Days after President Obama outlines his new war strategy in a speech Tuesday, as many as 9,000 Marines will begin final preparations to deploy to southern Afghanistan and renew an assault on a Taliban stronghold that slowed this year amid a troop shortage and political pressure from the Afghan government, senior US officials said.

-- Washington Post

AFGHANISTAN / PAKISTAN

Obama Prepares for Afghan Speech, Senators Offer Advice - Paula Wolfson, Voice of America. As US President Barack Obama prepares to announce his new Afghan strategy, members of Congress are offering last-minute advice. Mr. Obama will spell out his plan Tuesday in a speech to the nation from the US Military Academy at West Point, as lawmakers get back to work after a holiday recess. Congressional support will be crucial to President Obama's plan, since lawmakers must approve the funding. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Senate Armed Services committee, says the president's focus must be on bolstering the Afghan army. "The key here is an Afghan surge. Not an American surge," he said. Levin told the CBS program Face the Nation that President Obama must detail a strategy that will ultimately enable the Afghans to protect themselves. "If the mission is to give them the capacity to take on the Taliban - and I believe that will be the principle mission statement - that would be one important thing to happen for Democratic support," he said. Afghanistan is one area where the president may be able to count on Republican support. Members of the opposition party in Congress have been calling for an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. Among them is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Armed Services committee. "This is not just any place on the planet. This is the place where the Taliban took control after the Russians left, aligned themselves with al-Qaida and attacked this nation and killed 3000 Americans," he said.

Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan to Envision Exit - Peter Baker, Eric Schmitt and David E. Sanger, New York Times. President Obama plans to lay out a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan when he announces his decision this week to send more forces, senior administration officials said Sunday. Although the speech was still in draft form, the officials said the president wanted to use the address at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday night not only to announce the immediate order to deploy roughly 30,000 more troops, but also to convey how he intends to turn the fight over to the Kabul government. “It’s accurate to say that he will be more explicit about both goals and time frame than has been the case before and than has been part of the public discussion,” said a senior official, who requested anonymity to discuss the speech before it is delivered. “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.” The officials would not disclose the time frame. But they said it would not be tied to particular conditions on the ground nor would it be as firm as the current schedule for withdrawing troops in Iraq, where Mr. Obama has committed to withdrawing most combat units by August and all forces by the end of 2011.

Obama’s West Point Speech Must Explain Why Afganistan is Not His Vietnam - Giles Whittell and Michael Evans, The Times. Seldom can a speech be called historic before it is delivered, but the one that President Obama will make tomorrow night already qualifies. In one address at the West Point military academy, the Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces must convince Afghanistan, Pakistan and his own generals that his commitment to prevailing against al-Qaeda and the Taleban is unwavering. Mr Obama must also persuade his party and the American people that he has settled at last on a strategy for extricating America from the Afghan conflict with US honour and security intact. For Mr Obama, it is the speech that must explain why Afghanistan is not his Vietnam. For 9,000 US Marines and 500 British soldiers now in barracks in Chester, the effect will be rapid deployment to a war zone that in many respects resembles the South-East Asian quagmire that still haunts American strategic thinking. The first wave of reinforcements will confront the Taleban head on where it is strongest, in the opium industry stronghold of Marjeh in Helmand province, and with a new security cordon round Kandahar in the southeast, officials from the Pentagon and White House told the Washington Post at the weekend. From the outset there will be “some pretty stiff fighting”, General James Conway told Marines in Kabul on a Thanksgiving visit. Further deployments of up to 25,000 US personnel and at least 5,000 more from other NATO countries are expected over the next 18 months, for a total surge of up to 40,000 Western troops - the number requested by General Stanley McChrystal in his August assessment of the requirements for a full-scale counter-insurgency against the Taleban.

Obama Faces Hard Sell on Afghan Decision - Matthew Mosk, Washington Times. President Obama will attempt to persuade the American public this week that more time, troops and money will accomplish what eight years of effort and every outside power in history have failed to achieve - a measure of military success in Afghanistan. The details and justification for Mr. Obama's new war policy will be the focus of a major address at the US Military Academy at West Point, NY, on Tuesday. It comes after months of study and preparation, and is widely viewed by foreign-policy specialists as the most consequential decision of his short tenure, carrying with it the potential for enormous costs both in human lives and increasingly scarce financial resources. "The significance of the decision cannot be understated," said Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who assisted Gen. David H. Petraeus with strategic planning for the US war effort in Iraq and now teaches military history at Ohio State University. "The president's decision, coming after so many weeks of study and commentary, will set the strategic direction of the conflict in Afghanistan," Mr. Mansoor said. The strategic direction of the eight-year conflict has been the focus of an intensive internal debate at the White House that began over the summer and has since consumed ninelengthy meetings in the Situation Room. There, Mr. Obama has allowed his top generals, his senior foreign-policy advisers, his national-security team and his political aides to debate whether the country should invest more resources in the hopes of bringing security and stability to a lawless place, or whether the military should begin a drawdown that would leave a more limited and surgical force in place to suppress al Qaeda.

White House Emphasizes the Positive in Afghanistan - Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times. As they prepare to roll out a new Afghanistan policy to a skeptical US audience, Obama administration officials are starting to replace their grim public assessments of the battered country with praise for the skills and idealism of its officials and its progress in important areas. The message is aimed in part, officials say, at trying to build domestic support for a troop increase that President Obama is expected to announce Tuesday. Obama's decision comes at a time when most Americans have turned against the mission, and some Democratic leaders in Congress have concluded that it is hopeless. Officials also would like to strengthen support for the mission in Europe, where the administration is lobbying NATO allies for thousands more combat troops - but faces strong resistance. And experts say the new message also reflects the recognition that, no matter how heavily they have criticized Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the weakness and inefficiency of his government, Western officials need him. The United States is developing a set of benchmarks to ensure that Karzai fights corruption and inefficiency, instituting a "monitoring and verification" system to determine whether ministries and agencies are worthy of receiving direct US aid.

US Offers New Role for Pakistan - Karen DeYoung, Washington Post. President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue." The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by Obama national security adviser James L. Jones. It was accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and that it plans no early withdrawal. Obama's speech Tuesday night at the US Military Academy at West Point, NY, will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan. "We can't succeed without Pakistan," a senior administration official involved in the White House review said. "You have to differentiate between public statements and reality. There is nobody who is under any illusions about this."

Britain Presses Pakistan and Afghanistan on Militants - John F. Burns, New York Times. Highlighting themes likely to be taken up by President Obama in his military policy speech on Tuesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain has demanded that Afghanistan and Pakistan match plans for increased allied troop levels in Afghanistan by taking tough actions of their own, including, in Pakistan, a stepped-up effort to capture Osama bin Laden. In two hard-edged statements over the weekend, Mr. Brown signaled a renewed sense of impatience in the approach that Britain and the United States plan to take toward the governments in Kabul and Islamabad as the allies step up their commitment to the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In recent days, American officials have been briefing allied leaders in Europe, including Mr. Brown, on what President Obama plans to say at West Point on Tuesday. Mr. Brown has said he will move this week to announce fresh British deployments, confirming a tentative announcement last month of Britain’s readiness to increase its force by 500 troops, beyond the 9,000 already deployed. On the fate of Mr. bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, Mr. Brown, speaking Sunday, offered a sharp jolt to Pakistan. Western intelligence officials concluded long ago that the Qaeda leaders had taken sanctuary in the largely lawless tribal areas of Pakistan abutting Afghanistan, most likely in North or South Waziristan, barely 200 miles from Islamabad.

