The Pentagon last week gave the Obama Administration a failing grade in Afghanistan but its assessments about the war give President Obama an excuse for a quick withdrawal – his real strategy.

The report to Congress blows holes in Obama’s optimistic timeline of beginning a withdrawal of troops next year as it lays out the challenges blocking our exit:  the enemy’s surprising resilience, the population’s deep-seated lack of support for the Afghan government and the unreadiness of the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) to secure that country.

The 150-page report, “Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” is the fifth in the series and covers the period October 2009 to March 2010.

The Pentagon’s report comes at the one-third marker for Obama’s strategy.  Last December, the President promised to “reverse the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months [by July 2011].”  Then he promised our troops would begin coming home.

The report tries putting a positive spin on the situation in Afghanistan: “Stability in Afghanistan is no longer on the decline, and most Afghans believe that despite increased violence, security actually has improved since this time last year.”  

Ignore the Pentagon’s spin.  The report is really about managing public expectations to help prepare the country for strategic failure like in Vietnam. Obama’s Afghan strategy copies President Nixon’s Vietnam exit formula: create conditions for our ally to take over the fight — “Vietnamization” — and then leave.

The report states, “The insurgents [Taliban] perceive 2009 as their most successful year” and expect to sustain that effort in 2010.  The Taliban viewed expanded violence as a “victory,” and they perceive “low-voter turnout and reports of fraud during the past presidential election as further signs of their success.”   Violence was up sharply last year, an 87% increase from February 2009 to March 2010.

The Taliban are growing in strength, effectiveness and they have access to sufficient weapons and ammunition.  They also have a steady flow of funds from taxing the opiate trade and external help from supporters in Islamic states.   And there’s no shortage of recruits drawn from a frustrated population.

The Pentagon report also identifies the insurgents’ strengths.  The Taliban dominate information operations, which explains the population’s skepticism about their government.  Their tactics are “increasing in sophistication and strategic effect” and they have “qualitatively and geographically” expanded the battlefield.  They effectively intimidate the population through targeted killings and threats or through their effective shadow governance that discredits the Afghan government.

In addition, Obama’s counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy depends on winning Afghan hearts and minds but the population remains highly skeptical.   His strategy focuses on 121 districts that are considered “the most critical to success.”  The report admits our forces have “the resources to conduct operations [only] in 48 [40% of the] focus districts” and at this point “the population sympathizes with or supports the Afghan government in 24% (29 of 121)” of those districts.

The population identifies widespread corruption as their main concern.  Eighty-three percent of Afghans stated “government corruption affected their daily lives,” according to the report.  Most (59%) Afghans believe the government was heading “in the right direction” but 24% believed that government was more corrupt than a year ago.

Public skepticism about their government is evidenced by the ongoing campaign in Marjah, Helmand province.  That battle began in February and was expected to validate Obama’s strategy.  But we still don’t have the locals’ trust and the Taliban continues operations in spite of thousands of U.S. Marines and the ASF standing guard.

Obama’s strategy also depends on the readiness of the ASF to gradually assume responsibility beginning next July.  But preparing the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) for that responsibility “remains a challenge, with significant risk attached,” according to the Pentagon report.   Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his security forces won’t be ready to assume responsibility for “three to five years.”

Fielding a ready Afghan army is tough.  There is a serious shortfall – up to one-third – of trainers and mentors promised by NATO allies.  The report indicates the ANA can meet its growth goals but it can’t quickly produce sufficient qualified officers and non-commissioned officers for new units, a critical problem for any military.  Other serious problems include rooting out corrupt and incompetent leaders, identifying Taliban infiltrators, low literacy rates and absent-without-leave personnel which rose to 12% last fall.

The ANP meets its growth requirements but the report expresses concern “regarding the ability of the ANP … to improve the quality of both basic police training and the quality of the field force.”  The report indicates that most (60-70%) policemen were never formally trained before being posted to their stations.

ANP training is just one of many personnel challenges.  Most policemen are illiterate and nearly 14% tested positive for drugs last year, mostly for hashish use.  And the ANP is marred by high levels of corruption such as selling promotions or operating illegal roadblocks to collect bribes.

Even if the ANP had a competent force it lacks an Afghan rule-of-law capacity.  There is no functioning court system with judges, prosecutors and correctional facilities. Lacking this capacity will make the ANP “ineffective over time,” according to the report.

These challenges – a thriving enemy, a government without popular support, and a fledgling ASF – demonstrate why Obama’s 18-month strategy won’t work.  After all, the average successful U.S. counterinsurgency strategy since 1945 lasted 14 years, according to a 2008 Rand Corporation study.  But the truth is Obama knew from the start he would follow the Nixon exit strategy by creating an “Afghanization” plan and then quickly leave, no matter the consequences.

