Evan Kohlman writes that the central front on the war on terror is in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That is true. He goes on to say that the "Islamic State of Iraq", the last transitional state of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is in a "free fall". Also true. However, it continues to be active. It doesn't make it the central front anymore. It makes their activities a kind of rearguard action or distraction while important leaders, resources, money and men are being funneled to Afghanistan. It is meant to keep our forces in place while they regroup.
Some would argue that was the point all along. Possibly, but Al Qaeda had been pouring in money, men and resources for several years because they hoped to defeat the United States in Iraq. Today, however, we should be careful not to fall into the same trap that occurred at Tora Bora or even Fallujah when top Al Qaeda commanders left significant forces in place while they escaped. Then again, it may be somewhat late as the last six months could be considered a fighting retreat.
So, McCain should stop calling it THE central front in the war on terror and start calling it a victory in that theater. He has indicated he would put three brigades into Afghanistan, but Afghanistan needs more than more military or even more money. Afghanistan needs a new strategy.
On the other hand, Obama claims that Iraq was never a central front on terror and it was always Afghanistan are equally disingenuous. One thing is clear, Al Qaeda will find it extremely difficult to go back to Iraq in any large numbers or to set up a strategic "Islamic State" in Iraq or the Middle East proper. At least, now they will.
The question now remains as to how many troops can the US put into Iraq and sustain? Where will they be placed? What will their mission be? And, finally, how do the Commanders insure that this does not turn into an international Afghan/Russo war?
Whatever these two presidential candidates have to say about what is or isn't, what they will do and what they won't, is meaningless at this point. Except to the point where they commit themselves and the United States to something that makes it impossible for them to leave behind or, just in terms of the election, puts their comments and decision making far away and behind actual events on the ground.
In the beginning, that was Obama with his statements about a failed surge strategy that was six months behind the success on the ground. McCain's "100 year" remark and "central front on terror" is equally regressive.
What we should be looking for is not political pronouncements, but any assessment that Adm. Mullen or Gen. Petraeus provide with their next movements. Already, troops have been increased in Afghanistan and pushed down into the Helmand province; grand central station for Pashtun/Taliban supported "insurgents". Mullen has traveled to Pakistan to discuss strategy.
While the Taliban and other local leaders try to play off the increasing appearance of foreigners to the "pristine Jihad", others are reporting a significant increase in the flow to foreign fighters to the area in recent months.
It's obvious that they are going to keep flowing more fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan. A massed movement to push a base off a mountain guarding a passageway and other recent actions point to an attempt to put as many fighters into Afghanistan as possible.
If they stay in Pakistan, they could attempt to overset the Pakistan government, but that presents serious difficulties since the government, weak as it might seem, was elected by the people and include a number of different factions that might be compelled to form a stronger unified front against extremists and other tribal insurgents coming out of Waziristan.
They would also continue to be harrassed in a defensive position by the US with its intelligence networks and UAV hellfire strikes against known leaders. The Pakistan Army could also continue harrassing these men and drawing off their resources and men on flanking and harrassing movements. And/or, at the same time, blockade Waziristan or certain tribal areas within. In either case, it would hold Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other insurgents in place for a slow attrition or until enough deals had been made to force them out of the area.
In either case, it is hard to tell if the ongoing truces with different organizations are ruses by the insurgents to hold off attacks while they re-form and refit or if they are resulting in turning any groups away from the insurgents. It's likely it is both. No one can be certain of the other's motives. Fortunately, it works both ways as Al Qaeda and others cannot be certain who is a friend and who is foe.
Staying in Pakistan, however protected the area might seem, is slow death for these organizations. Al Qaeda and its ideological partners need a major victory to re-invigorate their morale and condition after being defeated in Iraq. Their best alternative is to go on the offensive they've been promising for over a year. That means Afghanistan.
It is likely that, regardless of what either candidate says, events on the ground will move faster than the election cycle. For the candidates, instead of trying to prove who would make the better general, they should be acting like potential presidents who might actually have to decide how to conduct the rest of this war. For that, both of them will have to shut up and keep their statements more generic. This is no time to be telegraphing moves or trying to direct combat on the ground from a presidential campaign.
In light of these realities, it seems difficult to see how anyone can reasonably argue, as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain recently has, that Iraq remains the “central front” in America’s war on terrorism. It is even tougher to rationalize when one considers the dramatic upswing in violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan—and that more U.S. soldiers are now dying in that conflict than even the most treacherous reaches of Iraq’s Sunni triangle. Meanwhile, as Pakistan continues to serve as an active base for major international terrorist plots (such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the smashed plots targeting the U.S. Ramstein Airbase in Germany last September), Al-Qaida has utterly failed in its mission to turn Iraq into parallel hub for terrorist activity.
That is true. He goes on to say that the "Islamic State of Iraq", the last transitional state of Al Qaeda in Iraq, is in a "free fall". Also true. However, it continues to be active. It doesn't make it the central front anymore. It makes their activities a kind of rearguard action or distraction while important leaders, resources, money and men are being funneled to Afghanistan. It is meant to keep our forces in place while they regroup.
Some would argue that was the point all along. Possibly, but Al Qaeda had been pouring in money, men and resources for several years because they hoped to defeat the United States in Iraq. Today, however, we should be careful not to fall into the same trap that occurred at Tora Bora or even Fallujah when top Al Qaeda commanders left significant forces in place while they escaped. Then again, it may be somewhat late as the last six months could be considered a fighting retreat.
