Armchair Generalist

NAS Continues Amerithrax Review

This short article from Frederick, Maryland, updates us on the National Academy of Sciences' review of the FBI forensics data gathered in its pursuit of the Amerithrax perpetrator.

A microscopy expert said there was nothing unique about the silicon found in the anthrax spores recovered from the 2001 letter attacks.

The presentation Friday to a scientific panel confirmed nothing new but provided the group, convened by the National Academy of Sciences, a glimpse into the investigative science used in the wake of the nation's first major bioterrorism event.

"I think the letter powders are not unique with respect to (silica) and (oxygen) elemental signatures," said Joseph Michael of Sandia National Laboratory.
------------
Michael said it was clear the silicon in the spores occurred naturally and were not added to weaponize the bacteria. The same study of the RMR-1029, a flask of liquid Ames strain anthrax investigators think Ivins drew from to create the powder anthrax, did not contain silica, Michael said.

He said the elemental signatures in the spores from the Daschle, Leahy and New York Post letters were indistinguishable.

Interesting, but in the end, not really telling about whether the FBI did or did not "get its man." Hat tip to George Smith!

Biosecurity - Who Gets the Hot Potato?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report titled "High-Containment Laboratories: National Strategy for Oversight Is Needed," discussing the growing concern over the growth of bio research labs and parallel lack of oversight of said labs. Given that we have the story of Bruce Ivins, government bioresearcher turned terrorist, in our recent past, there's a good chance that this concern is justified.

 The National Security Advisor, in consultation with the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), and Homeland Security (DHS); the National Intelligence Council; and other executive departments, should, as deemed appropriate, identify a single entity charged with periodic governmentwide strategic evaluation of high-containment laboratories that will (1) determine (a) the number, location, and mission of the laboratories needed to effectively meet national goals to counter biothreats; (b) the existing capacity within the United States; (c) the aggregate risks associated with the laboratories' expansion; and (d) the type of oversight needed and (2) develop, in consultation with the scientific community, national standards for the design, construction, commissioning, and operation of high-containment laboratories, specifically including provisions for long-term maintenance.

When the GAO releases a report, usually one sees a congressional meeting next, and this one was held by the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It included testimony from Jean Reed, the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical-Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization (DATSD[CBD/CD]). He's in favor of having the NSC to work out this issue among the various government agencies conducting or sponsoring biodefense research within the United States. He doesn't suggest using the DOD's biological research regulations as the standard, since the DOD has this practice of being overly cautious in its safety procedures associated with working with and/or handling nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Another witness to the meeting, Michael Greenberger, a professor who works for a homeland security academic center, thinks the Department of Health and Human Services should just take over now and start working on the subject. I understand his point of view - certainly HHS is the right government agency to be in the lead, but because there are other executive departments involved, it ought to be a "whole of government" approach in developing solutions to this problem. That means leadership from the NSC - if they're not too busy with other competing issues (which has caused them to ignore WMD-related issues in the past).

Anyway, check out the report and the testimony. It's interesting stuff and remains an important issue to be addressed, sooner rather than later.

Army BRAC Jitters

I caught this article about some apprehension from proponents of the US Army Air Defense Artillery School as to its upcoming BRAC move to beautiful, barren Fort Sill, Oklahoma. They're trying to claim that the Army's readiness will drop as a result of the smaller training ranges there.

Moving the Army Air Defense Artillery Center and School to Fort Sill, Okla., has been criticized because the post is not large enough to fire Patriot or Stinger missiles, according to a study commissioned by the Army.

"Operationally, it doesn't make any sense," said retired Col. John Yeisley, who ran Fort Bliss' Air Defense Test Directorate in the early '90s. "I don't know what (the impact) will be, but I'm concerned it hasn't been addressed."

The move is expected to be complete early next year. About 39 people in the test directorate will remain at Fort Bliss, and about six will go to Fort Sill to coordinate with the school, said Wes Orwig, chief of the group's support division. Testing air defense systems requires the large areas available at Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range, he said.

Yeah, the political decision-makers don't care, neither does the Army leadership. It's all about synergy and saving costs. In the 1995 BRAC, the Army Chemical School was told to pack up and leave Fort McClellan, AL, for Fort Leonard-Wood, MO, despite not having large enough ranges to practice blowing smoke and obscurants and having a very limited flame range. Leonard-Wood didn't have a live agent chemical testing chamber at the time, and it was (still is?) pretty hard to do realistic biological detection training (using simulants in the open) there. But it was more important to Ike Skelton to enhance Lost-in-the Wood's population than it was to prepare our soldiers for CB warfare.