Newly Deployed Marines to Target Taliban Bastion - Greg Jaffe, Washington Post. Days after President Obama outlines his new war strategy in a speech Tuesday, as many as 9,000 Marines will begin final preparations to deploy to southern Afghanistan and renew an assault on a Taliban stronghold that slowed this year amid a troop shortage and political pressure from the Afghan government, senior US officials said. The extra Marines will be the first to move into the country as part of Obama's escalation of the eight-year-old war. They will double the size of the US force in the southern province of Helmand and will provide a critical test for Afghan President Hamid Karzai's struggling government and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy. "The first troops out of the door are going to be Marines," Gen. James T. Conway, the Corps' top officer, told fellow Marines in Afghanistan on Saturday. "We've been leaning forward in anticipation of a decision. And we've got some pretty stiff fighting coming." The Marines will be quickly followed by about 1,000 US Army trainers. They will deploy as early as February to speed the growth of the Afghan army and police force, military officials said.

Marines Plow Ahead with Anti-poppy Campaign in Afghan District - Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times. Under an awning set up at a tiny outpost guarded by US Marines, the district governor of Nawa is pleading with three dozen solemn-looking farmers and village elders not to plant the crop that feeds the world heroin market. Haji Abdul Manaf, a farmer and onetime leader in the fight against Russian occupiers, has several parts to his passionate anti-poppy pitch. Moral: Planting an illegal crop puts you in collusion with criminals and violates the Koran. Practical: If Nawa continues to be known as the center of the poppy crop, outsiders like the Americans won't come here to build schools, clinics and roads. And then the direct approach. "If you grow poppy, we will catch you, destroy your crop and put you in jail!" shouted Manaf, as his audience stared impassively, some fingering worry beads, others nibbling on plates of garbanzo beans, raisins and tiny candies. It is a speech that Manaf, at the behest of the Americans, makes frequently at open-air meetings of farmers and elders: sometimes in a shady spot in different marketplaces, sometimes at the Nawa district government center, once at the unfinished mansion of a now-jailed drug kingpin. The district governor's appearances are part of a counter-narcotics strategy that has changed dramatically since the Bush administration but remains crucial to the war effort, particularly in Helmand province, the heart of the poppy-growing region.

To Prepare for War, GI’s Get a Dress Rehearsal - James Dao, New York Times. A firefight with heavily armed insurgents near a gold-domed mosque. A helicopter evacuation of bloody car bomb victims. A meeting with tribal elders upset about security. Just another day in Afghanistan? More like the dress rehearsal for war, played out on 100,000 acres of snake-infested pine forest on an Army post near the Texas border. Here, thousands of soldiers prepare for deployment each month by patrolling Afghan villages built by professional set designers, battling roving insurgents played by American soldiers and negotiating with actors playing tribal elders, many of whom speak real Pashto. It is Counterinsurgency 101, about as realistic as the Army can make it in Louisiana, never mind the alligator-filled swamps, the “mud” huts assembled from metal shipping containers and the Afghan “villagers” who stir pots of Cajun rice and beans between Taliban raids. The training scenarios, created from intelligence reports fresh from the front, are capable of bringing stressed soldiers to the brink of tears, commanders say. “We want to replicate the contemporary operating environment," said Col. Jon S. Lehr, who oversees the training operation. “But we also have to prepare a soldier for their worst day.”

NATO Tempts Taliban in From Cold - Marie Colvin, The Times. When American commandos killed a Taliban commander in his mountain lair in western Afghanistan last month, they celebrated the end of the operations he had masterminded: rocket attacks on their base, suicide bombings and the kidnappings of businessmen. They also worried that the death of Ghulam Yahya Akbari, a former mayor of Herat, might trigger revenge strikes from his heavily armed followers. As mayor, Akbari had won popularity by nailing the ear lobes of greedy merchants to lampposts; and, as head of public works, he had brought electricity to Herat when Kabul, the capital, was in darkness six nights a week. Three years ago, however, Akbari fell out with a new provincial governor. He took to the mountains with his 12 sons and 200 fighters, and allied himself with the Taliban. He had survived two American assassination attempts by the time he died on October 8. The next act in the Akbari saga surprised his pursuers and supporters alike. Instead of striking back, five of his commanders and 114 soldiers approached the local office of the peace and reconciliation commission, handed in their battered Kalashnikov rifles and pledged allegiance to President Hamid Karzai. “They’d had enough of fighting,” said Mohammed Shoaib Mojaddedi, the commission’s chief in Herat. Even US troops who hunted down Akbari thought this was the best way forward. “We’ve been killing people in this country for eight years,” said a member of the US Marine special operations unit that targeted Akbari. “We’re not going to win by killing people.”

Cuts Ground Special Forces’ Helicopters - Stephen Grey and Michael Smith, The Times. Helicopters used by British special forces to mentor their Afghan counterparts on anti-drugs operations have been grounded to save just £2m a year. The funding for the helicopters - used by the Special Boat Service (SBS) and Afghan special forces for raids on drugs barons and Taliban insurgents - was cut by the Foreign Office two months ago. The decision came despite Gordon Brown’s announcement that Britain’s “exit strategy” rests on training Afghan forces to take over its role. The Foreign Office refused to discuss the funding but privately officials confirmed the money was cut amid vain hopes that the Americans would foot the bill instead. The mission, known as Operation Emperor, involved SBS commandos training the Afghan special narcotics force as well as mentoring them. In June last year, it resulted in the seizure of 262 tons of cannabis in Kandahar province, the world’s largest drugs haul. Des Browne, the former defence secretary, told MPs in May 2007 that the operation was “highly effective” at detecting Taliban communications and supply routes from Pakistan. “It was a highly successful mission and the Afghans were getting better every day,” a special forces source said last week. “The paltry sums involved were getting a pretty valuable return.” The Afghan military supplied four Russian-made MI-8 Hip helicopters but could not afford to run them so the Foreign Office agreed to fund the costs of the fuel and upkeep. The Conservatives said it “beggared belief" that the Foreign Office should withdraw funding from what was clearly an important project. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: “For British troops to leave safely, we need to have fully trained Afghan security forces. This cut will undermine that task.”

