U.S. Role in Afghanistan Post-2014

In early October, prospects for a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan post-2014 looked bleak.  If the U.S. and Afghanistan could not negotiate an agreement soon, the U.S. would have to begin arrangements for a complete withdrawal of troops by the end of 2014.  Hoping to salvage the situation, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Afghanistan.  In mid-October, Kerry and Afghan president Hamid Karzai negotiated the terms of a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that would keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan post-2014.  The chief sticking point had been whether alleged crimes committed by U.S. soldiers would fall under U.S. or Afghan jurisdiction.  The BSA gave the U.S. jurisdiction over these alleged crimes, a term that Karzai had opposed.  When the BSA was signed, Karzai said that the decision regarding jurisdiction must be made not by him but, rather, by the loya jirga -- a council of approximately 3,000 Afghan elders.

Fast forward to last week.  First, just as the loya jirga convened, President Karzai developed a new position on the BSA -- indicating that it should not be signed until after Afghanistan's April 2014 presidential elections.    After four days of deliberations, the loya jirga responded by approving the BSA and recommending that Karzai promptly sign it.  Karzai refused, indicating that he would not sign it until after the April 2014 elections and after the U.S. brought peace: "Peace is our precondition.  America should bring us peace and then we will sign it."

U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice traveled to Afghanistan to speak with Karzai.  Karzai now has a fresh set of demands that were not part of the original BSA:

Karzai told Rice that he would sign only after the United States helps his government begin peace talks with the Taliban and agrees to release all 17 Afghan citizens being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, according to Afghan and U.S. officials. 

In addition to those new demands, the Afghan leader reiterated that he will not sign if “another [U.S.] soldier steps foot into an Afghan home,” Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi said. The United States has already promised to show “restraint” in “home entries” by U.S. troops and to carry them out only in conjunction with Afghan troops, but the tactic remains a part of U.S. operations against some insurgents here.

Rice responded by noting that if the BSA was not signed by the end of the year, the U.S. would have no choice but to prepare for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2014.  The stakes were raised two days ago when, during a NATO strike against an insurgent, a two-year old was tragically killed and two women were injured.  The U.S. maintains that the strike targeted a mid-level Taliban commander traveling on a road, whereas Karzai and his administration maintain that the attack struck a residential home.  Both sides agree, however, that the civilians were killed during the attack.  Karzai noted that he would not sign the agreement if such "oppression" continued.

Putting aside Karzai's competing demands for the U.S. to provide peace and security while ensuring zero civilian casualties, the larger question is whether he will in fact sign the BSA by the end of the year.  Why, one might ask, can't the U.S. simply wait until April 2014 to find out whether Karzai will sign the BSA.  The answer, quite frankly, is that this is not feasible.  There are currently more than 86,000 NATO and affiliated troops in Afghanistan; 60,000 of these are American.  The logistics of transporting the troops; transporting, selling, or destroying the equipment; securing the bases; continuing to train Afghan forces; and myriad other issues, are simply staggering.  A succinct yet excellent account of the challenges posed by the logistics of the withdrawal from Afghanistan can be found here (the article, written in February 2013, anticipated that most troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2014).  In short, logistics alone -- setting politics aside for the moment -- dictate that the U.S. decide soon whether or not to withdraw troops.  While pundits may claim that the U.S. "should stay patient" and that waiting until after April to sign the BSA is acceptable, facts indicate otherwise.  If the U.S. is to keep troops in the country, for example, it cannot completely remove the infrastructure it currently has in place.

Of course, this post is simply reporting the situation with respect to ongoing negotiations as well as the pragmatic issue of logistical challenges.  Another question entirely is whether the benefits of a continued U.S. troop presence outweigh the costs in terms of lives lost (American, Afghan, and others), money, and anti-American sentiment.  That's a question we'll let you decide for yourselves.

Counterterrorism Sunday

While the U.S. government is ostensibly shut down, its special forces engaged in two very aggressive counterterrorism operations this weekend.