But I feel your pain, ADA comrades. Honestly. Life goes on, however. This too shall pass.

From Romania With Love

Via Political Irony, here's an amazing Romanian woman who wants to tell us what a dick Kirk Cameron has become in his Christian zeal to educate us all. For an explanation of why she calls him "Banana-man," see the Political Irony post. Cristina has a collection of her thoughts online, and given her positive review of "District 9," I'm sold on her. She's a lot of fun and sharp as a tack. 

If you don't like young, beautiful, entertaining women talking about progressive politics, you can always visit Margaret and Helen for old, feisty, entertaining women talking about progressive politics. 

Military Views on Afghanistan

I wanted to call your attention to Tom Ricks' post about the recent big Marine counterinsurgency conference featuring GEN Petraeus. It's not so much Ricks' post as the great discussion going on in the comments section. See especially Don Bacon's comment here. 

Amazing that this discussion can go on, in this year, without these military big-shots realize that they can't just talk about tactics. But without the Obama administration's guidance on the future strategy in that region, I suppose there's nothing else they can do - which is sad, in a way. You'd think they could at least try to talk about why they have been strategically unsuccessful in the Middle East.

I will reiterate a common view of mine, that the greatest failure of our military leadership (and our political leadership for that matter) is their inability to craft a regional strategy for the Middle East and/or Southwest Asia, whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan are not islands in the middle of the Pacific. They have neighbors, there are regional issues that underlie the success or failure of our military actions in those countries. It's like people are staring through straws.

Moral Relativism

I am not a big fan of Glenn Greenwald and his blog (not a big fan of many liberals who talk disparagingly about military issues without understanding the ground facts), but I found this post very entertaining and true to form.

Perhaps the ultimate confusion is that "the Left" has long been accused of "moral relativism" for pointing out the use of these terms when the essence of "moral relativism" is judging an act not based on what it is, but on who is doing it.  It's the adolescent self-love of believing that "X, by definition, is good when I do it and bad when you do it."

And this is why we progressive military analysts - we few, we band of brothers - need our compatriots in the non-military fields, to point out aspects of political and social issues that we might otherwise miss. And as I mentioned below, it's important to understand the social and political base against which our military capabilities are developed.

Exum Swerves Off Course

There used to be this neat guy who had a casual blog discussing Middle East politics and various military issues - it was called Abu Muqawama. Then this guy joined CNAS and decided he had the strategic high ground on military and national security issues. He was wrong - he still doesn't know the difference between sound tactics and military strategy, but  that was okay. He's still a good guy at heart. And then he did the Thing that Must Not Be Excused.

Andrew decided that Ross Douthat, NY Times columnist, Bush apologist, and author of "Grand New Party: How the Republicans Can Win the Working Class & Save the American Dream," made senseas to his point of view about military strategy in Afghanistan. Oh, and Andrew also thinks that Sen. Joe Lieberman actually talks sensibly about Iraq and Afghanistan. After Exum's bitchslap to Ralph Peters about his military analysis (who in fairness, had a horrible NY Post editorial), it's odd to see him glowing about Douthat's words. But then again, both Douthat and Lieberman support increases in troop strength and continued "nation-building," as does Andrew Exum. 

Sometimes there appears to be very little difference between left-leaning hawks and right-leaning hawks when it comes to contemporary military issues, for all the guff that you hear about differences between the Repubs and the Dems on national security. But here's the weird thing - conservative hawks who talk about military issues also have a strong awareness of those espousing conservative issues, and they support each other. Liberal hawks who talk about military issues (and aspire to government offices) pretend to be "non-partisan" and make no attempt to understand or work with those discussing liberal issues. Not saying that progressive military analysts should agree with all liberal positions or spokespersons (because some of them are pretty crazy), but it's as if they'd rather be with the conservatives, talking about military issues as if they were nonpartisan.

What I mean to say is that it is unclear whether the liberal hawks/progressive military crowd recognizes that the basis for all military actions is a defined political platform (war as an extension of politics and all that), and so you need to have a clear understanding of what your party's political/social issues are to understand why one is proposing a particular direction. Otherwise you're just changing "must" to "shall" in the directives when one has a change in administration from one side of the political spectrum to the other. But I suppose asking the Dems to be organized and to work together is still a pretty impossible thing to request.

