Anthony Cordesman’s words matter.  He’s at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and long been a pointed observer of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;  he just spent two months in the latter as part of a special review team for Gen. Stanley McChrystal.  Here’s what he had to say about it:

The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan in the next three months — any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort. It can, however, easily lose the war. …

Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade. Our country left a power vacuum in most of Afghanistan that the Taliban and other jihadist insurgents could exploit and occupy, and Washington did not respond when the U.S. Embassy team in Kabul requested more resources.

The appointments this summer of Karl Eikenberry as ambassador to Afghanistan and McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces have created a team that can reverse this situation. In fact, given the rising unpopularity of the war and Taliban successes, they are our last hope of victory. …

Unfortunately, strong elements in the White House, State Department and other agencies seem determined to ignore these realities. They are pressuring the president to direct Eikenberry and McChrystal to come to Washington to present a broad set of strategic concepts rather than specific requests for troops, more civilians, money and an integrated civil-military plan for action. They are pushing to prevent a fully integrated civil-military effort, and to avoid giving Eikenberry and McChrystal all the authority they need to try to force more unity of effort from allied forces and the U.N.-led aid effort.

If these elements succeed, President Obama will be as much a failed wartime president as George W. Bush. He may succeed in lowering the political, military and financial profile of the war for up to a year, but in the process he will squander our last hope of winning.

Wow - that’s quite a strong charge for Cordesman to make, and he should be pressed to present specifics.  What’s their motivation, the high cost (financially and politically)?  We’ll see this unfold over the next few months, as McChrystal (at least, if not Eikenberry) is scheduled to return home.  Assuming he’s scheduled to appear on the Hill, members would be wise to press him on specifics - because if we can’t be honest about what it will really take now, we have no business trying in the first place.

DefenseNews is says a Polish paper - Gazeta Wyborcza - to claim that the controversial Eastern European missile shield program is dead.

If true, it would seem to be a counter-intuitive way to make such a major announcement.  Though the Gazeta Wyvorcza cites “administration officials and lobbyists in Washington” as its sources, who knows those officials’ access to information, so take this news with dose of skepticism for now.  However, leaking the story to a Polish paper could be a creative way to get the story out there — this way, such a huge policy and financial decision won’t blindside the effected parties (defense contractors, the US military, not to mention the Poles, the Czechs, and the Russians - all of whom you’d think were consulted/informed from the get-go) before it’s confirmed in a few weeks or months.

The Obama administration has been long-uncomfortable with the missile shield, on grand strategy and tactical deployment grounds.  If it has been killed, a few questions come to mind:  Did we get something from the Russians for this?  If so, is it a quid-pro-quo with Russia in exchange for pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear capabilities? Was it a good-will gesture towards them?  Or, did we realize that the development costs and probability of successful deterence were too high and low, respectfully?

On the whole, there are plenty of good arguments to abandon a project that was potentially over budget, of questionable accuracy, and a major roadblock in improving relations with Russia.  But I just hope we got something for it.

Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal thinks our ends and means aren’t matching up in Afghanistan, essentially putting the Administration on “mission creep watch” for what he considers ever-expanding goals.  He feels we should pull back a focus only on terrorist cells:

[J]ust because AQ is capable of striking the US doesn’t mean the current mission makes sense. And being opposed to that mission is not the same thing as believing another 9/11 is an acceptable risk. One can certainly believe that US policy in Afghanistan is wrong while also believing that the US needs to aggressively target AQ terrorists.

Here’s the thing:  Using the approach Cohen favors, we’d be stuck playing whack-a-mole (terrorist version) in Afghanistan forever. Terrorist groups will pop up, we’ll send in special ops to knock them down, and we’ll constantly wonder if there’s a cell we’re missing.

Instead, to deny al Qaeda a safe haven, we have to deny the Taliban - AQ’s patrons - the possibility of ruling the country.  And do to that, we have to fill the power vacuum that allowed the Taliban to govern.  Consequently, we have to create a lasting, stable government - if not exactly democratic - in Afghanistan that is capable of controlling its own territory.

