U.S. Diplomacy

Today is the sixteenth anniversary of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. As Ghosts of Alexander reminds us the United States finds itself battling the radical sentiment it helped proliferate to fight the Soviets.

Pakistan’s President Musharraf, addressing the 88^th National Management Course, noted the growing extremism , which he fears “the spread of Talibansation beyond the Tribal Areas.” The threat to the security of Afghanistan couldn’t be more evident than the assassination attempt on President Karzai earlier today.

All too often analysts, myself included, suggest the solution lies in convincing our allies to provide more troops. Recognizing the numerous difficulties Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and President Bush have encountered over this very issue leads one to conclude that solution is a pipe dream. Even if this delusion were to become reality, a significant stumbling block hampering the NATO effort stems from the lack of command control, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Such an assertion makes this blogger wonder why six years after the initial invasion there remain questions over authority. Without undisputed orders any “silver bullet” incorporating coalition support bears concern.

Referring to the dissipating morale of the American cause, Thomas Paine wrote in the winter of 1776 that “these are the times that try men’s souls.” One might reflect today on Afghanistan as trying NATO’s soul. President Bush envisions a new mission for NATO through Afghanistan, while some see the fissure over troops in Afghanistan as a possible death knell for NATO.

This week President Bush embarks on his final NATO Summit, where he will attempt to persuade NATO allies to redouble their efforts in Afghanistan. His trip will include stops in Ukraine, Moscow, Croatia, and the summit in Bucharest.

The Bucharest summit will raise many issues other than Afghanistan, including the controversial missile defense proposal in Poland (and the alternative proposal in Czech Republic), Kosovo’s independence, and whether Georgia and Ukraine should be extended membership into NATO. All of these issues spark contrasts with Russia, which detests the old Soviet states enhancing their standing with the United States. As a diplomatic gesture, Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev were offered invitations to the summit.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili spoke with the Financial Times about the upcoming summit, and portrayed denial of Georgia into NATO as effectively providing Russia with a veto. He also suggested that Georgia could send their troops currently serving in Iraq to Afghanistan, in order to help relieve the troop strain on NATO.

France plans to announce the arrival of an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan. Coinciding with President Bush’s request for more troops, France will ask NATO members to “devote more resources to rebuilding Afghan society, bringing in judges, teachers, medical workers and civil administrators.”

France’s boost will help ease fears from Canada’s PM Steve Harper, who threatened to remove troops if other allies did not step-up. Additionally, the United States has slated 3,000 Marines for duty in Afghanistan. The strengthening alliance between France and the United States is just a small caveat amid a stronger notion of NATO members splitting over the troop issue in Afghanistan.

Richard Holbrooke writes today that “the conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam.”

Any troop promises by NATO members other than France will signify a successful trip for President Bush. However, anything less (a likely prospect) will further the crisis.

When Henry Crumpton speaks, the US Diplomacy blog listens. Henry, also know as “Hank” during his time at the CIA, played a pivotal role in overthrowing the Taliban months after Sept 11^th. He is currently the Ambassador-at-Large for counterterrorism at the State Department. Crumpton understands the intricacies of the tribal nature in Afghanistan. He recognizes that our structures are not built for the local fight. Additionally, he is a superb strategic thinker and demonstrates this from a recent talk he gave at CSIS. For some weekend viewing, enjoy.

This week, Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Rice combined efforts on improving the dampening European support for NATO troops in Afghanistan. Gates warned the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not.” He continued, “it puts a cloud over the future of the alliance if this is to endure and perhaps get even worse.” Following his testimony, Gates traveled to Lithuania, where he’s presently meeting with NATO defense ministers, looking to pressure European allies on the troop support issue.

Perhaps the impetus for the worrisome tone was Germany’s rejection of a U.S. request for more troops. Compounding the problem, Canada issued an ultimatum that it would withdraw troops if they did not receive reinforcement from NATO allies.

While ally support is fading from Germany, France is looked at to pick up the slack. “A reversal of France’s refusal to deploy combat units to the southern front-lines would ease tensions within NATO…France is to meet a Canadian delegation Friday [today] on Ottawa’s appeal for 1,000 extra troops to support its beleaguered force in volatile Kandahar province.”

Secretary Rice made a surprise visit to Afghanistan yesterday. While Gates is meeting with defense ministers in Lithuania, Rice also publicly urged NATO members to increase troop support. Additionally, she met with President Karzai to discuss a special envoy who could represent the numerous countries involved in the effort. “There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen. I can understand why there could be confusion, and we owe it to President Karzai to have an effective international coordinator.”

Analysis on this subject can be tricky. Are alliances with our European friends fracturing for the long-term, or are they simply growing weary of the Afghanistan counterinsurgency? Certainly, we must be mindful of the political context in each country. It may be helpful to remind NATO members that the stabilization of Afghanistan is imperative for each country and cite specific reasons. Maintaining an alliance can be a juggling act. However, the United States should not feel daunted, reminding allies about the nature of the threat and persuading them to stay in the fight is a necessary process in a multilateral war. We should be grateful we have the opportunity to fall back on other resources, unlike in Iraq.

Monday’s State of the Union Address was heavy on the economy and ideological posturing. However, foreign policy issues were addressed, and this blog would like to touch upon what was said.

Stepping back and taking a macro-viewpoint of the speech, Bush did not provide new policy initiatives, which we had wondered about on this blog with regards to North Korea. The President reviewed his administration’s goal of advancing freedom, and he cited elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia and Ukraine as well as “demanding independence” in Lebanon. Notably left out was Palestine. While the administration may not have been pleased with the outcome, strong support was pushed onto the Palestinians for having a free and fair election. They did so, but the outcome of Hamas leading the Palestinian Authority soured the administration, thus it should be of no surprise that the administration does not include that election as a success in the advancement of liberty.

Let us now dive into the minutia of his speech.

Iraq

Bush noted our surge and went on to describe the Sunni Awakening as the Iraqi surge. “In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising called ‘The Anbar Awakening.’ Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country. And today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.”

While successes can be drawn on the security front, political reconciliation remains a lofty goal. As an example of progress in reconciliation, President Bush mentioned the recently passed de-Ba’athification law. However, most analysts are unsure whether the law will truly serve its intended purpose. Looking at political reconciliation on the whole, the Center for American Progress concludes we have reached only 3 of the 18 benchmarks.

Israeli-Palestinian relations

President Bush reaffirmed his position that Palestine will have a state by the end of this year: “This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do, and I will do, everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year.”

As we have discussed on this blog before, President Bush’s influence can make the most difference on final-status issues. Optimism is crucial when dealing with tough negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and Bush should remain engaged on this front.

The Americas

Bush urged Congress to approve trade agreements for Columbia and Panama (in addition to South Korea). He noted that failure to pass the bill in Columbia would “embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere.” A clear shot at Hugo Chavez.

Afghanistan

Bush spoke of the 3,200 Marines sent to Afghanistan, in order to provide training for their police and army, along with fighting the Taliban. The U.S. Defense blog first mentioned this increase.

For the sake of keeping this post somewhat concise my partner will tackle Iran.