The Watcher

Rethinking Iraq

2010-08-29T19:30:00.000-07:00

Washington should learn from history. Given its stance on Iraq, it clearly hasn't. U.S. President Barack Obama declared on the campaign trail in 2008 that he will have all U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of 2011, with troops beginning to leave in large quantities beginning in the summer of 2011. This policy has been hailed by the American public, as most feel it is time to withdraw and allow Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own. However, analysts, military officials and Iraqi officials agree that the U.S. should not delude itself. One year is not nearly enough time to train Iraqi forces to counter future threats.

Although Iraq now claims to have more than enough troops and policemen in its arsenal (in the 100,000s for both divisions), it is quality not quantity that counts. Throughout the U.S. and Iraqi defense communities it is widely whispered and almost obvious to most that Iraq just isn't ready yet.

Reports on the ground indicate that the Iraqi public are uneasy about the U.S. departure one year from now. Many may not enjoy a U.S. presence in their country, but foreign troops are at least keeping the peace and providing some security while Iraqi forces are nascent. But, their confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Iraqi Police is next to nil and some citizens are securing their own departure from the country when the U.S. leaves and current trends subsist.

Iraq's government is in gridlock with Nouri al Maliki's party and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party unable to reach a compromise to establish a coalition government to initiate decision making. It is safe to say that there is little credence in an optimistic view of Iraq's future.

That is where Mr. Obama comes in. Much confidence will have to be churned. In his address tomorrow, the U.S. president will have to assure the American public, it's armed forces and the Iraqi public that the security situation in Iraq will not get any worse once the West is gone. However, most will see that bold attempt at reassurance as a half-hearted fabrication, and rightly so.

Current terrorist attacks in Iraq are not devastating, but that may also be because al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and affiliated insurgent groups are just getting started. Regardless of what the Obama Administration says, there is an imminent threat generating from dormant terrorist and insurgent groups waiting for U.S. forces to depart to successfully launch an anti-government campaign. This is the most daunting prospect and if not countered properly, will plunge the country back into chaos. A situation Iraq's forces are not experienced at handling.

When analyzed, it can be argued that Mr. Obama is now pushing this withdrawal policy to move the deadlocked Iraqi government to compromise. This approach may seem effective, however, what if Iraqi politicians do not absorb the threat of withdrawal? They could possibly respond by arming themselves and preparing for war all over again. Then, will the U.S. have to re-invade Iraq?

Mr. Obama is more than capable of diluting these fears. Now, it is just a question of whether or not he is willing to do so. Given the unpopularity with the war at home, it seems unlikely. However, if he chooses to, he can take the necessary steps in ensuring Iraq's stability. The Bush Administration's security agreement with Iraq may be the largest impediment he will have to overcome in order to leave Iraq somewhat stable and secure. Instead of completely removing all troops from Iraq in twelve months, the U.S. president should re-negotiate the terms of the agreement leaving at least half of the troops currently stationed for reconnaissance, training, logistics and armed support if needed. Training is the most essential. Iraqi officials and current trends declare that few if any Iraqi policemen or soldiers have been trained in counterterrorism; an indispensable component to winning any militant or terrorist threat.

However, no negotiations can take place without a working Iraqi government. Before any of this can be done, the Obama Administration should work as a mediator in talks between the two parties. U.S. envoys will be more than sufficient. Given the complexity of Iraq's government and stubbornness of its political officials; it will be a difficult task, but no one wants to leave Iraq unstable, so there is a source for motivation. It will not be easy, but if the U.S. president wants to leave behind a legacy in Iraq he will not adhere to his 2011 deadline.

Blaming the Pakistani Army is Nothing New...

