Barack obama

The British government’s policy on Afghanistan has a spasmodic, yet regular kind of rhythm to it. The issue pops up at intervals, hovers menacingly over Brown’s premiership until the PM awakes from a period of inaction. He then goes into hyper-drive, promises all manner of things, and reverts to inactive type a few days later only to repeat the routine a some days/weeks/months [cross out as appropriate] afterwards.  This time is no different. While the government, along with our allies, wait around for the US president to make up his mind on an Afghanistan (and, by extension, how his first term will be remembered), the PM has been overflowing with schemes and speeches.

There's something futile about Gordon Brown's and, now, David Miliband's speeches on Afghanistan.  After all, the world is still waiting to hear what Obama's strategy is for the country.  Will he increase troop numbers – and by how much?  What does he actually want to achieve with them?  Until that's known, it's a little premature to talk about a "comprehensive political framework" for handing security responsibilities over to the Afghan army. Worse, though, the PM's statements may actually be damaging.  Sure, it's frustrating that the US President is leaving his allies hanging.

Whatever happens in Kabul now, the next couple of months will be hard going. Hamid Karzai will form a new government, perhaps with Abdulllah Abdullah. But nobody expects the Karzai III government to be any better or less corrupt than versions I and II. Quite the opposite. In his bid for re-election, President Karzai surrounded himself with chequered figures who could bring him votes: warlords suspected of war crimes, corruption and drug trafficking. None is as influential as Marshal Fahim, his running mate, who has long been suspected of drug-running and other crimes. Expect to look back at the Afghan government’s past performance as a model of probity and efficiency.

Today, two of my colleagues, former senior MoD official Nick Witney and US analyst Jeremy Shapiro, issued a hard-hitting report about transatlantic relationships. Their message is simple. Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired. With EU leaders heading to Washington for their transatlantic summit on 3 November, Shapiro and Witney caution European governments: an unsentimental President Obama has already lost patience with a Europe lacking coherence and purpose. In a post-American world, the United States knows it needs effective partners. And if Europe cannot step up, the US will look for other privileged partners to do business with. Unfortunately, many Europeans are in denial about how the world is changing.

The strategic logic behind President Obama’s decision to alter US plans for a missile defence shield based in Eastern Europe was that this would persuade the Russians, who didn’t like the shield, to agree to the US’s push for tougher sanctions on Iran. But it appears that Moscow isn’t going to play ball.   The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared after a meeting with Hillary Clinton yesterday that, “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” So, all that Obama’s concession has done is anger the Czechs and the Poles who weren’t told about the move until the last minute. Iran is an issue that hasn’t gone away.

New Majority points out another reason why Obama should have politely told the Nobel Peace prize committee that he would rather they didn’t award him the prize: “The Nobel Committee has created a pretty little problem for White House counsel Greg Craig this morning. The value of the gift is $1.4 million. Technically, it’s a “Foreign Official Gift,” so it has to be retained by the U.S. government. Donating the money to charity will be very difficult, because first the gift will have to pass through the president’s hands -and the law requires that he must spend $1.4 million of his own money to buy the $1.4 million from the U.S. government.

The discovery that Iran's regime has, yet again, deceived the international community and secretly built an additional nuclear facility has made world leaders re-focus on the issue. On Friday, the US, UK and France said the UN had to be given immediate access and urged tough new sanctions. Even Russia expressed concern. Today, the Iranian regime's  response came. According to Ali Akbar Salehi, who heads the Atomic Energy Organisation, Iran will keep its uranium enrichment level at up to five percent - much lower than bomb-grade. "We don't want to change the arrangement of five-percent enrichment merely to produce 150 to 300 kilos of 20-percent (enriched) fuel," ILNA news agency quoted the nuclear chief as saying.

The ‘Appeal to Conscience’ World Statesman of the Year ought to be treated with more respect, otherwise the award becomes a mockery. The news that President Obama rebuffed the PM’s requests for bilateral talks at the UN or G20 meetings capped a dreadful day for Gordon Brown. A White House spokesman told the BBC: “Any stories that suggest trouble in the bilateral relationship between the US and UK are totally absurd.” To imply that the ‘special relationship is on the rocks is exaggeration, but there’s no doubt that Obama, who held bilateral talks with the leaders of China, Russia and Japan, departed from the Bush administration’s Anglo-American axis.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has re-opened internal debate about Afghan policy, suggesting that he is going to u-turn from the counter-insurgency strategy that he announced in March. It seems that Joe Biden, who lost the policy argument last time round, might win out with his argument that, “Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

So, the report written by ISAF commander, Stanley McChrystal, to President Obama on NATO’s Afghan mission has been published. It does not contain a request for more US troops, but most analysts think it is only a matter of time before a request is sent from Kabul. In the recently-published report, McChrystal says: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.” But serious changes will be required. These will have to address what McChrystal calls “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials.” The US general also admits “ISAF's own errors”. Bear in mind, though, that the report was written before the recent presidential elections went awry.

Bob Woodward has the scoop that General McChrystal’s review of Afghan strategy calls for more troops. McChrystal is direct, stating that “ISAF requires more forces” and that “inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. He is also clear that these troops are needed now, "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." McChrystal has yet to present his request for more troops to the Pentagon but it is clear that he will ask the administration for considerably more troops. Obama now has to decide whether he will back the new commander he put in place and give him the tools he needs.

A great spot by Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome, who highlights this Wall Street Journal graphic on the words that both sides of the US healthcare debate should be using to score a rhetorical advantage.  For instance, it suggests that the pro-Obama team should say "rules" rather than "regulations", while the President's opponents should attack the system for being "too profit-driven" and "too bureaucratic": As Tim says, words have power.

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, two of the people involved in devising the surge strategy in Iraq which so transformed the security situation there, have a strong piece in the Weekly Standard arguing that the Obama administration is in danger of repeating in Afghanistan the mistakes the Bush one made in Iraq: not giving the commander on the grounds the tools they need to do the job. The Kagans’ concern has been caused by strong hints from the Obama administration that it is not minded to send any more troops to Afghanistan whatever the review initiated by the new US commander there, General McChrystal, says. (The deadline for McChrystal to make his requests has been pushed back until September). If McChrystal thinks he needs more troops, he should not be denied them.

With Obama’s administration gradually filling up, problems appear to be brewing at the centre. Though picking ex-General James Jones as a National Security Adviser was seen as a smart move, associating the general’s wide experience and bi-partisan appeal with the young president, it may be turning out not to be so clever after all. President Obama continues to rely on his campaign advisers, principally Denis McDonough, nominally one of Jones’ deputies, and Mark Lippert, the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council and a confidant of Vice-President Biden. Both aides have a close personal bond with the President.