And so you get situations like this, where Exum should know better than to believe anything that a Bush apologist like Douthat or a Bush-lover like Lieberman on any military issue regarding the Middle East. But he doesn't and that's just sad. Andrew, come back from the Dark Side!

Bacevich Has The Plan

Andrew Bacevich offers a strategy for Afghanistan that makes a lot of sense. One might hope that President Obama listens, since it's been stated that he may take five more weeks to develop a national strategy of his own.

Devising a new course requires accurately identifying the problem, which is not "terrorism" and, despite Washington's current obsession with the place, is certainly not Afghanistan. The essential problem is a dispute about God's relationship to politics. The proposition that the two occupy separate spheres finds particular favor among the democracies of the liberal, developed West. The proposition that God permeates politics finds particular favor in the Islamic world.

This conviction, which is almost entirely ignored in McChrystal's report, defines the essence of the way they live in Iraq, Afghanistan and a host of other countries throughout the Middle East.

At its root, this is an argument about what it means to be modern. Power, no matter how imaginatively or ruthlessly wielded, cannot provide a solution. The opposing positions are irreconcilable.

In confronting this conflict, the goal of U.S. national security strategy ought to be limited but specific: to insulate Americans from the fallout. Rather than setting out to clear, hold and build thousands of tiny, primitive villages scattered across the Afghan countryside, such a strategy should emphasize three principles: decapitate, contain and compete. An approach based on these principles cannot guarantee perpetual peace. But it is likely to be more effective, affordable and sustainable than a strategy based on open-ended war.

He's absolutely right, and the article makes much more sense than the short note left by John Nagl in the same paper.

In March, President Obama announced that his administration would instead implement a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy dedicated to protecting the Afghan people. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is just beginning to implement this strategy; 4,000 advisers are deploying this month from Fort Bragg to help develop the Afghan National Army and Police, and McChrystal is starting to redeploy his forces to protect population centers rather than chase enemy fighters.

A strategy that just targets enemy fighters, on the other hand, cannot build an Afghan state that can stand on its own; if we pursue that strategy, we are sentencing ourselves to fight a war forever. In time, a properly resourced strategy like that President Obama articulated in March can build Afghan security forces that can stand on their own, preventing Afghanistan from again being used as a haven for terrorism and stabilizing rather than weakening neighboring Pakistan. The cost will be high, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

This assumes of course that the Afghani government is reformed and its security forces are capable, and that we're willing to wait years and keep tens of thousands of US troops in theater. I don't think we can afford the price that Mr. Nagl is suggesting we pay. Why isn't Prof Bacevich in charge of a think tank? He's clearly got the experience and wisdom to chart a course for our national leadership. Mr. Nagl, not so much.

Condi Rice - Still A Flake

Condi Rice, former SecState for G.W. Bush, surfaced again to give us some of her wisdom. Yea verily, the Sage of the Vulcans has spoke. Fortunately a journalist was there and swooned, so her words appear on the Net.

She offered sharp words for Democrats in Congress who want President Obama to begin making plans to pull out of Afghanistan, a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular with the American public.

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

Rice acknowledged flaws in Afghanistan's recent elections but quickly inserted an addendum bolstered by her personal credentials: "Our democracy wasn't so perfect at the beginning either. My ancestors were three-fifths of a man. My father tried to vote in 1952. You couldn't guarantee voting rights for blacks in the South until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. So don't tell me these people can't get it right because their democracies are struggling."

Now let's get past the idea that if the US government abandons Afghanistan, that there will be another 9/11 terrorist attack in America. Clearly Ms. Rice has been ignoring the news and missed the fact that AQ is operating very nicely out of Pakistan, and domestic terrorists are popping up all by their lonesome while our forces are still in Afghanistan. She's not very good at national security assessments, despite having been our National Security Advisor during 2000-2004 (what a great job she did then too). 

But oh my God, does she have to bring up the fact that she was raised in the Deep South every time that she has a public speaking arrangement? We get it. You're authentically black and your family dealt with racists. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AFGHANISTAN. Good lord, we can't get Afghanistan up to the 19th century to have talks about equal rights between men and women, and she wants to talk about civil rights being equivalent to Afghanistan's "democracy" struggles. What a wasted intellect. Go back to your ivory towers, Prof. Rice. Stop bothering us, we have real issues to address.