Three events will soon reveal Obama’s true strategy – an expeditious exit.

First, the battle for Marjah was a proof-of-concept for Obama’s strategy but the much anticipated battle for Kandahar, expected to begin this June, is the real litmus.  That city is Afghanistan’s second largest and the spiritual home of the Taliban.  Success in Kandahar depends on the Taliban melting away, the population embracing a new government aligned with Kabul and the ASF controlling the city.  None of these outcomes are likely in the short term which Obama’s COIN experts must anticipate.  The consequence will be a loss of domestic support for the war and calls for an early exit.

Second, next week President Karzai visits Washington.  He is expected to ask Obama to join negotiations with the Taliban to end the war.  But if Obama agrees to negotiate with the Taliban before his strategy is proven in Kandahar, then his plan will prove to be a ruse from the start.

The third event is whether Pakistan attacks the Taliban’s juggler in North Waziristan, the sanctuary for most Taliban leaders.  That outcome will demonstrate Obama’s perceived sincerity about winning peace in Afghanistan.  But Islamabad likely knows Obama intends to abandon Afghanistan and therefore Pakistan will spare the Afghan Taliban.  The Pakistanis need the Afghan Taliban’s help fending off interlockers like Iran and India once the West leaves.

The Pentagon rightly gave Obama’s hurried-up Afghan strategy a failing mark.  Now the President may switch from his “Afghanization” plan to his real strategy, an expeditious exit, but that won’t become evident until the three aforementioned events play out as expected – the Kandahar campaign bogs down, Obama starts peace talks with the Taliban and Pakistan refuses to attack the Afghan Taliban in North Waziristan.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

The U.S. Army and the Comedy Channel – which broadcasts the cartoon “South Park” — share a common fear: alienating Muslims. And, giving in to that fear, last week both exorcised views that threatened to alienate Muslims. Those actions empowered Islamic radicals, trampled freedom of speech and ignored legitimate criticism of Islam that endangers American security.

The Army rescinded an invitation for Christian evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a Pentagon National Day of Prayer event. That decision was a reaction to criticism from groups like the Council of American-Islamic Relations that complained Graham “calls Islam evil and claims Muslims are enslaved by their faith.”

On the same day the creators of the television cartoon “South Park” received threats for airing a program depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear costume. But the follow-on cartoon in the series bleeped out the name “Muhammad” for the bear because of an Islamic threat. The cartoonists said the Comedy Channel – not they – had decided to bleep out the name.

The “South Park” threat was posted on an Islamic website, which included an audio from a sermon in which the speaker says assassination is justifiable punishment for those who defame Muhammad. The man delivering the sermon is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda leader and spiritual guide to U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist murderer.

The Comedy Channel’s reaction is cowardly because it caved to intimidation. The website post said the cartoonists “will probably wind up like [the murdered] Theo van Gogh,” who made a movie that featured a beaten, naked Muslim woman covered in writings from the Koran. The post included a picture of the Dutch filmmaker with a knife protruding from his chest.

And the U.S. Army’s decision is equally cowardly – or worse — for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the actions of a government agency – one whose principal duty is to defend the nation – are much more significant to us and our enemies than those of comedy television. The Army’s action is a surrender on the ideological battlefield, one which we cannot afford.

The Army’s rescission is also cowardly because the Pentagon in general and the Obama Administration in particular, are desperately trying to cover-up Islam’s radicalizing threat.

First, the Army should have given Graham’s views about Islam a fair hearing. Graham said Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion” after the 2001 terrorist attacks on America. Later he wrote in The Wall Street Journal he does not believe Muslims are evil but “as a minister … I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.”

Graham said what Islam does to women is “horrid.” “The brutal, dehumanizing treatment of women by the Taliban has been well-documented and internationally condemned,” he wrote for The Covenant News. He points out that “abusive treatment of women in most Islamic countries is nearly as draconian.”

Islam is intolerant of other faiths, Graham said. “The persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries,” said Graham. “The Koran provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world. Conversions from Islam to any other faith are often punishable by death.”

He noted the abusive treatment of non-Muslims by the Islamic government in Sudan. Graham said Samaritan’s Purse has a “hospital in Southern Sudan [that] was bombed seven times by the Islamic regime in Khartoum.” The Khartoum government killed two million innocent Christians and animists in recent years, he said.

