The president will soon announce the deployment of additional US forces to Afghanistan, in a speech likely to emphasize the importance of political progress there. Legitimacy is the most important outcome of a counterinsurgency strategy, not, as some have suggested, an input. It is unfortunate that much of the debate has ignored the role that additional military forces can play in building legitimacy and effective government in a counterinsurgency. Adding forces gives us leverage; military forces are vital to the success of any political strategy because they contribute directly to improving governance as well as to improving security.

The recent American experience in Iraq illustrates how US forces and diplomacy helped correct the behaviors of a sometimes malign government in ways that helped neutralize insurgent groups. In early 2007, many Iraqi leaders were using instruments of state to support sectarian death squads. The dysfunctional government could not secure the population, pass laws or provide services to its people. The implementation of a fully resourced counterinsurgency strategy - enabled by the deployment of nearly six additional US combat brigades - transformed Iraq's government within 18 months. Opponents of the surge argued that Iraqis would "step up" politically and militarily only if they knew that US forces would leave. Instead, before committing to the fight, political leaders and populations throughout Iraq assessed whether US forces would stay long enough to secure them. Iraqis stepped up precisely because of the absence of conditionality and time limits on US force levels...

More at The Washington Post.

With President Obama finally ready to announce his decision about Afghanistan, it's a good time to examine the role played by Vice President Biden, who emerged during the policy review as the administration's in-house skeptic - the "questioner in chief," as one insider puts it. Biden has been the point man in challenging some premises of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy, according to civilian and military officials involved in the review. He was dubious about committing more troops when the administration announced its initial strategy in March, and over the months his doubts came to be shared, increasingly, by the president. Biden's questions sometimes peeved advocates of the military buildup - one official describes a process of discussion that resembled bashing a pií±ata - and they added weeks of delay.

But administration officials argue that the review, protracted and painful as it has been, will produce an Afghanistan policy that can better withstand public scrutiny. Obama is still working on the final details, and one participant describes the narrow balance as "51-49." Officials predict that he will send some additional troops to secure Afghanistan's population centers, though probably not the full 40,000 McChrystal requested. Obama's support for the mission will be hedged and time-limited, as Biden has urged. Biden won his case against an open-ended commitment to a policy that, as even its strongest advocates concede, may not work. Instead, the president appears to have embraced Biden's demand for a "proof of concept" to test the strategy in the populated regions where the United States added troops this year. The time limit for this experimentation isn't clear yet, but it's likely to be less than the three to five years US commanders think is needed...

More at The Washington Post.

US President Barack Obama will announce his new strategy for Afghanistan on Tuesday. The White House says the president will make his plans known in an evening address (0100 UTC) from the US military academy at West Point, in the northeastern state of New York. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs announced President Obama's plans Wednesday. Gibbs noted that US forces have been in Afghanistan for eight years. He said the US will not be in the country for another 8 or 9 years. The White House spokesman also said President Obama will reveal his Afghanistan strategy to members of the US Congress Tuesday, ahead of his address to the nation.

US news organizations say President Obama is most likely to back a plan to send between 30,000 and 35,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan. The top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal earlier this year told the president that up to 40,000 additional troops are needed to combat Taliban and al-Qaida militants in the region. President Obama has been meeting with advisors and considering future US strategy in the region. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama said he intends to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates are expected to testify before congressional committees in the days after Mr. Obama's announcement.

Public opinion polls in the United States show falling support for the eight-year war, but Mr. Obama said that once people understand his plan, they will be supportive. This year has been the deadliest for foreign forces in Afghanistan since the conflict began eight years ago. There are currently 68,000 US troops in the country. Britain earlier announced plans to send an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan if allies increased their contributions. A spokesman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday the prime minister is optimistic that 10 other NATO allies will offer an additional 5,000 troops for the mission.

US Troops Experiment with New Strategy for Afghanistan - David Axe, Voice of America.

US President Barack Obama plans to announce his new strategy for Afghanistan on Tuesday, and US news organizations say he will most likely send between 30,000 and 35,000 additional troops. The top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan earlier this year told the president that up to 40,000 additional troops are needed to combat Taliban and al-Qaida militants in the region. If General McChrystal does not get all of the troops that he seeks, US commanders are already trying to make do with fewer numbers. Soldiers from the US Army's 10th Mountain Division patrol Baraki Barak district, in Logar province, 80 kilometers south of Kabul. Logar is a key agricultural province and a test case for US troops now in Afghanistan in case President Barack Obama does not approve thousands of reinforcements.

