Afghanistan

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday he would not support any troop increase to Afghanistan and predicted a troop increase announcement would meet a cold reception on Capitol Hill.

"We ought not to add troops to Afghanistan, I even question staying there, unless it is indispensible to our fight against al-Qaeda," said Specter on a conference call. "Staying in Afghanistan really requires a reliable ally in the government, which we do not have in [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai."

He said he could be persuaded to devote resources to fighting al Qaeda, but remains "unconvinced" that adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan was the answer.

The administration should offer an exit strategy with clearly defined goals and milestones, though not necessarily a timeline, Specter said. He denied that his position was meant to counter his 2010 primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak, D-PA, who has called for a "measured increase."

"If they talk about 40,000 troops, as the generals there want, I think [the reception in Congress] will be pretty cold," he said, pointing the oft-repeated estimate that each added troop would cost American $1 million per year.

Specter predicted senators would line up behind the idea of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, who has repeatedly called for faster increases in the Afghan security forces before more U.S. combat troops are added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged those concerns today in his press conference.

"Clearly, a very important part of the strategy in Afghanistan has to be the increase in the size of the Afghan national security forces and their training, and partnering with us," Gates said. "And central to the strategy is the ability to transfer responsibility for security, as soon as conditions warrant, to the Afghans themselves."

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.

Spencer Ackerman gets the details of an apparently uncomfortable conference call this morning between National Security Council staffers and Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. Ambassador to Kabul, whose confidential cables calling for caution in increasing troop levels in Afghanistan were leaked to the Washington Post.

It was a tense videoconference this morning at the White House, as Ambassador Karl Eikenberry addressed the National Security Council from Kabul just hours after the media got hold of his dissent on the crucial question of sending more troops to Afghanistan. "He is very unpopular here," said a National Security Council staffer.

No one was happy to read in The Washington Post that Eikenberry, who commanded the war himself from 2005 to 2007, thinks that the Karzai government needs to demonstrate its commitment to anti-corruption measures before the administration can responsibly authorize another troop increase. The prevailing theory is that "he leaked his own cables" because "he has a beef with McChrystal," the staffer said. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Eikenberry's successor as NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested an increase in troops to support a counterinsurgency strategy with a substantial counterterrorism component.

But Eikenberry - who also briefed the White House by teleconference yesterday - reiterated his concerns. The ambassador told the NSC not to send additional troops to Afghanistan "without an exit strategy" and urged that the president to adopt a "purely civilian approach" with the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in the lead, not the military...

Despite the dissatisfaction with Eikenberry's apparent leak, according to the staffer, Obama "demanded" an exit strategy for the war "after Eikenberry's cables." Certain members of the NSC dialed into the conference from the Fort Bragg, N.C. headquarters of the Joint Special Operations Command, which is playing a large if underreported role in shaping Afghanistan strategy. It would appear that much remains fluid in the administration's strategy debates.

Update:  Ackerman retracts:

I am retracting this post, published yesterday, titled “Inside This Morning’s White House Afghanistan Meeting: Anger With Eikenberry, ‘Beef’ With McChrystal.”

My original source for the post stands by the account provided. The individual, a National Security Council staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity, has provided truthful and verified information on past stories, and so I trusted the source for this one. Elements of the account have been subsequently borne out: yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama will ask his Afghanistan-Pakistan advisers to provide him with an exit strategy for the eight-year war, which is congruent with but not identical to my source’s information that Obama has asked the team to derive timetables for troop withdrawal.

But there are greater problems with the post. For one, the source was not actually present for the video teleconference that is the post’s central scene, and passed information to me second-hand. Furthermore, not only has the White House’s Tommy Vietor denied, on the record, that Ambassador Karl Eikenberry participated in a video teleconference yesterday morning, but the other two individuals I named as being present for the meeting — the inspector generals for Iraq and Afghanistan — have, through representatives, denied being present. I cannot subsequently stand by this account.

Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, is headed to Russia soon, just as a U.S. government team is also on its way there to deal with problems surrounding a new U.S.-Russian agreement to transit lethal materials through Russian space to supply U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The controversial Holbrooke has had an ever-growing portfolio since taking on the Afghanistan/Pakistan mission, not to mention a staff that's grown from an initial 15 to more than 30 people. There are conflicting accounts of whether Holbrooke would deal with the Russians on the problems implementing the transit agreement. An interagency technical team is also on the way to Moscow to deal with the same issue, two administration officials confirmed.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told The Cable that Holbrooke is going to Russia "for meetings with his special representative counterpart and to discuss U.S.-Russia cooperation regarding Afghanistan," but said he couldn't be more specific.

"He doesn't do Russia," said one administration official who was surprised to hear Holbrooke was on the way there. Several sources said that Holbrooke's famously aggressive style and lack of history in dealing with the complicated and difficult Russians made him a particularly surprising choice to send there. "He's probably the worst personality that could be picked for something like this," said another experienced Russia hand.