There is no freedom of religion in Islamic countries, including so-called moderate Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia. “It is a crime to build a Christian church, Jewish synagogue, Hindu temple or any other non-Muslim house of worship,” said Graham. In contrast, he said, “There are about 3,000 mosques in the U.S.” While Muslims are free to worship Allah in the U.S., Christians are not free to worship Jesus in most Muslim countries and soldiers in those lands must hide their crosses and Bibles.

Graham wants Westerners to understand the problem with true Islam. “We have many Muslims that live in this country, but true Islam cannot be practiced in this country,” said Graham. He explains, “You can’t beat your wife [here]. You cannot murder your children [in America] if you think they’ve committed adultery.” Both practices are tolerated in countries with true Islam.

Second, the military and the Obama Administration can keep truth speakers like Graham out of the Pentagon, but ignoring the facts about the radicalizing influence of Islam is dangerous for our security.

It was painful to watch the Fort Hood massacre and it hurt more because the killer was a soldier. But the Pentagon added insult to injury when it posted the 86-page review of the massacre without a single mention of the words “Muslim,” “Islam,” “Sharia” (Islamic law) or “Koran” despite the fact that Major Hasan maintained undisputed contacts with a known Islamist terrorist, compiled a history of making hateful, anti-American statements and reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar” [Allah is great] as he shot 43 fellow soldiers.

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who co-led the Fort Hood review for the Obama Administration, dismissed concerns about Hasan’s religion. “Our concern is not with the religion,” West told Pentagon reporters.

Obama’s comments following the massacre dodged the Islam issue as well. The President said, “We have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of violence that are inexplicable.” This non-statement avoids Islam’s culpability and reflects Obama’s ongoing campaign of seeking a “new beginning” in the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Last summer Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, to launch his “new beginning” campaign with the Muslim world. He told that audience “Islam has demonstrated … religious tolerance” and he promised “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” He said “America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam” and “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” These comments set the tone for exorcising any negative references to Islam’s association with terrorists from government communications.

That hands-off-Islam campaign is reflected in Obama’s important national security documents. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a 128-page report that sets out the military’s future strategy and force structure describes the country’s terrorist threat without using the words “Islam,” “Islamic” or Islamist” a single time.

Very soon Obama will publish his first national security strategy. The Washington Times reports that document removes religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” and is rewritten to emphasize the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.

While the Obama Administration tries to implement government control as in Orwell’s famous 1984 by banning Islamic references and putting them down the memory hole, our soldiers know better. The ground truth about Islam is that it is undeniably linked to radicalism which endangers America and our military should not pretend otherwise.

As troubling as China’s growing economic power over the United States is – the leverage it has over policy because of the credit it extends to us – its monopoly on rare earth elements may be even more so. 

China accounts for 97% of global production of “rare earth” elements –lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, europium and yttrium — which are vital for a wide range of technologies like iPhones, wind turbines and X-ray machines and military applications like precision-guided munitions and lasers.  If it chose to cut off our supplies of these elements, our ability to produce many of these weapon systems and widely used civilian technologies would end abruptly.

In 1997, Deng Xiaoping, then China’s Communist Party leader, observed that the Mideast may have oil, but China had rare earth elements. With a virtual monopoly of the critical materials, China could control the rare earth market much as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries controls oil.

During the 1990s, China put rare earth competitors out of business by flooding the market with cheap materials which led to the closure of America’s only rare earth mine.  Some American businesses that relied on rare earth materials moved to China to remain competitive.  Now China has switched tactics to maintain its monopoly. 

Last year Beijing announced radical cuts in rare earth exports – down to 25% from 75% – which will accomplish two things.  It will drive up the costs of all high-tech products which include rare earth materials thus giving China’s high-tech industries a significant competitive advantage and force foreign competitors to move their high-tech factories and research centers to China to circumvent quotas.  

Last week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) exposed China’s rare earth monopoly, the stark facts about America’s dangerous dependence on China for rare earth elements, and the bleak forecast to fix the problem.   The GAO report indicates the U.S. produced no rare earth elements in 2009 and it could take up to 15 years to rebuild our rare earth supply chain.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) is understandably alarmed by this bleak assessment.  “We need to move aggressively on this issue now before it’s too late,” Coffman said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.  But it is already too late to prevent the problem from getting worse.

“Time is of the essence because the situation is going to get worse” as China’s domestic consumption of the material rises, said Dan Slane, chairman of the Washington-based U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.  Slane says fixing the problem will require “enormous investment and time.”  But he warns few capitalists will invest in rare earth mines and processing facilities because there’s a good chance China will retaliate.

Yoichi Sato, head of the rare earth division of Mitsui, one of Japan’s largest corporate conglomerates, said China will use its existing monopoly to crush any competition that emerges.  “If new projects emerge, as they have recently in Malaysia and Australia, China just drops its prices and forces rivals out of business,” Sato said.

