Small Wars Journal

ISAF Counterinsurgency Guidance Released

Tue, 08/25/2009 - 6:48pm
H/T Ex at Abu Muqawama.

The counterinsurgency guidance issued by Gen. Stan McChrystal to his units in the field has been finalized and released -- and it's very good. I would say it incorporates most of what the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have learned about counterinsurgency warfare over the past eight years and gives a good hint as to how Gen. McChrystal expects his subordinate units -- U.S. and allied -- to fight over the next 12-24 months.

In full below:

COMISAF COIN GUIDANCE

Fast Forward: The Final "Homecoming"

Tue, 08/25/2009 - 5:36pm

Three months or eight, it does not matter Megrahi, meet your new "cell-mates" in hell. No need to save a space for Mohmmar Qadaffi - or however they spell this evil buffoon's name these days - his Hell Frequent Aficionado program points has him a guaranteed express check-in - a suite with a fire-side view - hottest place in town.

Remembering what we (mis)learned in Bosnia

Mon, 08/24/2009 - 1:22pm
On Sunday, the Washington Post published a dispatch from Sarajevo that described Bosnia's simmering discontent and unfinished business. Thankfully, Bosnia has not returned to ethnic violence. But neither has it resolved its political and ethnic problems.

In 1995, NATO forces, led by the U.S. Army, conducted a large-scale armed intervention into Bosnia in order to enforce the Dayton peace accord. The hoped for "end state" was an ethnically and politically-reconciled Bosnia, managing its own affairs. 14 years later the country is still under international supervision.

We should pause for a moment and consider what effect the U.S. experience in Bosnia had on policymaking and war management this decade. The seeming ease with which the U.S. and NATO appeared to pacify Bosnia (after the previous disastrous mismanagement by the UN) led policymakers, analysts, and military officers into complacency and overconfidence when they contemplated armed interventions at the beginning of this decade. Generals may or may not prepare to fight the last war, but policymakers clearly make their decisions based on the last experience, whether relevant or not.

When considering military policy, the U.S. political system places enormous weight on the most recent experience. In 1991 it was very difficult to get the U.S. Congress to pass a war resolution to liberate Kuwait. Memories of the Vietnam War's casualties and the discredited Gulf of Tonkin resolution haunted the Congress. The Senate narrowly approved the war only after the UN Security Council gave its approval. In October 2002, recalling the quick and easy victory in 1991, Congress approved another war against Iraq with hardly a debate.

Stung by the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco in Somalia, President Clinton mightily resisted U.S. intervention in Bosnia's civil war. Based on lessons learned from Somalia, he reasoned that U.S. intervention in a civil war would benefit one side, creating an armed opponent of the other side. Possessing savage combatants, sympathetic and fearful populations, abundant weaponry, a history of insurgency, and rough terrain, the former Yugoslavia seemed an excellent location for "guerilla warfare."

At the time (1996-1999), I feared U.S. military forces in the Balkans would receive the treatment they would later receive in Iraq and Afghanistan. What were policymakers, analysts, and military officers to conclude when the U.S. suffered nary a combat death in the Balkans? The ease of the Balkan pacification no doubt influenced Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, a book which provided important cover, and comfort, for policymakers.

U.S. Army colonels and generals in Iraq in 2003-2004 were company and field grade officers in the Balkans. In Bosnia and Kosovo they recalled that the arrest, by targeted raid, of a few troublemakers seemed to be enough to prevent an insurgency. In the winter of 2003-2004, they must have concluded that similar such nighttime raids in Iraq would also solve any incipient problems.

So what are today's lessons? First, a surge worked for Iraq, so it must be the prescription for Afghanistan. I'll leave it to others to discuss the differences between the two wars, a topic which will no doubt get much more airing in the weeks ahead.

Second, how will policymakers and lawmakers now assess the risks of large-scale armed interventions, whether for humanitarian, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stabilization, or any other reasons? They will naturally have a much more cautious view than they did after the Balkans operations. As a consequence, there will be more reliance in the period ahead on Phase Zero security force assistance, wars by proxy, and tactical and strategic raiding. Since I find much merit in these approaches, I will be pleased with this outcome, should it occur.

But the theme of this post is humility and that applies equally to me. If recent sour experiences have ruled out a long list of elective military operations using general purpose forces, what risks does that create? If we can't figure out the answers now, we will experience them eventually.

