripping account of a president at war describes a period of distress and uncertainty within the US government from 2006 through mid-2008. The White House launches a secret strategy review that excludes the military. General George Casey, the commander in Iraq, believes that President Bush does not understand the war and eventually concludes he has lost the president's confidence. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also conduct a secret strategy review that goes nowhere. On the verge of revolt, they worry that the military will be blamed for a failure in Iraq.
We Are Soldiers Still: A Journey Back to the Battlefields of Vietnam - Harold Moore and Joe Galloway
In their stunning follow-up to the classic bestseller We Were Soldiers Once... and Young, Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and Joe Galloway return to Vietnam and reflect on how the war changed them, their men, their enemies, and both countries - often with surprising results. It would be a monumental task for Moore and Galloway to top their classic 1992 memoir. But they come close in this sterling sequel, which tells the backstory of two of the Vietnam War's bloodiest battles (in which Moore participated as a lieutenant colonel), their first book and a 1993 ABC-TV documentary that brought them back to the battlefield. Moore's strong first-person voice reviews the basics of the November 1965 battles, part of the 34-day Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. Among other things, Moore and Galloway (who covered the battle for UPI) offer portraits of two former enemy commanders, generals Nguyen Huu An and Chu Huy Man, whom the authors met - and bonded with - nearly three decades after the battle. This book proves again that Moore is an exceptionally thoughtful, compassionate and courageous leader (he was one of a handful of army officers who studied the history of the Vietnam wars before he arrived) and a strong voice for reconciliation and for honoring the men with whom he served.
In a Time of War: The Proud and Perilous Journey of West Point' Class of 2002 - Bill Murphy
The West Point cadets Murphy follows through their baptism by fire are an admirable sample of young American men and women: intelligent, ambitious and intensely patriotic. Most come from career military families and hold conservative opinions. Murphy describes their four years at West Point with respect even when discussing their love lives and marriages. All yearn for battle, and most get their wish. The book's best passages describe the confusion of moving to Iraq or Afghanistan and fighting insurgents, for which they lack both training and equipment. All feel something is not right but concentrate on the job at hand; some inevitably die or are grievously wounded.
Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy - Steven Metz
Today the US military is more nimble, mobile, and focused on rapid responses against smaller powers than ever before. One could argue that the Gulf War and the postwar standoff with Saddam Hussein hastened needed military transformation and strategic reassessments in the post–Cold War era. But the preoccupation with Iraq also mired the United States in the Middle East and led to a bloody occupation. What will American strategy look like after US troops leave Iraq? Metz concludes that the United States has a long-standing, continuing problem “developing sound assumptions when the opponent operates within a different psychological and cultural framework.” He sees a pattern of misjudgments about Saddam and Iraq based on Western cultural and historical bias and a pervasive faith in the superiority of America’s worldview and institutions. This myopia contributed to America being caught off guard by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, then underestimating his longevity, and finally miscalculating the likelihood of a stable and democratic Iraq after he was toppled. With lessons for all readers concerned about America’s role in the world, Dr. Metz’s important new work will especially appeal to scholars and students of strategy and international security studies, as well as to military professionals and DOD civilians. With a foreword by Colin S. Gray.