Afghan Officials: 26 Militants Killed Near Pakistan Border - Voice of America. Officials in eastern Afghanistan say border guards backed by coalition air strikes have killed at least 26 militants near the Pakistani border. No security guards were reported killed during the hours-long battle in Khost province. On Tuesday this week, President Barack Obama is scheduled to announce his decision on US strategy for Afghanistan. He is expected to send as many as 35,000 additional American troops to the region. The Washington Post newspaper reported Sunday that the first group of additional troops will be as many as 9,000 Marines headed to the southern Taliban stronghold Helmand province. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have said they will support a troop increase, but some have raised concerns over setting benchmarks for the Afghan government and laying out a US exit strategy for the war. In an televised interview Sunday on Fox News, Republican Senator John Kyl said he does not support an open discussion of a US exit strategy because it will make the Afghan and Pakistani governments less confident that Washington is committed to eliminating the insurgent threat. Democratic Senator Evan Bayh said he supports an exit strategy because it is one of the only ways to keep pressure on the two governments to stabilize their countries. On Saturday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown outlined a timetable for President Hamid Karzai to announce key security and political benchmarks.

The Afghan Decision - Washington Post editorial. President Obama is expected to announce on Tuesday a substantial escalation of the US mission in Afghanistan: more training for the Afghan army, more support for Afghan governance and tens of thousands more American troops. It is a difficult choice but also the right one. While there is no guarantee that the new measures will reverse what is now a losing effort, the alternatives under consideration - from a more limited counterterrorism strategy to maintaining the current force - have been tried and have failed. While sending more Americans to war will entail a painful cost in lives, abandoning Afghanistan to civil war or rule by the Taliban would be immoral - and would endanger key American interests. Mr. Obama's prolonged deliberations and some of his public comments have made clear that he will embark on this new course reluctantly. That is understandable, given the problems in Afghanistan and the lack of Democratic support for an expanded war. Yet once he has chosen his strategy, it's vital that the president commit himself fully to its success. That requires sending enough troops to reverse the Taliban's momentum and describing the new commitment in a way that will convince Afghans, allies, the Taliban and the leaders of neighboring Pakistan that the United States is determined to succeed. It also means avoiding hedges and conditions that could doom the escalation before it begins.

IRAQ

Benchmarks in Wartime: As Reliable as Promises - Steven Lee Meyers, New York Times. Watching Iraq’s Parliament debate an election law last week, inside a conference center still decorated with mosaics of Saddam Hussein’s wartime delusions, ought to have been reassuring to those who wish the country’s nascent democracy well. It wasn’t. The impasse over the election - which is now almost certain to slip past a constitutional deadline set for January - has laid bare more than Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian fissures, which simmer never far from the surface. It has also exposed the unfinished business of building a democratic system, just as the United States begins to wrap up its military mission, and with it much of America’s influence. As the Obama administration prepares to unveil a new set of “benchmarks” to measure political progress in Afghanistan - and to prod President Hamid Karzai to improve governance there as he anticipates more troops from America - Iraq’s experience can serve as a cautionary tale. Much of what has stalled the election law stems from the failure to achieve the same sort of benchmarks, which Congress imposed when President Bush ordered a “surge” of American forces here in 2007 to stanch an incipient civil war. Adopting legislation to knit the country together; reforming the Constitution; strengthening independent security forces; reconciling Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - all were benchmarks, and all remain partly or wholly unmet, despite the security gains that were supposed to create the space for political progress and thus peace.

Lord Goldsmith Warned Tony Blair Over Legality of the Iraq War - David Brown, The Times. Tony Blair was warned by his chief legal adviser that plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein would be illegal eight months before ordering the invasion of Iraq. Lord Goldsmith, the then Attorney General, sent a previously undisclosed letter to the Prime Minister warning that invading Iraqi without United Nations’ approval would be a breach of international law. The letter was written six days after a Cabinet meeting in July 2002 at which Ministers were told that Britain and the United States were set on regime change in Iraq. Lord Goldsmith said that a war could not been justified purely on the grounds of regime change and that invasion on the grounds of self-defence or to prevent humanitarian disaster did not apply. Mr Blair was reported yesterday to have concealed the advice from his Cabinet - fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. A copy of Lord Goldsmith’s legal advice, written on a single side of A4 headed notepaper from his office, is believed to have been provided to the ongoing Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. Opponents of the invasion will use the letter to fuel demand that Mr Blair should face charges of war crimes for ordering an “illegal invasion”.

IRAN

Iran Plans to Build 10 New Uranium Enrichment Plants - Elizabeth Arrott, Voice of America. Iran's government says it plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants, upping the stakes in its tense standoff with international powers over its nuclear program. Iranian media reported Sunday that the Cabinet approved the construction of 10 new uranium enrichment plants just two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran for its nuclear activities. The proposed facilities, reported to be similar to Iran's main nuclear plant at Natanz, would vastly increase the nation's capacity to produce enriched uranium. Iranian media quote President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Iran should get to the point where it can produce 250 to 300 tons of nuclear fuel each year. Mr. Ahmadinejad said the new Iranian-designed centrifuges used to enrich uranium will have higher speeds than those currently being used. He added that Iran "is not joking around with anyone" when it comes to defending its nuclear rights. The announcement seems to make good on a warning earlier in the day that pressure on Iran would force it to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.

A Defiant Iran Details Plan for 10 Enrichment Plants - David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, New York Times. Iran angrily refused Sunday to comply with a demand by the United Nations nuclear agency to cease work on a once-secret nuclear fuel enrichment plant, and escalated the confrontation by declaring it would construct 10 more such plants. The response to the demand came as Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said his cabinet would also order a study of what it would take for Iran to further enrich its existing stockpile of nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor - rather than rely on Russia or another nation, as agreed to in an earlier tentative deal. It is unclear how long it would take Iran to enrich the fuel to the levels needed for the medical reactor, or whether it has the technology to fabricate that fuel into a form that could be put into the reactor. But the declaration appeared intended to convince the West that Iran was prepared to move closer to bomb-grade quality, while stopping short of crossing that threshold. Even if Iran proceeded with a plan to build 10 enrichment plants, it is doubtful Iran could execute that plan for years, maybe decades. But the announcement drew immediate condemnation from the White House, which hoped Iran’s defiant tone would help persuade Russia and China that imposing harsh sanctions was justified.

Iran Vows to Expand its Nuclear Program - Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post. Iran's government will build 10 new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country's nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon. Ahmadinejad told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that construction of at least five nuclear facilities is to begin within two months. The surprise announcement came two days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic's refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. The 35-member board of the agency also criticized Iran's construction of a second enrichment plant in Qom, southwest of Tehran. US officials reacted cautiously to the announcement. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Iran's plans, if true, "would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself."

Defiant Iran Beefs Up Nuclear Plans - Farnaz Fassihi and Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal. Iran announced a massive expansion of its nuclear program on Sunday and threatened to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, moves that would dramatically escalate the country's standoff with the international community if Tehran follows through. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled in a cabinet meeting Sunday plans to build 10 more nuclear facilities for enriching uranium, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA. He said they would produce nuclear fuel to provide 20,000 megawatts of energy by 2020, though Western officials suspect that Iran wants to build an atomic bomb. A majority of Iranian lawmakers also asked the government to draw up a plan to end cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's parliament and a former nuclear negotiator, warned Iran could pull out of the treaty that forbids it from developing nuclear weapons. International reaction to Iran's announcement indicated cautious concern; Iran's true intentions aren't always clear. US officials said intelligence indicates Iran has far too little uranium ore for such an expansion, and suggested a withdrawal from the nuclear treaty would only strengthen the US case for tough new sanctions against Tehran.