Petraeus to Open Intel Training Center

Mon, 08/24/2009 - 3:27am
Petraeus to Open Intel Training Center - Eli Lake, Washington Times.

Gen. David H. Petraeus plans to open an in-house intelligence organization at US Central Command this week that will train military officers, covert agents and analysts who agree to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan for up to a decade. The organization, to be called the Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence, will be led by Derek Harvey, a retired colonel in the Defense Intelligence Agency who became one of the Gen. Petraeus' most trusted analysts during the 2007-08 counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq.

Mr. Harvey distinguished himself in Iraq by predicting that the Iraqi insurgency would spiral out of control, at a time when it was widely underestimated by the Bush administration, in 2003 and 2004. He later dissented from the emerging consensus in Congress and the CIA, when he said, as early as March 2007, that al Qaeda had been strategically defeated. This was during the early days of the surge, at a time when most of the intelligence community thought the Sunni insurgency was intact.

In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Harvey said the center will build on some of the lessons that he and the military learned in Iraq, not just for counterinsurgency but also in terms of intelligence analysis...

More at The Washington Times.

Support the troops AND help cure breast cancer at the same time

Mon, 08/24/2009 - 2:00am
A short time ago, I received an e-mail from a female captain currently stationed at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Iraq. She writes:

Hello from Iraq!

As some of you may know, I run in the 'Race for the Cure' [5 kilometers/3.1 miles] in Central Park, NYC each year. I do this in remembrance of my grandmother, Grace [redacted], who passed from this disease years before I was born.

I started this tradition with my aunt, Maryann [redacted], after my last visit here to Iraq in 2005. I was highly disappointed that I wouldn't make it back to the states in time to do this again this year. So....I've decided that I am going to do this here in Iraq instead. I will be running here at 4 p.m. when it is 9 a.m. there in NYC [race takes place on 13 September].

Please feel free to donate to the cause. Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

Erica [Redacted]

I should also note that during September in Iraq, afternoon temperatures will typically top 100 degres Farenheit (38 degrees Celcius). This particular captain's goal was to raise $500 for research, which she did via a Facebook feed. I have this little theory that I can one-up her, and get another $500 donated for research. (And they say Web 2.0 shouldn't be in the hands of Soldiers...)

How can you help? Just click on this link to sponsor this Soldier who will be running the 5-kilometer "Race for the Cure" in the middle of Iraq. The 5k walk/run takes place on 13 September in Central Park in New York City.

Afghanistan Situation is 'Serious and Deteriorating' (Updated)

Sun, 08/23/2009 - 5:46pm
US Military Chief: Afghanistan Situation is 'Serious and Deteriorating' - Voice of America.

The US military's top officer says he believes the situation in Afghanistan is "serious and deteriorating."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said in an interview on US television CNN's State of the Union Sunday that the Taliban insurgency has "gotten better [and] more sophisticated" in its tactics over the past couple of years.

In a separate interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Mullen said the US military is focused on preventing another terrorist attack on US soil and that its current strategy in Afghanistan is intended to disrupt and defeat al-Qaida, the Taliban and its extremist allies.

The Obama administration is expecting an assessment from its commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, in the next two weeks on the current situation there.

Republican Senator John McCain said in an interview on ABC's This Week Sunday that McChrystal's assessment should say exactly how many troops are needed in Afghanistan.

But Mullen said the upcoming assessment will not detail what resources are needed in Afghanistan. He also would not speculate whether more troops are required there.

Both Mullen and McCain said they expect to have a better idea on what, if any, progress is being made in Afghanistan within the next year to year-and-a-half.

More:

US Military Says Force in Afghanistan Insufficient - New York Times.

Mullen Issues Caution on Afghanistan - New York Times

Mullen: Afghan Fight 'Serious and Deteriorating' - Washington Post

Mullen: Afghanistan Is Deteriorating - Wall Street Journal

Mullen: Afghanistan 'Vulnerable' to Taliban - Washington Times.