2010-07-26T10:05:00.000-07:00

The Watcher argues that the military documents disclosed by WIkiLeaks detailing the deteriorating ground situation in Afghanistan briefed the public (or at least those who follow the current events in Afghanistan) of nothing it already knew. One can argue that the public disclosure now puts the U.S. in a critical position to strengthen the pressure on Pakistan (more specifically ISI) to abandon it's military support for extremism in the South Asian region. However, given the budgetary relationship the U.S. has with Pakistan, awarding them $1 billion a year, it is difficult to understand why Washington continues to pledge such a vast amount of money when it is well aware it will be used at their own expense. Given the Americans' history, the U.S. will not openly shoot itself in the foot when its activities in the region are well known. It has recently dawned on The Watcher that there might be a secret agenda that the U.S. is pursuing in the South Asian region. This prospect may shed some light as to why they are substantiating Pakistan's armed forces with little plans to reduce foreign aid when Islamabad schemes contrary to their interests. Perhaps all roads lead to India like many Pakistani security initiatives?

Cold War 2010?

2010-07-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

The general public of the international community is flummoxed over why the US-Russian spy swap episode came and went so swiftly and gingerly. One only need take a look at the recent success in US-Russian relations, deemed by many statesman and analysts as a "reset" in diplomacy between the two powers. It is worth noting that the international community is long passed the cold war era and for now, a unipolar world looms in existence. General Russian public opinion is that it is in Russia's best interest to pursue good relations with the US, and vice versa. However, it is important to note that every major power in the world today spies on another. So, the investigative accomplishment by the American FBI should come as no surprise. In The Watcher's opinion, embarrassment should come to Moscow, not because they were caught spying on America, but because they did it so clumsily. This is just a minor speed bump in a long road to normalizing relations between these two.

The McChrystal Fiasco

2010-07-25T09:49:00.000-07:00

The replacement of General Stanley McChrystal with Iraq war hero Gen. David Petraeus as lead commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan has calmed some uncertainty of whether the West can succeed in Afghanistan (however you define success). As convenient as the appointment may seem, the McChrystal affair is not only another controversial topic in civilian-military relations, but it also sheds light on the friction between the Obama Administration's top national security advisors. Incidentally, this is evidence enough that the situation in Afghanistan is more grim than one may have previously perceived. With opposition to the war running rampant throughout the international community, the Obama Administration owes it to the world and the American people to explain why this truly is a "war of necessity."

For what it's worth. The Watcher has argued in favor of the war and will continue to do so. There is too much at stake for the foreign troops to pack up and leave. Such an action may lead Afghanistan to a civil war, which will drag in it's neighbors such as Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and India, vying for control and influence. Similarly, withdrawal will send a message to the Afghan people, terrorist organizations, and states currently fighting their own insurgencies that Western powers do not have the strategy or wherewithal to tackle such tasks. It will be a humiliating defeat. For the past year The Watcher has been advocating for a change in strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's COIN initiative was hailed around policy circles around the world, but The Watcher suggests that this strategy does not reach what lies at the core of true counterinsurgency. It is imperative that foreign troops recognize that they are not being outgunned by the Taliban, they are being outgoverned. The Afghan people will never recognize a government as oppressive and corrupt as Hamid Karzai's.

Unless Gen. Petraeus turns the focus of his COIN strategy on battling corruption before improving military operations, the Taliban will continue to be one step ahead in the game. Similar to what an Afghan official once said, "if thousands of operations are carried out it will make no difference so long as corrupt officials are in place."

Democracy in Retreat

2009-06-29T17:56:00.000-07:00

Whether it is deliberate election malpractice or a domestic coup orchestrated by a nation’s army, there is a miniature-sized trend transpiring in the world today. States that seem to have accepted the democratic model as their system of government have opted to betray its basic principles and values.

Earlier this month, the world bared witness to Iranian voters viscerally taking to the streets engendered by the actions of their heads of state, whose hands run red with the blood of election fraud. Now, in South America, the Honduran Army has unilaterally decided to oust the Honduran President for corruption, charges of malfeasance and undemocratically rewriting the Honduran constitution.

Both nation's have denied the citizens of those nations their right as stated in their respective constitutions to elect a representative. Nullifying votes is the first symptom indicating that there is much needed change to the way those governments do business.

Any society with a hint of dictatorship will fail and continue to fail. If societies are to function properly in the 21^st century, government nor the military can continue to ignore or deny the word of the people.