The senior US officer in Logar, Army Lt. Col. Thomas Gukeisen, tells Voice of America that he does not have enough soldiers to control all of the province, even with the help of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). Instead, he uses the troops that he has to occupy the most cooperative villages, and turn them into examples for neighboring villages to follow. The troops provide a security bubble for reconstruction projects in the targeted communities. "Outside of that bubble, you create dislocated envy," said Colonel Gukeisen. "You have people outside - the elders and children - say well how come my school wasn't fixed. For instance, one village, Shamazar, came forward and said we want this. We said, 'Well, you've had 18 IEDs in your village and outside your village. We know you know who's doing it. You're not telling us.'" The idea is for the Afghan communities to police themselves, in order to qualify for reconstruction projects.

The aim is to extend security beyond the US-controlled villages. One of Colonel Gukeisen's platoons met recently with farmers in Ibed. "We're conducting agricultural and veterinary surveys for locals in the village of Ibed, outside the security bubble, in hopes of enticing some farmers to come to the district center - and, if they do, it will give us a chance to show that these are services that ourselves in conjunction with the ANA can provide to them. Hopefully we can turn them into a pro-coalition village," explained Army 1st Lieutenant Sean Mahard. Colonel Gukeisen's says the approach worked before.

In Iraq four years ago, a small number of US Marines were able to spread security across most of the country's west, by first concentrating in the most pro-American communities. They called their approach, the "ink-spot" strategy. But Afghanistan is not Iraq, and it is not clear that ink spots will work the same way here. For one, Afghanistan is a bigger and more rugged country. Plus, the Taliban have a say. And in Logar, as elsewhere in Afghanistan, major violence often disrupts US plans.

Afghan Taliban Chief Rejects Talks With Government - Voice of America.

A statement attributed to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is again rejecting a call for peace talks aimed at ending the country's eight-year-old war. Last week, President Hamid Karzai used his inauguration speech to repeat an appeal for talks with militants. In a statement published on a Taliban Web site Wednesday, the reclusive militant leader says he will never agree to talks that prolong the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Omar has long held to a policy that rejects any negotiations before foreign soldiers leave. Omar also takes aim at the United States as President Barack Obama prepares to unveil a new Afghanistan strategy that may include sending thousands of additional US troops to the region.In a section addressed to the American public and its political leaders, Omar says the United States and its allies will face failure and the "defeat" can not be "averted by reinforcements." He calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops. US and Afghan leaders have called for negotiations with Taliban militants who are not linked to al Qaida, and are —to abandon violence and enter the political process.

Some militants have accepted the proposal and joined government forces, but no major Taliban factions have endorsed holding talks. Omar also called on militants to avoid causing civilian deaths when attacking Afghan and foreign troops. Taliban bombs often kill civilians and US officials say the militants frequently use innocent people as human shields. Mullah Omar has been in hiding since the US-led invasion in 2001, but he periodically releases written statements that encourage his followers and vilify the Afghan government and foreign troops. Also Wednesday, the Danish army says one of its soldiers was killed by an explosive device Wednesday while on a foot patrol in southern Afghanistan. Denmark has lost 28 soldiers since it joined coalition forces in the region about seven years ago.

"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

"Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us."

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best."

"Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789."

--President George Washington, 3 October 1789

Secretary Issues Holiday Season Message - American Forces Press Service.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today issued a holiday season message giving thanks to the military men and women who put their lives on the line every day.

"This time of year calls on Americans to reflect on and give thanks for the freedoms and prosperity we enjoy. Of course, we can only do so because of those who put their lives on the line every day: the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who bear repeated deployments, hardships, and danger -- without fail and without complaint.

"Many have made the ultimate sacrifice. Our nation will always honor their memory. For the loved ones of the fallen, I offer my deepest sympathies and prayers for your loss. And, in the wake of the shootings at Fort Hood, know that I am committed to ensuring that our home bases are safe and secure.

"I know the holiday season can be especially difficult for service members and their families, who may be separated from each other by thousands of miles. To the families of our men and women in uniform: know that the American people are indebted to you for the sacrifices of your husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters.

"This will be my third holiday season spent as Secretary of Defense. During these years nothing has impressed me as much as the determination, resilience and good humor of those who defend our nation. This holiday season, along with "Happy Thanksgiving," "Happy Hanukkah," and "Merry Christmas," I would add two words on behalf of millions of your countrymen: "Thank you."