Hard Choices on Afghanistan War Plans - Associated Press

More Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Allies Tell US Envoy - Los Angeles Times

More Troops? Why Mullen Won't Answer. - Christian Science Monitor

Mullen: Afghan Conflict Serious, 'Deteriorating' - Reuters

Mullen and Eikenberry on "Meet the Press" - Real Clear Politics

McCain Says US Needs More Troops in Afghanistan - Bloomberg

Concern About US Public Support for Afghan War - Voice of America

USAID Challenges Reflect Greater Problems at State

Sun, 08/23/2009 - 3:36pm
USAID Challenges Reflect Greater Problems at the State Department

By Matt Armstrong

Cross-posted at MountainRunner

A primary pillar of US engagement with the world in the modern era is foreign assistance. Institutionalized under the Marshall Plan and later the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that created the US Agency for International Development, development aid was and continues to be a means of denying ideological sanctuary to our adversaries that prey on poverty and despair as well as focusing on developing the capacity for self-governance through economic and other development.

In March 2008, General Anthony Zinni (ret.) and Admiral Leighton Smith (ret.) told Congress:

... the 'enemies' in the world today are actually conditions -- poverty, infectious disease, political turmoil and corruption, environmental and energy challenges.

USAID's mission today is as important as ever and yet it remains leaderless with declining morale and shrinking funds as increasingly America's foreign development aid wears combat boots, just like its public diplomacy.

As a valuable resource in the struggle for minds and wills, it is not coincidental that what we call public diplomacy and foreign assistance have led parallel ups and downs. The January 1948 signing of the legislation authorizing America's international information programs and expanding America's educational and cultural exchanges was passed in a large part because of the Communist reaction to the declaration of what would become the Marshall Plan six months earlier. The decline (or even the temporary elimination) of foreign assistance in 1972 mirrors the decline in public diplomacy (e.g. Fulbright's statement that the "Radios should take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics."). Much like the meddling in the public diplomacy budget (while at $900b, over half supports exchanges and only a fraction of the remainder is discretionary), the foreign assistance budget is subject to Congressional earmarks that limit flexibility and effectiveness.

While everybody says development -- like public diplomacy -- is an imperative, little has been done to strengthen and empower the agency in charge. Also like public diplomacy, one of USAID's problems is a lack of awareness within the US, including in Congress. At the Smith-Mundt Symposium, the Assistant Administrator for USAID remarked he had only $25k to inform the American public about what it was doing overseas. Perhaps the budget does not matter because AID "pays homage" to the same "firewall" that limits taxpayer and Congressional knowledge of public diplomacy. The result is not surprisingly a lack of understanding the effectiveness of AID.

Back in January 2009, Secretary Clinton vowed to make development once again one of the pillars of America's engagement as she said it would be an "equal partner" with diplomacy and defense. The so-called "3-Ds" would need AID to be "strengthened", "adequately funded", and ultimately given leadership after a decade of neglect and intentional weakening under the previous Secretary.

Just as we've seen a militarization of public diplomacy in the absence of effective leadership and Congressional support, we have a militarization of development assistance. According to a CSIS report published June 2009:

...foreign assistance funds are more frequently being implemented by the military. The Pentagon now accounts for over 20 percent of U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA). Between 1999 and 2005 the share of official development funds channeled through the Department of Defense increased from 3.5 percent to 21.7 percent. In that same period, U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) share of ODA decreased from 65 percent to less than 40 percent of total American development funds.

The decline of USAID is more pronounced in terms of staff. The number of permanent American employees in 2008 was nearly half that of 1998.

But as three former USAID administrators declared in a November 2008 article in Foreign Affairs, money alone can't solve the problem.

The reduced staff and loss of expertise has limited the agency's technical competency and its managerial control over projects, making USAID increasingly dependent on larger and larger grants and contracts to spend its budget. This has transformed USAID from a creative, proactive, and technically skilled organization focused on implementation to a contracting and grant-making agency...

On a policy level, meanwhile, large presidential initiatives and congressional earmarks for health care, HIV/AIDS, K-12 education, microfinance, and the environment have in recent years crowded out other development interventions, such as anticorruption measures, agricultural assistance, democracy-promotion programs, and infrastructure-enhancement measures...

Strategic needs on the ground should dictate the nature of the programs, but currently, allocation decisions are determined by earmarks, presidential initiatives, or diplomatic pressures.

Money alone can't solve this problem. The Agency requires strong leadership and strong support and an updated mandate.

Adam Graham-Silverman reported in Congressional Quarterly on August 5, 2009, both the House and Senate are pushing to rewrite the 1961 law authorizing foreign assistance, Public Law 87-195.

Last month, Clinton announced a quadrennial diplomacy and development review (QDDR), which the USAID administrator would co-chair, modeled on the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Clinton has called for staffing boosts to rebuild USAID and a closer coordination of diplomacy and development work.

