The Berntsen National Security Review

Afghanistan: Policing as a Counterinsurgency Strategy

Like many others, I watched both President Obama and former Vice President Cheney as they staked out their respective positions on counterterrorism on television two weeks ago.  The speeches made for good press, but had much less practical impact.  Meanwhile, thousands of American men and women in uniform are moving into the Afghan theater where a significant increase in combat and casualties is about to occur.  Not one word spoken during those speeches in Washington had any relevance to the many young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are preparing for the mission that lies ahead.  Both President Obama and former Vice President Cheney talked about Human Intelligence Operations, Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency in a manner that would indicate that they understand those subjects.  I submit that they are both, at best, only marginally aware of what is occurring on the ground and what needs to be done to advance our interests. 

Though I am more supportive of many of the positions made by Vice President Cheney, the reality is that the Bush administration’s record in Afghanistan was less than stellar in the end.  Its record included the following: a failure to close on Bin Laden in Tora Bora when the opportunity presented itself; the inexplicable opening of an air corridor in December 2001 allowing the Pakistani Air Force to fly into Afghanistan and extract Taliban commanders from Konduz; a failure to immediately implement a broad program of economic and social development following the cessation of violence in 2002; and finally a complete failure to understand, develop and implement a program of policing as a counterinsurgency tool.

In addition to my early deployments of 2000 and 2001 in Afghanistan, I spent from June 2007 to June 2008 in eastern Afghanistan.  Throughout that time, I was deeply disappointed by the failure of the U.S. government to employ policies and practices that addressed the challenges of an enemy that had penetrated deeply into the country and was transitioning to guerrilla and IED warfare.  While in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, I conducted over forty-four meetings and presentations in an effort to get the United States military to employ counterinsurgency programs that would have greater relevance to the threat at hand.  I met with the U.S. Army brigade and division staffs to which I was assigned.  I also met with the appropriate Task Forces, the Combined Security and Transition Command (CTSC) and even the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).  The levels of bureaucracy were horrifying and I found staff officers were averse to incurring any kind of risk.  Little change was implemented.  The result of all of this was an emboldened enemy and an extended conflict.   

Now for the other side.  It is difficult for me to believe that President Obama has made a commitment to exercising a strong and vibrant national defense.  His campaign for the presidency smacked of leftist populism and included a healthy amount of criticism of those of us who have actually fought terror.  Much support for him came from those who loathe the national security establishment.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, I worked as a Veterans Coordinator for Senator John McCain.  In a shopping center in Pennsylvania during the final days of the campaign, I—along with a seriously wounded veteran of the Iraqi conflict—chose to wear a “Veterans for McCain” t-shirt.  We received one verbal insult after another from Obama supporters in language that I care not to print.  I know passions run high in any election but what was said to us made clear that the service and sacrifice of our candidate or the service of any veteran meant little to many of Candidate Obama’s supporters.  I would never have believed the insults and hatred had I not experienced it first hand.

Undeterred from these experiences, I have since done a dozen meetings on Capital Hill, at the Pentagon and with senior Obama administration officials.  My aim again was to focus the administration on counterinsurgency strategies that will work in the Afghan theater of operations.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that many officials were at least willing to meet and listen, though they appear no more capable of implementing functional counterinsurgency practices than their predecessors.  Individuals in senior positions are waiting for orders from the very top.  Unfortunately, initiative seems to have been wrung out of those who inhabit the national security establishment regardless of political party or persuasion.  In counterinsurgency the simple adding of forces—as Obama plans to do this summer with the addition of 17,000 troops—does not make an effective program.  In the end, progress will be determined only by the growing participation and competency of sustainable Afghan counterinsurgency forces.

A successful model to date has been this: Afghan National Army battalions paired with U.S. Special Forces teams that supervise Afghan National Army training and then accompany them on combat operations.  These combined elements have become highly functional and lethal on the battlefield.  In contrast, the Afghan National Police (ANP) lack credible specialized units to work against militants and IED networks.  The creation of such units—with special pay, money for informant operations, basic technology, U.S. trainers and most importantly U.S. team leaders—would radically change the struggle across the country.  Properly trained U.S. civilian police need to be assigned to the Afghan National Police for the purpose of conducting operations from within the ANP chain of command.  Such inclusion of U.S. personnel in counterinsurgency-focused units would match U.S. leadership and resources with Afghan local linguistic and cultural knowledge.  It would make an enormous difference in an organization that lost well over 1,000 men last year.  Though this program alone will not win the war, it will provide a framework from within which other civilian programs can be established.

Assignment to the ANP would be challenging and dangerous for those who step forward. To date, civilian advisors conduct basic police training.  It is time to move beyond that.  I have heard a lot of criticism in the press about military contractors who are often labeled as mercenaries.  But a good number of those contractors serving as police trainers do so not because of the money.  They do so because their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews and neighbors are fighting in Afghanistan.  Of the six such advisors in my brigade from 2007 to 2008, four of us had a combined total of seven children serving in the military—all of them either in theater or on their way.    

