Tag: Afghanistan
Stevenson’s army, September 27
I’ve been traveling and negligent about publishing Charlie’s daily take, but I’ll try to do better this week:
– Erdogan defends military purchases from Russia.
– Chinese unsettled by hostage release deal.
-US Supreme Court sees sharp drop in favorability.
– WSJ says US failed to build sustainable economy in Afghanistan.
– WaPo explains failure of Afghan security forces.
– Guardian profiles Jake Sullivan.
And while this is not a prediction, Steven Dennis of Bloomberg describes the way legislative fights often work out:
“How deals sometimes come together in Congress
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES TO BUDGET MODS IMMEDIATELY DIS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES TO FRAMEWORK NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES”
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 16
FT scoops the rest with two items: Xi rejected a proposal by Biden for face-to-face summit; Khalilzad says Ghani’s surprise departure derailed planned two week grace period for Kabul.
Fred Kaplan on Milley revelations.
Some House Democrats are already losing their seats to GOP gerrymandering.
More from WSJ on Facebook: algorithm changed boosted angry people.
Brookings has some good ideas for filibuster reform.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 15
– Jonathan Swan of Axios suggests lawmakers believe he was acting too politically, if the Woodward book is accurate.Sen. Rubio [R-FL] says it was “treasonous” that he called the Chinese military.
– I see a different problem. Milley is not in the chain of command. No JCS Chairman has been since Goldwater-Nichols. Therefore he should not be telling other commanders to let him know about orders from higher authority. Milley can’t “pull a Schlesinger” because only the SecDef can.
– Swan reports that Esper had concerns about China and that he, not Milley, called off the planned exercises. That’s suggests correct consultation.
FYI, Woodward also reveals a Trump effort outside the chain of command.
-SecState Blinken went before SFRC for another contentious hearing. Here’s the hearing link.
– But Chairmen Menendez [D-NJ] was angry that the SecDef declined to testify. Sec. Austin was only following the precedent set by SecDef Rumsfeld who, over 6 years, refused to testify before any committee other than appropriations and armed services, on the grounds that they were his only overseers. [He did appear once before SFRC on a treaty defense wanted, which of course was in SFRC jurisdiction.]
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 14
Punchbowl provides several stories on Blinken testimony. Politico: “Blinken lays blame on Trump as he defends messy withdrawal from Afghanistan” … Reuters: “Blinken defends Afghan withdrawal at testy U.S. congressional hearing” … CNN: “Blinken testifies on Afghanistan before House lawmakers angry about the war’s chaotic end” … WaPo: “Blinken clashes with Republican lawmakers over Afghanistan withdrawal”
Look at the talking points the WH sent to its friends.
Here’s a link to the actual hearing. [But if you want to use it for your Hill Observation paper, be aware it’s over 5 hours long.]
– NYT says Iran almost has enough fuel for one nuclear bomb.
– WaPo says US is releasing some aid to Egypt, conditioning the rest.
– WSJ is running a series of articles on how Facebook dodges some of its own rules.
– The Brown University Costs of War project points the finger at contractors.
– What can Hill staffers do whose workplace is toxic? Leak to Buzzfeed.
– A retired USMC colonel says US doesn’t practice what it preaches about mission command.
Our brownbag guest yesterday recommends this article about changing the GOP.
Lots of new material this afternoon. Different reporters are citing bootleg copies of the new Bob Woodward book — WaPo says Milley “pulled a Schlesinger“; CNN has more about the military.
– Different emphases: Intell officials say AlQaeda could rebuild in a year, and greater terror threats are outside Afghanistan.
Congress looks at military role in evacuation. Blinken hearing “marred by politics.”
– Military aid to Guinea cut off.
– How should a Member spend his time? Tweeting about Democratic policies or helping deal with local floods?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Parsing the Afghanistan quandary: humanitarian aid now, nothing more
The UN is anticipating that virtually the entire population of Afghanistan will soon require humanitarian assistance. The country’s economy is imploding. The new Taliban government is broke. The neighbors currying favor with the new authorities in Kabul are not traditional sources of aid: Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia, not to mention Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekhistan, and Tajikistan. The UN and non-governmental relief organizations will be willing, but they depend on financing from the usual suspects: the US, the EU, Japan, and other developed countries. The one willing Gulf donor is presumably Qatar, which played a role in the negotiations between the US and the Taliban and now runs Kabul airport.