This may be a crisis for the surrounding countries in South America, but some good can come out of this if handled properly. In the Watcher's eyes, when parsed correctly, the best solution to the situation involves the notion that Honduras must be made an example of. World leaders have already condemned the actions of the Honduran Armed Forces insisting that the behavior of the army has disgraced its reputation internationally, and rightly so. Similarly, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have vehemently called the army’s actions illegal and a betrayal to the democratic constitution. Once again, the U.S. president is making the right moves here by not interfering with Honduran affairs. Similarly, other states should heed the same advice.

The Honduran populace is doing their part by protesting. The biggest mistake the army can do now is turn the country into a military state. Such an action would further isolate Honduras, a country already trounced by a youthful population, poverty and drug trafficking. Although President Manuel Zelaya may have added to the harsh times in Honduras, there is no excuse or justification for the army’s actions.

The Weight of Afghanistan: The Problem with Withdrawal

2009-06-26T12:58:00.000-07:00

Congressional republicans and some democrats continue to gripe about Obama’s desire to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. However, the U.S. President is acting in the best interest of the United States and the international community. The cost may be high in Afghanistan, in lives and in capital, but it is worth it.

Critics of the president’s policy implore Obama to begin operations that would eventually withdraw troops from Afghanistan. These dissenters have a tenable argument. They postulate that the foreseeable outcome of the war is cloudy and could last for decades. However, in Obama’s defense, the rebuttal holds more water.

The United States is situated in Afghanistan for the purpose of removing the outdated and brutal Taliban regime as well as protecting Pakistan from increasing militancy that could trickle across the boarder from Afghanistan. The problem with withdrawing is that it places too high of a risk of Afghani Taliban siding with Pakistani militants in the tribal areas to topple the already weak and dysfunctional Pakistani government. What would transpire is militants, the Taliban and possibly al-Qaeda getting their hands on one of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The outcome of such a horrific premonition cannot be accurately exaggerated.

The Watcher argues that the weight of Afghanistan exceeds scale limits to remain. Yes, the war is uncertain, but all wars are. The region welcomes needed change in military operations and strategy. Senator Charles Grassley, a republican from Iowa once said, “The life-blood of any criminal organization or enterprise is money. Whether engaged in drug dealing or terrorism, criminals cannot operate without money.” The Taliban primarily operate by the funds received by their illegal opium drug-trade. If U.S. forces deplete this resource and place higher tariffs on opium imports from Afghanistan, ISAF forces would have made a long-term dent in Taliban operations and turn the tide of the war.

Congressional republicans and some democrats need to have faith in Mr. Obama. Also, Obama needs to put more pressure on allies to do more in Afghanistan. The world looked on in horror a few months ago at the Taliban and tribal style of punishment for women: a 16-year-old girl, flogged in the street by her male elders for getting married without parental permission. Humanity cannot allow such brutality to subsist in this world. The international community needs to do more to reinforce U.S. efforts, for Mr. Obama is on the right path.

Iran and the Bomb

2009-06-26T12:20:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama has announced to the international community that the state of Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Such ambitions would plunge the Middle East region into a security dilemma. This predicament would not only affect the security of states surrounding Iran such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Israel but Iran itself. Out of fear that Iran is pursuing or has a bomb, such anxiety will engender these Middle Eastern states to militarize.

Not commenting on whether this matter is an impasse or not, the issue generates a quantal response. One is that Iran’s road to acquisition is of the same dreadful magnitude as al-Qaeda garnering a nuclear weapon, assuming that Iranian officials are irrational actors similar to those of al-Qaeda. The second response is that Iranian officials are rational actors and would not dare put the security of their people at risk due to constant international and regional denunciation.

The problem with laboring beneath the illusion of the first response is that it has little faith in the Iranian regime. The United States has for too long placed Iran under the same category as Islamic terrorists. Undoubtedly, Islamic Terrorists and the Iranian regime essentially have a shared negative sentiment towards the U.S. but different means of showing it.

Terrorists voice their visceral outrage at the U.S. by inflicting collateral damage and causing civilian deaths on a massive scale. Iran reacts by defying western axioms and invoking a nonchalant character in the face of UN sanctions. With this in mind, it can be seen that the first response holds little if no water.

Response one is wrongfully entertaining the notion that Iranian officials, the heads of a state that encloses 70m people are irrational. Such an estimation of Iranian behavior holds true the atavistic nature of the Bush Administration and in this day and age should not be how the United States operates.