The Obama administration can turn this conflict around more quickly, while spending less and limiting the deployment of additional combat forces.  But it will require the adoption of a refined counterinsurgency policing strategy.  The shameful and painful truth about Afghanistan is that a sizable number of American troops are dying needlessly.  As someone with much experience over several decades in Afghanistan and in counterterrorism, I am most disturbed by the total lack of urgency or good sense by our national security apparatus, in general, and within the Department of Defense, in particular, in addressing these losses.  And I am in no way comforted or reassured by speeches such as those given by President Obama and former Vice President Cheney.  Republicans and Democrats alike would do the nation a service by focusing not on what has happened in the past but rather participating in the development of a tailored strategy to win in Afghanistan today.

The Interrogation Memorandums

This past week President Obama authorized the release of a set of classified memorandums written during the Bush administration.  These documents outlined the procedures and tactics employed during the interrogations of captured senior Al Qaeda operatives and have been referred to by the press as the “torture memos”.  President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest.  The four most recent CIA Directors—John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden—all recommended against the release of these memorandums.  President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents.  Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

In taking this action, President Obama has effectively defined the limits of what America, at its most aggressive and most passive, would do against Al Qaeda detainees.  This will undoubtedly allow groups like Al Qaeda to adjust the preparation and training of their operatives.  Administration officials as well as some journalists on the left have argued that the President took into consideration the fact that much of the memos’ contents have already made it into the press.  This is a hollow defense.  Speculation or discussion of these details in the press may allow Al Qaeda and other terrorists to assess potential U.S. capabilities to some extent.  But official White House memorandums released to the public, and immediately downloadable online, are the gold standard for Al Qaeda. 

In addition to bolstering Al Qaeda’s tactical position and morale, I argue that President Obama has also demoralized those members of the Clandestine Service that make enormous personal sacrifices and take tremendous risks in the fight to keep our nation safe.  After having served most of my adult life in CIA’s Clandestine Service and having led many important counterterrorism missions, I can say that the rank and file is truly horrified by President Obama’s naïve decision making.  Apologists for Obama’s misguided decision may counter by highlighting the President’s announcement that no CIA employees who participated in the interrogation program will be prosecuted.  Surely President Obama understood that taking such action would have accelerated retirement of many senior officers already eligible to depart and would have also caused a significant number of resignations.

On top of all this, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, called recently for a “truth and reconciliation commission”—much like what South Africa used to address decades of apartheid.  Leahy’s “truth commission” would purportedly be established to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at the Justice Department during the Bush Administration.  It would allow America to cleanse itself of what he terms Bush Administration crimes.  This is simply a cheap political stunt designed solely for Democratic political advantage and will further undermine our ability to defend ourselves against Al Qaeda terror.

On a daily basis we watch countries like Iran and North Korea continue to advance their technology in the area of weapons of mass destruction.  What the Obama administration fails to comprehend is that terrorist groups are also evolving their tradecraft and the lethality with which they plan to strike.  The fact that we did not suffer a significant follow-on attack in the continental United States during George W. Bush’s eight year presidency resulted from the extremely aggressive posture taken by his administration.  George W. Bush, for all his mistakes and missteps, did understand that we were at war with a lethal and insidious enemy, and he conducted himself accordingly.  Sadly, it is inevitable that a time will come when we learn of an impending catastrophic attack on an American city.  In today’s highly globalized society, small numbers of people can leverage technology to do terrible things.  Given the positions staked out by President Obama, how does a reasonable person believe the national security apparatus will function in such a crisis?  Will individuals be willing to accept the reality of such a threat and be allowed to act decisively at the lowest level to counter the threat, or will such threats have to work their way up the chain of command, at the cost of time, for reflection by President Obama himself?

President Obama’s handling of the classified Bush-era interrogation memorandums displays a lack of maturity.  More dangerously, it displays a lack of understanding of what could lie ahead for the nation.  Like all Presidents in the modern age, Obama is likely to face events in the years ahead that will be heartrending.  To prepare for these challenges and to minimize the impact on the nation, he must avoid rewarding our enemy and build consensus within the national security establishment.  Unfortunately, with the release of these memos, the hope that President Obama would conduct himself in foreign affairs as a moderate pragmatist has all but evaporated.  

      

Negotiating with Terror: Why Ron Arad Matters

In the past several weeks, a variety of news items out of Israel have exemplified the difficulty that democracies face when fighting terrorism.  New reports suggest Israel has been conducting an investigation into whether its soldiers acted with excessive brutality during military operations in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009.  Meanwhile, information has surfaced that Israel may resume targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and block visits to Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli jails.  Israel has also been attempting to reduce Hamas’ demands for a 400 to 1 prisoner swap while pressing the group to allow visits to Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by militants in June 2006.  Without context, these assorted developments may be difficult to piece together and fully comprehend.  But to many who have lived and worked in this complex region, much of this should come as no surprise.  Israel’s approach to its dealings with Iranian-supported terror groups such as Hamas and Hizballah has been shaped by a difficult history—and Israel's actions are in many ways guided by its citizens’ personal tragedies and hardships. 

