Middle East

The Obama administration won't announce its new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan until after Thanksgiving, a White House official confirms to The Cable, and observers and experts close to the discussions see it as the White House's attempt to stage a full and controlled rollout over the week beginning November 30.

By waiting until Congress returns from its Thanksgiving vacation, the White House can have the time to directly consult with key lawmakers and then have senior officials testify soon after the announcement is made. In that way, the argument goes, the administration can build more support for the policy, deal quickly with any opposition on Capitol Hill, and then have a more active role in how the story plays out in the media.

"They're going to have to come out with both guns blazing and they're going to have to have their stuff together with consultations and everything," said one senior GOP foreign policy staffer close to the issue.

The administration isn't going to want to make the announcement and then wait a long time before holding the hearings, because that would make it more difficult to keep the message consistent after the news breaks.

Plus, congressional attention will be diverted that week to the health-care debate in the Senate, distracting some attention from the Afghanistan debate, which may be part of the administration's calculations.

"You basically own the space, but you fold it under the debate over health care," the staffer speculated about the administration's thinking, "That way you can't be accused of burying it."

Meanwhile, the staffs of key principals have already begun crafting the rollout and testimony speeches, leaving holes in the text to fill in whatever the President's specific troop and resource decisions might turn out to be.

The reports about the substance of the president's pending decision have been all over the map, with many stating that Obama simply hasn't reached a final conclusion on how to move forward. But there is increasing chatter that one scheme, known as the "Gates option" after Defense Secretary Robert Gates, may be gaining momentum.

That option would deploy three brigades to Afghanistan, short of the four envisioned by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but with the option to deploy the fourth later should the need be demonstrated.

The president and key national security team members return from their trip to Asia today.

President Obama today nominated of Philip Coyle, a leading critic of Bush administration missile defense schemes, to be a top White House scientific advisor.

Coyle, who was the head weapons tester at the Pentagon during the Clinton administration, was nominated to become the Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. There he will lead a team tasked with giving scientific advice to Obama on a range of national security issues and will report to Director John Holdren.

Since his last tour at the Pentagon, Coyle has been a leading analyst on weapons systems for the Center for Defense Information, a component of the World Security Institute, a defense-minded think thank. From that perch, he's been actively involved in several of the national security debates involving advanced technology and a staunch watchdog on the missile defense system the Bush administration rushed to deploy throughout its tenure.

Coyle has often pointed out that the testing done by the Pentagon on ballistic missile defense components since 2001 has been either shoddy or thin. Moreover, he has repeatedly questioned the basic rationale for investing billions to deploy ballistic missile defense around the world, especially in Eastern Europe.

"In my view, Iran is not so suicidal as to attack Europe or the United States with missiles," he testified before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee in February, "But if you believe that Iran is bound and determined to attack Europe or America, no matter what, then I think you also have to assume that Iran would do whatever it takes to overwhelm our missile defenses, including using decoys to fool the defenses, launching stealthy warheads, and launching many missiles, not just one or two."

Coyle has often argued that the Bush administration rushed to deploy missile defense systems around the world to build momentum and keep money flowing into the program. He has repeatedly said that the Missile Defense Agency has been amassing hardware that is either not aligned with the threat or can't be relied on in case of an actual emergency.

Over $120 billion has been spent on ballistic missile defense since its inception during the Reagan administration.

Coyle's views line up with Ellen Tauscher, who was then the subcommittee chairwoman but who is now Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, which oversees missile defense diplomacy.

Tauscher was part of the decision making process that led to huge changes in the Bush administration plans for missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Obama plan now calls for more short and medium range systems, most of them mobile. These are changes Coyle has also supported.

Coyle must now be confirmed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The vetting and confirmation process could take months.

Don't look for a huge "civilian surge" of State Department personnel to Afghanistan, no matter what the pending strategy review says, according to Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew.

The State Department is increasing its presence in Afghanistan and is responding to some increased requests from Amb. Karl Eikenberry, but other than that, State is not planning currently to match any escalation of troops with a huge increase in its presence there.