Iran Stokes Tensions with Huge Nuclear Expansion - Catherine Philp, The Times. Iran plans to build ten new uranium enrichment plants in a gesture of defiance to the West. The escalation of its nuclear programme was announced yesterday, two days after world powers ordered Iran to halt construction of a plant near Qom and to adhere immediately to five United Nations resolutions demanding it stop uranium enrichment. The censure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with rare backing from Russia and China, provoked anger in Iran where members of parliament demanded the withdrawal of co-operation with UN inspectors. President Ahmadinejad announced last night that his Cabinet had ordered the building of ten new plants aimed at producing up to 300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, with construction to begin on five within two months. He said that the Cabinet had also been studying plans to start enriching uranium to a higher level - high enough to be used in medical research but below that required for weapons.

500,000 Iranian Centrifuges - Wall Street Journal editorial. Mohamed ElBaradei caps his contentious and ultimately failed 12-year stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency today, having spent many years enabling Iran's nuclear bids only to condemn them in his final days in office. Mr. ElBaradei combined his rebuke of Iran with his familiar calls for more negotiation, but we'll take his belated realism about Iran as his tacit admission that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have been right all along. Let's hope the education of the Obama Administration doesn't take as long. As if to underscore the point, yesterday the Iranian government ordered up 10 additional uranium enrichment plants on the scale of its already operational facility in Natanz, which has a planned capacity of 54,000 centrifuges. That could mean an eventual total of more than 500,000 centrifuges, or enough to enrich about 160 bombs worth of uranium each year. Whether it can ever do that is an open question, but it does give a sense of the scale of the regime's ambitions. The decision is also a reminder of how unchastened Iran has been by President Obama's revelation in September that Iran had been building a secret 3,000 centrifuge facility near the city of Qom. The IAEA's governing board finally got around on Friday to rebuking Iran for that deception, a vote the Administration trumpeted because both Russia and China voted with the United States. But perhaps only within the Obama Administration can a symbolic gesture by the IAEA be considered a diplomatic triumph.

Iran Restructuring its Naval Forces - Walter Pincus, Washington Post. Iran has reorganized its naval forces to give operational control of the strategic Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz to the naval component of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the paramilitary organization that is playing an increasingly central role not only in Iran's military but also its political and economic life. Politically favored over Iran's traditional navy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, or IRGCN as it is known, "has capitalized on this status to acquire advanced weaponry and better platforms to develop additional capabilities," according to the study by the US Office of Naval Intelligence titled "Iran's Naval Forces: From Guerilla [sic] Warfare to a Modern Naval Strategy," Fall 2009. The study was disclosed last week by Steven Aftergood on his Secrecy News Web site. Faced with threats of military attacks on its nuclear facilities, Iranian leaders have threatened to cut off almost 30 percent of the world's oil supply by closing or controlling the narrow Strait of Hormuz, according to the Naval Intelligence study. "Ingressing or egressing warships must pass through mineable waters within the range of a variety of weapons including coastal defense cruise missiles, significantly increasing the ships' vulnerability," the study said. Since 2007, the IRGCN has been given "full responsibility for operations in the Persian Gulf" while the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (IRIN) was assigned to the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea.

THE LONG WAR

You’ve Had Eight Years, Now Get Us bin Laden, Brown Urges Pakistan - Philip Webster, The Times. Gordon Brown told Pakistan to “take out” Osama bin Laden yesterday as Western frustration at its failure to capture the al-Qaeda leader burst into the public glare. With America and Britain seeking support for their decisions in the next two days to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan, Mr Brown told the Pakistani leadership that it had not done enough to catch the men - believed to be hiding in the north of the country - responsible for the September 11 attacks. His criticism was aimed at the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, which the West has long believed to be too close to extremist groups harbouring bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Mr Brown told President Asif Ali Zardari in a telephone call on Saturday that he intended to press home the message on Thursday when Yousuf Raza Gilani, the Pakistani Prime Minister, visits London. About 30,000 Pakistani troops are in the lawless South Waziristan region to force out the Taleban. In interviews as he returned from the Commonwealth summit, Mr Brown made clear that he wanted them also to target the leadership of al-Qaeda, which has evaded international forces since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Report Blames US Military Leaders for Missing Bin Laden in 2001 - Voice of America. A US Senate report says top military leaders during the Bush administration had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in December 2001 in Afghanistan, but they failed to send enough American troops to attack his hideout. The report, by staff of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, concludes that US special forces, CIA officers and Afghan troops had chased the al Qaida leader and his deputy, Ayman al Zawahri, to the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan, but former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the top US military commander, General Tommy Franks, rejected requests for a massive contingent of American troops to attack the area. At the time, top officials said there was not conclusive evidence bin Laden was in the cave complex and there were fears that a large US troop presence could spark a backlash among locals. The US military mainly relied on air strikes and Afghan militias and bin Laden escaped into Pakistan. The Senate report concludes that removing the al Qaida leader would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat, but his survival has allowed him to become a "potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide."

Senate Report Explores 2001 Escape by bin Laden From Afghan Mountains - Scott Shane, New York Times. As President Obama vows to “finish the job” in Afghanistan by sending more troops, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has completed a detailed look back at a crucial failure early in the battle against Al Qaeda: the escape of Osama bin Laden from American forces in the Afghan mountains of Tora Bora in December 2001. “Removing the Al Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat,” the committee’s report concludes. “But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide.” The report, based in part on a little-noticed 2007 history of the Tora Bora episode by the military’s Special Operations Command, asserts that the consequences of not sending American troops in 2001 to block Mr. bin Laden’s escape into Pakistan are still being felt. The report blames the lapse for “laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” Its release comes just as the Obama administration is preparing to announce an increase in forces in Afghanistan.

Report: Bin Laden 'Within Reach' in '01 - Associated Press. Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of US troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders decided not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force in 2001, says a report by Senate Democrats. The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable, in December 2001, has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man, saying his escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan. Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, as President Obama prepares to boost US troops in Afghanistan. The chairman of another Senate panel, appearing on Sunday's political talk shows, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the committee's report underscores Democratic criticisms that the Bush administration mistakenly concentrated more on Iraq than Afghanistan.

America vs. The Narrative - Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times opinion. What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13 innocent people at Fort Hood? Here’s my take: Major Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced - I assume anyone who shoots up innocent people is. But the more you read about his support for Muslim suicide bombers, about how he showed up at a public-health seminar with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam,” and about his contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric famous for using the Web to support jihadist violence against America - the more it seems that Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist spurred to action by “The Narrative.” What is scary is that even though he was born, raised and educated in America, The Narrative still got to him. The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11.