So, McCain should stop calling it THE central front in the war on terror and start calling it a victory in that theater. He has indicated he would put three brigades into Afghanistan, but Afghanistan needs more than more military or even more money. Afghanistan needs a new strategy.
On the other hand, Obama claims that Iraq was never a central front on terror and it was always Afghanistan are equally disingenuous. One thing is clear, Al Qaeda will find it extremely difficult to go back to Iraq in any large numbers or to set up a strategic "Islamic State" in Iraq or the Middle East proper. At least, now they will.
The question now remains as to how many troops can the US put into Iraq and sustain? Where will they be placed? What will their mission be? And, finally, how do the Commanders insure that this does not turn into an international Afghan/Russo war?
Whatever these two presidential candidates have to say about what is or isn't, what they will do and what they won't, is meaningless at this point. Except to the point where they commit themselves and the United States to something that makes it impossible for them to leave behind or, just in terms of the election, puts their comments and decision making far away and behind actual events on the ground.
In the beginning, that was Obama with his statements about a failed surge strategy that was six months behind the success on the ground. McCain's "100 year" remark and "central front on terror" is equally regressive.
What we should be looking for is not political pronouncements, but any assessment that Adm. Mullen or Gen. Petraeus provide with their next movements. Already, troops have been increased in Afghanistan and pushed down into the Helmand province; grand central station for Pashtun/Taliban supported "insurgents". Mullen has traveled to Pakistan to discuss strategy.
While the Taliban and other local leaders try to play off the increasing appearance of foreigners to the "pristine Jihad", others are reporting a significant increase in the flow to foreign fighters to the area in recent months.
It's obvious that they are going to keep flowing more fighters from Pakistan into Afghanistan. A massed movement to push a base off a mountain guarding a passageway and other recent actions point to an attempt to put as many fighters into Afghanistan as possible.
If they stay in Pakistan, they could attempt to overset the Pakistan government, but that presents serious difficulties since the government, weak as it might seem, was elected by the people and include a number of different factions that might be compelled to form a stronger unified front against extremists and other tribal insurgents coming out of Waziristan.
They would also continue to be harrassed in a defensive position by the US with its intelligence networks and UAV hellfire strikes against known leaders. The Pakistan Army could also continue harrassing these men and drawing off their resources and men on flanking and harrassing movements. And/or, at the same time, blockade Waziristan or certain tribal areas within. In either case, it would hold Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other insurgents in place for a slow attrition or until enough deals had been made to force them out of the area.
In either case, it is hard to tell if the ongoing truces with different organizations are ruses by the insurgents to hold off attacks while they re-form and refit or if they are resulting in turning any groups away from the insurgents. It's likely it is both. No one can be certain of the other's motives. Fortunately, it works both ways as Al Qaeda and others cannot be certain who is a friend and who is foe.
Staying in Pakistan, however protected the area might seem, is slow death for these organizations. Al Qaeda and its ideological partners need a major victory to re-invigorate their morale and condition after being defeated in Iraq. Their best alternative is to go on the offensive they've been promising for over a year. That means Afghanistan.
It is likely that, regardless of what either candidate says, events on the ground will move faster than the election cycle. For the candidates, instead of trying to prove who would make the better general, they should be acting like potential presidents who might actually have to decide how to conduct the rest of this war. For that, both of them will have to shut up and keep their statements more generic. This is no time to be telegraphing moves or trying to direct combat on the ground from a presidential campaign.
When I saw that census in the CIA World Fact Book when the debates about Pakistan first began soon after 9/11, I was amazed that this was NEVER reported in the media, when the media was "gung ho" about invading or bombing Pakistan.
That's a lot of terrorists, "I thought". Or potential terrorists. And you know why I thought that? Because when the Cartoon Jihad came about, Google had a map up by somebody that tallied the number of incidences geography and the size of the protests or caliber of violence produced.
Pakistan's entire NORTHERN border was full of those little black and red balloons. Each one indicating a riot or protest against the "cartoons".
Woah, that's a lot of grassroots support going on there.
GO is a game where if your white pieces surround a black piece totally, that black piece becomes white.
For a few years, Syria and Iran looked like they were going to crush Iraq between them and assimilate that nation as an ally. But Iraq and Afghanistan can do the same thing to Iran. And Iraq and Israel can do the same thing to Syria. And Pakistan and Iran can do the same thing to Afghanistan.
Pure strategy is always interesting, oftentimes more interesting than tactics.
The only thing that has prevented Pakistan from dissolving into chaos has been the rise of politicians who knew how to form lasting alliances or to recruit huge numbers of voters into the party ranks. They do that by morphing into a strong parental figure -- the Family Bhutto knew how to play the role so well that Daddy and Daughter only fell from grace when each one's corruption became too blatant to ignore.
When one politician with a strong Salafist base starts rising, there's going to be trouble. The Pak military has always been apolitical and religiously moderate, but the security forces are heavily sympathetic to the Taliban -- they're just not overt about it because Musharraf purged the ISI upper echelons of the officers making jihadi noises a few years ago, and the rest have either been toeing the line or channeling their sympathies to the Kashmiri terrs working the Line of Control area between Pakistan and India.
Oh, and when Shakespeare said, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," he must've foreseen Pakistan...