"I would not expect radical changes," Lew told reporters at a briefing Monday, "To the extent that there's a thickening of presence in an area, that doesn't necessarily mean that you would increase the civilian presence in the area. To the extent that there are new areas that are being covered by the military, that could raise either a redeployment of civilians or a need for additional civilians."

The current plan is to have 974 civilians in Afghanistan, 423 of those would be from State and 333 from USAID, a number that stands in stark contrast to the approximately 68,000 military personnel there, not to mention the tens of thousands of more that could be on the way.

There are 603 civilians currently on the ground in Afghanistan, Lew said, up from 320 in January. Another 282 are in processing to go there and 89 positions are currently being recruited, both from government and outside experts.

"We are going to have, when we're fully deployed, 388 civilians outside of Kabul," Lew said, noting that right now, there are exactly 157 civilians not stationed in the capital city.

He also responded to the question of how hard it might be to get civilians to go to Afghanistan, in light of protests in 2007 when talk of forcing Foreign Service officers to go to Baghdad caused an open revolt.

"It's not for everyone," Lew said. "Some people sign up and by the time they get through training, don't decide it's for them. Some people go out and come back. But that's really very few, compared to the total. And there's no compulsion in this."

The budget for such programs rose from $2.2 billion in fiscal 2009 to $2.8 billion for fiscal 2010, as a result of the strategic review completed in March. Since fiscal 2009 supplemental funding was dispersed so late, there could be a windfall in storewhen the fiscal 2010 money comes through, although there is no telling when that bill will be completed.

The programs in Afghanistan are all managed at the top by Assistant Amb. Tony Wayne, Coordinating Director for Development and Economic Affairs, who was appointed only in June.

Lew also talked about the ongoing effort to transfer nongovernmental aid programs in Pakistan away from Western organizations and toward Pakistani groups.

"The idea of getting our foreign assistance as directly to the people who are going to use it as efficiently as possible is central to the way we're thinking about foreign assistance and development generally," Lew said, adding that since many of the contracts were up for renewal at the beginning of October, it gave the impression this transfer was more immediate and widespread than it necessarily was.

Robin Raphel, the former Ambassador now a part of Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke's staff, is in Pakistan right now leading a case by case review of all of these projects, Lew said.

The State Department is owed $134 million by a Kuwaiti firm that poorly and dangerously constructed the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, according to a newly released report by the Inspector General's Office.

The severe problems in the building of the compound, which opened last April almost one year late and more than $100 million over the $592 million budget, are so bad that the State Department will be paying for them in repairs and maintenance for years to come, the IG's office found.

Among the most shocking problems still present at the embassy: The walls are in danger of cracking; the "safe areas" for emergencies aren't safe; the fire protection systems might not protect from fires; and oh, by the way, the plumbing and electrical systems don't work.

This is only the latest piece of bad news for the lead contractor, First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting, a firm the U.S. has used for hundreds of projects in Iraq but stands accused of shoddy work and widespread abuse of third-country workers it ships in from all over the world.

John Owens, one of the First Kuwaiti foremen on the project, quit in disgust after witnessing what he called labor trafficking and widespread worker abuse, including tricking migrant workers into going to Iraq, placing them in sub-human living conditions, and holding their passports so they couldn't escape.

"I've never seen a project more fucked up. Every U.S. labor law was broken," he said.

A House oversight committee held hearings on the mess in 2007, featuring testimony from Owens and Rory Mayberry, another First Kuwaiti employee who detailed the kidnapping practices of First Kuwaiti and accused the State Department of covering up the allegations.

Unfortunately, it was later discovered that Mayberry was basically a career felon who had been fired by First Kuwaiti for completely falsifying his credentials, casting doubt on his testimony.

Regardless, the new IG report confirms that severe safety problems at the embassy persist to this day and also lambasts State's Bureau for Overseas Building Operations (OBO) for its conduct throughout the affair.