NATO

Enlarging NATO, Expanding Confusion - Mary Elise Sarotte, New York Times opinion. Twenty years ago, dictatorships across Central and Eastern Europe toppled. During this season of remembering, the focus has rightly been on celebration of the new freedoms gained by the inhabitants of those countries: to speak freely, to travel, to vote and to choose their own national futures and alliances. Yet the legacy of 1989 has difficult aspects as well, mostly centering on the origins and legitimacy of later NATO expansion to former East German and Warsaw Pact territory; acknowledgment of them by the United States could greatly improve American and Russian relations. Moscow has long asserted that the Soviet Union allowed Germany to unify only in return for a pledge from Washington never to expand the Atlantic alliance. Former advisers to Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have transcended partisan differences in dismissing the Russian claim. An internal State Department review during the Clinton era concluded that no legally binding prohibition on NATO enlargement emerged from the era of German unification. Since then, however, it has become possible to reconstruct what happened from first-hand evidence.

UNITED STATES

At Quantico, The Ultimate Test - Christian Davenport, Washington Post. This is no Parris Island, the legendary boot camp in South Carolina where the drill instructors' ferocity explodes almost the instant that recruits arrive. But for the next six weeks, as Col. Rick Mancini told the candidates in his orientation speech, "every part of your body, your mind, your spirit will be tested. ... Your world will be rocked." For the US Marine Corps, this season's crop of candidates is vitally important. Marines are leading the way in Afghanistan and continuing the fight in Iraq, with increased numbers to satisfy the demands of the two simultaneous wars. The Marines need more young men and women who are willing to face combat while most of their peers stay home. And so last summer, the deadliest since the war in Afghanistan began, Quantico welcomed its second-largest officer candidate class since the Vietnam War. Despite the surprisingly easy start in July, this will be a grueling, sleep-deprived test for the 310 members of India Company. Those who pass can return next summer for another round of training toward becoming officers in the Corps. But 15 to 30 percent of the candidates usually wash out, which is fine with the Marines, who know that not everyone is right for the rigorous lifestyle.

The Measure of Success - Christian Davenport, Washington Post. Finally, it is here: Tyler Martin's first real step on the road to becoming a Marine. His debut comes in the form of a routine physical fitness test. It's meant to get a base-line reading on candidates in last summer's Officer Candidates School at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. But for Martin, any test is an opportunity to shine. A perfect score is 300. Anything less, in his mind, would be a failure. Martin, a former baseball star at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County, powers through the sit-ups so quickly that the instructors have to stop him when he hits 100. Same with the pull-ups: He hits 20 and has to stop, although he has at least 10 more in him. Martin, 22, arrived at Quantico in July, confident, ready. He had been preparing all year - really, his whole life. There had never been any question: He was going to be a Marine. Unlike many others in his class, the second-largest at the base since Vietnam, he wasn't worried about whether he would survive the six weeks of training, but whether he'd finish at the top of his class. The Marine Corps is expanding, hungry for officers to fill the ranks for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. But just because it needs more bodies doesn't mean that it's lowering its standards. If anything, the wars have made last summer's selection all the more important: In combat, bad officers get good Marines killed.

AFRICA

Navy Releases Somali Pirates Caught Red-handed - Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Marie Woolf, The Times. Somalian pirates who are terrorising yachts and cargo ships in the Indian Ocean are being routinely allowed to go free by international naval forces despite being captured with their weapons and even holding hostages. Pirates who are seized from the skiffs by the Royal Navy and other maritime forces are pleasantly surprised to find themselves being offered life jackets, medical checks and hot food. They are then often set free, either because they have not been captured “in the act of piracy” or because of the risk that they would claim asylum if prosecuted in Europe. More than 340 suspected Somalian pirates have been captured in anti-piracy operations over the past year and subsequently released on the advice of lawyers. Some have been disembarked on African beaches because of concerns over the seaworthiness of their vessels. Julian Brazier, the Conservatives’ shipping spokesman, is to request a meeting with the European Union anti-piracy operation over the disclosure by The Sunday Times. “It’s shameful that so many pirates are being returned to do it again,” he said. “The fault lies not with the hard-pressed naval commanders but the ridiculous rules of engagement and operating instructions they are being given by their political masters.”

Nigerian President's Health Fueling Political Tensions - Gilbert da Costa, Voice of America. Nigerian officials say President Umaru Yar'Adua is responding well to treatment for a heart ailment at a hospital in Saudi Arabia. The president's poor health creates a constitutional challenge for Africa's most populous nation. A presidential spokesman says Vice President Goodluck Jonathan will represent President Umaru Yar'Adua at official functions, but dismissed suggestions that the ailing Nigerian leader may resign. And while the vice president may be acting on behalf of the hospitalized president, analysts argue Mr. Jonathan may not be able to exercise full presidential duties until constitutional requirements are met. Abuja-based lawyer and political analyst, Maxi Okwu, describes the current situation as an infraction of the constitution. "There is a constitutional process for the president being absent or incapable of discharging his functions at this material time," said Okwu. "There ought to be a letter addressed to the senate president stating so; that he should inform the national assembly that he is absent, that he is in Saudi Arabia recuperating. But until that is done, the vice president cannot take over. He cannot be acting president under the constitution of Nigeria and that is an infraction of the constitution and should not be allowed." The president's poor health presents what some see as another potential political problem. If incapacitated, President Yar'Adua, a Muslim from the north, could be replaced by Vice President Jonathan, a Christian from the southern Niger Delta. Nigeria's politically dominant northern Muslims have historically rejected a southern presidency.

Guinea Military Arrest Human Rights Official - Scott Stearns, Voice of America. Guinea's military government has arrested a prominent human rights official while United Nations investigators are in the country to find out what happened when more than 150 opposition protestors were killed two months ago. Soldiers detained human rights leader Mouctar Diallo when he returned to the capital, Conakry, after a visit to his home village. Diallo's wife, Djenabou Diallo, says he was arrested on Thursday by men from the special service against banditry and the fight against drugs. She says she has been denied permission to see him. Tierno Madjou Sow, President of Guinea's Organization for the Defense of Human Rights, says Diallo is being held at Conakry's main military barracks - Camp Alpha Yaya Diallo. Sow says Diallo was arrested because of an interview he gave to the Voice of America on September 28th - the day soldiers opened fire on protestors in the capital's main sports stadium. Security officials in Conakry also told French officials that Diallo's arrest is in connection with that VOA interview.

AMERICAS

Hondurans Pick a Leader to End Limbo - Nicholas Casey, Wall Street Journal. A conservative rancher named Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo took the Honduran presidency in elections Sunday, five months after the country's last elected president was forced out of the country at gunpoint. Now Hondurans must wait to see if the international community, which has been divided over the crisis, accepts the winner as legitimate. The results gave Mr. Lobo 56% of the vote, well ahead of Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos at 38%, confirming voters' expected punishment of the Liberals - party of both the deposed president and the interim government that ousted him. While the small Central American nation is expected to get crucial support from the US, it will likely continue to face opposition from regional heavyweights such as Brazil and Argentina. The US, in agreeing to accept the winner, is now in a delicate position - with Brazil, for example, which is housing exiled leader Manuel Zelaya in its Honduran embassy and recognizes him as president. About 61% of Hondurans voted, and turnout, which was up from 2005, was seen as a crucial factor in persuading more countries to back the vote. The turnout was a loss for Mr. Zelaya, who had urged supporters to boycott the election. After the vote, Mr. Zelaya condemned the elections on CNN saying: "Absenteeism triumphed. ... These elections don't correct the coup d'etat."