China aggressively buys out potential competition as well.  Last year, two Australian mines, with a combined potential production equal to a quarter of global output of rare earth materials, were expected to open.  But they lost their financing and Chinese government-owned mining companies bought a controlling share of one and a quarter of the other.

In 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation tried to buy America’s only rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, Calif., but lost out to Chevron.  Chinese buyers tried to persuade Chevron to sell the mine in 2007 but Chevron sold it to Molycorp Minerals LLC, a private American group.

Mountain Pass closed in 1998 due to regulatory problems with wastewater and Chinese competition but reopened in 2007.  But the mine won’t begin producing four of the 17 rare earth elements until 2012 at the earliest.

China controls more than a third of the world’s known rare earth reserves and the U.S. has 13%.  Deposits are also found in Australia, Greenland and Canada but these countries produced no material last year.  In 2009, India, which was second to China in rare earth ore production, produced 2,700 tons compared to China’s whopping 120,000 tons.

It would be helpful to find substitutes for rare earth elements but that won’t be easy.  The GAO indicates the rare earth materials used in defense systems “are responsible for the functionality of the component and would be difficult to replace without losing performance.”  For example, “fin actuators used in precision-guided munitions are specifically designed around the capabilities of neodymium iron boron rare earth magnets.”  Besides, we will continue to use these materials in the future based on their life cycles for equipment like Lockheed Martin’s Aegis SPY-1 radar, which uses rare earth element samarium cobalt magnet components.

It’s absurd that our Defense Department can’t tell how dependent it is on rare earth elements.  According to the GAO, the Pentagon just started assessing its dependency on rare earth elements and the results of that study are due in September.

The GAO report provides a short list of defense systems that include rare earth material such as communication systems, avionics and satellites.  Even off-the-shelf products in defense systems include rare earth materials, such as computer hard drives. Subcontractors rely on the materials to produce items like electric motors to drive ships and the reference and navigation system in the M1A2 Abrams tank.

So what should America do to reduce its dangerous dependence on the monopolistic Communist Chinese?

First, the Mountain Pass facility must be quickly returned to full production.  But that facility lacks the manufacturing assets and facilities to process rare earth ore into finished components, such as permanent magnets.

The federal government should provide Molycorp Minerals LLC, the Mountain Pass owner, help in overcoming regulatory issues, raising capital and protecting it from Chinese government market manipulation.  The company should also be encouraged to produce finished components rather than force American businesses to rely on Chinese factories.

Second, Mountain Pass does not have substantial amounts of heavy rare earth elements such as dysprosium, which is used for heat-resistance qualities of permanent magnets in defense systems.   That’s why other U.S. rare earth sites such as those in Idaho and Montana must be developed, which the GAO admits could take 7 to 15 years to bring fully online.  We should also work with allies like Canada and Australia to develop their mines.

Third, processing facilities may require new technologies, permissions to use existing technology patents and environmental solutions. Government must work with private industry to overcome these challenges.

Industry officials told the GAO it would take two to five years to develop a pilot processing plant but they won’t start production without a consistent source of oxides from outside of China.  Then government must work with the processing plant operators to harness the best technologies – some which require cooperation from international patent owners – and to satisfy the environmental concerns while expeditiously moving forward.

Finally, rare earth materials are so important to our high-tech way of life that tough economic sanctions and tariffs against China are warranted to compel Beijing to cooperate.

The U.S. and the European Union called on the World Trade Organization to intervene in China’s export restrictions on vital rare earth metals.  China called the complaint “ridiculous and unacceptable” and refused to reduce export tariffs and raise quotas.  That’s why the U.S. should respond with in-kind economic sanctions until China lifts restrictions.

This crisis won’t correct itself through market forces alone and the Rare Earth Wars could become a reality.  This is an excellent example of the rare occasion in which, for national defense and economic security reasons, the U.S. government must step-in to help private industry.  Rebuilding our rare earth supply system and protecting private industry from Beijing’s abusive trade policies must be a national priority.

President Obama has promised to “reset” relations with Moscow to find new ways to cooperate.  


While Washington and Moscow are cooperating to a degree, Russia is leveraging the new relationship to accelerate its dangerous resurgence at America’s expense. 

Under President Bush, Russia perceived the U.S. objective was to make Russia weaker by surrounding her with a missile-defense system, expanding NATO despite Russia’s objections and manipulating Moscow’s allies against her interests.

