Center for a New American Security

Hot on their heels of their Blackwater logo contest (Charlie's a sucker for Hello Kitty...oh please, don't pretend like you're surprised), Danger Room has discovered Blackwater's stock of motivational posters. Talk about an irony-free-zone. Holy sh*t. (This one is particularly hilarious / nauseating.) So there's really no choice but for them to host a Blackwater Poster Contest to spice things up a bit. Check it out.

From David Axe over at Danger Room:

"Afghanistan risks sliding into a failed state and becoming the "forgotten war" because of deteriorating international support and a growing violent insurgency, according to an independent study:"

The assessment, co-chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones and former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, serves as a warning to the Bush administration at a time military and congressional officials are debating how best to juggle stretched warfighting resources.

This at a time when Canada -- one of the ass-kickingest members of the Afghanistan coalition -- is threatening to pull out its troops if other NATO members don't pony up more soldiers, choppers and cash. Such a move by Canada could undermine NATO's relevance in a post-Soviet world, some say. The U.S. is promising a few thousand extra Marines, but as The Netherlands proved this summer, a battalion-sized commitment and a handful of deaths are all that many NATO nations will tolerate.

And Germany? Don't get me started on Germany ...

The US tried to goad NATO into sending more troops and ended up sending 3000 of its own Marines. Last Charlie checked, that's not an option for Canada. Will NATO call their bluff, too? If so, we might just have to relegate them to the Warsaw-Pact-dustbin-of-history. Because, man, they are so not worth the trouble.

Update: More from Kings of War:

I think a week from now will be make or break time for NATO in Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the seriousness of the issue is recognized and that 10 countries have agreed to boost the numbers of their troops on the ground. That’s good news, to be sure; but where will they be deployedand what operational restrictions will be placed on their employment?

Good to know that with the U.S. locked into two ground battles with Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force doesn't take its eye off the ball: the budget. Abu Muqawama apologizes for the language, but honestly, what assholes. Here we were, thinking "strategic communication" meant the effort to win hearts and minds. Apparently it does, but those "hearts and minds" belong to Congressmen and defense contractors. (Click image to enlarge, and, if you have relatives who deployed to Iraq without proper body armor, prepare to be sickened by the winner-takes-all sentiment you encounter.)


There is just so much going on here, but following the USAF's unique understanding of strategic communication, how about let's start with the phrase "Returning the Air Force to Prominence in the National Security Arena." Well now there's a worthy goal! Throw out your copies of Clausewitz, because apparently national defense institutions have a new, more noble purpose: to ensure their own success in winning a slice of the budget. What really matters is not defeating the enemy fighting force or accomplishing policy objectives through the application of force but rather making sure that your branch is most favored in the Department of Defense budget.

Jesus Nuts, we deserve to lose every war we fight. Some guys living in caves in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or sleeping on the floors of apartments in Baghdad and Karachi are laughing their asses off right now.

Update: Abu Muqawama should have mentioned, as one of his readers did, that the flyer spoke of the "Budget Battle" being a "Zero Sum Gain." Whatever the hell that is. We can guess, anyway, what they mean. Somehow, Bill Chambers rose to be a Major General in the U.S. Air Force. It certainly wasn't due to his mastery of the English Language. Or by being a team player.

Update II: Small Wars Journal saw this too. And one reader complains the U.S. Army has used its Iraq and Afghanistan needs to push through funding for the FCS. Which, if true, is a fair criticism of the Army.

Update III: Cross-posted at Danger Room.

Update IV: More snark from Spencer.

The AP is reporting that US Marines are once again preparing to go to Afghanistan, this after Secretary Gates essentially told CMC earlier this fall "over my dead body."

The Pentagon is preparing to send at least 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan in April to bolster efforts to hold off another expected Taliban offensive in the spring, military officials said Wednesday.