Conservative Appears to Have Won in Honduras - Elisabeth Malkin, New York Times. Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared to have won on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer’s coup and end its isolation. The electoral tribunal said Sunday night that Mr. Lobo had 52 percent of the vote, with almost two-thirds of the votes counted. That gave him a margin of more than 16 percentage points over his main opponent, Elvin Santos. Shortly before midnight, Mr. Santos conceded, Reuters reported. The coup has divided Honduran society between those who support the restoration of the president, Manuel Zelaya, and those who say the coup was the only recourse against a populist president seeking to remain in power beyond his term. The turmoil in this tiny country has also had repercussions far beyond Central America, posing a headache for the Obama administration’s policy in Latin America. From its first condemnation of the coup and its refusal to recognize the de facto government, the administration has argued that it supported Mr. Zelaya’s return. But the government that took power here has always intended to hang on until the election, which was scheduled long before the turmoil began.

Hondurans Go to Polls, Hoping to End Crisis - Mary Beth Sheridan, Washington Post. Hondurans voted for president on Sunday in a mostly peaceful election that Washington supported but most countries in the hemisphere rejected, saying it could whitewash a coup. Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo, a well-to-do businessman, jumped out to an early lead with 52 to 55 percent of the vote, more than 10 percentage points ahead of another centrist candidate, Elvin Santos, according to exit polls and projections broadcast by Honduran radio and television. Political, business and religious leaders hope the selection of a new government will help this impoverished country emerge from five months of international isolation. That hope is shared by US diplomats, who have tried unsuccessfully to negotiate an agreement to reverse the June coup. The Honduran crisis has caused a split between Washington and allies in the hemisphere that say they cannot recognize elections under a coup-installed government that has shut down media, limited demonstrations and committed other abuses.

Honduras Conservative Leads in Controversial Election - Alex Renderos and Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times. Hondurans voted Sunday for a new president, many hoping that despite the questions surrounding the election they could restore legitimacy to their national government five months after a military-backed coup ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Official results late Sunday gave an insurmountable lead to Porfirio Lobo, a wealthy businessman from Honduras' political elite and candidate of the conservative National Party. His closest opponent conceded defeat. Who won the election, however, was secondary to the drama swirling around the vote. The international community and the Honduran public are divided over whether the election should be recognized in the wake of the coup, in which Zelaya was deported on June 28. Zelaya called for his supporters to boycott Sunday's vote. "These elections are illegitimate," he told The Times in an interview from the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, where he took shelter after sneaking back into the country on Sept. 21. It was difficult to determine turnout, but one US-sponsored observation group reported that Tegucigalpa had less than 50%. Army patrols were seen in some poorer neighborhoods, where support for Zelaya is strongest.

Right-wing Rancher Porfirio Lobo Wins Honduras Election - The Times. Porfirio Lobo, a right wing businessman from the Honduras political old guard is on course to win the country's first election since the June 28 coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Early exit polls indicate that Mr Lobo, a wealthy rancher, has won 55 percent of the votes, according to Radio America which cited results from about a quarter of polling stations. Neither Mr Zelaya or his rival, interim President Roberto Micheletti stood for election. Voting was held in relative calm, although human rights groups reported an atmosphere of intimidation and fear in the lead up to the election, held to appoint a replacement for Mr Zelaya who had been escorted out of the country at gunpoint. However security forces in the northern city of San Pedro Sula fired tear gas and water cannon at hundreds of Zelaya supporters as they protested against the polls. Journalists and activists at the scene reported some arrests and injuries. The vote has caused a split across the Americas with the United States, Peru, Panama and Costa Rica suggesting they would support the polls if voting was fair and Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and other left-wing governments in the region refusing to recognise the result.

In Elections, Honduras Defeats Chávez - Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall Street Journal opinion. Unless something monumental happens in the Western Hemisphere in the next 31 days, the big regional story for 2009 will be how tiny Honduras managed to beat back the colonial aspirations of its most powerful neighbors and preserve its constitution. Yesterday's elections for president and Congress, held as scheduled and without incident, were the crowning achievement of that struggle. National Party candidate Porfirio Lobo was the favorite to win in pre-election polls. Yet the name of the victor is almost beside the point. The completion of these elections is a national triumph in itself and a win for all people who yearn for liberty. The fact that the US has said it will recognize their legitimacy shows that this reality eventually made its way to the White House. If not Hugo Chávez's Waterloo, Honduras's stand at least marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman's expansionist agenda. The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election. Egged on by their zeal, militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed.

Leftist Wins Uruguay Presidential Vote - Alexei Barrionuevo, New York Times. José Mujica, a brash former guerrilla fighter, was elected president of Uruguay on Sunday, further cementing the hold of a leftist government credited with improving economic conditions in one of South America’s smallest countries. With more than 90 percent of the vote counted Sunday night, Mr. Mujica, the candidate of the Broad Front coalition, was leading by about 10 percentage points in a runoff against Luis Lacalle, a former president running on the National Party ticket. Mr. Lacalle gave a concession speech on Sunday evening. The victory of Mr. Mujica, 74, solidified the control the Broad Front has assumed over Uruguayan politics since the current president, Tabaré Vázquez, was elected. Mr. Vázquez pursued a pragmatic path of reforms with socialist and market-friendly elements that lowered unemployment and poverty while generating confidence among investors. Uruguay’s Constitution does not allow for re-election, but Mr. Vázquez’s approval ratings in excess of 60 percent have strengthened the Broad Front, a polyglot movement that includes Communists and Christian Democrats.

EUROPE

Russia Investigates Attack on High-Speed Train - Gregory L. White, Wall Street Journal. Russian investigators searched for clues Sunday in a deadly train crash that authorities labeled terrorism, which would make it the country's most serious attack outside the volatile North Caucasus since 2004. Officials said they had gathered some evidence against what they said was a group of potential suspects in the bombing Friday night of the Nevsky Express train from Moscow to St. Petersburg. A bomb planted under the tracks detonated as the high-speed train passed, authorities said, throwing its last three cars from the rails. Although reports of the death toll varied, officials said at least two dozen people were killed and nearly 100 injured. There were no credible claims of responsibility. If the attack proves to have been terrorism, it would be the first such major attack in the Russian heartland under President Dmitry Medvedev. The Kremlin marshaled its response over the weekend, with Mr. Medvedev shown on state television Saturday meeting with top officials to coordinate relief work and the investigation. The Kremlin said Sunday that he was getting regular updates on the situation. Terror attacks blamed on Islamist separatists from the Caucasus republic of Chechnya shook Moscow and other parts of central Russia until 2004. Since then, they have all but stopped in and around the capital, though suicide bombings and other attacks have picked up in and around Chechnya over the last year.

