Center for a New American Security

Andrew, maybe Ive missed it

Andrew, maybe Ive missed it but Im still sort of wanting to hear the parameters of sucess, what constitues a "win". I think cutting out the contractors, and maybe replacing them with some sort of international (dare I say UN?) workforce that doesnt work for profits may be a very freaking good idea, to put it mildly. The trackrecord of the (especially US) companies in the first 7 years was abyssmal. Sometimes capitalism doesnt work.

Oho, what ya think about the new regime in military justice for the original leaker, Bradley Manning? hes not even sentenced, and you torture him? Crazy fcks. Assange is a hero in Europe.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning/ind...

I agree with the third set of

I agree with the third set of recommendations. The second and fourth are interesting; a more helpful reaction to them would have to come from someone with greater specialized knowledge than I have.

The fifth recommendation is all about reassuring Pakistan, or more specifically Pakistan's security services, that America will help enable the indefinite continuation of their idiotic contest with India; "countering Indian interests in Afghanistan" with the aid of the Haqqani gang and those people in Quetta means murdering Indian diplomats and the Afghan civilians and government officials who work with them. While we're reassuring the Pakistanis, their proxy actors will be using an American residual force as a target. No.

The first set of recommendations here has real merit. As I understand it, the battle over whether unused foreign assistance funds should carry over into subsequent fiscal years has been a long one; a Congress careless about most other kinds of spending has been jealous of the leverage yearly appropriations gives it over State and its unpopular foreign aid programs. The handling of aid money spent in Afghanistan is just collateral damage.

However, it's not at all unusual elsewhere in the federal government for appropriated funds to be handled more flexibly. Washington couldn't fund many research projects if it weren't, for one thing. For another, earmarked appropriations frequently involve the relevant federal agency negotiating a grant agreement with a non-federal organization that ends up getting the appropriated money, specifying deliverables, procedures and reporting requirements. These grant agreements are often written to allow expenditure of funds over a multi-year period.

So this can be done. A negotiation with the relevant Appropriations subcommittees in each house of Congress to secure permission to carry over funds and establish some kind of regular oversight regime would be required. The modern Congress does not like to do oversight, and if the Obama administration really wanted to do what AM suggests in this area it could more easily have worked this out while Democrats had large majorities in each house. But, as the World War II admiral said about how to implement his idea of defeating German U-boats by boiling the Atlantic Ocean and forcing them all to the surface: "I have given you the idea; the technical details are up to you."

What about those pop pop

What about those pop pop poppy fields? Isn't it time to seriously break out an "I don't like the drugs (but the drugs like me)" moment?

Scorched earth? Bribe farmers to grow okra or watermelons? Or, instead of outright annihilation of poppy fields, refinement and distribution centers, perhaps these items could be added to Great Satan's arsenal of strategic resources.

Why not? Oil weaponry has been around a while. Commonwealth is not above using energy as a weapon against Europa.

If total control -- or near total control is gained of Afghanistan's poppy fields -- not only would it starve Taleban (and al qaeda) cats of much needed fundage -- these nasty nasty things could be placed on the option table -- like a military option.

It would be way more humane to use the threat of heroin as a strategic resource against certain autocrazies and unfree regimes until -- the poppy - lation of addicts has doubled -- or tripled -- causing the regime to totally break down.

After that -- 'freedom programs' to unburden survivors and save them from their addiction would be far more humane than possible future encounters with -- o, say "Rock Of The Marne"

Sorry but you are in the

Sorry but you are in the "Pointing Out All the Things Going Wrong in Afghanistan" business Exum.

Any solution worth its salt would consider "what could go wrong". The problems that we are pointing out are not new problems, they were known up front. The real questions is why were they ignored ?

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. The heck of it is the taxpayer is giving these yo yo's six-figure salaries for this shit. Remember that when you get your PhD and join them Andrew.

Option #1 is not an option. Why? Cause Congress is not going to defund the troops, that is not patriotic. Get serious, no baby kissing Congressman is going to tell the soldier's parents, "I defunded your child at a time of war".

All the rest of the Options are just more of the same circle jerk.

Here an obvious option............

AQ has changed strategy. In the beginning, AQ was in Afghanistan. As US strength grew in Afghanistan, AQ moved in to Pakistan. Pakistan will not let US troops operate within its borders therefore the battle is not longer in Afghanistan. Because AQ's stategy has changed, so should the US stategy. This is an ever changing fight. The US will stand down in Afghanistan to a CT strategy in order to stay vigilant to an AQ reoccurance. AQ is operating in several countries of the world as proven by recent attacks on the US from Yemen and activity seen in Africa and South America. On going CT operations in these area will continue.