The case of Israeli Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad illustrates this point.  His is a story that began over twenty years ago, and one that continues today without resolution.  On October 16, 1986, Lieutenant Colonel Arad was on a mission to attack Palestinian Liberation Organization targets near Sidon, Lebanon.  Arad, a weapons officer flying in an F-4 Phantom, as well as the accompanying pilot were forced to eject after their aircraft was damaged.  Though the pilot was recovered by Israeli forces, Arad was captured by the Lebanese militia group Amal—one of the dominant Shi’a Muslim militias during the Lebanese Civil War.  In an effort to recover Arad in 1989, Israel would snatch a leading member of Lebanese Hizballah, Sheik Addul-Karim Obeid.  This effort failed to unearth any details on Arad’s whereabouts or his physical state.  For eight long years, the Israeli military, Israeli government officials and Arad’s family waited to hear word of his condition. 

New information on Arad would not be uncovered until 1994.  A long-awaited breakthrough came with the capture by Israeli forces of Amal’s head of security, Mustafa Dirani.  In captivity, Dirani recounted how his militia group turned Arad over to Lebanese Hizballah who, in turn, passed him to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.  This information provided hope but it did not lead to further action.  While the United States and its European allies cut deals for the release of Western hostages held by Hizballah during this time frame, Ron Arad was again forgotten to all but his countrymen.  In Israel, songs were written in Ron Arad’s honor and events marking the day of his capture became part of popular culture.  Meanwhile, Ron Arad’s wife, Tami, continued a brave fight to raise awareness of his circumstances in the hope of resolving the fate of her husband. 

Additional evidence surfaced periodically in subsequent years.  In the 1990’s, a photo of Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad, bearded and with sunken eyes, was released to the public.  In 2006 the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation aired new footage of Arad believed to have been shot in 1988.  And In 2007, Israel received a two decade-old letter written by Arad to his family.  But just last year, United Nations negotiator Gerhad Konrad reported to the Israeli government that Arad was dead.  No final ruling has been decreed and the Israeli public continues to speculate.  Though Obeid and Dirani have been freed as part of a POW swap, no additional information on Arad has ever been provided directly by Hizballah or Iran. 

Ron Arad’s case continues to haunt the Israeli public to this day.  It also shines light on the uncompromisingly brutal methods used by elements of Hamas and Hizaballah.  For though Israel has captured hundreds of Hizballah and Hamas terrorists during combat and counter-terrorism operations, those prisoners are regularly visited by their family members and the International Committee for the Red Cross.  In contrast, Israeli prisoners that fall into the hands of organizations like Hamas and Hizballah receive no such visits and suffer horrible abuse. Such was the case with Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.  In 2006, Lebanese Hizballah crossed Israel’s northern border and captured these two Israeli soldiers. This was the spark that set off the 34-day Israeli-Hizballah War of 2006.  During negotiations held toward the end of the conflict, Hizballah refused to confirm the status of Goldwasser and Regev.  Two years later, the Israeli government concluded an agreement within a negotiation framework that allowed for the release of five Hizballah terrorists in return for these 2 young Israeli soldiers.  But the Israeli public would be horrified to learn that instead of receiving their young men alive in the exchange as expected, Hizballah presented Israel with their dead bodies.  The Israeli government was criticized by its public for this betrayal, but the Olmert government had felt compelled to make the deal in the hope that at least one of them was alive.  This was not the case.

This brings us to the issue of non-stop pressure by the international community to force Israel to reopen Gaza check points and allow Hamas and its Palestinian subjects to begin reconstruction.  We are all mindful that Palestinians in Gaza are in need of humanitarian assistance.  Unfortunately, they are led by the killers of Hamas and this group must not be rewarded in any way until it abides by a minimum level of civilized behavior. As a start, that behavior should include providing Red Cross access to Gilad Shalit.  Where are the international voices calling for the protection of his human rights and his protection from torture and abuse?  The reactions to the photos of Iraqis naked and in humiliating positions, taken at the Abu Ghraib military prison, caused widespread criticism and severe disapproval around the world.  There have been reports that Gilad Shalit has been restrained with explosives tied to his body as a means of ensuring that no Israeli rescue is attempted.  Yet no universal condemnation has resulted from these horrid reports.  Inexplicably, only the side in the fight not recognized by the United Nations—terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah—has received protection under the Geneva Convention.

Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an admirable stated goal of the Obama administration.  An important first step toward that end will be Hamas’s adherence to basic international norms relative to human rights.  A second step will be to abrogate the horrible double standard that has long defined the plight of Israeli combatants that fall into the hands of their enemies.  The missing Israeli navigator, Ron Arad, is little known to most Americans but the last haunting photo of him—and his long-standing suffering—is seared into the consciousness of Israelis.  It hardens even the most peace-loving of individuals.  His case and others like his undoubtedly guide Israel’s most important decisions regarding how the nation deals with its enemies and how it chooses to negotiate with terror.    