Russians Urged 'Do Not Give in to Terror' after Train Bomb Kills 25 - Tony Halpin, The Times. The Russian people were urged yesterday to display a strong will “for a victory over terror” after the death of 25 people in the bombing of an express train. The attackers were determined “to frighten everybody who lives in Russia”, the head of the Orthodox Church said, as he led prayers for the victims. “Our people have been challenged,” Patriarch Kirill said. “A crime of which any one of us could have been a victim has been committed for effect.” He urged anyone who might be able to help the authorities to identify the terrorists to do so. The Nevsky Express from Moscow to St Petersburg was carrying 661 passengers when it was blown off the track on Friday. More than 100 people were injured, 21 of whom are in a critical condition. The bombing raises fears of a new terrorist campaign in Russia. According to Rashid Nurgaliyev, the Interior Minister, the attack appeared to be the work of a gang. He said that one suspect was “over 40, stocky and ginger-haired”.

Switzerland Votes to Prohibit the Building of Mosque Minarets - Edward Cody, Washington Post. Voters in Switzerland decided Sunday to ban the building of minarets, in a referendum that showed an unexpected level of resentment against Muslim immigrants in a country long known for discretion and tolerance. Opinion polls in recent months had indicated that a majority of voters would reject the measure, fearful of an impact on the country's reputation and ability to do business in the Muslim world. But official results on Sunday showed a surprisingly strong 57.5 percent of those voting endorsed it, against 42.5 percent who opposed. The ballot was the latest sign of a backlash against Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, where Christian voters appear increasingly eager to preserve their traditional ways in the face of expanded Muslim populations. The Swiss federal council said four existing minarets would not be affected by the vote, and it specified that Muslim residents of the tiny Alpine country would still be allowed to build mosques and practice their religion. But construction of new minarets, the towers alongside mosques from which Muslims are called to prayer by Koranic chants, "is forbidden in Switzerland from now on," it said in a communique.

Switzerland and the Minaret - Wall Street Journal editorial. Nearly 58% of Swiss voters Sunday cast their ballots in favor of banning the construction of new minarets in the Alpine republic, a surprise result that led at least one Swiss member of parliament to declare that "the foundations of Switzerland's direct democracy have failed." That is clearly wrong. Swiss direct democracy shows its mettle when Swiss voters use it to stand up to their political elites, as happened here. Having said that, Sunday's vote, for all the hand-wringing leading up to it, was a decidedly mild-mannered sort of protest. The construction of new minarets is banned, but the building of mosques is unaffected, and the vote does not affect the four existing minarets in the country. Nobody's freedom of worship is threatened, but a symbolic message has been sent. But what message, exactly? The vote betrays an undercurrent of fear among the Swiss - a fear that is not without cause. There is no denying the connection between radical imams and terrorist acts. Nor should anyone look away from the fact that too many European Muslims flatly reject the norms of their host countries, sometimes in ways that are criminal: honor killings, child brides and the like. Yet banning minarets does nothing to address that fear. It merely makes it less likely that the average Swiss will be confronted by a visible symbol of Islam upon his skyline. Thus, even as a symbolic gesture, it seems to encourage a head-in-the-sand approach toward the 5% of Swiss who are Muslim. In much of Europe, this is the norm anyway, the result of political correctness and cowardice.

MIDDLE EAST

Ex-detainees' Woes in Yemen Add to US Fears of Releasing Others - Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post. Two years ago, Mohsin al-Askari was released from his prison cell at Guantanamo Bay, but he has found neither freedom nor a new life in his homeland. Potential employers are afraid to hire him. At 28, he depends on his father for financial support, charities for medical care. With each rejection, his frustration grows, as does the temptation to return to his old life of jihad. "The government hasn't done anything to help me," said Askari, his voice filled with bitterness. Yemen's handling of former Guantanamo detainees and accused extremists in its own jails has raised fears that sending detainees back to this nation, the poorest in the Arab world, might only create more militants determined to attack America. Disputes over the fates of 97 Yemeni detainees, roughly 40 percent of the current prison population at Guantanamo, are a key reason President Obama has given up on his promise to shut down the facility by January. US officials are also concerned about Yemen's lax supervision of accused terrorists. Many of those imprisoned for orchestrating the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors in this coastal city, have escaped or been freed by Yemeni officials. The government has also refused to extradite two of the attack's alleged organizers to the United States to face murder charges.

Arab Emirates Move to Limit Crisis in Dubai - Vikas Bajaj and Graham Bowley, New York Times. Trying to prevent a run on its banks, and financial turmoil that some fear could spread globally, the United Arab Emirates helped calm financial markets Monday with its pledge to lend money to banks operating in Dubai, an action that came amid concerns about excessive borrowing around the world. The move by the group’s central bank was an attempt to head off the kind of crisis of confidence that froze credit markets last year and brought the global economy to the brink of failure, threatening everyone from hedge fund billionaires to retirees who had their savings in supposedly safe investments. Central bankers and government officials around the world were watching Monday’s stock markets closely for signs that fears are spreading or are being contained, and the early signs were positive. Asian markets in their first hours were up more than 2 percent on Monday morning. Last week, investors fled the stocks of banks with outstanding loans to the tiny emirate and its investment arm, Dubai World. Now, analysts will be watching to see whether investors desert other highly indebted companies. While Dubai is not big enough to set off financial repercussions outside the Middle East, the main fear is that investors could flee risky markets all at once in search of safer havens for their money.

The Deflated Arab Hopes for Obama - Jackson Diehl, Washington Post opinion. It's been nearly six months since Barack Obama stirred hearts and raised hopes across much of the Arab world with his much-promoted Cairo address. Many came away from it expecting a new and more vigorous US attempt to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others hoped for more American sympathy and support for liberal reform in countries where free expression, women's rights and democratic elections are blocked by entrenched autocracies. The peace-process bubble burst two months ago at the United Nations, when Obama's poorly executed attempt to launch final-settlement talks between Israelis and Palestinians collapsed. Arabs who were led by Obama's rhetoric to believe that the United States would force Israel to make unprecedented unilateral concessions - like a complete end to all construction in Jerusalem - were bitterly disappointed. But they are not the only victims of post-Cairo letdown. Arab reformers, who for most of this decade have been trying to break down the barriers to social and political modernization in the Middle East, have also begun to conclude that the Obama administration is more likely to harm than to help them.

SOUTH ASIA

Zardari Cedes Power to Pakistani Premier - Zahid Hussain, Wall Street Journal. Pakistan's beleaguered president, Asif Ali Zardari, is under increasing pressure to step down or to relinquish most of his sweeping powers immediately, as growing political tension threatens the stability of the Muslim nation in the midst of a critical battle with Taliban militants. In an attempt to defuse the situation, Mr. Zardari over the weekend transferred command of the country's nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, signaling his willingness to shed some of his powers. Mr. Gilani said Sunday the transfer of the chairmanship was "a true litmus test" of relations between him and the president. Mr. Zardari's move could be the first in a series to diminish his power in an effort to retain his party's backing. He is under pressure also to shed his powers to dismiss the parliament and to make key military appointments. But analysts said the president's weekend maneuver had only symbolic value. It seems to have failed to appease his opponents, who said the president needed to act sooner. "It does not have any political value for Mr. Zardari in the power struggle," said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador and a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. Shabaz Sharif, the chief minister of Punjab, Pakistan's most powerful province, called on the president Sunday to move before it was too late.