First, in Libya, U.S. forces captured Anas al-Liby, an al Qaeda operative who has been on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list since 2001 for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.  Specifically, he conducted surveillance in Nairobi, Kenya -- on the U.S. embassy and other potential targets -- in preparation for the ultimate attack on the U.S. embassy.  In 2000, al-Liby was indicted in the U.S. for his role in that bombing; the FBI offered a reward of up to $5 million for his capture.

Flash forward to this Saturday, when U.S. forces captured al-Liby in the early morning hours on the streets of Tripoli.  U.S. officials have stated that al-Liby is in a secure location and will ultimately face trial.  Some of the fallout has focused on the extent of Libyan knowledge or acceptance of the U.S. operation:

A senior American official said the Libyan government had been apprised of the operation and provided assistance, but it was unclear in what capacity. An assistant to the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government said the government had been unaware of any operation or of Abu Anas’s capture. Asked if American forces had ever conducted raids inside Libya or collaborated with Libyan forces, Mehmoud Abu Bahia, assistant to the defense minister, replied, “Absolutely not.”

Legally speaking -- with respect to international law, that is -- Libyan involvement matters.  If a host state grants permission for a foreign military action within its borders, there is no breach of its territorial sovereignty (scholarly articles discussing the connection between international law and military action with a host state's cooperation can be found here and here).  Of course, even if the Libyan government did permit and/or cooperate with the U.S. operation, the public denial would not be unprecedented.  Indeed, for years, Pakistan criticized U.S. drone strikes in that country; in 2011, however, its very public announcement regarding the CIA departing an air base implicitly acknowledged that the U.S. had been launching drone strikes from air bases inside Pakistan.  Thus, do not be surprised if time reveals Libyan knowledge and/or approval of the U.S. operation.

Second, in Somalia, a U.S. attack targeted the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab group.  Al-Shabaab, which controls substantial swaths of territory in Somalia, recently claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack and hostage-taking crisis at a Kenyan shopping mall.  Information continues to be released about that attack; indeed, just today, Kenyan officials released information about several of the militants.  Reports indicate that the U.S. operation this weekend was aborted early, and that the fate of the intended target remains unknown.

Ultimately, while the government shutdown and looming debt ceiling continue to dominate the news, the significance of these two attacks should not be underestimated.  Indeed, the capture of al-Liby on the streets of Tripoli may evoke comparisons to the now-infamous abduction of a terror suspect from the streets of Milan.  The chief difference, at least at this point, is that the U.S. intends to try al-Liby in court.  As far as what these attacks portend for U.S. foreign policy in northern Africa, it is far too early to tell.  If one were to ask whether this represents a "shift" to an African focus, I would simply reply: we've been there for awhile.

US Admits...Helping the French in Mali Would be a Web of Contradictions

An interesting piece in the Washington Post carefully notes some of the concerns that exist with US aid to French forces in Mali. As most everyone suspects, the idea of ground forces being deployed is near to nonexistent. In fact, logistical support and intelligence is about all that is being considered. France, however, has sent in ground forces, expecting up to 2,500 to be available soon, in addition to ECOWAS forces and the Malian military.

See, the problem seems to be two-fold.

First, Mali's government is not exactly considered legitimate by the US government. A March 2012 coup, followed since by military junta rule, has stifled any democratic development. The US terminated assistance and even critical aid is reviewed case by case. Perhaps this gut reaction wasn't the best idea, considering how the US has treated countries under similar conditions (Myanmar isn't a distant comparison, prior to its recent actions). Nonetheless, all this means that any direct support to Mali is out of the question. Moreover, there are questions as to what extent the US can even aid France without breaking the law. Meanwhile, some reports also implicate US officials in encouraging the French to strike quickly. All in all, the politics of this conflict are already messy.