The State Department could not confirm the specific date, but the trip is expected soon; a senior official described Holbrooke's mission in veiled terms only as discussing "political issues at a high level."

Speculating on Holbrooke's international standing throughout the region is somewhat of a parlor game for the diplomatic community. Despite his AfPak job, Holbrooke has not been to Afghanistan since before the disputed presidential elections in August; his lack of appearances there recently prompted many to think he was not welcome, in light of a reported feud with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The Indians have also made it clear they are not interested in being included in Holbrooke's sphere of policy influence. Holbrooke maintains he has just been hard at work in Washington dealing with the administration's Afghanistan strategy review.

Nevertheless, there are increasing signs Holbrooke's reach is widening. A team from Holbrooke's office is currently in Beijing for discussions with Chinese officials on both Pakistan and Afghanistan, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, multiple sources tell The Cable that there are problems with the U.S.-Russian agreement to allow lethal military materials pass through Russian space on the way to Afghanistan. The deal, agreed to in July during Obama's trip there, is the one tangible example of progress in the administration's effort to "reset' U.S.-Russian relations.

"We're trying to build a more constructive relationship with Russia," said Kelly. "Two of the best examples of our cooperation are the lethal transit agreement and cooperative counternarcotics training."

But the Russians are now attempting to place new conditions on the supply routes, the sources said. For example, Russia is demanding to know exactly what items are in each shipment before allowing them to go through, a condition the U.S. military is not about to meet.

The U.S. government is receiving different messages from different segments of the Russian government, the sources said, complicating the matters. Another part of the Russian government demanded a tariff be paid on U.S. shipments entering Russia on their way to Afghanistan, a complete surprise to the U.S. side.

Update:  Holbrooke is also headed back to Afghanistan, his first trip there since August, at the end of his whirlwind trip around Europe, his spokesman said.

Holbrooke is currently en route to Berlin, after which he will travel to Paris, then Munich, then Moscow, before heading to Kabul. The trip is part of his regular diplomacy to consult with allies and partners on the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy review currently ongoing, the spokesman said.

Holbrooke’s trip to Russia is not primarily to deal with the lethal transit agreement between the U.S. and Russia, the spokesman explained. An interagency task force is in Moscow to iron out implementation issues with that agreement, but that is a coincidence, the spokesman said.

Holbrooke has a long history of dealing with the Russians, including a personal relationship with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the spokesman explained.

The spokesman could not give details about who exactly Holbrooke would meet with either in Moscow or Kabul.

BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

As the announcement of the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy review gets closer and closer, more details are coming out about who inside the room when the discussions are held and who has the president's ear.

The White House still maintains that there is no set date for the roll out of the new policy, although White House officials have acknowledged that the announcement is unlikely to be before the President's trip to Asia later this week. The White House team returns Thursday Nov., 19, and a typical Washington public relations move would be to hold the rollout on a Friday.

There is some doubt that the rollout could be logistically accomplished in one day, what with the need to consult allies, interested parties, lawmakers, and then set up press conferences and briefings. The White House staff would be exhausted after flying around the world for a week, the argument goes, making a rollout on Friday, Nov. 20 unlikely.

"We don't have a rollout date set, because the President has yet to make the decision," said Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

But multiple sources have indicated that Thanksgiving is a tentative deadline for the rollout, meaning that the last day the announcement would come out is Wednesday, Nov. 25.

A rollout the day before Thanksgiving would be sure to roil the Washington policy crowd, whose proportionally large contingent of Northeast-born members would then have to fight the gruesome traffic up the notorious Interstate 95 on the worst traffic day of the year to make it home to their extended families.

A Nov. 25 rollout could also invite speculation that the administration was trying to downplay the news, because as anyone who has been in Washington the day before Thanksgiving can attest to, the town is eerily empty on that day each year.

Regardless, with increasing consultations with allies and interested parties alike, the administration seems just about ready to come to a decision. There are multiple reports that Obama is planning to give Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal most, if not all of the 40,000 troops he identified as a "medium-risk option."

Spencer Ackerman reveals that McChrystal had two very close allies inside the White House discussions the whole time, Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command  (JSOC) at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward, the deputy commander of Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

"Both men have deep ties to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the war. They are said to favor large infusions of U.S. troops to Afghanistan for performing counterinsurgency operations in select population centers, but they also advocate marshalling forces to pursue terrorists across Afghanistan's rugged, mountainous terrain," Ackerman reports.

There are increasing signs the administration is wrapping up its Afghanistan strategy review and planning a rollout toward the end of the week beginning November 16, immediately after President Obama and other top officials return from Asia.

Reliable sources tell The Cable that the review has entered its final stages, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Jim Jones now taking the lead and putting on the final touches.

Today, Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke cancelled a planned speaking event scheduled for Wednesday, November 18, at the Women's Foreign Policy Group, "due to unforeseen changes in the speaker's schedule," a group representative said.

And the rest of the President's team is back in town on Thursday, November 19.

