Kai Eide, the recently ousted head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, paid a visit to the State Department Thursday morning.

Eide's contract wasn't renewed following a very public fracas with his second in command, Peter Galbraith, over how to handle the widespread fraud in the recent reelection of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Galbraith accused Eide of having him fired for speaking out about the fraud. Eide himself may also been cashiered for being seen as too close to Karzai.

Apparently a little bitter, in his parting words to the U.N. in New York Wednesday, Eide took a broad swipe at the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan, warning of a military-focused strategy and urging international forces in Afghanistan not to expand the surge into new civilian areas.

Via the fine UN Dispatch blog, Eide said:

The military surge must not be allowed to undermine equally important civilian objectives and the development of such a politically driven strategy. It must not lead to an accelerated pressure for quick results in governance and economic development efforts, which could divert resources from a long-term approach to civilian institution building and economic growth. Furthermore, it must not lead the military to expand their engagement into key civilian areas, such as those I just mentioned. That could result in a situation where the international community becomes more entrenched rather than a situation where the Afghans are more empowered.

So what was Eide's message when he met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Representative for Af-Pak Richard Holbrooke this morning in Foggy Bottom? Apparently it was about peeling off some of the Taliban through some sort of political engagement.

"There isn't any question that our policy has to include an opportunity for those people fighting with the Taliban to rejoin the political process," Holbrooke told an audience at the Brookings Institution Thursday. "I would estimate that 60 to 70 or more percent of those people fighting with the Taliban are not ideologically supportive of al Qaeda at all and are not necessarily supportive of the Taliban supreme leadership."

Clinton acknowledged the need to start separating the die-hard Taliban from the hangers-on in her July speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, but no real engagement is happening, at least that we know of. Holbrooke said the idea existed on paper but never got any real traction.

The closest thing publicly announced was a conference in Tokyo set up by Japanese parliamentarians last November, in which Afghan government representatives discussed Taliban engagement with a range of international representatives.

Also at Brookings, Holbrooke denied, again, that he is somehow secretly working on the Kashmir issue or dealing with India policy in any way, as is rumored around Washington.

"I am not negotiating issues between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not my job nor would it be productive if I were to undertake it."

There's a lot more to the story of congressional angst over the performance of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) than was told in today's article by the Associated Press.

The AP story mentions a letter from Sens. Tom Coburn, R-OK, Susan Collins, R-ME, and Claire McCaskill, D-MO, sharply criticizing the SIGAR office for failing to recruit competent staff, focusing on the wrong issues (like female participation in the Afghan elections), and an overall lack of auditing and investigative reports since the office was established over a year ago.

But the letter is only the latest in a long series of congressional criticisms of the office. SIGAR was established in 2008 to oversee some $39 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds that have been appropriated for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. To date, the office has received $23 million for its work.

McCaskill and others have been critical of SIGAR all year, and not just based on the three items found in Tuesday's letter. This October memo being circulated by Hill staffers, and obtained by The Cable, gets at a more fundamental concern: that the quality and content of SIGAR's audits and reports are seen in Congress as shoddy and substandard.

For example, SIGAR's first audit on the Defense Department's Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A), which oversees the development of the Afghan security forces, is only four pages long and makes no mention of whether the $400 million spent on a training contract there was well used.

"It appears to have been written in such a way that SIGAR could say they had at least one audit complete before they were in existence for a year," the congressional memo states.

SIGAR's second audit is only two pages long, not counting appendices and the title page and table of contents, and devoid of any real breakthroughs as well, according to the memo. The criticisms go on and on.

When writing about the Afghanistan presidential elections in SIGAR's sixth audit, SIGAR said that the U.S. should "continue to build the [Independent Election] Commission's capabilities so that democratic principles and the electoral processes are sustained," barely mentioning the widespread fraud in that election and also failing to comment on what happened to the some $500 million of U.S. funds committed to that effort.

In an audit about the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is a pool of money given to military commanders to address short-term needs with little oversight, auditors "did not visit any CERP sites nor did they cite any examples of wasted taxpayer dollars or funding that could have been better utilized," according to the memo.

SIGAR's assistant inspector general in charge of audits, John Brummet, defended the organization's work in an interview Wednesday with The Cable.

For example, regarding CSTC-A, Brummet said that his office's audit "was high-value work and we were able to get some significant changes in the contract oversight performed by CSTC-A." As for why SIGAR didn't examine the contractor directly, Brummet said he simply didn't have enough auditors to do the job, a problem that both SIGAR and Congress have been working on.

Regarding the Afghanistan elections, Brummet said SIGAR is conducting public-opinion polls in Afghanistan to gauge how much fraud was present in the elections. He again pointed to the lack of personnel needed to do more investigative work.

