Armchair Generalist

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Talking Points Memo says that there are rumors about former SecState Condi Rice and former NSA Stephen Hadley joining forces to create a" strategic consulting" firm. May I suggest that this is probably an even bigger farce than former FEMA Director Michael Brown's decision to start a consulting firm on disaster preparedness following his stellar performance during Katrina?

I really want to know what clients these two take on, so that I can relentlessly mock their stupidity for hiring the dynamic duo who brought us into the adventures of invading Iraq and Afghanistan without any idea of the resources required or any form of an exit strategy.

UPDATE: TPM confirms the RUMINT.

UPDATE 2: Over at C&L, jenne corrects me:

I think the Cheney "Keep America Safe" Institute is a bigger farce than both Brown and Condi's thingies put together.

 OUCH. And touche'

Repub Pols Hate Veterans

Here it is, with Veterans Day coming up, and the Republican politicians are playing games with veteran's benefits. 

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is blocking critical legislation that will provide health care, counseling, and a stipend for caregivers.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) tried to say that military vets would rather have private health care than VA care. 

I just don't understand how the "national security" party can turn its back on the soldiers that it sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congratulations to Germany

Twenty years after the Wall fell, the Germans let loose with some heavy partying. I thought I could summarize a few words that weren't cliche, but Matt Yeglasius does it so much better.

UPDATE: Fred Kaplan has a nice story on the Cold War history of Berlin. Also see this great story of the day that the Wall fell at MilPub.

Listen to Massa

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), a former Navy officer and Naval Academy graduate, makes the argument that it's time to conclude the conflict in Afghanistan.

Is Our Dick Going Soft?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Our Dick Going Soft?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Especially for NVH.

Cheney Made Up His Own Classification Guides

With the federal court's release of the various testimonies surrounding the Libby investigation (aka the Plame case), we get to find out that former VP Dick Cheney came up with his own logic for selectively releasing classified information. What a surprise...

"The vice president advised that it is possible to talk about something contained in a classified document without violating the law regarding declassification," according to the FBI report. Cheney said he had made "numerous statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which were based on and, in some cases, tracked his reading of classified information," including a then-classified Iraq NIE.

He added that he "believed it was justifiable to rely on classified information to shape and inform what one says publicly," and that "this was a perfectly appropriate way to use the NIE."
 ----------
 But Cheney tried to get around that complaint [of illegal leaking] by adding a novel legal defense of his use of classified information. The FBI report said he told Fitzgerald that he "did not violate any relevant laws or rules in making these statements because he did not reveal the confidential sources or methods involved in gathering the classified information."

That is a totally new reading of a variety of statutes that make it a crime to disclose classified or national security information. For Cheney, however, it may have been valid, because President George W. Bush had given him declassification authority. So technically, his public disclosure of classified information automatically removed the classification.

I've never heard such horseshit about "declassification" in my career. I'll bet it's a pretty "unique" argument to everyone else who has to work with classified defense information as well. I don't think that Cheney was in any position to release classified information without a thorough scrub to ensure he wasn't revealing sources and methods, and he wouldn't be in a position to know. But what the hell, as long as he got his excuse to invade Iraq, why should he care about protecting US intelligence sources and methods of gathering that data?

UPDATE: Declassification guides from FOIA are here. Make your own judgments. But I will suggest that he revealed classified information that supported his conclusions for reasons other than the public interest - that is to say, it was in his own personal and political interest to do so.

All They Have Is Fear

SHORTER VERBATIM Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC):  "I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that [health care] bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

Does that mean we need to have a color-coded advisory scale for the state of health care in the United States?

Afghan's Govt - A Big Albatross

If you don't read anything else this morning, make sure that this NY Times article on President Karzai's brother is the one you read. It's a very interesting piece, and has implications far beyond the immediate shock waves that it will inevitably cause.

Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.
----------
These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration.