The unfortunate fact is that this mission demands more resources than we’ve ever devoted to Afghanistan, which is why there continues to be a lag between President Obama’s more limited goals (denying AQ a safe have, vs. Bush’s standing up an Afghan democracy), and the resources we’ve sent there.

The Obama administration wants to do this right, and do it now, so we never have to return.  If successful, we’ll have greater peace of mind that the country will be secure over the long-term.

Perhaps we’ll never be completely confident in our security, but much more so than if our strategy is reduced to sending in the SEALs every time we get a new intelligence report of terrorist activity.

Crossposted from AllOurMight.com

This post is just a quick summary of what’s being reported out of Afghanistan as the votes continue to be counted:

AP:

President Hamid Karzai extended his lead over his top challenger in Afghanistan’s presidential election, new vote results showed Wednesday, but remains short of the 50 percent threshold that would allow him to avoid a two-man runoff. … The latest returns boost Karzai’s standing to 44.8 percent. Abdullah, a former foreign minister, now has 35.1 percent. The count is based on returns from 17 percent of polling stations nationwide, meaning the results could still change dramatically. Tuesday’s returns had Abdullah trailing Karzai by just 3 percent.

NYT:

The preliminary results from Afghanistan’s election gave both President Hamid Karzai and his chief rival, Abdullah Abdullah, nearly 40 percent of the vote on Tuesday as accumulating charges of widespread fraud cast new doubts on the credibility of the election.

Bloomberg:

Hamid Karzai widened his lead in Afghanistan’s presidential vote, the Independent Election Commission said today.

The incumbent president had 42 percent of ballots counted, compared with 33 percent for Abdullah Abdullah, his former foreign minister, Chief Electoral Officer Daoud Ali Najafi told reporters in Kabul. The Independent Election Commission has counted 998,000 votes at 17 percent of nationwide polling stations.

With no geographical breakdown of the Aug. 20 vote given so far, and with hundreds of electoral fraud complaints to be adjudicated, Karzai may not surpass the 50 percent threshold he needs to avoid a runoff election.

The returns suggested a higher turnout, about 6 million, than results reported yesterday, when about 10 percent of the vote had been counted. Afghanistan’s first presidential election, in 2004, drew 8 million voters.

Joe Klein of Time:

I was on the phone earlier this evening with a friend in Kabul who analyzed the early returns in the Afghan elections, which show President Hamid Karzai and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah running neck and neck. The results–10% of the vote is in–are mostly from more urban areas like Kabul and Herat. None of them are from the Pashtun majority areas of the South where turnout was lighter, but expected to go heavily in Karzai’s direction.

… It is possible that some of these votes–for both candidates–will be thrown out, but my friend thinks that Karzai will win the election with something more, but not much more, than 50%…although it is not impossible that Abdullah force a runoff, which will be held in early October. With about 400,000 ballots counted, the total vote looks to be in the neighborhood of 4 million–not a stunning turnout, but not a complete embarrassment either.

FT:

US officials were nervously awaiting results on Friday from the election in Afghanistan amid signs that both the American public and the political elite were increasingly uneasy with President Barack Obama’s strategy. …

But US diplomats acknowledge that widespread perceptions of electoral fraud, intimidation or corruption would further damage domestic US support for a conflict now considerably less popular than it was a few months ago.

I had a tough time debating whether to write this because a post of this nature makes the exact opposite point I’m aiming for.  So I’ll try to cut a middle ground.

With the latest flap about torture, Dick Cheney is at it again, sending out press releases that allegedly support his administration’s actions.  His assertions are incorrect, disingenuous, and generally vile.

To state the obvious:  Cheney is twisting facts in an effort to prevent the inquiry from getting all the way to him.

So, I have a suggestion:  it’s time to ignore Dick Cheney.  Let’s not talk about his next press release.  Let’s not put him on a host of Sunday morning shows.  Let’s not legitimize his falsehoods by refuting them.

I was afraid something like this was coming.

CIA chief Leon Panetta has reportedly threatened to quit over the DoJ’s apparently impending torture inquiry of Bush-era practices (though the White House denies such threats took place).