Colorado Loses Demil Fight

This was a pretty easy legal decision to foresee. Colorado state officials had wanted to tell the Army that the chemical munitions in Pueblo Army Depot were hazardous material, because if they were hazardous waste, state regulations could trump federal regs and the state could "tell" the Army to speed up the disposal process. The judge disagreed, which was no surprise to me. They didn't take the decision too well. 

"We are disappointed with the judge's decision, since the practical effect of his decision would be to insulate the depot from enforceable schedules for waste treatment," said Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Public Health and Environment Department. "Clearly, the munitions are hazardous waste and are subject to requirements of our state hazardous waste law."

Martin said his department would work with the state's congressional delegation "to set -- and enforce -- strict time lines for cleaning up these munitions."

Clearly, the federal judge didn't think that the munitions were hazardous waste, an argument that was attempted about twenty-four years ago in Alabama and it failed then also. As long as the chemical weapons are "functional" (but obsolete), they are not categorized as hazardous waste. They're not being transported, so the hazardous material regs in the Dept of Transportation don't apply. Amazing the extent that people will ignore reality (and legal precedent) in order to push their own selfish ends. If Colorado had chosen incineration, the technology recommended by the NRC, destroying the chemicals by now would not be a problem. 

Casual Fridays

Ray from the UK forwarded this interesting article - it seems that the latest best way to beat the recession is to score an ancient gold horde in the countryside. Pretty sweet...

The Staffordshire hoard contains about 5kg of gold and 2.5kg of silver, making it far bigger than the Sutton Hoo discovery in 1939 when 1.5kg of Anglo-Saxon gold was found near Woodbridge in Suffolk.

Leslie Webster, former keeper at the British Museum's Department of Prehistory and Europe, said: "This is going to alter our perceptions of Anglo-Saxon England as radically, if not more so, as the Sutton Hoo discoveries.

"(It is) absolutely the equivalent of finding a new Lindisfarne Gospels or Book of Kells."
 -------
 Experts have so far established that there were at least 650 items of gold in the haul, weighing more than 5kgs (11lb), and 530 silver objects totalling more than 1kg (2.2lb) in weight.

Copper alloy, garnets and glass objects were also discovered at the undisclosed site.

What a great country. I have to get back there some time and, ah, walk the countryside.

Deep Thoughts

There are WMDs All Over America. Who knew?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit Springfield, IL, and Baghdad Dallas, TX, and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Obama, Why?

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Here We Go Again

Breaking news is that terror suspect Najibullah Zazi of Denver, CO, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the boys in the FBI building must be high-fiving themselves right now... Oh, but wait. Let's look at the details of the arrest.

Terror suspect Najibullah Zazi plotted for more than a year to detonate homemade bombs in the United States, had recently bought bomb-making supplies from beauty supply stores and was looking for "urgent" help in the past two weeks to make explosives, an indictment charged Thursday.

Zazi, 24, has been under arrest with his father in Denver since Saturday on charges of lying to government officials about a suspected attack.

But on Wednesday, a grand jury in Eastern District of New York handed Zazi the more serious one-count indictment for conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. The government has also asked the court for permanent detention, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.
--------
In court documents released Thursday, the Justice Department says Zazi and unnamed others purchased "large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and acetone products from beauty supply stores in the Denver metropolitan area," reports Orr. The government says evidence including surveillance videos will prove Zazi and the others made repeated purchases of the chemicals over the last three months.

Hydrogen peroxide and acetone are key ingredients for making homemade explosives, reports Orr. Those chemicals have been used in the past for various terrorist attacks and attempts including the London transit in 2005 and the ill-fated Richard Reid shoe-bomb plot in 2001.

Last time that I looked, hydrogen peroxide and acetone were not on the precursors list for chemical warfare agents. No, this is the long-standing bullshit FBI overreach of Title 18, section 2332a and 921 that defines any explosive device - from an M80 to pipebombs to ammonia nitrate fertilizer - as a WMD. It's such a disengenous and unacademic effort to show the agency as some awesome guardian against terrorist WMD incidents, when the case is clearly anything but a WMD incident in the planning stage.