     

Mexico: The Real War on Drugs

In 1969, President Richard Nixon first used the term “War on Drugs” to define the efforts of the United States government and other allied nations to combat the production and distribution of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as well as legal drugs if they had been obtained illegally for non-medical purposes.  Since that time, all succeeding American presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have signed on to the basic premise of a coordinated campaign at home and abroad in effort to limit supply, diminish demand and combat the various deadly enterprises that traffic drugs.  But since as early as the 1970’s, critics of the “War on Drugs” have cited a lack of return on investment, the loss of potential tax revenues and an increased consumption of drugs in the developing world as a rationale for significantly altering U.S. prohibitive policies on drugs.  In some cases, they have even proposed legalizing the trade altogether.  The most paranoid of these voices suggest that authoritarian forces within the United States government purposefully manufacture and manipulate public fears on the subject of illegal drugs in order to generate support for the maintenance of a police state.

I hope to lend some perspective to this subject.  What is happening on the ground in Mexico—this very moment, in fact—is instructive and should help to cast the argument of the “War on Drugs” in a new light.  In that country, narco-terrorists not only produce and distribute cocaine but are also savagely brutalizing the population and those standing to defend the Mexican state.  Over 6,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in this battle in the last twelve months.  Mexican narco-terrorists are essentially doing what all large criminal enterprises ultimately do: challenge civil society and the state.  Such organizations seek to enrich and empower themselves by pursuing activities that feed the darker side of human nature.  Without a doubt, the killers that make up the current Mexican cartels would have had equally large and dangerous American-led counterparts in the U.S. had America not invested in the “War on Drugs” and empowered local police and the Drug Enforcement Agency to combat such organizations.

Fortunately, the DEA today is fighting back harder than ever.  Leading a broad coalition of federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations, the DEA spearheaded Operation Xcellerator which launched in early March 2008 and has netted hundreds of members of the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel deep inside the United States.  The Mexican cartels may certainly swing a big bat in Mexico but they remain wary of the DEA on U.S. soil.  A DEA Task Force Team leader, and friend of this writer, describes his recent work against the Mexican cartels in the U.S. as akin to “hunting at a zoo”.  The Mexican cartels may have come into America with the same aim of enriching themselves while imposing their violence upon us, but Operation Xcellerator is evidence that the DEA has taken off the gloves.  Congress and the American public need to support the DEA and encourage the Obama Administration to act decisively in this ongoing fight.  That may very well involve ramping up U.S. capability on the border including a redeployment of the National Guard in greater numbers and with the authority to act with force against those Mexican cartels that cross the border in force and are armed for confrontation.  It will also require supporting Mexico and other nations in the defeat of drug cartels under the Mérida Initiative—a security cooperation partnership created to combat transnational narcotics trafficking and organized crime in Mexico, Central America and Caribbean.

Though this fight is no less than a national security imperative, the “War on Drugs” also contains important social dimensions.  One of the most compelling rationales for recalibrating aspects of our drug policy is the effect drugs have on our poor.  Many of those most vulnerable in our society fall victim to drugs—and high rates of incarceration as well as subsequent barriers to employment exacerbate the plight of many in poverty.  Greater efforts in terms of education, prevention and rehabilitation make up the solution and must be encouraged.  Arguments that we should pursue across-the-board legalization do not address the fact that such policy would bring on a health care catastrophe among the poor in America.  And although there are valid arguments for the expansion of controlled use of marijuana among those suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating diseases, the watchword on this particular matter must be “controlled”.  Marijuana bars where patrons buy marijuana and then sell to our children on the streets are unacceptable.

Given human fallibility, we are unlikely to ever stem the drug trade in its entirety.  Demand in the U.S. will continue.  So long as it is profitable, creative criminals will always find ways to defeat the defenses of open and free societies.  However, any achievements they make in breaking through our defenses in this difficult struggle should not be the sole measure of success or failure in the “War on Drugs” as a whole.  Our success will be the sustainment of civil society where the populace and those whom we elect to public office, guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, determine the course of our lives—and not the criminal enterprises determined to impose their violent will upon us.       

Keith Olbermann: Ready, Fire, Aim

Last Monday, a friend informed me that MSNBC’s host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann had gone off on a rant about me on his show.  The friend told me that Mr. Olbermann had commented on an interview I had done on Fox & Friends on March 1, 2009 in which I had stated that I was displeased with the Bush Administration for not—after seven years— having executed September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees that are classified as unlawful enemy combatants.  Unlawful enemy combatants are those individuals captured on the battlefield conducting military-type operations who are not in uniform, lack any designating unit patch, are not led by recognized authority and do not conduct themselves in accordance with the rule of law.  Under the Geneva Convention, these individuals are also designated as marauders and we are under no obligation to provide them POW status.  I argue that we must provide a suitable and expeditious legal process to handle these critical cases – a legal process that keeps on the table the option of our harshest punishment. 