How about that. Some times the truth is the best solution. All the money that is being dropped in Afghanistan is from the COIN strategy and the surge. If AQ has morphed, then the battle has changed and the orignal concept of victory changed with it. Every one saves face. Congressman can keep on kissing babies. Obama says "darn AQ" I really wanted to win this one. Miltitary does not have to prove anything cause the enemy ran away to a different country, "darn borders, wish those countries would work more with us".

Meanwhile, it is still open season. The dark side eats money. You can tell that by SOCOM's & CIA's budget (Yup Spendex is alive and well there too and it will never go away cause it is classified).

If they do it right, AQ will be shitting their underwear rather than lighting them up.

PS....PAK news agencies are really talking about the $20 BILLION the CHINESE gave Pakistan. Pakistan is call the Chinese the "best" Pak friend. Good, Pakistan has a new sugar daddy. BYE. BYE.

Why COIN does not

Why COIN does not work.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870407380457602391176793001...

Under the revised tactical directive, which is classified, Special Operations forces are instructed to provide villagers with a list of individuals who have been detained and information about who is holding them. The units will provide receipts to account for any items seized during night operations. Forces will also provide leaders in raided compounds or villages with claim information, enabling civilians caught in the fighting to seek compensation for any damaged property.


You go for the hearts and minds of the people in a foreign country while you piss all over your own.

My government mandated automoble insurance (which I am learning is unconstitutional) will not cover "acts of war". If it did cover "acts of war" all I would get is "compariable replacement" which is another way of saying I am going to either get bondo putty or someone's rusty fender on my bright and shiny new car.

How does FEMA do it? Everyone gets a new house after a flood?

It all depends on what the government wants.

Folks that got offshored in the US before the recession got lip service and still lost their homes. Current unemployed are getting their third unemployment insurance extension. Not sure what the people that applied for HAMP got, guess they got HUMPED.

So this is what FUCKING YOURSELF feels like.

Cut Funding for the War This

Cut Funding for the War

This may seem a bit counterintuitive, to say the least. But right now, the massive amount of money flowing into Kabul is fueling the conflict. In a bizarre way, both the Taliban and the Afghan government currently have an interest in perpetuating this conflict: Both parties are making millions of dollars from the aid and development money saturating the country. These funds are distorting incentives and presenting ample opportunities for kickbacks, bribes, and other forms of corruption. It is little wonder Transparency International rates Afghanistan the world's third most corrupt nation.

The United States and its allies should only spend the money in Afghanistan they can properly manage and oversee. They should also focus on developing ways to spend resources more wisely in Afghanistan. One way to do so -- and here any congressional aides reading this should grab a notebook and pen -- would be to allow aid and development funds not spent in one fiscal year to roll over to the next. Well-constructed aid programs, such as Afghanistan's National Solidarity Program, have trusts established that allow funds not spend in one year to be spent later. But within the U.S. government, that's not the case: Money not spent is lost from year to year.

Military officers, for example, are familiar with the concept of the "SPENDEX," where all ammunition not used in the course of the year is fired -- sometimes wildly -- at the end of a fiscal year, so ammunition allotted for the next year is not cut. The same principle applies to aid -- but instead of wasting bullets, the organizations waste dollars. Rather than face the prospect of reduced development funds in the future, development and military officers are under pressure to spend every penny they are given. But doing so simply feeds the Afghanistan's distorted economy, which only benefits the insurgency and corrupt Afghan officials. We must first fix the perverse incentives in our own system in order to fix those in Afghanistan.

Premise #1 De-Bunked. @ what point do we stop beating a dead-horse Mr. Exum? It's been 10 years & the U.S. Mission has achieved nothing. Billions spent, thousands dead, & yet people like you're still beating the drum for a metric that exists only in a U.S. framed concept! It's nuts!!

#2Compromise on Combat Enablers

Every day, the president is faced with the difficult task of determining how many resources should be expended on foreign engagements when compared with competing domestic priorities. Obama has decided to implement a soft "cap" on troop numbers in Afghanistan, limiting troops deployed to the number he and the Department of Defense agreed upon in the fall of 2009.