The report criticizes the State Department for a total lack of oversight, mainly because OBO established something called the Emergency Project Coordination Office (EPCO) that didn't do its job in monitoring the construction when it was going on.

EPCO paid First Kuwaiti tens of millions of dollars not authorized by the contracts, didn't require proper documentation before paying invoices, and didn't enforce design and construction requirements, leading to a lot of the cost overruns and persistent problems, the IG found.

The OBO bureau responded to the IG by saying that "stand alone project offices [such as EPCO] are a mistake" and would not be used in the future. The Baghdad embassy did not respond with any comments to the IG report.

Photo by Iraqi President Office via Getty Images

Much ado was made last month about the reported rift between U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill and the top U.S. military commander in Baghdad Gen. Ray Odierno, a rift that Hill strenuously denied.

But a real policy dispute lies at the heart of the story, senior diplomatic and military sources in Baghdad tell The Cable. Increasingly, the two men are said to differ over the proper American role in Baghdad, specifically with regard to how heavy a hand the U.S. should apply in trying to influence the decisions of the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The clashing approaches speak to both the institutional culture of the two organizations and their different view of U.S. priorities and interests during this critical time of pullback in the U.S. presence in Iraq, the sources said. "State has a respect for sovereignty and institutional relations," one official explained. "DOD is much more activist and hands on in pretty much every area. Their attitude is if there's a problem you get in there and do what you can to fix it."

The current dispute between the two camps centers around how involved the U.S. should be in the Maliki government's coalition politics ahead of Iraq's January 2010 elections, an event that has Middle East hands worried after the Iraqi parliament again failed Monday to pass a crucial law that would govern the polls. The U.S. government has hinged the entire redeployment strategy around the elections law, one government official working on Iraq in Washington said, warning that if it the process drags on, the withdrawal of U.S. troops will have to be correspondingly delayed.

Maliki has assembled a wide coalition for the upcoming poll. But according to reports, Iraq's lower house of parliament, the Council of Representatives (COR), might remove members of the Independent High Election Commission or withdraw its vote of confidence in the body at the prime minister's behest -- a move that military officials want to try to forestall.

But because the State Department places a high priority on holding the January elections on time as a precursor to fulfilling President Obama's withdrawal timeline, the embassy favors a more hands-off approach, and the White House is said to agree.

"State believes it would be fraught with danger to intervene on these COR decisions, and yet at the same time, it is equally dangerous if the COR decides to remove IHEC officials so close to the election," one senior military source in the region said, arguing that State's concerns about the Jan. 10 election date slipping are overblown.

A senior diplomatic source in Iraq responded by presenting the issue of U.S. involvement in Maliki's dealings as a balance between risk and reward.

"To what extent do we try to pick winners? What are the risks of that? How have we fared in the past with such an approach? This is not so much a civil-military problem, but it does go to the heart of how to disengage," the source explained. "Subtly versus with a heavy hand, could well determine what kind of partner we might have in Iraq."

The source also said State is very involved in the COR processes, including having embassy officers in every meeting and exerting influence when appropriate, such as in prodding individual members and suggesting solutions to get around impasses. "We are on it like the proverbial Iraqi carpet," the source said.

Clash of civilizations

Maliki alluded to the controversy in his remarks Monday after meeting with President Obama, saying that the two had "discussed the issue of the elections and the importance that these elections be held on time based on the national principles."

But the elections aren't the only issue in dispute, some Iraq experts say, pointing to the several outstanding issues between the Maliki government and both the Sunni and Kurdish communities as additional examples of how the State Department wants to disengage from Iraq at a faster pace than the military there.

"The question is, in this period of transition: What are the few things we really need to get traction on, and how much leverage do we have to do that?" said Sam Parker, an Iraq expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "It's about how much you should get involved."

Major disputes still exist between the Maliki government and the Iraqi minority communities over such things as the status of the city of Kirkuk, the distribution of oil profits, and payments to former Sunni insurgents who have been persuaded to lay down their arms.