I watched Mr. Olbermann’s performance later in the evening.  He called me a sadist.  Then he lectured that had Al Qaeda operated under the parameters which I suggested, I too would have been subject to execution by Al Qaeda if captured by them.  I have a newsflash for Mr. Olbermann and his MSNBC producers: Al Qaeda and the Taliban torture, rape and kill all Westerners who fall under their control.  In the specific case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, responsible for the horrible death of close to 3,000 people in the United States, he has been in front of a judge and proudly admitted both his role in his heinous acts and his desire for the death penalty.  I have served on the battlefield against these type of killers on many occasions.  Though I had retired from the CIA in 2005, I returned to Afghanistan from June 2007 to June 2008 and worked as an adviser to the U.S. Army on a Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) Task Force in Eastern Afghanistan.  It was my great honor to work as a member of this unit.  I deeply lament the sacrifices my fellow team members made—several of whom lost their lives or suffered horrific life changing injuries.  Mr. Olbermann’s desire to lecture me, or anyone else who has worked against Al Qaeda, is frankly pathetic.     

Furthermore, MSNBC producers and Mr.Olbermann are not as informed or prepared as they should be—and I believe they do a poor job of representing the NBC brand.  Let me provide a personal story to highlight my point.  After retiring from the CIA in 2005 and publishing my first book, Jawbreaker, I did the television circuit for several months.  One day I received a call from NBC informing me that Tim Russert wanted to interview me for his hour-long CNBC show.  On the appointed day I traveled to Washington, D.C.  When I entered the studio, the lights were down and Mr. Russert was already seated.  In front of him was a copy of my book, Jawbreaker.  It looked worn from use and notes were attached to dozens of pages.  A cameraman directed me to my seat.  I was nervous, of course.  Tim Russert looked across the table and stated, “Welcome Gary.  I have seen all of your interviews and read this book twice. I know you have been honest.  That is why you are here today.  Let’s begin the interview.”  Tim Russert was probing, insightful and clearly in search of the truth.  It was a privilege to be interviewed by him.  The fact that Mr. Olbermann is now a major representative of the same brand is disheartening.

On television news shows, guests are forced to compress answers and it is easy for viewers to come to conclusions that may be less than accurate.  In regards to the issue at hand, I am a published bestselling author who has provided detailed and nuanced answers to some of the most difficult challenges that lie ahead for our country.  In November 2008, I published a policy book called Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism and National Leadership.  Though I am a Republican, the book was written in a non-partisan fashion and I balanced my criticisms of both major political parties for failures in understanding intelligence, covert action, and other critical issues related to national security.  Having said all of this, I return to Mr. Olbermann’s categorization of me.  The word “sadist” is defined as someone who derives pleasure from the pain of others.  I certainly have faults, but sadism is not one of them.  What I desire is justice.  Individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those who employ terror in the cities of the world or in the mountains of Afghanistan should face our harshest punishment, the death penalty.  The sooner we can deliver it, the better.

A Tale of Two Wars

President Barack Obama's announcement of an August 2010 withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq—while simultaneously leaving 35,000 to 50,000 troops behind to conduct training of Iraqi forces and participate in counterterrorism missions—brought expected responses from both sides of the Congressional aisle. While Republicans responded with a "told-you-so" attitude, a sizable portion of the Democratic Party expressed considerable disappointment.  In fact, it appears a number of Democrats are so desperate to leave Iraq that they would retreat tomorrow if permitted—even if it meant that Al Qaeda was given keys to the Presidential Palace.  Without a doubt, a phased and responsible withdrawal from Iraq will provide a needed decrease in the operational tempo and increase the overall health and well being of our Armed Forces.  Everyone welcomes a drawdown.  But what many lawmakers fail to fully comprehend is that the enemy does get a vote in this process.  New waves of violence can change the facts on the ground and can alter the best of plans.

Fortunately, President Obama has decided upon taking a prudent approach that back loads the withdrawal to the later part of an 18 month plan and then maintains a sizable force to deal with potential problems.  The Status of Forces Agreement signed prior to the departure of the Bush Administration established the parameters for President Obama's decision on Iraq.  Additionally, President Bush's nomination and Senate approval of General David Petraeus as Commander of Central Command was a gift to the nation in terms of ensuring continued adult supervision and management of counterinsurgency efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Though President Obama could replace General Petraeus, removing America's most competent general would cost him.

For all the plan's merits, I do have a lingering concern in President Obama's withdrawal announcement.  His call for the end of combat operations in Iraq belies an important truth: all U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the ground, despite their task or mission, will still be in harm's way.  This is a fundamental reality the American public must understand.  Regardless of the euphemism used to describe the remaining force—be it the “911 Force”, Iraq Counterterrorism Task Force, etc.—it is important to recognize that American men and women in uniform may very well be involved in continued combat situations.  This small U.S. force will have to have teeth; simply leaving the lawyers, cooks, and administrative staff behind without the appropriate tools to defend themselves would be unwise. 