Now the fact that Mr. Karzai is profiting both from the drug trade and from supporting the CIA's operations is not in and of itself particularly amazing or outlandish to most people who understand the Afghani culture and who have to demonstrate short-term progress against the Taliban. A former CIA intel officer is quoted in the article:

“Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”

The CIA has a long record of supporting bad actors in the name of getting intelligence or achieving progress against other countries whose goals are inimical to US interests, and that may be understandable in some situations, except when that practice runs counter to official US policy in those particular regions. The brother to the president of Afghanistan uses his position to profit from the drug trade and also is a prime suspect in trying to fix the election (in a disappointingly transparent and amateurish fashion). That might be acceptable except for the fact that he's not helping the US government advance its efforts to stabilize the country.

Our government's goals do not align with the brothers Karzai's goals. Mr. Karzai's interests are to protect the drug lords in the south provinces, who in turn pay and rely on the Taliban for protection. Those are the same provinces where US, British, and other forces are fighting and dying every day. Until the current Afghani government is replaced by a legitimate group which has a real desire to advance the Afghani people's needs and interests, there is no way that a strategy based on COIN tactics will work. And if there is no way that COIN tactics will work, then there is no reason to support Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000+ additional troops.

Of course, there is the possibility that our government's actual goal is to develop Afghanistan into "a horrific, full-fledged quagmire by 2012."

Dick Cheney Is A Dithering Ass

But you knew that already. Of all the people who ought to consider watching one's words, he ought to consider carefully the charge of "dithering" in Afghanistan. More than six years go by as the CheneyBush administration "muddled through" Afghanistan while the main event took place in Iraq. Now Darth Cheney thinks he's got the cahones to step up and tell this administration how it's done. As George Will put it, maybe Cheney should have dithered about the decision to invade Iraq.

I thought about posting a lengthy article about why this administration is doing the right thing by examining the options and determining what's the smart thing to do, after President Obama had increased troop strength by 17,000 and outlined some objectives for Afghanistan earlier in the year. But I think Fareed Zakaria does a much better job than I could.

Advocates of a troop increase act as if counterinsurgency is applied physics. McChrystal's team, having done the mathematical calculations, has apparently arrived at the exact answer. There is no room for variation or middle courses, the argument goes. But the theory that "it's 40,000 troops or no counterinsurgency" is absurd. The best evidence is that senior military officers assured me at various points over the past year that with the latest increase in troops they finally had enough forces to do counterinsurgency.

The crucial judgments that have to be made involve what the troops will do and how much of Afghanistan to cover. One option is the idea Ricks recently suggested to me: "Why not do the Petraeus plan [counterinsurgency] for the major population centers and the Biden plan [counterterrorism] for the rest of the country?" Following that middle course might be the most practical solution; more forces could still be needed, as McChrystal suggests, or perhaps we can make do with the almost 100,000 coalition forces already there. Obama should carefully consider all the options before racing to demonstrate how tough he is.

Hey Dick? Go back to your undisclosed location. No one missed you when you were quietly watching Faux News in your den.

Nuclear Mondays

McClatchy News Services got very nervous last week because the Taliban hit a military base in Pakistan that is associated with its nuclear weapons program. Here's the news:

 Increasingly daring and sophisticated attacks by terrorists allied with al Qaida on some of Pakistan’s most sensitive and best-protected installations have led to warnings that extremists could damage a nuclear facility or seize nuclear material.

Pakistan's nuclear sites are mostly in the northwest of the country, close to the capital, Islamabad, to keep them away from the border with archenemy India, but that places them close to Pakistani Taliban extremists, who are massed in the northwest. Al Qaida has made clear its ambitions to get hold of a nuclear bomb or knowledge of nuclear technology. Several other sites associated with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have been hit previously.

This sounds like a nefarious plot by the Taliban to get a nuclear bomb that will ultimately spell the End of Western Civilization as we know it. Or maybe not.

At Kamra, the bomber rode up to the checkpoint on a bicycle, explosives strapped to his body. Officials denied that the facility, the major research center for the air force, had links to the nuclear program. However, Pakistan doesn’t specify which sites are involved in the program and many independent experts think that Kamra is a nuclear air base.

The Kamra facility had been struck by a suicide bomber previously, in December 2007. In November 2007, the nuclear-missile storage site at Sargodha was attacked, while in August 2008, a team of suicide bombers blew themselves up at the entrance to the Wah armament factory, which is thought to be one of Pakistan’s main nuclear-weapons assembly locations.