Pakistani President Shifts Nuclear Control to Prime Minister - Voice of America. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has transferred control of the country's nuclear arsenal to his prime minister. Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar announced late Friday that the National Command Authority, which is responsible for nuclear weapons, is now under the authority of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Babar called the move "a giant leap forward to empower the elected parliament and prime minister." Mr. Zardari has seen low approval ratings as Pakistan battles with Taliban violence and a struggling economy. Analysts say he is trying to protect his political future by shifting more power to parliament. The decision comes as an amnesty protecting the president and about 8,000 other Pakistanis from corruption charges expired Saturday. Mr. Zardari cannot be prosecuted because of presidential immunity, but the country could fall into political chaos if corruption charges were reinstated against those close to the president. Legal experts say opponents could use the amnesty to lawfully challenge Mr. Zardari's eligibility for office. Former President Pervez Musharraf introduced the amnesty in 2007 under a plan to share power with Mr. Zardari's wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was later assassinated.

Zardari Turns Over Nuclear Authority - Zahid Hussain, Wall Street Journal. Pakistan's embattled president, Asif Ali Zardari, has transferred command of the country's nuclear arsenal to the prime minister, as he comes under increasing pressure to step down. The dramatic move signaled that Mr. Zardari was willing to give up some of his powers to defuse the escalating opposition to him. The move came as an amnesty protecting him and some of his key ministers from corruption charges expired on Saturday. Mr. Zardari shed his powers as chairman of the National Command Authority through a presidential decree issued late Friday night, giving the responsibility to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. The transfer of authority to the prime minister won't make much practical difference as Pakistan's nuclear-weapon program is effectively controlled by the country's powerful military. The transfer was believed to have been condoned by the military. People familiar with the matter said the military was uneasy with Mr. Zardari's control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons because the military views him as too close to the US, which recently gave Pakistan a large civilian-aid bill in addition to large amounts of military aid since 2001. These people said Mr. Zardari was too dependent on Washington and sometimes wasn't quite in agreement with the strategic views of the military.

Pakistan’s Leader, Under Pressure, Cedes Nuclear Office - Savrina Tavernese and David E. Sanger, New York Times. President Asif Ali Zardari has ceded his position in Pakistan’s nuclear command structure to his prime minister, in a sudden political maneuver widely seen as a fresh sign of turmoil on the eve of President Obama’s strategy announcement for the region. The move, announced in a news release late Friday night, was an all-out attempt to head off domestic political pressure as Mr. Zardari’s two-year presidency hit a new low. With the end of a political amnesty program on Saturday, Mr. Zardari and his allies now face potential corruption and criminal charges, and the opposition is demanding that he relinquish many of his powers or resign. Although analysts did not expect the move to harm Pakistan’s nuclear security, political stability in the country is critical for the Obama administration, which is set to announce its new strategy for Afghanistan this week. Pakistan is a central part of that strategy, and the country has been under tremendous pressure by the administration to step up its fight against militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with two top American security officials visiting Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, in two weeks.

Asif Ali Zardari Surrenders Control of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arms - Nicola Smith, The Times. The embattled president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has handed control of the country’s nuclear arsenal to his prime minister in an attempt to boost his popularity. Anxious to placate critics who claim his office has too much power, Zardari agreed to shed presidential prerogatives after a controversial amnesty for politicians and officials expired yesterday. Zardari announced that control of the National Command Authority, which oversees all Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, was being transferred immediately to Yousuf Raza Gilani, the prime minister. Officials emphasised that the decision would not affect the security of the country’s estimated 80 warheads. “It is a giant step forward to empowering the elected parliament and the prime minister,” said the presidential spokesman. By the end of the year he is also expected to hand over his powers to dissolve parliament and appoint military chiefs. The decision follows the end of the amnesty introduced in December 2007 as part of a deal between General Pervez Musharraf, the then president, and Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, so that she could return to Pakistani politics without fear of being prosecuted on corruption charges. The amnesty was extended to Zardari, her husband, who took power after her assassination later that month, and to key ministers in the current government and many trusted political allies. Earlier this year Pakistan’s Supreme Court said the decree would have to be ratified by November 28 or it would lapse.

Sri Lankan Who Led Fight Against Tamils Seeks Presidency - Lydia Polgreen, New York Times. The former chief of Sri Lanka’s army formally announced Sunday that he would seek to replace his onetime ally, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in elections to be held in January. Gen. Sarath Fonseka retired from the army in mid-November after months of tension with Mr. Rajapaksa, who has staked his re-election campaign on the resounding military victory over the Tamil Tiger insurgency in May. General Fonseka led a tough counterinsurgency strategy that took small teams of fighters deep into the jungles of northern Sri Lanka, striking a mortal blow to a rebel army that had battled the government for more than two decades. “We have done away with the terrorists,” General Fonseka told reporters at a news conference on Sunday. “But now you can’t leave the country in the hands of a tin-pot dictator.” After the war was won, Mr. Rajapaksa moved General Fonseka into a largely ceremonial post, and the uneasy alliance between the two men crumbled. A coalition of nationalist and left-wing opposition parties named General Fonseka as its candidate to face Mr. Rajapaksa.

EVENTS

An Evening of Counterinsurgency at the Pritzker Military Library. Hearts and minds? Overrated. If you want to run a successful counterinsurgency, it all starts with the person at the top. On Thursday, December 3rd, Mark Moyar will appear at the Pritzker Military Library to discuss his new book, A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq. This event is free and open to the public. The presentation will begin at 6 p.m., preceded by a reception for Library members at 5 p.m. It will be webcast live on pritzkermilitarylibrary.org and recorded for later broadcast on WYCC-TV/Channel 20. Moyar takes issue with much of the current U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which guided the “surge” in Iraq. Though its creation was overseen by Gen. David Petraeus, whose leadership he considers a near-perfect model for counterinsurgency, Moyar finds the general’s most important qualities de-valued in the manual, which suffers from what he calls a “population-centric” emphasis toward defeating an insurgency by depriving it of public support. Using case studies from the Philippines, Vietnam, and other conflicts over the last 150 years, Moyar argues instead that counterinsurgencies succeed or fail based on the leaders involved: their ability to inspire subordinates, adapt to complex situations, unify civilian and military efforts, and identify capable sub-commanders, both from their own ranks and the target population. Though A Question of Command describes historical insurgencies around the world, Moyar posits that the American South, after the Civil War, may have been the best model for the situation in Iraq. Whereas Grant and Sherman had led major victories on the battlefield, it was lesser-known leaders like Brig. Gen. Robert F. Catterson and Maj. Lewis Merrill who had the most success against insurgent forces such as the Ku Klux Klan. A Question of Command attempts to capture the qualities and decisions that set those leaders apart, making their successors easier to find. Mark Moyar is Professor of National Security Affairs at the Marine Corps University. He is also the author of Triumph Forsaken: the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 and Phoenix and the Birds of Prey: Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism in Vietnam. Moyar’s writings have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications. He received a B.A. summa cum laude from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Cambridge. Seating for this event is limited, so reservations are recommended. Call 312.587.0234 or email events@pritzkermilitarylibrary.net.

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 US 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.