Meanwhile, fixing the other war—Afghanistan—will require no less brain power and significantly more time and effort.  Candidate Obama campaigned on winning in Afghanistan as the central theme of his fight against terror.  President Obama is about to learn the difference between such campaign talk and actually climbing into the octagon.  Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the assorted half-dozen other anti-coalition militant groups that operate in the Afghan/Pak theater obey none of the rules of war as defined in the Geneva Convention; yet they plead for the protection of these accords.  They kidnap, beat, rape and butcher any combatant or civilian that falls in their hands.  As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama now lives with the reality and responsibility for casualties incurred in this fight.

It will be critical that the President look to Republicans for support on Afghanistan.  Few in the camp that elected him will have the stomach for what lies ahead in Afghanistan and Pakistan's Tribal Areas.  To date, technology and unmanned missile strikes have kept our enemies on the backs of their heels.  But the enemy will surely adjust and seek new asymmetrical methods of attack.  The numbers of suicide bombings in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan have doubled in the last year.  The elimination of moderate tribal elders will allow for an almost immediate redefinition of demographics and unforeseen radicalization of a population merely trying to survive.

On both sides of the Afghan/Pakistani border, counter-insurgency efforts must seek to return to basics.  This translates into the fundamental task of establishing the rule of law.  After U.S. and Afghan Army forces seize and reestablish control of a village or town, national policing forces must arrive in sufficient number to hold and root out extremist supporters and sympathizers.  Communities must then be armed and organized into larger networks to allow for their own collective defense as a means of resisting re-occupation by extremists.  Such efforts will take time.  They require boots on the ground and constant shared risks with those whom we seek to aid.  Maintaining support for this effort will require leadership and recognition that those we currently fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan have every intention of expanding their efforts against us into the broader world community.

A World Of Differences

I have had the fortune of having lived, traveled and worked on all of the world’s continents with the exception of Antarctica.  I have found that wherever there are differences between peoples—be these differences racial, religious, cultural or political in nature—there is always tension and sometimes open conflict.  Some of those conflicts are horrific in scale.  The United States, for example, was born with the stain of slavery and African Americans endured incredible hardship for much of our nation’s history.  It would take victory by the North during a bloody and destructive civil war as well as another hundred years before full civil rights would be provided to all African Americans. 

Let’s return to the world of today.  In our most recent election, many people—both black and white—were surprised that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  I believe this should not have come as a surprise.  America was ready back in 1996 and 2000 as General Colin Powell could have easily waltzed into the Presidency had he wanted.  Be that as it may, President Obama’s election does show the world one thing: in America the dream is true.  Regardless of race, color or creed, an individual can achieve as much as his or her ability and hard work will allow.

With all of this in mind, I turn to the recent furor over a political cartoon published last week in the New York Post showing two police officers after they have shot a chimpanzee.  One comments to the other: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”  Since this cartoon’s publication, Reverend Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and filmmaker Spike Lee, among others, have immediately cried racism.  Demonstrators marched outside the Manhattan offices of the New York Post and its parent company, Newscorp, while Sharpton and others called for a citywide boycott of the paper.

Considering that America currently faces significant economic challenges and the world still suffers from dozens of conflicts marked by horrendous violence extracted against those least able to defend themselves, I can only shake my head in disbelief.  While the cartoon was admittedly in terribly bad taste, there is no indication of who the dead chimp represents: Congress, the President, or perhaps the recently killed celebrity chimpanzee, Travis, who went on a violent rampage last week.  If anyone should be offended or angry, it should be the police for being portrayed so poorly.  Truthfully, none of us know what was in the cartoonist’s heart when he drew the picture. 

What I do know, though, is that individuals—black, white, or of any other racial or ethnic background—who are concerned about racial justice and equality need to look across the Atlantic Ocean to Africa and the war, deprivation, disease and poverty that punishes that heartbreaking continent.  Let us have a call to action from the National Action Network and remove Zimbabwe’s murdering psychopath of a president, Robert Mugabe, from power.  In that nation, a racially-motivated government attacks white farmers and has caused the predominantly black population to suffer from mass starvation and disease.  Greater intervention in the Congo would also save many innocent victims from the knife.  In the last decade there, over two million people have died from violence making it the deadliest conflict since World War II.  Dealing effectively with the Darfur crisis and the murder of black African ethnic groups by Sudanese Arabs is another task worthy effort.  Speaking up and holding corrupt African leaders accountable would avert mass murder and genocide the likes of which we witnessed in Rwanda in the mid 1990’s.  

I do not condone in any way, shape or form racism in America and will speak out and act against it when I see it.  However, I recommend to celebrities and leading social movements that they focus their efforts on the real enemies, killers and despots—and not waste what little time we have in this life stalking cartoonists and midtown Manhattan newspapers. 