If the U.S. wants to move toward cooling the regional temperature, especially for Israel, Washington must act fairly. Commenting on Israel, Obama once said that the U.S. is good friends with Israel. But being a good friend also means being honest. Washington should ensure Israel that it is only fair that Iran, a sovereign entity pursue its nuclear ambitions and no external actor can force them to halt those aspirations. It is tiresome to incessantly hear that Iran is sensationalistic in its affairs towards the U.S. and Israel when in reality; Iran is acting as any rational actor would. Acquiring nuclear weapons does not always mean using them, for using them will ensure a disinterest for the Iranian regime. It is understandable that having faith and accepting such a liberal approach is travail. But, such an approach is needed for the sake of the future of the international community. Maybe this analysis is messianic, but it seems to be the most tangible response in the Watcher’s eyes.

The Persian Revolt and Washington's Response

2009-06-21T21:21:00.000-07:00

It must be made clear that although Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won on 6/12, very little will change in Iran's domestic and foreign policy, especially towards the west and Israel. Naively entertaining the notion that Iran's ailments will go away when Ahmadinejad does is a gross understatement that seems to have plagued Washington think thanks for years. In reality, President Ahmadinejad is merely the spokesperson, enforcer and one can argue, figurehead/puppet of Iranian policy, not its crafter.

The culprit of Iran's increasingly dismal economy, formulation and implementation of Iranian policy is Ayatollah Khamenei, the religious supreme ruler of Iran. Thus, the defensive nature and confrontational rhetoric of Iranian policy will remain intact. However, one can tenably argue that depending on the election results, the packaging in which the rhetoric is delivered would be different.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the apparent victor of June's election is a more centrist politician than his counterpart Ahmadinejad. The general consensus amongst the international community is that Mousavi would begin to cool the regional temperature in the Middle East and be an easier facilitator of talks with Israel and the west. That may be and is a valuable prize, however the US will still have the long and arduous task of negotiating with Iran its ambitions of its nuclear program.

If Washington wants to reach any sort of good-natured negotiations with Iran in the future, it should continue to keep a keen eye on the protests, the Iranian regime's responses, and stay out of Iranian affairs. Rightly so, Obama has vilified Iranian election malpractice and criticized its handling of the protests as unjust. The last thing Mr. Obama should do is take political sides in the matter. Any public support from a US president will immediately deter Iranian votes and support, labeling the candidate a buddy to the Great Satan, thus making matters worse for the US and its interests.

In that case, Mr. Obama has performed all the right moves so far, however, keeping it up will be difficult. There is a fervent cry from opposition leaders and some democrats in Congress insisting that Mr. Obama be more stringent on berating Iran's inability to inquire into the country's disputed election. Congressional Republicans indicate that Mr. Obama is failing to internationally uphold the US democratic model by denouncing theocracy. But such a hawk-like approach to an extremely delicate situation requires a more dovish mentality and cautious treading which Mr. Obama is doing. The US President understands that the history of Persian-American relations is festooned with mutual suspicion, betrayal and US meddling. Any emulation of such actions on Washington's part will double cross the very concept Obama based the foundation of his campaign on and the international community's expectation of US foreign policy.

Lastly, it is important to point out that Iran is nothing compared to the fascist regime in Nazi Germany or the authoritarian model of Communist Russia. However, the current Iranian model is outdated for this day and age. The arrests of opposition leaders and supporters embodies the all too familiar aroma of a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy/theocracy. Iranians are too avant-garde to be ruled by self-appointed old men whose rule over the country is scholarly and internationally viewed as neosultanism. Women are still second class citizens and the suppression of opposition opinion is illiberal. Furthermore, Ayatollah Khamenei can no longer extricate himself from Iranian political affairs. With his endorsement of Ahmadinejad and open support for his disputed victory, Iran is moonlighting as a state plagued by demagogic cronyism. In this tango, Washington is making the right moves, however, the revolution that Iranian officials tried tirelessly to keep from transpiring has been ironically sparked by its own actions. The west will have to wait and see how it all unfolds.