Obama, Mullen Send Thanksgiving Day Messages - American Forces Press Service.

President Barack Obama and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released Thanksgiving messages today.

Obama recalled that President George Washington proclaimed the first public thanksgiving, and President Abraham Lincoln established the annual Thanksgiving Day holiday to mend the nation during the Civil War.

It is Thanksgiving as a unique American tradition that "binds us together as one people, each of us thankful for our common blessings," the president said.

Obama added, "As we gather once again among loved ones, let us also reach out to our neighbors and fellow citizens in need of a helping hand. This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our nation throughout the year.

"In doing so, we pay tribute to our country's men and women in uniform who set an example of service that inspires us all. Let us be guided by the legacy of those who have fought for the freedoms for which we give thanks, and be worthy heirs to the noble tradition of goodwill shown on this day."

Mullen's Thanksgiving Day message follows in its entirety.

"On behalf of the Mullen family, I wish all of you serving in uniform today -- as well as your families -- a very safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

"We certainly have much for which to be grateful. Today, due in no small measure to your dedication, our nation -- indeed the world -- is a safer place to live. All around the globe and in all manner of ways, you stand a vigilant watch. From Afghanistan to Iraq and a thousand places in between, you help ensure peace and stability in places that have historically known neither. Giving hope to those in need and pause to those who threaten us, you make sure the fight remains on the enemy's doorstep and that lives torn asunder by war and natural disaster are restored and renewed.

"The people you have helped are grateful ... Americans everywhere are grateful ... and I am grateful for your service.

"That service, of course, can and does demand the highest of sacrifices. We should be especially mindful this year of those families who will have one less chair at the table, as well as those who have no chair at all, much less a home in which to keep it. Theirs will be a particularly poignant holiday, and I ask you to keep them in your thoughts and prayers.

"We live in a country that doesn't force its young men and women to pick up arms. You do it willingly, even eagerly -- not because you enjoy danger or killing or sacrifice, but rather in spite of those things. You and your families serve and work so hard so that someday perhaps your children and grandchildren might not have to. That is the greatest gift you can give a grateful nation.

"Again, from my family to yours, thank you for all you do."

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on Richard Padilla Cramer, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who then spent over two decades working for U.S. Customs on the Mexican border. To his colleagues, friends, and family he was the ultimate warrior against the drug smugglers, having worked undercover, busted corrupt officials, and held an important diplomatic post in Mexico. Now it is Cramer who stands accused of corruption and will stand trial for having secretly been himself a drug mafioso.

Writing in The Atlantic, Philip Caputo, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and author of A Rumor of War, ventured south of the border to see Mexico's war for himself. Everyone is now counting on Mexico's army to fight the war Mexico's police long ago abandoned. But Caputo hears rumors that the army may now be in the drug business as deeply as any cartel is. Caputo reports that in Mexico it is dangerous to know, let alone say, the truth.

Finally, at FPRI, George Grayson, one of the leading scholars on Mexico's drug violence, writes about the rise in self-organized defense, aka vigilantism, in Mexico. Some such groups have come out in the open. Grayson predicts that vigilante self-defense organizations in Mexico will soon become a major growth industry.

... As "senior mentors," as the military calls them, the retired officers help run war games and offer advice to former colleagues. Some mentors make as much as $330 an hour as part-time government advisers, more than triple what their rate of pay was as high-level, active-duty officers. They earn more - far more, several mentors said in interviews - as consultants and board members to defense companies.

Retired generals have taken jobs with defense contractors for decades, reaping rewards for themselves and their companies through their contacts and insights. But the recent growth in the use of mentors has created a new class of individuals who enjoy even more access than a typical retired officer, and they get paid by the military services while doing so. Most are compensated both by taxpayers and industry, with little to prevent their private employers from using knowledge they obtain as mentors in seeking government work.

Nothing is illegal about the arrangements. In fact, there are no Pentagon-wide rules specific to the various mentor programs, which differ from service to service...

More at USA Today.

Old Soldiers Never Cash Out - New York Times editorial.

For all the stars of ranking generals and admirals in Washington, it turns out there's still a higher grade - "senior mentor." These are retired brass enjoying lucrative compensation as part-time Pentagon advisers, who, in most cases, also draw VIP pay from companies seeking defense contracts. The mentor cohort has quietly grown in recent years from a handful to at least 158 ranking retired officers - 80 percent of whom hire on at the same time with defense contractors.