Chicago on the Potomac

Revelations have surfaced that U.S. Senator Roland Burris may have committed perjury during an Illinois state impeachment panel—or at the very least that he omitted key pieces of information in his testimony regarding former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s efforts to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.  Senator Burris failed to disclose under oath that he had had numerous conversations with Blagojevich allies, including the now disgraced-Governor’s brother, on issues including fundraising.  This is the worst of Chicago politics.  And it portends poorly for all of those who have arrived in Washington D.C. under the purported mantra of change.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, voters were overly generous when they gave then-presidential nominee Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt when it was revealed that he purchased his Chicago home as part of a sweetheart deal along with then-slumlord, and now convicted felon, Tony Rezko.  Since the presidential election, we have learned that nominees for cabinet positions as well as senior White House staff positions either failed to pay taxes or have fallen under some other cloud of corruption.  This list includes nominees to Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Labor, the Chief Performance Officer position, and even the White House Chief of Staff.  In the case of Health and Human Services, nominee and former U.S. Senator Thomas Daschle had to repay over $130,000 in back taxes.  The White House called his tax problems a mistake.  Truth be told, Daschle failed to report income which—to tell it straight—is fraud.  No one can claim that this slate of missteps on the part of the Obama Administration is simply a result of partisanship.  Having helped defeat Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, the press has simply returned to its role of covering and reporting on the party in power.  The Obama administration has proved easy pickings for a press that had earlier been willing to explain away any shortcomings. 

The Executive Branch does not stand alone in warranting criticism.  Recent news that New York Congressman Charles Rangel failed to report income and pay taxes is equally troubling.  As the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rangel oversees the legislative body that writes tax policy for the House of Representatives.  His story could serve as another disturbing case of fraud.  Sadly, Congressman Rangel is a man that I have admired greatly.  As a young African American solider, he fought for the United States during the Korean War at a time when many African Americans suffered from severe discrimination.  Congressman Rangel is also a veteran of the Civil Rights movement.  However, these facts do not abrogate him—or anyone else for that matter—from the legal obligation to pay taxes.  As such, he has lost the moral authority earned by years of hard, honest work and sacrifice.  What is most troubling in this case is not Congressman Rangel’s failure to resign, but rather the Democratic Party’s unwillingness to maintain a basic standard of conduct.  This standard of conduct should say: obey the laws of our nation or we will demand that you step aside.    

The magnitude of the legal and ethical problems that surround many of our government officials can not be overlooked.  These accounts come at a critical time when the American people face significant financial challenges.  The economic crisis at hand makes it all the more important that we have a government that is viewed as honest and competent by its citizenry.  We are barely one month into the Obama Administration; yet it has already established a terrible track record of vetting candidates for senior administration positions.  In the meantime, other elected officials including some in Congress, further erode confidence.  To truly restore the trust of the American public, the men and women who have taken on positions of authority in our government must do better in upholding an ethic of integrity.

Overrunning the Tamil Tigers

Sri Lanka, known in British colonial times as Ceylon, is a tear-drop shaped, picturesque island south of India’s Tamil Nadu province.  Home to 21 million people, Sri Lanka is made up of a Buddhist Sinhalese majority in the south and central parts of the island.  The Hindu Tamil population resides primarily in the north and eastern regions.  Since 1983, the island has been the scene of horrific violence stemming from its population’s ethnic and religious differences.  For over a quarter of a century, that violence has taken the form of terrorism attacks and guerrilla warfare—and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of combatants and innocent victims alike. 

As a young man in the service of his country, I served in Sri Lanka in the 1980’s, at a time when 80,000 members of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) roared into the north and eastern portions of the island.  They arrived with the objective of enforcing a peace agreement between the Sri Lankan Government and a group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  The peace agreement had been brokered by Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.  Some years later, a young Sri Lankan woman would meet Gandhi, place a garland of flowers around his neck, and detonate a suicide belt wrapped around her body.  The women—known as a Black Tiger—was an anointed suicide attacker for the LTTE.

The LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers, have been led these many years by the dictatorial Velupillai Prabhakaran.  Under his leadership, the Tigers eliminated or absorbed six other Tamil militant groups by force early in the group’s history. Considered revolutionary in terrorist strategy, Prabhakaran employed every means of explosive delivery to include bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks, boats and hang gliders.  In the late 1980’s, he sent a squad of suicide fighters into Sri Lanka’s Katanayke International Airport with rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s) and destroyed the entire fleet of Air Lanka commercial aircraft as they sat astride the main terminal.  Despite all of this—or perhaps because of it—Prabhakaran has enjoyed a measure of celebrity status and gained the attention of the international community.  Numerous governments including those of Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom have tried honestly and earnestly to broker peace.  But peace, like Prabhakaran himself, has remained elusive.

In reviewing the LTTE’s ruthlessness, it is worth making a brief aside.  American politicians talk tough about fighting terror but few encounter personal risk in this regard.  By contrast, a generation of Sri Lankan political leaders, and many others for that matter, have sacrificed their lives while confronting Tamil Tigers terror: Lalith Athulathmudulai, Ranasinghe Premadasa, and Gamini Dissanayake to name a few.  Of this group, Athulathmudulai was my favorite.  He was the first non-British President of the Oxford Student Union in the United Kingdom.  He also served as the National Security Advisor for Sri Lankan President J.R. Jaywardena.  Athulathmudulai spoke the King’s English confidently and was a young South Asian version of Winston Churchill.  He understood the nature of his adversary— Prabakaran—and knew that though diplomacy is always preferable, there are those with whom one cannot negotiate.