The humanitarian imperative is clear: provide the aid to those in need, no matter what the politics. Life with dignity is everyone’s right. But this is an odd situation: the Taliban just ousted the internationally recognized government, they have not fulfilled the minimal requirements the UN Security Council has levied, and the countries now expected to provide aid are those the Taliban spent twenty years fighting. American taxpayers, having just witnessed the humiliation of the US withdrawal, are now expected to ante up in ways that will make the Taliban regime sustainable?
The problem extends beyond humanitarian assistance. At least that can be done without putting cash in Taliban pockets. The Taliban will still benefit, as otherwise the burden of feeding the population would fall to them. But assistance with government expenditures, including so-called “early-recovery” and reconstruction, will directly help the Taliban to hold on to the power they gained by force, as will unfreezing of Afghanistan’s foreign currency reserves and allowing the Taliban to cash in the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights. The Taliban will be no less clever than the previous government in skimming off some percentage.
American interests in this situation need to be parsed. Collapse of Taliban rule and the likely subsequent civil war would be awful from Washington’s perspective. An Islamic State (Khorasan) takeover would be worse. The Americans want what the UNSC resolution specified: exit of those US citizens and supporters who want to leave, access for humanitarian relief, respect for human rights (especially those of women and girls), and an inclusive transitional government. The Taliban have already disappointed by naming a government of their own militants, including people linked to Al Qaeda. While it is early days, they have not demonstrated respect for human rights. Nor have they allowed the exit of more than a minimal number of people.
So do we discount the Taliban failures so far and go ahead with humanitarian relief? I’m afraid we don’t have a lot of choice, both as a matter of principle and pragmatic policy. Humanitarian relief may not save the Taliban government from collapse, but it is the right thing to do and could help to stave off civil war or an IS takeover. We should provide the funds with eyes wide open, trying to verify that access is unhindered and that food and other assistance flows to those in need and is not monetized or otherwise pocketed by Taliban-connected warlords.
There is an argument for at least partially unfreezing reconstruction assistance and Afghanistan’s hard currency assets, because that too could help prevent civil war or worse. Certainly the Taliban will try to extract hard currency with promises to fight the Islamic State. The Pentagon may be sympathetic to this argument. Here I would be far more cautious. The Islamic State is a rival of the Taliban: a jihadi group that wants to govern Afghanistan (and more). The Taliban have their own reasons for wanting to crush IS (Khorasan). I’d prefer to see them doing it for their own good reasons.
As for Al Qaeda, it is clear from inclusion of the Haqqani network, an Al Qaeda affiliate, in their government that the Taliban are not prepared to treat it as an enemy. There is still a question whether a government that includes Sirajuddin Haqqani as “interim” Interior Minister will allow the use of Afghan territory to plot or organize attacks on the US. It is arguable that it is better to have Al Qaeda in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. I wouldn’t buy it though: it really doesn’t matter that much where Al Qaeda plots its next attack against the US–9/11 may have been conceived while Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but most of the plot was organized and conducted elsewhere. Wherever the Haqqani network helps Al Qaeda, the US interest is clear: weaken both.
Bottom line: Humanitarian assistance yes, but nothing more until it is clearer how the Taliban will govern and whether they will cooperate with those who target, or allow others to target, the United States. Hoisting their flag over the presidential palace in Kabul on 9/11 was not a good omen.
PS: What Ahmed Rashid has to say is always interesting:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 11
– In WSJ Daniel Byman explains why the US hasn’t suffered another 9/11-sized attack.
– In WaPo, Colbert King notes that most US deaths have been from domestic terrorists.
– Philip Zelikow of the 9/11 commission reflects on the attacks and aftermath.
– NYT notes where the US continues to go after terrorists. As I have mentioned, the presidential war powers report says the US still has troops “equipped for combat” in 18 countries.
– A US official who dealt with Pakistan after 9/11 tells that story.
-NYT investigated and now has persuasive information that the final Kabul drone strike did not kill terrorists, but several civilians.
– NYT also says US trained the soldiers who launched the coup in Guinea.
– BuzzFeed has more on how Capitol Police missed the Jan. 6 insurrection.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