Both the House and Senate are considering changes to overseas aid programs. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., is circulating a blueprint for a complete rewrite of the 1961 law that governs foreign aid spending. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., expects to mark up a bill (S 1524) after the August recess that would take more modest measures to strengthen USAID as a first step to broader change...

Lugar, a coauthor of Kerry's bill and a supporter of a stronger, overhauled USAID, said the department has not been enthusiastic about the Senate's legislation.

"They gave the impression that our action was less timely than we had thought," he said diplomatically. The department has been telling Congress "we have our own discussion going on," he said.

Whatever the discussions are within State, they are certainly hampered by the failure to find leadership for USAID. The loss of Paul Farmer, the latest candidate to pull out before nomination, is a blow to Agency and to US national security. The immediate impact will be the continued militarization of foreign aid as Congress and Defense cannot rely on the hope State will step up in the area of development or public diplomacy by itself despite the capable leadership of the Secretary.

Between this issue with USAID, the recent report by State's Inspector General on the dysfunction in the Africa Bureau, and State's absence in the current imbroglio over the militarization of public diplomacy, the Administration, State and Congress must take a very close look at a Department that is successful in limited areas despite itself.

Disputing Global Dystopia

Sun, 08/23/2009 - 2:46pm
Via Mark Safranski at Zenpundit - Disputing Global Dystopia: Phillips on "Our Dark Age Future".

... I am sympathetic to Col. Phillips' criticisms of the overly abstract and detached nature of IR in regard to the nature of international law and sovereignty. You can certainly see that "arid" and "imperialistic" attitude in many academics and NGO activists who like to present their novel theories and interpretations as "international law" when they lack any historical basis whatsoever (and are usually gamed to be highly restrictive on the authority of Western sovereign states to use force and permissive/exculpatory of the actions of Marxist/radical/Islamist terrorists or insurgents). Much of Phillips' condemnation of IR smacking of unreality from a practitioner's perspective is spot on.

That said, while definitely fuzzy and spottily adhered to in practice international law is not entirely "illusory", nor is it a byproduct of 20th century Wilsonian American exceptionalism as Phillips argued. Perhaps Hugo Grotius rings a bell? Or Alberico Gentili? Or the long history of admirality courts? Like common law or an unwritten tribal code, international law has evolved over a very long period of time and does exert some constraint upon the behavior of sovereigns. Statesmen and diplomats think about policy in terms of the impression it will make on other sovereigns, and international law is one of the yardsticks they contemplate. Admittedly, at times the constraint of international law is quite feeble but in other contexts it is strong. An American military officer, who can see firsthand the effect of creeping JAG lawyerism on command decisions on the battlefield ( in my view, greatly excessive and harmful ) and in the drafting of byzantine ROE, should know better than to make such a silly statement...

More at Zenpundit and Deconstructing Our Dark Age Future by Lieutenant Colonel P. Michael Phillips at Parameters.

Alba an Aigh? (Updated)

Sat, 08/22/2009 - 10:34am
To my friends in Scotland; the Scottish National Party, and Scottish Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, I praise their courage for having proved their independence in decision making, despite the unacceptable and unreasonable pressures they faced. Nevertheless, they took this courageously right and humanitarian decision ... my friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles.

--Muammar al-Gaddafi, Dictator of Libya

*****

Scottish Minister of Justice Announces Al Megrahi Release

Pan Am Flight 103 Mother: Release is Absolutely Appalling

*****

US Calls Libyan Welcome of Lockerbie Figure Outrageous, Disgusting - David Gollust, Voice of America.

The Obama administration has angrily criticized the warm welcome given by Libya to the convicted bomber of a US jetliner in 1988 who was released from prison by Scottish legal authorities Thursday because of ill health. State Department officials said the jubilant greeting given to Abdel Basset al-Megrahi calls into question Libya's promises in recent years to be a responsible actor in world affairs.

Obama administration officials had warned Libya not to make a hero out of Megrahi, who was freed by Scottish officials because he is said to be near death from prostate cancer.

They are seething over television footage showing the former Libyan intelligence agent being cheered by a flag-waving crowd and showered with flower petals on his late-Thursday arrival in Tripoli.

President Barack Obama, in brief comments to reporters, called the greeting highly objectionable while his spokesman Robert Gibbs was more emphatic, describing the airport scene as outrageous and disgusting.

