Center for a New American Security

[Editor's note: This post has been removed at the request of the authors. No, I am not happy about it. I thought it was starting a good debate and had planned on bringing the conference's organizers in for comment as well.]

I'm just back from a great conference at Wilton Park in the UK on how we can assess the effect of aid and development on counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. I'll have much more to say about this later. But depite my well-documented and mischevous antagonism toward those doing quantitative analysis in the field of security studies, allow me to once again highlight the work being done by Eli Berman, Jason Lyall, Jacob Shapiro, Joe Felter and Company. Eli's presentation on the effectiveness of CERP funding in Iraq was, for me, one of the highlights of the conference. And although the conference was governed by Chatham House rules, you can read the paper behind Eli's presentation here (.pdf). Again, I will have much more to say about this later.

For now, though, one thing that caught my eye was this report by Mark Perry (prolific author, father of Cal) in Foreign Policy on the case CENTCOM is apparently making to bring Israel into its area of responsibility. Briefly, there has always been a good argument for keeping Israel a part of EUCOM: what is the optic we send when a senior commander of U.S. troops in the region makes a visit to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt ... and then caps his trip off with a visit to Israel? Does that cause more suspicion among our allies -- Arab and Israeli alike -- than it is worth? And we can safely assume that EUCOM would resist such a move outright. With the establishment of AFRICOM, EUCOM's relevance has already been diminished. What would taking away Israel do?

But putting Israel in CENTCOM probably makes sense. Issues relating to Israel and the Palestinians affect quite a lot of CENTCOM's activities already, and it doesn't make sense to decouple what's going on with respect to the Middle East Peace Process and the command in charge of the Middle East. I worked on a review of CENTCOM strategy last year, focusing on the Levant and Egypt, and I confess -- and I am only speaking for myself here -- to having been frustrated in reviewing U.S. strategy concerning Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon without looking comprehensively at U.S. strategy toward Israel and the Palestinians. It doesn't make sense, right? So moving Israel and the Palestinian Territories over to CENTCOM is probably a wise decision, but I confess to not having fully thought out what the second- and third-order political effects would be.

While AM has been surfing the interwebs keeping track of smart-allecky grad students on the Syrian border, Charlie has been trying to wrap her brain around the attack earlier this week.  Two articles are stuck in her craw.

Funny, after all the hoopla over the last bit of Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the confirmation hearings for Generals Petraeus and Odierno have almost gone under the radar. (Perhaps some members of your loyal blogging team are sleeping off Man U induced hangovers. Man U always makes Charlie feel ill, but ususally for a different reason.) You'll notice our commentary has been less than extensive...we'll try to remedy that forthwith.

Meantime, Phil Carter relays some hot questions from the wunderkinder at CNAS. And both the Intrepid Spencer and the good folks at Democracy Arsenal have been live blogging this morning. (Also, apparently McCain missed the hearings for a fundraiser in California. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.) More soon.

There's obviously loads of coverage on Day 2 of the Army's musical chairs campaign (see SWJ for the best round-up). But this bit from Tom Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson caught Charlie's eye.

Indeed, military officials familiar with the relationship between Petraeus and Odierno said mutual trust would make it easier for Petraeus to turn his attention to pressing regional issues such as Iran, Pakistan and Lebanon while Odierno assumed the reins in Iraq. As Centcom chief, Petraeus would oversee more than 200,000 U.S. military personnel in the region.

"Petraeus has the opportunity to hand off with confidence and expand his area of control and responsibility," said Lt. Col. Nathan P. Freier, a former adviser to Odierno in Iraq.

That's obviously a happier tune than Charlie and AM were singing yesterday (what, we told you they were initial impressions), but it follows a lot of the email traffic Charlie received after the initial announcement.

Indeed, the inside-baseball picture she's getting is that Petraeus wanted Odierno at the helm in Iraq because he knew his former deputy already understood his intent (and would be unlikely will strike out and try to create his own Iraq "legacy"). With Odierno continuing to execute his strategy in Iraq, Petraeus can turn to Afghanistan, Iran, etc. with greater comfort. Now Charlie doesn't fully buy into all of this: she thinks the jury is still out on Odierno, and agrees with AM that it will be psychologically and emotionally hard for Petraeus to move past Iraq. But she's markedly more sanguine than she was yesterday afternoon.