The administration sent a team to Brussels this week to consult with all 43 member nations of the International Security Assistance Force, including all 28 NATO nations.

"Their trip will serve to both brief allies on where our efforts stand and to hear their comments and questions about the review," said Michael Hammer, spokesman for the National Security Council.

Meanwhile, certain embassy representatives in Washington have started to receive notice that they will be "consulted" about the Afghan strategy review soon, which some took as a signal that the review was pretty much done and the process of briefing it to stakeholders was beginning.

Hammer said that consultations have been ongoing since the start of the review and cautioned not to read too much into any particular set of meetings. But sources both inside the government and in the larger diplomatic community in Washington are now standing on high alert, preparing for a rollout many feel is imminent.

"We've all been waiting for that call," one Western European diplomat said.

Lawmakers are actively but secretively trying to get to the bottom of the CIA's relationship with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in light of the stunning New York Times article which cited unnamed sources stating he has been on the CIA's payroll for years while simultaneously facilitating massive drug trade in his region.

CIA Director Leon Panetta met with several Senators on both sides of the aisle Thursday behind closed doors and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, has submitted a formal request for information detailing the Agency's relationship with Karzai the brother.

Following his meeting with Panetta, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, said that he would not disclose what Panetta told him but that on the question of Ahmed Wali Karzai's relationship with the CIA, he had gotten some clarity.

"I think we know [about his relationship with the CIA] but I can't share that with you," Levin said, adding mysteriously, "I don't know that Karzai's brother is on the CIA payroll."

On the issue of whether or not the President's brother is facilitating the drug trade near Kandahar, lawmakers who are in the loop seem more confident and willing to publicly express their concerns.

"According to credible people, the President's brother is involved in various illicit activities," said Armed Services ranking Republican John McCain, R-AZ, "We can't have that."

McCain reiterated his call that Ahmed Wali Karzai should leave the country immediately.

Kerry was the only senior lawmaker to issue a statement expressing his frustration about not being aware of the relationship.

In an interview with The Cable, Kerry said although the CIA relationship with Karzai might not necessarily be nefarious, Congress had a right to know the details.

"If the CIA has a deal, I want to know what the realities are," he said, "I want to examine the relationships and know what the terms are and understand what's the impacts of that might or might not be."

"It may not be something you want to deal with publicly, but we have to be absolutely certain that nothing we are trying to do is being compromised," said Kerry.

The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee have been notably mum on the subject, presumably working behind the scenes.

Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, refused to comment and a spokesperson for ranking Republican Kit Bond, R-MO, said that Bond would only say the news shouldn't result in any delay in President Obama's decision on how to move forward in Afghanistan.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, the immediate past chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said that he was not aware of the CIA's relationship with Karzai during his tenure but should have been.

"You know what the problem is? We on the committee own no intelligence," he said, "We only get what they choose to give us. That's why we are always fighting."

As Barack Obama met with his principals to review their Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy Monday for the sixth time, administration sources told The Cable that the White House hopes to announce a decision on whether to send more troops before the president departs for Asia on Nov. 11 - Veterans' Day -- but cautioned that the date is by no means set in stone.

As for whether Sen. John Kerry is taking over Afghanistan policy, according to the White House, he's just helping out. After months of the administration delivering tough messages to Kabul through envoys such as Richard Holbrooke and Joe Biden, a fresh voice isn't such a bad thing, the narrative goes.

"It's a good cop, bad cop routine," one administration official said, acknowledging the strained personal relationships some other Obama officials have with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai following the marred presidential elections from August and the subsequent dispute over how to deal with the massive vote fraud there.

Regardless, after personally mediating a constructive way forward by working personally with Karzai last week, Kerry's views on Afghanistan, which haven't always been in line with the administration's, are now getting much more attention.

For example, he said upon returning that no announcement on troop decisions should come before the Nov. 7 runoff elections in Afghanistan.

And today at the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry got out ahead of the administration's ongoing strategy review, arguing clearly for a limited counterinsurgency strategy focusing on population centers and resourced below the levels that Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is calling for.

"We cannot and we should not undertake a manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operation on a national scale in Afghanistan," said Kerry, D-MA, sounding a lot like his Senate cohort Carl Levin, D-MI, who has also advocated for a strategy centered around building up Afghan forces, not adding U.S. combat soldiers.

"I am convinced, from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal ... he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area," Kerry went on, "But I believe his current plan reaches too far too fast."

Kerry said that the key questions were whether or not there was a credible Afghan force to partner with, whether local leaders who were on board, and whether the U.S. would follow a troop increase with increased development assistance.

Overall, his speech very much expressed an interest in narrowing the goals in Afghanistan and separating "hardcore" Taliban from those that could be convinced to lay down arms.

"Absent any truly good choices, we have to ask ourselves the question, what is doable, what is possible, and not set some impossible, far out of reach, or hole-digging strategy," Kerry went on, eschewing the idea of defeating all the Taliban or building a "flawless democracy."

Mark Wilson/Getty Images