At the same time Putin has reasserted Soviet-era control to a shocking degree through Russian actions against Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia. These actions combined to sour relations with the United States, but Obama’s “reset” policy reversed that trend to produce short-term fruit.

Over the past year Russia cooperated on several fronts. Its rhetoric concerning NATO expansion has toned down and Moscow granted U.S. access to Afghanistan via its air space to deliver war supplies. Moscow is now willing to engage with the United States on constructive ways to reduce Iran’s nuclear threat and last week signed a nuclear arms treaty, significantly reducing our mutual strategic arsenals.

Many Caveats 


Moscow’s new cooperation has come with costs and raises many caveats about removing our European ground-based missile system, establishing “limits” for sanctions against Iran and an “opt out” clause for the arms treaty.

The pregnant question for Obama is whether his “reset” policy has unacceptable long-term costs that advance Moscow’s resurgence—geopolitical, military and economic—at America’s expense.

First, Russia is resurging geopolitically by coercing former satellites. These countries are backpedaling because they see the Kremlin’s taking advantage of Obama’s naïve doctrine of non-interference cum charm offensive by reverting to its old school authoritarian ways. 

Warnings to Obama 


The Kremlin looks at relations with its neighbors as a “zone of privileged interests”—largely in zero-sum terms, vis-à-vis the West. Former East European leaders Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, who understand Russia’s authoritarian ways, warned Obama in a letter about Russia’s intentions and its coercive tools.

In 2009 they wrote that Russia “uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests.” Consider how Russia is applying this formula to its former satellites.

Kyrgyzstan Role 


Russia played a to-be-determined role in the recent ouster of Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. The toppling of Bakiyev raises doubts about the future of a U.S. air base at the Manas International Airport, which is a critical logistical hub for NATO troops in Afghanistan. Last year, Russia failed to persuade Bakiyev to close Manas to the Americans, which might explain Moscow’s suspected role in Bakeyev’s ouster.

Not surprisingly Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin quickly endorsed Kyrgyzstan’s interim government, condemned the ousted Bakiyev and offered the Kremlin’s support to the new regime. Moscow then sent 150 paratroopers to one of its five military installations near the capital and Stratfor, an American intelligence service, reports that intelligence agents from the Russian Federal Security Service were seen in Kyrgyzstan’s capital soon after the ouster.

Russia’s interference in Kyrgyzstan is just one example of Moscow’s taking aggressive actions against its neighbors.

Moldova, Europe’s only Communist regime, was starting to lean to the West. Last year, Russia gave $500 million to Moldova’s Communist party and used Russian-owned companies in Moldova and the Moscow-run media to influence parliamentary elections. The republic erupted in violence as anti-Communist demonstrators protested what they said were rigged elections but The Party of Communists won, which cemented Russia’s influence.

Moscow was losing its grip on Ukraine after the pro-Western Orange Revolution in 2004. But Russia started playing hardball in 2006 by cutting off energy supplies to force Kiev to be more compliant and to distance itself from calls for NATO membership. This January, after exercising considerable political and economic leverage, a pro-Russian government returned to Kiev. Former Prime Minister and 2010 presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko said the recent election was a missed “chance to become a worthy member of the European family and to put an end to the rule of the oligarchy.”

In 2008, Russia invaded two Republic of Georgia secessionist regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, to stop that country’s Westward drift. Last week, Russian defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov was in South Ossetia to sign a defense agreement.

“The Russian Federation, by signing this agreement, obviously assumes full responsibility for the defense of South Ossetia,” Serdyukov said. Russia signed a similar deal with Abkhazia on February 17 and now the tiny country is split between Russia and the pro-West government in Tbilisi. 

Expect Moscow to start focusing on other states like former satellites along the Baltic—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia—which are NATO and European Union members. It’s already leveraging Poland via a natural gas deal and the leader of Slovakia, a key natural-gas transit country for Russia, told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, “Slovakia has always been and will remain Russia’s ally and reliable partner.”

Second, Russia’s military resurgence is serious and Moscow got some unexpected help from Obama’s “reset” policy. Last week, Obama signed the new arms treaty which makes America’s atomic arsenal equal to Russia’s, thus saving Moscow defense money and limiting America’s global umbrella.

Moscow doesn’t need any help, however. U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified Russia is “implementing its most serious military reform plans in half a century and ultimately aims to shed the legacy of the Soviet mass mobilization army and create a leaner, more professional, more high-tech force over the next several years.”

Russia’s Power Trip 


The transformation started in 2007, after a 16-year hiatus, when Russia resumed the use of heavy bomber patrols, out-of-area naval deployments and joint exercises with the People’s Republic of China. Its intention is to send a message that Russia is back as a great power and its activities are expanding.