The move represents a shift in Pentagon thinking that has been slowly developing after months of repeated insistence that the U.S. was not inclined to fill the need for as many as 7,500 more troops that commanders have asked for there. Instead, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressed NATO allies to contribute the extra forces.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that a proposal will go before Gates on Friday that would send a ground and air Marine contingent as well as a Marine battalion — together totaling more than 3,000 forces — to southern Afghanistan for a "one-time, seven-month deployment."

This is a much smaller roll than was proposed earlier this fall: here, they'll be joining the existing ISAF fight, instead of running the whole show.

Now, the Pentagon is hedging, saying that a decision isn't imminent and that Gates hasn't officially committed troops. That may be true. But ground truth tells a different story, and the good money is on the Devil Dogs once again getting a crack at the Taliban. They'll likely send a MEU and another battalion, which should allow them to operate as a MAGTF on the ground. But Marine airlift is always a concern in Afghanistan: their CH-46s are underpowered, making it difficult to operate at high altitudes (and occasionally causing some tension with the Army who's always asked to loan out some 47s). Here's hoping they go somewhere where everyone gets to play.

Update: Cross-posted to Danger Room.

NYT is reporting that the US is considering sending special operations forces to the tribal areas in Pakistan. This has obviously been discussed before, but it's thought that President Musharraf may be newly amenable to the idea.

But at the White House and the Pentagon, officials see an opportunity in the changing power structure for the Americans to advocate for the expanded authority in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country. “After years of focusing on Afghanistan, we think the extremists now see a chance for the big prize — creating chaos in Pakistan itself,” one senior official said.

The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have been conducted by the C.I.A.; in Afghanistan, where military operations are under way, including some with NATO forces, the military can take the lead.

The legal status would not change if the administration decided to act more aggressively. However, if the C.I.A. were given broader authority, it could call for help from the military or deputize some forces of the Special Operations Command to act under the authority of the agency.

Now if this was going to be a low-key, under-the-radar affair like our work in the the Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) or the excellent program in Mindinao in the Southern Philippines (JSOTF-P), Charlie would be on board. But there are two conditions that support those operations that simply are not present in Pakistan.

1. 1) A welcoming and cooperative government, whose armed forces take the lead in ground operations.
2. 2) Little in the way of media coverage or Pentagon/Foggy Bottom meddling.
   

Unfortunately, the 10,000 mile screwdriver will be in full effect in Pakistan, no matter how covert the program wants to be. There was a time where aggressive, kinetic counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan could have been effective. We've long since past it. Which is exactly why Musharraf might let us in now. We'll go ahead and add NWFP and FATA to our ever-growing list of "too little, too late."

Update: One further question: what would be the SOF mission in Pakistan? The easiest (and only by comparison) might be snatch-and-grab operations. But they're also the least strategically significant; they don't change the endgame of a growing Jihadi movement directed against the Pakistani government (and one divorced from the older Islamist establishment). At worst, a never ending game of a whack-a-mole feeds jihadi recruitment and further undermines Musharraf. Does the Bush administration want to try and own the tribal areas? You and whose army? No literally, which army? It's not gonna be ours (take a number). And the Pakistani one is alternately busy focusing on India and getting kidnapped by the very Taliban they're supposed to be fighting. As Craig Cohen from CSIS says,

“The need is immediate, but there’s not probably any short-term solution,” Cohen said. “That’s the reality. Counterinsurgency is a long-term effort, with no quick fix. Incorporating a part of their society that has historically been separate is going to take time.”

To say the least.

But time is just one of the things we don’t have in Pakistan.

So, what gives? Anyone seen a mission statement around here?

Finally, and not to sully all of this with presidential politics, but isn't this proposal rather similar to one made by Barack Obama earlier this summer? For which he was roundly criticized? Charlie obviously still thinks its a bad idea (unless it's the train, organize, and equip mission discussed earlier this fall). Politics make strange bedfellows, indeed

Update: Cross-posted to Danger Room.