"Odierno continues to believe that the Sunni community depends on the U.S. to defend them against the Maliki government," said one Washington Iraq expert. "State doesn't believe that the U.S. military should play a significant role in any of that."

Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Center on Foreign Relations, said that part of the dispute was a lack of agreement on the trustworthiness of Maliki.

"The key question is, What model of Maliki's motivations do we use as we make policy?" said Biddle. "As long as it's at least an open possibility that he's opportunistic or trying to consolidate power in his office in an unnatural way, either one of those implies increased U.S. engagement."

Some Iraq experts defend State's approach as the most pragmatic and realistic way to acknowledge the fact that the Americans are leaving Iraq.

"The Defense Department has to come to terms with the fact that its influence is waning there," said Marc Lynch, director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University.

"Sure, Chris Hill isn't doing as much on a personal level as [previous U.S. ambassador] Ryan Crocker did, but it's not clear that he should be," said Lynch. "The surge improved things militarily, but the political problems remain and those will have to be solved by the Iraqis. There is little we can do about it at this point."

The debate in Washington over the Jewish-American role in U.S.-Israel policy is at a fever pitch, as the new and controversial organization called J Street is reeling from the loss of support of several members of Congress who have backed away from the group under pressure from its detractors.

In recent days, eight congressmen have removed themselves from the list of "hosts" for J Street's gala dinner on Oct. 27, which is being headlined by Obama's National Security Advisor James L. Jones and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-MA.

Rep. Jane Harman isn't one of them. Earlier today, The Cable caught up with the California Democrat, who said she would not be attending but hadn't removed herself from the list.

"I believe that different voices should be heard and that was the impetus for my lending my name to the list," Harman told The Cable, quickly adding, "That's the extent of my involvement with J Street." (Harman has a storied history with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful Jewish lobbying group on Capitol Hill, and a strong Jewish-American constituency.)

All the 150-plus members on the list are being targeted by a campaign by right-wing bloggers, questioning their involvement with J Street and pressuring them to back out. More lawmakers are expected to drop their endorsements for the conference in the coming days.

J Street, which markets itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace," responded today with an e-mail blast accusing the Weekly Standard, an influential neoconservative magazine, of using a "classic Swift Boat move" and "thuggish scare tactics" to undermine the conference.

In an interview, J Street head Jeremy Ben Ami pointed the finger directly at Weekly Standard blog editor and former John McCain staffer Michael Goldfarb as the instigator of the campaign.

"It is the modus operandi of some on the right in the Jewish community who will engage in scare tactics to enforce their message discipline and that is what J Street was created to change," he said.

Goldfarb says his campaign to disrupt the conference planning is far from over.

"J Street should stop whining," he told The Cable, "They got their 'pro-peace' buddies in the White House to help them stop the bleeding -- but it won't work."

The 18-month-old J Street is meant to be a counterweight to AIPAC, which has dominated the Israel discussion in Washington since its inception in the 1950s. Ben Ami deflected any contention that AIPAC is pressuring lawmakers to drop out of the event, as some are contending, and AIPAC has strenuously denied any involvement.

A spokesman for Israeli Amb. Michael Oren, who declined an invitation to attend the event, said this week that J Street's actions could "impair Israeli interests." J Street countered by publishing an open letter in the Jerusalem Post inviting Oren to speak at the conference, but he has not responded.

Those removing their names from the list include leading senators such as Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Kristin Gillibrand, D-NY, Thad Cochran, R-MS, and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AK, and Reps. Mike Castle, R-DE (who is running for the Senate) Mike Rogers, R-MI, Michael McCaul, R-TX, and Leonard Boswell, D-IA.

Several of the lawmakers claim they were added without their knowledge, but Ben Ami said J Street had received assurances from every congressional office on its gala host list and it's not the group's fault if some staffers didn't communicate with their bosses.

Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East peace negotiator now with the Wilson Center, said that the whole J Street controversy is just "Jewish inside baseball" fueled by a lack of a coherent and comprehensive national policy toward Israel.

"In the end it does very little to serve the Jewish community in the United States and nothing to serve U.S. national interests," he said of the controversy.