The guy didn't get past the first entrance to the military base. He rode a bicycle for cryin' out loud. The Taliban don't have the skills or infrastructure to get a Pakistani nuclear weapon. We ought to hope that they do more attacks like this one. It's social Darwinism in action.

Deep Thoughts

We had to go into Iraq because of Saddam's WMD program. It certainly wasn't a "blood-for-oil" effort.

Really, we're still debating this?

Deep Thoughts

You won't have George W. Bush to kick around anymore.

Oh, wait. This might change things. Entertainment at least until his book comes out next year.

Whither Afghanistan?

Figure Out the Strategy Already

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

Michael Scheuer Is Insane

The fact that Michael "I hope bin Laden attacks the US" Scheuer has some mental challenges is probably not news to those who have heard him speak before. But why the Foreign Policy magazine would let him editorialize on its blog on what we ought to do in Afghanistan, I have no idea.

For the sake of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, let us hope this new strategic formulation is quickly dropped and forgotten and that Washington's focus is refixed on the hard but simple Afghan choice it faces: Because the U.S.-NATO occupation powers the Afghan insurgency and international Muslim support for it, we must either destroy it root and branch or leave. This issue merits debate, but that must wait until McChrystal gets the troops needed to delay defeat. Afterward, only the all-out use of large, conventional U.S. military forces can be expected to have a shot at winning in Afghanistan. Since 1996, the United States has definitively proven that clandestine operations, covert action, Special Forces actions, and aerial drone attacks cannot defeat al Qaeda. It has likewise proven beyond doubt that nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand.

That said, military victory would require 400,000 to 500,000 additional troops, the wide use of land mines (even if Princess Diana spins in her grave), and the killing of the enemy and its civilian supporters in the numbers needed to make them admit the game is not worth the candle. This clearly is not a viable option. We do not have enough troops, and U.S. political leaders, many U.S. generals, and the anti-American academy and media do not think "military victory" is an appropriate or moral goal; their mantra is: "Better dead Americans at home and abroad than criticism from Europe, the media, and the academy."

Honestly. Stark, raving, insane. 

Shameful and Deceitful

Fred Hiatt continues his track record of putting out the most outrageous editorials in the Washington Post. This one predicts that, if the United States does not defeat the Taliban, it will take over not just Afghanistan and Pakistan but threaten India as well.

if the United States gives up trying to defeat the Taliban, can it really expect that Pakistan will go on fighting?

Ahhhh, yes. Pakistanis would fight the Taliban, because it's their country at stake, just like they did in Swat valley. This is a disingenuous and weak argument to try to turn public opinion toward an extended - decades? - stay in Afghanistan and the dedication of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) more US troops. It's just not as dire as Hiatt predicts.

Political Humor

I really enjoyed "The Bobblespeak Translations" of this past Sunday's Meet the Press and This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Meet the Press had retired generals Barry McCaffrey and Richard Myers with Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Pretty balanced discussion.

Gregory: Carl shouldn’t we all just do what President McChrystal wants?

Levin: no because Obama is the President and Gates is the Secretary of Defense and the global strategy is more important the counterinsurgency in any one country

Gregory: should we send more troops?

Levin: we should send them more equipment like guns and mimeograph machines

Graham: What do you think Lindy?

Graham: I love the General and we should send 40,000 more troops 

Gregory: but there are only 100 al qaeda in all of Afghanistan

Myers: it’s simple - we have to combat all violent extremism and religious fanaticism all over the world

Gregory: Christ you’re going to have take on half the Republican party

Myers: also we have to invade Uzbekistan

Gregory: yikes

And on This Week, George had Senators Barbara Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) along with Reps Jim McGovern (D-MA) and retired General Jack Keane - not such a balanced presentation.

Feinstein: we must respect McChrystal - after all he came from a Crackerjack box

Chambliss: If Afghanistan falls then Pakistan will be invaded or encroached upon bad guys

Stephanopoulos: you read a lot of comic books do you?

Chambliss: Afghanistan will attack Pakistan!

Stephanopoulos: What will General Obama do if President McChrystal opposes him?

Keane: I don’t know but it’s a moral dilemma

Stephanopoulos: He should resign - after all the President is a young black man with no medals

McGovern: jeebus we’ve been there for 8 years and we’re propping up a corrupt unelected government

Stephanopoulos: is that right Saxby?