Russia launched a sweeping $200 billion rearmament program that aims to introduce new generations of nuclear submarines, intercontinental missiles, tanks and aircraft carriers. Its arms procurement program anticipates boosting the share of advanced military equipment to 70% by 2020, which translates into more than 1,500 new combat aircraft. 

Recently Moscow announced the flight test of a fifth-generation fighter, an indication the regime hasn’t lost its taste for high-tech systems. The stealth aircraft with sustained supersonic cruise and integrated weapons and navigation systems is intended to match the U.S. F-22 Raptor, which the Obama Administration failed to fund in the current defense budget. 

Armament advancements are being matched by a new military doctrine. In February, Russia published a doctrine that identified NATO enlargement as its main external military danger and declared Russia’s right to use military force beyond its borders. It also stated it will use nuclear weapons to prevent “nuclear military conflict or any other military conflict” and kept first-use nuclear strikes as an option. That’s a far cry from Obama’s new Nuclear Posture Review, which won’t consider nuclear weapons for any purpose other than responding to a nuclear attack.

Third, Russia is economically resurgent and wants the United States to help. Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecasts Russia’s economy is poised for a 7% growth rate, the “biggest bounce” in the world this year as companies rebuild stocks and resurgent consumer demand boosts output. But Russia remains slavishly dependent on energy income.

Intelligence Director Blair said Russia “is benefiting from the recent completion of several major [energy] projects—some operated by foreign companies—but depletion rates in fields now producing makes further gains unlikely absent changes to spur development of new fields.” That’s why Russia desperately needs foreign investment and technology.

It found some help in Europe. Russia’s energy company Gazprom is developing the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea with French, German and Dutch firms. First delivery of the gas should take place in 2011, providing an alternative route for Russian gas outside of Ukraine, and fueling Russia’s influence, renewing its stream of income and tapping into Western technology.

But Russia needs to diversify its economy to survive long-term. Medvedev recently called on Obama to increase Russian-U.S. economic cooperation and stressed Russia needs to learn from U.S. modernization of its economy. It’s not clear whether Obama’s “reset” policy will help Russia diversify, but given past actions that wouldn’t be a surprise. 

Russia’s resurgence is dangerous but it’s not clear Obama understands Moscow is leveraging his “reset” policy at America’s expense.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

President Obama is betting his “war of necessity” on the outcome of the pending battle for Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second largest city. Failing to secure and then provide good governance for that million person city by this December will be the death knell for the President’s time-line which is essential to his entire Afghan strategy.

Last December, Obama outlined his strategy in a speech at West Point. He promised a 30,000 man surge of fresh troops “will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.”

But Kandahar could defeat Obama’s ambitious timeline because the Afghans are either unprepared and or unwilling to do what’s necessary to transform that city.

Kandahar is the spiritual heartland of the insurgency. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, labeled it the “center of gravity” for reversing Taliban momentum and cast the pending battle as a make-or-break campaign that will determine whether the U.S.-led counterinsurgency can succeed.

The battle for Kandahar is part of a year-long campaign to retake Southern Afghanistan called Operation Omid – the Pashto word for hope. The two-pronged operation includes ridding the city of Taliban forces and then establishing effective governance.

The military phase will be different than the recent offensive in nearby Marjah because Kandahar is larger and heavily populated. Like Marjah, this operation was announced beforehand to garner local buy-in and hopefully force-out Taliban shadow governments.

The kinetic effort began two months ago with the targeting of Taliban leaders and efforts to secure transit routes into the metro area. The next phase will begin late spring involving a “body blow” to the Taliban delivered by Afghan forces supported by two U.S. combat brigades. They will take control of the main highways and then gradually “squeeze” the insurgents out of the city.

A parallel political drive will seek to heal tribal fissures by winning the hearts and minds of the people.

“The specific objective is to make the Afghan government a more viable option for people,” says Frank Ruggiero, a State Department official in Afghanistan. “It’s to show that the government has more relevance to their lives vis-à-vis the shadow governance of the Taliban.”

But no matter how well American forces fight, success in Kandahar depends on four Afghan-centric contributions that will likely doom the effort.

First, Afghan President Ahmed Karzai is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to the Kandahar transformation. Adm. Mullen said Obama’s Afghan strategy will fail unless Karzai reins in corruption and improves the government in Kandahar. But Karzai has failed to do either in Kabul and there’s little reason to expect he’ll do any better for Kandahar.