But Ben Ami says the public spectacle over the conference is exactly what J Street wants.

"We are at the center of debate and controversy after only 18 months, and this is a real impact and a success," he said, adding, "We are winning."

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, the head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, came out Tuesday in strong agreement with the Afghanistan assessment put forth by General Stanley McChrystal and promised to fully fund any forthcoming troop increase there.

The stance of the powerful Hawaii lawmaker is the opposite of his House counterpart, Wisconsin Democrat David Obey. Inouye is also taking a starkly different tone from the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, who has said he opposes sending more combat troops there.

But after returning from a weekend trip to the region, Inouye said that his meetings with troops, officials, and military leaders convinced him that the mission in Afghanistan is not only winnable, but should be pursued under the counterinsurgency strategy that McChrystal has called for, which is necessarily troop intensive.

“At this time, I believe General McChrystal’s assessment of the current situation and his conclusions, including his assessment that coalition forces must have more daily contact with the people of Afghanistan, is correct and is what is needed if we are to achieve security and stability in Afghanistan,” Inouye said.

He also promised to use his chairmanship to fully fund any new strategy the administration submitted to Congress, but declined to say exactly what his position on specific troops increase options would be.

“I will make certain that our men and women in uniform have everything they need to accomplish their mission,” he said, “If, after further consultation and deliberation we decide we need 40,000 more troops or 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan, that’s what we’ll send but much more discussion has to take place before a final decision on troop levels can be made.”

Obey, who has threatened to cut off troop funding if progress isn’t made in one year’s time, argued the position exactly opposite Inouye Tuesday in a speech in Wisconsin. The House funding chief repeated his often expressed aversion to any escalation in Afghanistan.

"The Taliban is a god-awful operation. But if we're looking at our own national interests, our interest is in hemming in al-Qaida," Obey said. "If we're going to try and take on the Taliban all across Afghanistan, it's going to require hundreds of thousands of American, Pakistani and Afghani troops, and I just don't believe that this country wants to see that happen."

Obey also referred, as he often does, to the cost of military operations in Afghanistan, something Inouye acknowledged.

The two senior lawmakers, although having the same job in their respective chambers, could not be more different in terms of their backgrounds and motivations. Obey represents the liberal wing of the House Democrats, dozens of whom are calling on their party leaders to take a stronger stance against Obama’s war policies.

Inouye hails from a state that benefits hugely from military spending, mostly dispersed by Inouye himself. His state also raised Obama, and Inouye has been clear that he will defend and support his president.

In the end, Inouye also works in a chamber that tilts more toward the right on national security matters due to the presence of several powerful moderate Democrats. If the Iraq war debates of the mid-decade are any guide, the money will get dispersed in the end, because a leading fear of many Senate Democrats is being tarred as weak on defense.

Inouye’s voice carries weight, especially since he can’t be attacked as being weak on defense. In fact, he referred to his own military service as part of the psychological prism he factored his analysis through.

“Having served as an enlisted man and junior officer in World War II, I know what they’re going through,” he said, “I’ve tasted it.”

Florida Congressman Robert Wexler is reported to be resigning his seat tomorrow morning, but not to take the job of administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, high-level congressional sources tell The Cable.

The Sun Sentinel newspaper reported that Wexler will announce the move tomorrow, writing he is "likely to take a public policy job that deals with the Middle East."

That led to some speculation that he would take the long vacant post at the top of USAID, which has been rudderless for quite a long time. But while informed sources say he is slated to receive a posting, it won't be that one.

"The White House is keeping a tight lid on this one, but it's definitely not USAID," one well placed congressional source said.

Well, we'll all find out soon enough. Wexler has a press conference scheduled for 10 a.m. in Boca Raton.

Update: The Miami Herald is now reporting that Wexler told Democratic leaders he will leave Congress to direct the Washington-based Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, was established in 1989 by Slim Fast Foods Chairman S. Daniel Abraham and Utah Congressman Wayne Owens.