At the same time, however, the president and his team should be flexible enough to support the commanders in eastern and southern Afghanistan with the critical "enablers" they need to be successful tactically. More than anything else, our field commanders need more heavy-lift rotary-wing assets in Afghanistan. With a limited supply of helicopters, it is incredible difficult to operate in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The president should commit more CH-47 helicopters to Afghanistan immediately, even if he has to "trade" David Petraeus an infantry battalion in order to keep the overall number of troops more or less the same. The military also needs more intelligence platforms, including drones and observation blimps. Finally, the development of local security programs like the Afghan Local Police could be sped up if more Special Forces A-Teams were committed to the effort.

Premise # 2 De-Bunked. The enablers that should be cut are you Mr. Exum! You cater to sustaining the war effort in Afghanistan because you have staked your lofty reputation on this conflict. It's nothing more than flattering power in order to obtain/maintain position/favor!

#3Reinvent, Don't Replace, the Special Envoy

Trying to replace a diplomatic giant like the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is a fool's errand. The president should not even try. But he will still need officials responsible for coordinating U.S. policy between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The comparatively low-key acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Frank Ruggiero, should keep Holbrooke's team in place to do just that.

As far as the regional "super envoy" job that Holbrooke attempted to fill (with mixed success, it must be said), it might be best left to a respected United Nations diplomat -- such as Lakhdar Brahimi, who had earlier successes enlisting the support of Afghanistan's neighbors. State Department officials and CENTCOM commander James Mattis, along with envoys in Kabul and Islamabad, could then be used to properly allocate diplomatic and military resources between the two countries.

In Afghanistan, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry is likely headed home soon. The president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should spend more time searching for his replacement than trying to replace Holbrooke. I'm sure Gen. Petraeus would appreciate an attempt to lure former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker out of semi-retirement and back to the region.

Premise# 3 De-Bunked. By all means lets re-assemble that winning team from Iraq David Petraeus & Ryan Crocker for Afghanistan. That's it, that's my response! This is the team that bumbled around Iraq re-constituted for a go in Afghanistan!!!

#4Find and Pressure Dual Citizens

Analysts regularly note how difficult it is to apply pressure to corrupt Afghan officials and local power brokers. However, many of these officials possess citizenship in countries other than Afghanistan or have children residing in other countries. To my knowledge, no effort has been made to compile a list of these individuals and use the laws of the United States and other Western countries to prosecute corrupt officials outside Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence agencies should busy themselves compiling this list immediately.

There is a precedent for this approach. Mahmood Karzai, brother of the Afghan president and an American citizen, is currently the subject of a federal corruption probe in New York. Western governments can surely build cases against other Afghan political actors judged to be involved with illicit activity -- or at least use the threat of investigations as a source of leverage over them. For many Afghan power brokers and their families, a Western passport is their escape plan from Afghanistan should the country descend into a chaotic civil war. U.S. intelligence services should pressure these power brokers to act responsibly today by endangering their plans for tomorrow.

Premise#4 De-Bunked. This would only work for the U.S created Karzai Central Government. They're only one of many tribes, gangs through out Afghanistan. So, assume we use your plan? How does that work for the other factions in Afghanistan? It doesn't, you lose leverage outside of the Karzai Central Government. Hell, we put Karzai in power & now you want threaten prosecution? How bout we prosecute idiots such as yourself who support this war effort which in turn is a confirmation of Karzai?

#55. Go Long

Afghans live in fear that the international community will abandon them. Although the Taliban is unpopular, normal Afghans are just trying to survive, waiting to see how this conflict will turn out. Pakistan, meanwhile, is hedging its bets, supporting proxy actors like the Quetta Shura Taliban and Haqqani Network that might counter Indian interests in Kabul after the United States and its allies eventually withdraw. The insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan are one of the two Achilles heels in the NATO strategy, the other being governance in Afghanistan.

One way the United States might counter both Afghan fears as well as Pakistani predictions is by signaling a long-term military commitment to Afghanistan. As the United States and its allies transition from a resource-intensive counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, we should be prepared to leave behind 25,000 to 35,000 special operations forces and trainers beyond 2014. Afghan leaders, including President Hamid Karzai, have long desired a concrete U.S. security commitment to Afghanistan. Such a residual force will both protect U.S. interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia after the departure of the bulk of U.S. and NATO troops, and will also signal to Pakistan that their strategy of employing hard-to-control violent extremist groups poses a larger long-term threat to Pakistan's stability than it does to the government in Kabul.

Premise # 5 De-Bunked. In the previous premise you want to prosecute players in Afghanistan & in this said premise you want to continue propping up the Karzai Government?! Wow!! Is it Go Long, Go Along, or Go Home Mr. Exum?? You can't both prop up & prosecute a President thrust upon the Afghan People by the U.S.of A.