Senior administration officials had pressed leaders of Britain and the Scottish regional government not to free Megrahi, who had served eight years of a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie Scotland that killed 270 people.

They have said that while they object to the decision to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds, they accept the legitimacy of the court and are contemplating no retaliatory move against key ally Britain.

However they say the treatment of Megrahi by Libya could have consequences for a US-Libyan relationship that has improved markedly since Libya renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said Friday the images of the welcome given to what he termed a mass murderer were personally offensive, and that he could only imagine how relatives of the Pan Am victims felt. He said they call into question promises Libya has made in recent years to change its ways...

More at Voice of America.

Lockerbie Fallout Puts Scotland on the Spot - Wall Street Journal

Qaddafi Praises Britain Over Lockerbie Release - New York Times

US, Britain Criticize Celebrations for Lockerbie Plotter - Washington Post

New Questions in Lockerbie Bomber's Release - New York Times

The Libyan Ultimatum - The Times

London Condemns Reception Bomber Received in Tripoli - Voice of America

Lockerbie Release Casts Dark Shadow Over Britain's Ties With US - The Times

Papers: Bomber's Release 'a Betrayal of Justice' - CNN

Scots Law Now 'Laughing Stock of the World' - The Scotsman

Trade 'Link' to Bomber's Release - BBC

'Deal in the Desert' - The Times

British Firms Hope Lockerbie Release will Boost Business - The Guardian

British Trade with Libya Set to Soar - The Indpendent

Libya's Gadhafi Welcomes Lockerbie Bomber - Associated Press

Gaddafi's Son: Trade Link to Lockerbie Bomber's Release - Daily Telegraph

Gaddafi Embraces Murderer, Thanks Brown - Daily Mail

Barack Obama Calls Tripoli Welcome 'Highly Objectionable' - Daily Telegraph

Anger as Americans Wake to Hear News - The Scotsman

Gaddafi Defies Criticism - Jerusalem Post

At Home With The Lockerbie Bomber - The Times

Lockerbie Bomber's Release is a Scottish Decision - Christian Science Monitor

No 10 Facing Lockerbie Questions - BBC

So Why is Brown Silent on Release of Megrahi? - The Scotsman

US Lawmakers Condemn Release - Wall Street Journal

UK Govt Under Scrutiny Over Role in Lockerbie Release - Agence France-Presse

Scotland Official Talks of Lockerbie Release - CNN

'Boycott Scotland' Bid to Brand Nation a Global Pariah - The Scotsman

Most Families Outraged at Pan Am 103 Bomber's Release - CNN

Victims' Relatives on Opposite Sides - Washington Post

FBI Chief Condemns Lockerbie Bomber's Release - Los Angeles Times

FBI's Mueller Says al-Megrahi Release Is 'Mockery' of Justice - Bloomberg

FBI Chief Condemns Lockerbie Bomber's Release - Los Angeles Times

US Families of Lockerbie Victims Plan Next Move - Associated Press

British, Libyan Leaders Spoke of Bomber's Release Weeks Ago - Washington Times

Lockerbie Release Could Topple SNP Government - The Times

Pressure Mounting on Gordon Brown - Daily Telegraph

Lockerbie Minister Facing Critics - BBC News

Scot-Free - Washington Post editorial

'Dear Moammar' - Wall Street Journal editorial

Terrorists Go Scot Free - National Review opinion

SNP's Libya Stunt Shamed My Nation - Daily Telegraph opinion

Stench of a Deal in the Lockerbie Release - The Times opinion

Lockerbie Defendant and "Compassionate Release" - Wall Street Journal opinion

*****

The Brits Are Okay with It - The Corner

Scottish Sympathy & Libyan Perfidy - Blackfive

What a Wonderful World - The Belmont Club

Trade Lockerbie Bomber for Oil Contracts? - Hot Air

Letting Terrorists Go - Powerline

Mercy for a Mass Murderer? - On Faith

Al-Megrahi's Comfortable Retirement Back Home - David Calling

Day of Shame for Scotland - Jawa Report

Anger at Welcome for Mass Murderer in Libya - PrairiePundit

The Problem Is Qaddafi, Not Megrahi - Contentions

Shell Has Been Stalking the Libyans - Royal Dutch Shell

*****

Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 - Victims of Pan Am Flight 103

Boycott Scotland - Boycott Scotland