Chambliss: Oh absolutely - which is why we have to stay - otherwise Osama bin Laden will get access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons

Stephanopoulos: truly it is amazing Bush didn’t win the Nobel peace prize 

Good stuff...

Pakistan's Being Touchy

I noted that there has been some discussion about Pakistan's bitter grumbling about having to accept conditions on the proposed US foreign aid of $7.5 billion over a five-year time frame.

"It was decided that the government of Pakistan will take up the controversial clauses of the bill with the U.S. government," Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's office said in a statement after a meeting with the president and military chiefs.

Critics of the bill, approved last week, say it violates Pakistani sovereignty and the army had voiced "serious concern" about its potential impact on national security.

President Asif Ali Zardari's fragile government had rejected opposition complaints that the bill undermined sovereignty, and the army's unusual public criticism of a diplomatic matter appeared to have opened a rift with the government.

But on Saturday, Zardari and Gilano met army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and main intelligence agency chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha to discuss the bill and there was "unanimity of views," Gilani's office said.

And at the same time, there are unsettling questions as to where the past foreign aid has gone. 

This week, the Associated Press reported that between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million of $6.6 billion in military aid meant to help Pakistan fight militants was actually spent on its intended purpose. Former president Pervez Musharraf spent the rest on his own pet economic projects and arming his country against India. Such misuse of funds, alleged by current and former Pakistani military and government officials, came as Al Qaeda and the Taliban fortified itself in Pakistan. Despite the fact that Pakistan is the leading recipient of support money to fight terrorism, one general told the AP, “The army got peanuts.’’

This is on top of two analyses over the past year that clearly show that Pakistan is playing a shell game with US aid. The Government Accountability Office found last year that, even though support funds are critical to the effort against terrorism, the Defense Department has not provided enough oversight to be able to say how Pakistan is spending US military aid. From 2004 to 2007, 76 percent of US reimbursements to the Pakistani army - a total of $2.2 billion - were paid without adequate documentation of how the costs were calculated.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Exactly why should we be so concerned about Pakistan's government collapsing to the Taliban when it so casually throws billions of dollars into personal bank accounts and other projects that don't support the "war on terror"?

Oh, right. Almost forgot, we can't afford the remote chance of the Taliban defeating the entire Pakistani army, taking nuclear weapons from its stockpile, and - with their nonexistent education - moving the nukes to the United States and taking out a major city. Surprising how Very Serious People want to play that movie scenario out to justify not looking at how ineffective our foreign aid is, before tripling it for the future.

UPDATE: Patricia at WhirledView says the Pakistanis have reason to be pissed. In that case, I just question the sanity of our Congress in giving billions more and expecting different results than the past.

Listen to Rachel

From C&L:

Rachel Maddow does an excellent job explaining how the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded in the past and why President Obama deserved to receive the award. The most stark example being this portion comparing then candidate Obama’s view of diplomacy compared with that of John McCain [which is in the second video clip].

It's a two-parter, so if you want to see the second clip, go to the C&L site.

Obama's Peace Prize

Holy shit.

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” the citation said.

“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that ‘now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”

The right-wingers are just going to come unglued. Congratulations, Mr. President. Now live up to the award's expectations.

UPDATE: And so the Repub backlash begins.

UPDATE II: I like the DNC response to the Party of "No."

UPDATE III: Obama: "... a call to action."

UPDATE IV: Glenn Greenwald sez Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel because he's in charge of the US Defense Department, with all of its bloat, and we're still fighting a conflict in Afghanistan. Hey Glenn? It's not a faucet. He doesn't get to wave a wand and all happiness results. There is this other body called "Congress" that gets in the way. The right-wing theatrics, I understand. The far-left wing tendency to ignore reality, not so much.

I get it. The award was premature. You know what? It doesn't matter. The committee had its rationale, read the last two paragraphs of its press announcement, there is a precedent. At the worst, Obama will have a constant reminder of what he has to live up to. At the best, it will give the Democratic party some energy to help the president accomplish what he started out to do.

UPDATE V: YO OBAMA, I'M GONNA LET YOU FINISH, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS THE BEST NOBEL PRIZE WINNER OF ALL TIME.