He was looking for hydrogen peroxide in beauty stores? Here's a better solution, let's have the DOJ call on the Army's WMD experts, the 20th Support Command (CBRNE), to conduct WMD elimination missions in all the NYC beauty stores. That should dry up a big source of concern to the FBI. Once again, I will voice my hearty recommendations to the FBI to stop using this ridiculously phrased federal law and to make its case based on more applicable statues. 

UPDATE: George Smith has more on failed "WMDs."

New York State of Mind

I've been watching all the recent stories about the alleged Afghani-American terror suspects - two in Denver, CO, one in NYC - wondering if there is anything substantial to them. It's hard to say - the FBI says this has been a developing plot that was stopped before it was executed, and if so, that's a good thing. But if this was an over-reaction, then things are going to get ugly. Newsweek has this observation:

The three were arrested following extensive search and surveillance operations that the Feds say resulted in the seizure of incriminating evidence. This includes nine pages of handwritten notes stored on a computer owned by the younger Zazi. Court documents say the scanned notes "contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fuzing system."
------------
Several officials said that among items seized during searches were a stack of empty backpacks; also seized was video of New York's Grand Central Terminal. An official close to the investigation acknowledged that when put together, the evidence collected so far constitutes a circumstantial case suggesting the alleged plotters might have been targeting New York–area public-transport facilities, such as subways, commuter trains, or buses. In addition to the 2005 London transport attacks, Al Qaeda–linked plotters also used backpack bombs to attack commuter trains in Madrid in March 2004. However, the official also said that there might be benign explanations for some of the seized evidence, such as the video of Grand Central station.

Another official indicated that investigators were particularly concerned that they have so far failed to find the kind of explosives-related materials featured in the computer notes. The official indicated that searching for such items remains a very high priority for investigators. This suggests they have some compelling reason to believe such materials are hidden somewhere, although the official indicated that Zazi has denied any knowledge of such a stash.

Without any actual explosives, it's going to be hard to determine "intent" here or to make the case that this is a more prominent threat than anyright-wing militia group that's stockpiled weapons and anti-US government literature. I'm more than willing to wait for the Feds to make their case, as long as they do it promptly and not make this a seven-year investigation (see Amerithrax incident). Hopefully, there won't be any waterboarding necessary to "convince" these US citizens to cooperate with the feds, given the concern that there is a "stash" or (as Newsweek fancifully puts it) a " hidden bomb factory." I'm worried that certain Republican congressmen may lose their sanity, though, when they find out that alleged Islamic terror suspects are being held in US prisons!! in their States!! Oh, the horror.

Just two observations - first, for the FBI and DHS to put out this blanket "all-points" bulletin to all cities with mass transit systems, I just have to think that this was remarkably foolish and overkill. You found (allegedly) one cell - doesn't mean there are cells all over the United States, ready to jump up and cause more London/Madrid subway bombings. And if there are, then you've already failed. We need a much more focused threat advisory system that doesn't scaremonger, but provide focus to scarce federal and state law enforcement resources.

Second, I didn't see any notice about CBRN terrorism in this case. Now I am not surprised, but (again) I'll point out that it is in fact a question of "if, not when" terrrorists create mass casualty WMD incidents. The easy way, the tried and true method, is still high explosives and firearms. I don't see that changing anytime soon.  (Hat tip to Taylor!)

Fear of a Progressive Planet

I abstained from posting about the "Value Voters Summit" largely because it was too political and just too crazy for my normal critiques. The agenda was simply priceless - I paraphrase here:

• Fighting Teh Gays in OUR Schools!
• Kicking Out ALL the Brown People!
• More Conservatives For OUR Colleges!
• Obama's Going to Kill Teh Old People!
• How Teh Gays Ruins Conservative Marriages!
• Global Warming Means Killing Babies!
• Teh Muslims Are Taking Over!
• Men Need to Take Control of their Families!
• Fighting the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy! (Actual title)
• Women Have Too Much Health Options!
• More Tea Parties! More Crazy Town Halls!
• More Religion Needed in Politics!

It really is beyond ridiculous - it's a cornucopia of fear-mongering dressed up with Bible quotes. Not something I really want to comment about. But then George Smith noted the one topic that snuck into the summit - yes, our friends at the Heritage Foundation decided to bring in "missile defense" as a God-given right for values-loving conservatives. And by "missile defense," I mean "Terrorists Will EMP America Back to the Stone Age!" Because this topic just fits the conservative crazies so well...

Heritage, as DD mentioned last week, is a propaganda organ for the pushing of far right policy dressed up as scholarship.