There is nothing illegal about the double-dipping. But few people in Congress or elsewhere knew about it until now because there is no requirement to tell anyone, even the Pentagon. As Pentagon advisers, mentors are paid hundreds of dollars an hour for offering counsel to former colleagues on war games and other specialties. As defense contract consultants, they can make considerably more. It's time to closely manage the retirees' good deal, documented in a report by USA Today...

More at The New York Times.

Retired Generals Getting Rich from Conflicts of Interest - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.

... There will be a bunch of outraged responses about 30 years of dedicated service and how dare people question their ethics. My test on this is easy: Would George C. Marshall have accepted such payments? I doubt it. (Remember, he declined to write a memoir that would have made him wealthy because he thought it would have been improper to get into the failings of some of his comrades.)

By the way, if the New York Times can win a Pulitzer for its story about generals going on TV too much, this one should win two.

More at Best Defense.

The Greed of the Generals (II): Two Questions - Tom Ricks, Foreign Policy's Best Defense.

I'm interested that in all the e-mails I've gotten, and responses posted on this blog about triple-dipping retired generals getting paid to "mentor" the active duty military while at the same time working in the defense industry, and also collecting their pensions, not a single person has contended that, yes, George Marshall would approve of this behavior. As a friend of mine says, this is a good gut-check: WWGMD?

Also, another friend points out that one of the dangers of this whole "mentoring" this is that if you are not careful, you wind up bringing in people who simply reinforce existing prejudices, instead of challenging them...

More at Best Defense.

David Brostrom:

Wanat, and a host of similar incidents in Afghanistan, are grim reminders that you can't fight a counterinsurgency war on the cheap. When a four-star Army general called to offer his condolences, I asked him about our strategy's shortcomings. He conveyed that the Army was not about to "knee jerk" more troops into a place like Afghanistan and upset the "dwell time" the Army had worked hard to schedule. He said that, unfortunately, Afghanistan had become an "economy of force" with no clear "end-state." But the goal shouldn't be to achieve success with less. Months before Wanat, Gen. David McKiernan requested that 30,000 more troops be sent to Afghanistan. The Bush administration shunned him. It shouldn't have - and the current administration should not second-guess Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for about 40,000 troops. As the president weighs his options, more soldiers and Marines die fighting without the resources and strategic vision they need.

John Bernard:

General McChrystal is too enamored with "hearts and minds"; hearts and minds is not a strategy. To be clear: I don't say this solely because my son was killed implementing this idea. Weeks before Josh's death, I sent a letter to the office of my congressman, Mike Michaud, outlining my worries about counterinsurgency strategy and the rules of engagement. The approach denies our men artillery and airstrikes when they need support. (For example, the day before Josh's death, his unit was fired on from a nearby cave. But an airstrike was denied because the rules of engagement were not met; the pilot couldn't see the enemy.) It encourages the Taliban to take up offensive positions in populated areas and attack from points off-limits to US forces.

Much more at Newsweek.

Should President Obama decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 troops to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces. The rest could be deployed flexibly across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.

If Mr. Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand Province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops and would remain largely as they are today. Such trade-offs are part of the discussions under way in the West Wing and at the Pentagon as Mr. Obama and his top advisers debate escalating the eight-year-old war. And they drive home the basic point that while the numbers will dominate the headlines, what is really at stake is how to fight the war...

More at The New York Times.

Pricing an Afghanistan Troop Buildup is no Simple Calculation - Christi Parsons and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times.

As President Obama measures the potential burden of a new war strategy in Afghanistan, his administration is struggling to come up with even the most dispassionate of predictions: the actual price tag for the anticipated buildup of troops. The calculations so far have produced a sweeping range. The Pentagon publicly estimates it will cost $500,000 a year for every additional service member sent to the war zone. Obama's budget experts size it up at twice that much. In coming up with such numbers, the White House and the military have different priorities as well as different methods. The president's advisors don't want to underestimate the cost and then lose the public's faith.

The Pentagon worries about sticker shock as commanders push for an increase of as many as 40,000 troops. Both sides emphasize that their figures are estimates and could change - in fact, a Pentagon comptroller assessment this month put the number closer to that of Obama's Office of Management and Budget. Still, budgeting and politics are entwined, and numbers can always support more than one point of view...

More at The Los Angeles Times.