The second problem is the rebels, which, like many insurgencies, are really a collective of a variety of groups, including those the US wishes to not retaliate against, such as local tribesmen, and those that are on the terrorist watch list, such as AQIM. In a sense, the US wants to avoid the muddy legal waters it can already see coming were it to strike, even accidentally, groups that it has not declared itself in conflict with. Although the Islamist control currently being battled is not in US interests, a vacuum of power in northern Mali is not quite the solution.

So while France seems to be gearing up, the US is waffling. To what extent should the US participate? US expertise on counterterrorism in North Africa has been rapidly developing capacity since around 2002. It would likely behoove the US to not throw it all away over some technicalities and instead to find a way to offer assistance that is both significant and legal at the same time. Failing to do so could require us to lead the way into Mali later on, a lesson from Vietnam we would hope to not repeat.

Counterterrorism: How to Gather Intel and Where to Send It

A couple of weeks ago, as detailed by Danger Room's Spencer Ackerman, a Senate report found that the post-9/11 "fusion centers" of the Department of Homeland Security are particularly inept when it comes to uncovering and thwarting terroristic threats.  It's telling, but unsurprising, that the FBI has been much more effective in uncovering and responding to such threats.

To understand why the FBI is often on the front lines of investigating and combating terrorism, one need look no further than Garrett Graff's The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War in the Age of Global Terror.  The Threat Matrix explores the FBI's long history of addressing terrorism, be it hijackings in the 1970s or the Islamic terrorism of the 1990s that ultimately culminated in 9/11.

So, if you want to effectively conduct counterterrorism investigations, and coordinate efforts across different geographical areas and different social strata, what do you do?  Well, the FBI and NYPD came up with a plan in 1980 that led to a long-standing model: the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).  There are now over 100 JTTF's throughout the country, but the original task force created in New York remains vital: just today, news came out that the New York JTTF, after a months-long investigation, arrested a man for attempting to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Another shortcoming of fusion centers: global reach.  Sure, in theory, these fusion centers answer to the broader DHS hierarchy, which in turn could have the resources to properly analyze information.  On the other hand, DHS has tended to be a bureaucratic monolith, devouring resources without a clear concept of how it fits into the broader intelligence community structure.  If we intend to have a clear policy with respect to gathering and analyzing domestic intelligence, our options seem to be: fusion centers; FBI cooperation with local law enforcement; or a "throw everything against the wall to see what sticks" approach.  FBI cooperation with law enforcement seems to have advantages over the other options, not merely with respect to efficiency/reducing redundancies.  The FBI has global reach and global clout, the result of decades of forging strong professional relationships and personal friendships with police and military forces worldwide.  The FBI was already increasing its global presence before 9/11, and since then, has only increased its worldwide outposts and its efforts to have a presence in more countries.  That combination of domestic and international involvement is essential when you're addressing a threat as amorphous and elusive as international terrorism.  It's imperative that the United States decide how it wants to address intelligence-gathering and intelligence analysis - only by using the right tools will we be properly equipped to uncover terror plots and properly address them.

Civilian Deaths Down In Afghanistan; U.N. Unhappy

Even in a short U.N. press release such as this, there are numerous questions about how to gauge success in Afghanistan or success of counter-terrorism in general.  Civilian casualties caused by international and pro-government forces were down 25%, and those forces were responsible for only 10% of all civilian casualties.  Anti-government forces, meanwhile, were responsible for 80% of civilian casualties, and their assassinations of pro-government officials, use of IEDs, and attacks on schools, were all on the rise.  Overall, civilian casualties were down 15%.

From that data, one could point to numerous successes, including the improved efforts of pro-government forces to minimize civilian casualties.  On the other hand, protecting civilians from Taliban and other insurgent attacks -- though extremely difficult -- is a necessary component of any successful counter-terrorist effort.  If a government cannot keep its citizens safe, then those citizens will continue to lack faith in that government.  The Taliban is likely too embedded into Afghan society to ever be eradicated by military means alone; rather, any lasting peace in the region will almost undoubtedly involve bringing the Taliban to the table.  Until then, the war will continue to wind down to a bloody end, if indeed an end is in sight.