Today, it appears the Sri Lankan military has finally overrun the Tamil Tigers on the Jaffna Peninsula and sent the greatly advertised, steel-willed Prabhakaran into the jungle or in flight out of the country.  Some speculate the mass-murdering Prabhakaran has fled to Malaysia or South Africa in order to blend into large South Asian communities in those countries.  As the Sri Lankan military zones in on remaining LTTE forces, the removal of Prabakaran, if only temporarily, provides an opportunity to advance a needed dialogue between the Sinhalese majority and the Tamil minority.  British Member of Parliament Liam Fox, the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party’s Shadow Defense Minister, is the most recent of negotiators involved in the conflict and needs to return to the troubled island quickly.  M.P. Fox, a former military doctor, is well versed in the complex history of Sri Lanka, knows all the players intimately and is respected internationally.

Any viable plan to establish sustainable peace in Sri Lanka must include support to the Tamil populations of the North who have suffered tragically under Prabhakaran’s rule.  The plan must also include provisions that allow for a level of autonomy for the Tamil people, guaranteeing the protection of their cultural and religious traditions.   If we have learned anything in recent years, it is that timing matters.  The provision of aid and establishment of security for a beleaguered population must come sooner rather than later.  This will make all the difference in terms of reestablishing order and prosperity.  And it may ensure a new generation of Tamil Tigers does not emerge.

The Diplomats: Mitchell and Holbrooke

As President Barack Obama presses the “reset button” for the United States in terms of foreign affairs, he has wisely enlisted the support of two world-class Americans—former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and career Foreign Service Officer Ambassador Richard Holbrooke—to take on the most significant challenges.  Senator Mitchell was the American negotiator/representative to the Good Friday Accords, which ultimately brought peace to Northern Ireland.  Ambassador Holbrooke, having begun his career as a young diplomat in Vietnam, capped his career thirty years later by handling the Dayton Accords, which brought peace to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike should give the President credit for turning to two such skilled public servants.     

Senator Mitchell will have a heavy pack to carry on his journey.  He takes on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict at the conclusion of a recent Israel punitive effort to deter Hamas from firing thousands of missiles into Israeli territory.  The wounds from the recent military engagement are still raw.  Hamas, the terrorist organization firmly in power in Gaza, is supported directly by Iran and continues to call for the outright destruction of Israel.  Meanwhile, Senator Mitchell will find that Israelis are utterly disgusted and exhausted with efforts to make peace with an enemy dedicated to their demise.  This overriding sentiment will persist regardless of who wins upcoming Israeli elections.  Without a doubt, extremists from both the Palestinian and Israeli sides will do their best to block Senator Mitchell’s efforts.  Iran will also use its influence with Hamas hardliners to subsume the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into its own broad disagreements with the West.    

Senator Mitchell will literally have to begin with baby steps in order to build confidence among the two sides.  He will have to accomplish this knowing full well that others benefit from the violence he is trying to end.  Fortunately, Senator Mitchell brings several advantages to the table.  He is starting this important work early in the new administration.  By contrast, both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush delayed involvement in the peace process until the end of their respective administrations.  Also, Senator Mitchell has handled such intractable problems before.  He has seen success and understands the importance of achieving a series of small victories that will improve the lives of common people—all enroute to broader agreements.  No one should expect success overnight.  Senator Mitchell will need room for maneuver and patience from the White House and from the many individuals around the world who are intensely committed to one side or the other. 

Ambassador Holbrooke’s assignment could not be more different.  As President Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he will be responsible for establishing coherence in US policy in the region.  He will need to encourage the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to more forcefully engage the Taliban and other anti-coalition militants in order to reestablish security in the borderlands of both countries.  Appropriately, Ambassador Holbrooke also brings substantial experience to the task at hand.  He was an early proponent of military force in the Balkans to end the killing in that conflict.  His view would ultimately prevail and launch him into the role of the hard-nosed lead negotiator on the American side of the Dayton Peace Accords.  Additionally, Ambassador Holbrooke’s past service with the United States Agency for Development (USAID), the Peace Corps, as a negotiator at the Paris Peace talks, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and as a journalist and banker provide him with an incredibly broad view and the necessary expertise in fields that require attention in that theater of operations.  Ambassador Holbrooke will have to impose himself forcefully on the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan if success is to be achieved.  We should all expect that Ambassador Holbrooke will come out of the gate fast and hard; after all, the lives of our sons and daughters depend on him. 

If diplomacy provided for celebrity based on performance, both Mitchell and Holbrooke would be rock stars.  As this is not the case, these courageous individuals will instead sacrifice significant time away from their families, brave dangerous locales and apply themselves unselfishly in service of the greater interests of the United States.  The world is a difficult and dangerous place—yet both carry on nevertheless.  For this we should be grateful.