It gathers various suspect ideas -- that healthcare reform must be defeated, that the welfare class is getting too much in entitlements and undeserved stuff, that the rich are being taxed too much, that gays are assaulting the precious institution of marriage, that global warming, while no longer a cruel hoax, if dealt with will result in diminished US business, poorness for the wealthy and a much weakened military, that poor people who aren't white are unjustly sopping up national treasure that could be spent on missile defense, a project which spreads freedom around the world, that the auto-industry bailout and cash-for-clunkers took money away from freedom-ensuring missile defense, etc -- and employs its stable of bought-and-paid-for experts to craft pieces which exhort readers on the excellence of such beliefs.

For instance, just this week South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, explained this at Heritage, readers being told that the Obama administration's stance on missile defense "[is] the inevitable result of an American foreign policy unmoored from our commitment to human rights and human freedom ..."

Now, aside from the laughable assumption post-9/11 that the US stands for commitment to human rights because its exceptionalism insures thats its torture of Muslim prisoners has always been superior by nature and therefore a Geneva Convention-approved-and-OK kind of torture, missile defense is, DeMint insists, the embodiment of "American ideals." And anyone who doesn't see this is probably a traitor.

Reporting from the reality-based world, this is J. Sigger and G. Smith saying, "Good night, and good luck."

Biden Has a Plan

The New York Times discusses the strategy talks within the White House, as continued debate swirls around the McChrystal strategy paper. I haven't really discussed the strategy paper because so many other people have, but I pretty much share Marc Lynch's point of view.

I must confess to finding the entire exercise baffling. The "strategic review" brought together a dozen smart (mostly) think-tankers with little expertise in Afghanistan but a general track record of supporting calls for more troops and a new counter-insurgency strategy.  They set up shop in Afghanistan for a month working in close coordination with Gen. McChrystal, and emerged with a well-written, closely argued warning that the situation is dire and a call for more troops and a new counter-insurgency strategy. Shocking. Were it not for the optics of a leaked "strategic review" amidst an intensifying public debate, I doubt this would dominate the front pages. 

 What are we to make of this document? Suppose that this had instead been called a "think tank report of reports," or a "collective think tank report" or something like that.  Its participants were mostly smart, honest, experienced security analysts (including several much-respected friends including Exum and Biddle) who clearly worked hard, surely have something to contribute despite the absence of Afghan or South Asian expertise, and whose final project would have been an important contribution under any name. In Iraq, the military regularly invited selected think-tankers to come to Baghdad for high-level briefings and carefully guided tours, which then led to op-eds and reports which either reflected or drove policy changes (as you like).  This one sounds a lot like one of those on steroids.  A great "red team" exercise, a good exercise in building elite foreign policy community support -- but a decisive "strategic review" under the name of the commanding General?

Then I saw this paragraph in the Times article:

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan.

Mr. Obama rejected Mr. Biden’s approach in March, and it is not clear that it has more traction this time. But the fact that it is on the table again speaks to the breadth of the administration’s review and the evolving views inside the White House of what has worked in the region and what has not. In recent days, officials have expressed satisfaction with the results of their cooperation with Pakistan in hunting down Qaeda figures in the unforgiving border lands.

Now before you reject Biden's idea as not feasible, think about it. The original strategy was to GET al Qaeda, not create Afghanistan into a Garden of Eden. The COIN strategy hasn't worked in Afghanistan, because you can't succeed in COIN operations with a corrupt, weak government, an ineffective security force, and a population who doesn't support it. So instead of trying to prop Afghanistan up with increases of US troops - as LBJ tried to do for Vietnam in 1965 - why not stick to the original script? 

I'm in the last ten pages of "Best and Brightest," and I was really struck by something in particular - that LBJ knew that if he significantly increased the number of US troops, changing the mission from just advising the Vietnam troops to conducting combat missions, that this meant a new policy was in play. He deliberately changed the policy from COIN to "search and destroy," which meant the war was changing from a civil war to an American war. But he refused to tell the public, he refused to consider the implications of not fully resourcing the new strategy, and he had forgotten that the North Vietnamese had a vote. 