Here’s the central tension in this drama - even though Panetta’s political views might support the inquiry, his first duty at Langley is to protect his troops.  And he’s apparently doing that in spades.

The intelligence community has become a punching bag for every politician who needs something to blame when there’s a national security issue.  Screw up on 9/11?  It’s the CIA’s fault.  Think Iran has a nuke but there’s no evidence to support it?  Blame Langely.  Get caught reversing yourself about who-told-who-what-when about a secret CIA program?  You know the drill.

This is a decided problem of a clandestine service stuck in a transparent democracy - some of the IC’s work must stay secret by design, and therefore it can’t fight back when attacked.

Now, in this case, there may have actually been some criminal wrong-doing.  However, if there was , it very probably wasn’t committed by anyone still working for the Agency.

But if you’re a CIA employee, you’re probably sick and tired of being blamed or investigated by another branch of government when you were relying on an interpretation of the law that was handed to you by someone you trusted.  Morale has to be fairly low, which is a death knell in the IC.  Trust me, I’ve been there.

At this point, the CIA needs stability.  The revolving door of leadership inspires little confidence (there have been four Directors since 2004) among the rank-and-file.  Consequently, the CIA should try to retain Panetta - his steady hand is highly valuable.  The best way to do that is to negotiate a deal whereby only Bush-era political appointees (or equivalent level folks under direction from the White House) are subject to the inquiry.  That may be the case anyway, and if so it should be publicized to raise morale.

I remember watching a documentary in the mid-90s about the former Soviet Union’s evolution to capitalism.  One segment focused on the fascinating price irregularities of every-day goods and services.  Cleaning fluid for the windowshield, for example, was so expensive that the locals just poured bottles of vodka over it.

Of course, when they’re not pouring it on their cars, they’re pouring it down their throats.  I was in Russia about three weeks ago.  Standing on a streetcorner near our rented apartment, my intrepid travel partners - Big Walsh and Vlad - and I were grabbing a caviar crepe (as you do) and stood aghast as we watched an otherwise reasonable-looking Russian wake up from his patch of public grass and straddle its 2-foot high fence for a painfully long period of time as he summoned all his mental fortitude to escape his prison’s grasp.

“Who put this fence here?” you could hear him gasp, holding on to it for dear life, “and how the hell am I supposed to get out?” which was of course an ironic sentiment as could be, given that one foot was already on the pavement.

This scene was pretty amusing, but in its own way, rather pathetic.  Especially because it was was 1pm on a Friday.

Alcohol in Russia is everywhere - if there are any laws against public consumption, they’re sure not enforced.  Time Magazine reports this week that President Medvedev is looking to change that.

Alcohol runs through Russia’s veins and is ingrained in its culture. The last time someone tried to change that — former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev — his popularity plummeted.

But now, 24 years after Russia’s last big push for sobriety, President Dmitri Medvedev has decided to give it another shot. He told a government meeting on Aug. 12 that alcoholism has become a “national calamity,” with every man, woman and child consuming the equivalent of 4.8 gallons (18 liters) of pure rubbing alcohol per year, according to the National Institute of Health. …

State statistics show that today 38% of Russians between the ages of 20 and 39 suffer from alcoholism — between the ages of 40 and 59, that number jumps to 55%. Alcohol poisoning kills an average of 30,000 people in Russia each year, twice the number of Soviets who died during the 10-year war with Afghanistan in the ’80s. …

Russian lawmakers, however, were quick to jump on the wagon with Medvedev. When the parliament reconvenes in the fall, they are expected to raise taxes on alcohol, toughen labeling laws and ban the sale of alcohol at kiosks and small stores, allowing only big retail outlets a safe distance from any schools, universities or leisure centers to sell booze.

But not everyone is so enthusiastic. “Politically, these plans are just a dumb idea,” says Alexei Makarkin, deputy head of the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. “Every time they impose these restrictions, two things happen: people start brewing their own liquor, or they turn to cheaper substitutes. By that I mean cheap perfume, hair tonics, window cleaner, industrial alcohols. This is a deadly game.”

Medvedev may have his work cut out for him, but if he succeeds, I know one dude in a Russian park who’ll probably be thankful.