Last August, Karzai won a fraud-marred election. He still hasn’t selected a full cabinet and his government is impotent outside of Kabul. That’s why Obama came to Kabul last week. He demanded Karzai’s cooperation fighting corruption and the Taliban. But days later Karzai gave a speech critical of the West, saying it wants a “puppet government” and of orchestrating fraud in last year’s election. “They want me to be an illegitimate president,” said Karzai.

Peter Galbraith, the deputy United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, responded to Karzai’s fraud allegations. “It underscores why he is not likely to reform and therefore cannot be a credible partner,” said Galbraith. “He’s slipping away from the West,” said a senior European diplomat in Kabul.

Karzai is evidently slipping into radical arms and isn’t to be trusted. In March, Karzai warmly received radical anti-American Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an official visit to Kabul and a week ago the duo met again in Tehran.

Second, the Kandahar operation puts Afghan security forces in the lead before they are ready. The Afghan army, which is U.S. trained, is improving but the Afghan National Police (ANP), which must play a critical role in Kandahar, is far from ready.

Gen. Sir David Richards, the head of the British army and the former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, said it will take until 2015 before the ANP are fully functional. Recently, a British press report cited a leaked government assessment of the ANP which indicates those forces are plagued with widespread incompetence, criminality and absenteeism up to 25%.

The International Crisis Group (ISG), a non-governmental organization, found the ANP’s misuse of power is so pervasive that “Afghanistan’s citizens often view the police more as a source of fear than of security.” In 2009, Mark Schneider, ISG’s vice president, testified about the “total collapse of the national police, with a widespread culture of impunity.” There are reports of theft and unauthorized resale of weapons by policemen such as an Afghan police commander who allegedly sold weapons to the enemy.

Third, Kandahar’s clerics won’t publicly support the campaign. “Our society is religious,” says prominent Kandahar poet Abdul Qadim Patyal, “and most of the time when a cleric says something, people accept it without thinking.” But Kandahar’s clerical community is silenced by the Taliban and is unlikely to speak in favor of a new government until the threat is removed.

The Taliban warns “you preach for the government; stop or we will kill you,” says Maulvi Hekmatullah Hekmat, deputy chief of Kandahar’s top Islamic religious authority, the Ulema Council. Twenty-three of the council’s 50 members have been assassinated by the insurgents and the survivors fled to Kandahar’s military cantonment. Silencing the moderates has given the Taliban a near-monopoly on interpreting Islam, which the population obeys.

Finally, the people don’t trust the current weak and corrupt provincial government so they turned to the Taliban, who brought a sense of brutal justice. Those intending to impose a new government must answer the question: Can Afghans who turned to the Taliban out of frustration with their corrupt government be convinced they can now get a better deal with a new Kabul-installed government?

Shaking up the current government could open a power vacuum that would be exploited by the Taliban. That is unless outsiders who command respect are brought in to run that government, an unlikely outcome, or new leaders are found from among the city’s residence.

But most of the current leaders are tainted with corruption, especially Ahmed Wali Karzai, the leader of the provincial council and brother of Afghanistan’s president. “Watch what the Americans do,” said a diplomat in Kabul. “If they let Ahmed Wali stay in power, it means they are not serious about governance.”

It would be difficult to ignore this man. Karzai is the principle power broker in the province and enjoys the governor’s endorsement. “He’s the guy who will keep Kandahar stable,” Tooryalai Wesa, the provincial governor said. “If he’s not here on the scene you don’t want to see what’s going to happen.”

U.S. officials failed to persuade President Karzai to move his brother out of the province to make room for untainted leadership. That means Ahmed Wali and his corrupt associates will once again run Kandahar, virtually sealing the city’s fait.

The operation to transform Kandahar is all but doomed: President Karzai seems incapable or unwilling to help. The police won’t be ready for years. The clerics are too afraid to tell the people what to think. And the new government leaders will come from a tainted pool of candidates.

On March 28, Obama told our troops at Bagram airfield, “You will be backed up by a clear mission and the right strategy.” That may be true but it’s evident we lack a dependable ally which makes this a hopeless effort.

By: – Col. Bob Maginnis

President Obama made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Sunday to do a time-check with the Kabul government, to cheer-up our battle weary troops and to remind the neighbors to watch their P’s and Q’s. Obama knows the Afghan war could seal his fate and there’s a lot to give him nightmares.

The White House kept a lid on the President’s secret 13-hour flight to Afghanistan, his first as President. It’s a war zone and the movements of Air Force One, his aircraft, are monitored closely by our enemies. Thankfully his trip was safe and apparently successful. Now we must wait to see whether his messages made a difference.

The quick trip put Obama back into the geopolitical mix. After his all-consuming labor on healthcare finally ended with a bill signing last week, he turned to re-energize his flagging foreign policy credentials.