Let's bring the lesson to the future. If McChrystal gets his troop increases and continues to engage the Taliban in Afghanistan as the primary mission - protecting the civilians and all - then he's not doing COIN. Doing COIN implies that the Afghani government is in charge of security, that its forces are doing the heavy lifting, and we're just supporting. That's not what's happening. So if Obama listens to Biden, we get to continue working COIN with Afghanistan and push CT in Pakistan - which when you think about it, is what we are supposed to be doing. We don't need the troop increases, but if you want to support the argument that failing to increase troops in Afghanistan will mean "more Americans will be put at risk" - Republican politicians - then just increase the authorization to 500,000 troops now, because the incrementalist approach is just insanely stupid and repetitious of the logic used in 1965 that lost the war.

I thought maybe I was off-base in believing that Biden had a good plan, but when Col. Pat Lang endorses the plan, then I think maybe Biden is onto something. There are right-wing rumors of McChrystal threatening to resign if he doesn't get his troop increases.  I think that's bullshit, honestly - we don't have generals like that today (because if we did, they would have resigned between 2004-2008) - but really, if that's the case, let him walk. We need generals who will carry out national strategy with well-thought out political goals, not an endless chant of "more troops" to boister failing governments. We don't need to repeat 1965 again. We know where that leads.

UPDATE: McChrystal says he has not discussed or considered resigning his command.

Run Away, Run Away!

In a change of pace from our usual "white powder" hoaxes, officials in Kona, Hawaii, were concerned they had a terrorist dropping off a chemical or radiological hazard at the local Wal-Mart. Because... well, you just never know how people feel about the Wal-Mart.

Police say they responded to a call at 10:47 a.m., when officers learned that a patron had located a suspicious package on the premises. The Hawaii County fire department says the item was found in a parking lot trash can.

According to police, the patron who found the item alerted the store manager who in turn alerted public safety personnel.

Kailua Fire Station Capt. Sean Sommers, West Hawaii Today reported on Friday that there was a message on the box: 'Whoever finds this box, I hope you f------ enjoy it.' Sommers told the paper that the box was secured "very well" with clear plastic tape.
--------
Fire officials say hazmat tested for the presence of both radiological and nerve agent compounds or substances. Police requested expansion of the exclusion zone and an Army Explosives Ordinance Disposal Team was called in from Oahu to evaluate the package. After investigation of the package it was determined to be no threat.

The fire department said the contents of the package were DVD cases. 

Well, that was a close thing. I guess he really didn't like the movies...

Petraeus the Politician

I recall someone wondering why General David Petraeus was in London talking up the importance of continuing the fight in Afghanistan, instead of working the DC circuit. GEN Petraeus said in this Times op-ed:

In addition to our military operations we are helping the Afghan Government to combat the corruption that has undermined the legitimacy of certain Afghan institutions. We are also working hard to accelerate the development of the Afghan security forces. And we are working to disrupt narcotics trafficking by promoting agricultural alternatives and developing the infrastructure to help Afghan farmers to get their products to market.

But we need to be realistic in recognising that the campaign will require a sustained, substantial commitment. Many tough tasks loom before us — including resolution of the way ahead after the recent election, which obviously has been marred by allegations of fraud. The challenges in Afghanistan clearly are significant. But the stakes are high. And, while the situation unquestionably is, as General McChrystal has observed, serious, the mission is, as he has affirmed, still doable. In truth, it is, I think, accurate to observe that, as in Iraq in 2007, everything in Afghanistan is hard, and it is hard all the time.

Well, I think I found out why he decided to be in London. He's not concerned about getting more American troops into Afghanistan. He's concerned about getting more British troops. 

Luck and Talent Gets You Ahead

This Washington Post article discusses the work of Andy Weber, current Assistant to the Secretary of Defense on Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Programs (ATSD[NCB]), about 15 years ago when he was working arms control issues in Russia. It was the right place and the right time for him to get involved in a very important effort.

This is the story of Project Sapphire, the code name for an early pioneering mission to secure a portion of those nuclear materials before they could fall into the wrong hands. New documents and interviews provide the fullest account yet of this covert operation to remove the dangerous uranium from Kazakhstan and fly it to the United States. When it was over, the U.S. government paid Kazakhstan about $27 million for the cache.

Back then, he was working for with Dr. Ash Carter, who worked in OSD Policy under President Clinton. Today, he works under Dr. Ash Carter, who is the current Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Peter at The Strategist was just talking about what divides those few very successful people from the rest of us. It's not just the talent (which is clearly a prerequisite), there's a good dash of chance involved, it seems, that propels some to the top.