But before his secret trip to the Afghan war zone he received good news from Russia. On Friday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called Obama accepting the terms of the updated Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The leaders will sign that deal, which agrees to cut atomic arsenals and delivery platforms—missiles and bombers—next month in Prague, the Czech Republic.

That must have put a spring in Obama’s step before his tiring trip to Afghanistan to confront issues that threaten to make or break his political future. After all, he promised in the election campaign to fight the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan as opposed to President Bush’s war of choice in Iraq.

Obama used the occasion of his Afghan pit stop to deliver three messages aimed at the heart of his “war of necessity.” Failing on any one of these issues could derail his plans and therefore his political future.

First, Obama needs Afghan President Hamid Karzai to do his job and quickly. President Obama understands the American public is split—49% against and 48% for the war in Afghanistan—but for now the public is willing to give him a chance to finish it well. That’s why Obama told Karzai the clock is running out on America’s patience.

Last fall, Obama launched his new war strategy with a surge of 30,000 fresh troops with a focus on securing Afghan cities to stabilize the country. “We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. That is our mission,” Obama said.

Obama’s surge buys time to build Afghan security forces to begin assuming responsibility for that nation by next summer. But security force building is easiest part of the Obama success equation.

President Karzai must do his part by “taking responsibility and gain confidence of the Afghan people,” Obama cautioned. This will require Karzai to fight widespread corruption, provide good governance and critical services.

That’s a tall order for Karzai who is serving his second term after a corruption-plagued re-election last fall. He lacks widespread support and must depend on unreliable allies who themselves are accustom to government kick-backs. Relying on Karzai for success must give Obama nightmares.

Second, the President has a constitutional responsibility as the commander-in-chief to care for our armed forces. He told the military audience at Bagram, “I will never send you into harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary…. I anguish in thinking about the sacrifices that so many of you make.”

Certainly he must understand that our military is battle weary. Our volunteer force is in the ninth straight year of combat and it shows plenty of wear and tear—it suffers from the highest-ever suicide and divorce rates. Yet high re-enlistment rates testify to its resilience and these heroes richly deserve Obama’s praise as “the finest military in the history of the world.”

Our armed forces must be nurtured and protected less it crumbles under the weight of constant combat, however. That’s why the new commander-in-chief must carefully consider placing unnecessary burdens on the overstretched volunteer force such as forcing it to embrace open homosexuality. Mindless actions like that will cause some of our volunteers to walk to the nation’s detriment, a potential nightmare for a war President.

Finally, Obama’s trip reminded Afghanistan’s neighbors to mind their P’s and Q’s. He is concerned about Iran’s unhelpful meddling and wants to encourage Pakistan’s improving cooperation.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander for the Mideast, testified before a Senate committee, saying “the Iranian regime appears to have hedged its longstanding public support for the Karzai government by providing opportunistic support to the Taliban.” He also said “al Qaeda continues to use Iran as a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al Qaeda’s senior leadership in regional affiliates.” This undermines Obama’s new strategy and could delay his hurry-up agenda for the war.

Iran’s involvement in Afghanistan will continue to grow stronger especially as Washington pressures Tehran to abandon its atomic weapons program. But Iran will strike back as it did in Iraq by equipping the insurgents to kill our troops which could sap American public support and precipitate a premature withdrawal, another nightmare for Obama.

On the brighter side, Obama acknowledged Pakistan’s helpful contribution, which will encourage allies in Islamabad. The Pakistanis apparently see the Taliban as a mutual enemy and are now pursuing them. Recently, the Pakistani intelligence service conducted joint operations with the U.S. to capture top Taliban leaders and since last summer Islamabad’s army executed a campaign into the heart of the Taliban sanctuary, South Waziristan. Another offensive is expected along the border region this spring.

Obama concluded his remarks to our troops at Bagram by restating a familiar warning, “we know there are going to be some difficult days ahead.” The President understands a counterinsurgency, arguably the most difficult type of warfare, depends on the blood sacrifices of our troops who “face a determined enemy” to secure in some cases an ungrateful people.

He also knows our blood toll will continue to climb. Our killed in action, 83 in the past three months, is more than twice that of the same period last year, and the number of wounded has tripled. That’s because we are taking the fight to the Taliban’s sanctuaries like the town of Marjah, which was recently won by our Marines. Next is the Taliban’s spiritual home, Kandahar, a much larger city filled with a determined enemy and that battle will be bloody.

Obama’s first trip as President to the Afghan warzone started in secret but his messages to that government, our troops and the neighbors were very public. He needs them to heed those messages because his political future and more importantly America’s security hang in the balance.