Overall, Brummet acknowledged that SIGAR's audits and investigations has resulted in zero returned taxpayer dollars, and that zero contractors have been disbarred as a result of SIGAR's audits and investigations.

"Our critics want us to spend more time focused on the performance of contractors and that's what we're trying to do right now, to expand that work," he said.

Brummet also commented on some of the numerous stories circulating about SIGAR's interactions with both the State and Defense Departments. For example, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul won't give SIGAR enough housing space for its employees there, packing four to six employees into a single shipping container-sized unit in some cases.

"Having people that have distinguished professional careers and asking them to go share a hooch with five other people is tough," he said.

He also responded to the concern that SIGAR is too close to the Pentagon, specifically Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn. Lynn is said to be the administration's point man on engaging Congress regarding concerns about SIGAR, and Brummet confirmed that Lynn has written a response to Congress regarding another letter senators sent to SIGAR. He couldn't explain why Lynn and the Pentagon were charged to write on behalf of SIGAR, which Hill sources expressed concerns about considering that SIGAR is supposed to be overseeing the work of the Defense Department.

The SIGAR website also is hosted by the military.

Lastly, Brummet confirmed that SIGAR's chief, Special Inspector General Arnold Fields, was scheduled to travel to Kabul to attend the inauguration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai but then cancelled his trip after discussions with the State Department.

The posture of McCaskill's office in the SIGAR scandal is curious as well. After coming to Congress and joining the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2006 pledging to be an outspoken champion of oversight and reform, McCaskill has been relatively quiet this year, perhaps so as not to openly criticize the administration of the president whose campaign she cochaired.

There will be a hearing on SIGAR's oversight work on Dec. 17, but that's nine months after McCaskill wrote her first letter, which said that 2009 would "be a critical year for the fledgling democracy in Afghanistan."

UPDATE: A SIGAR spokesperson called into The Cable to add some more information to the story. The problem of bad living conditions in Kabul is widespread and doesn't represent a specific embassy action against SIGAR, the spokesman said. Also, the spokesman relayed that the lack of auditors that hampered SIGAR's investigative abilities early on has now been largely corrected.

UPDATE2: Adrianne Marsh, the communications director for McCaskill, called in to vigorously dispute the characterization that the senator has been "relatively quiet this year" in chairing the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight. "This is a commitment and it doesn't matter who the president is," she said, pointing to numerous press statements the subcommittee had issued in 2009.

EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

In his landmark strategy speech Tuesday, President Obama stressed the importance of Pakistan to the success of the fight against terrorism and extremism in South Asia, but he didn't offer many details. One reason could be that there are no new concrete deliverables or changes in approach related to Pakistan to announce, and all of the ideas Obama has for advancing the relationship are waiting for Pakistani buy-in.

Conventional wisdom in Washington is that that Obama didn't want to trigger Pakistani sensitivities by talking too much about the U.S. military operations there. In reality, the substance of any new items of cooperation Obama is proposing to Pakistan are a long way from being finalized.

At West Point, Obama talked about the need to help Pakistan economically, build Pakistani civic institutions, and even work on some sort of rapprochement between Pakistan and India, all while pressing Pakistani leaders to do more to confront extremists in their midst.

"Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust," Obama said. "We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear."

But everything Obama said regarding Pakistan was already administration policy, so what's new as of Tuesday's announcement? Nothing yet.

"Beyond what the president said in his speech in terms of a roadmap for building U.S.-Pakistan relations, I do not believe there is anything else [planned or agreed at this point]," a State Department official involved in the issue said in an interview with The Cable.

Last week, The Washington Post reported that Obama sent Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari a letter, delivered by National Security Advisor James L. Jones, offering Pakistan a new strategic relationship with the U.S. in exchange for really tackling the extremist problem once and for all, in what some insiders are calling a "grand bargain."

But the State Department official downplayed the significance of the letter (which he had not personally seen), describing the administration's outreach to Pakistan as a "methodic, long run policy."

"We're not pivoting this relationship on any big transaction," the State Department official said. "I do not believe the new Pakistan strategy is based on suddenly introducing a big offer on the table to get the Pakistanis to carry out a specific act. It's trying to really build a long-term partnership that hasn't existed in a long time."

Then on Wednesday, the New York Times came out with a story about how Obama had secretly authorized a significant expansion of U.S. military and intelligence operations inside Pakistan, including expanded drone strikes targeting Afghan Taliban in addition to those insurgents attacking the Pakistani government.

But even the Times piece acknowledged, regarding Obama's Pakistan expansion, that "the Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr. Obama's intentions and his staying power, have not yet agreed."

Pakistani sources told The Cable that Zardari has not responded to Obama's letter and while the Zadari government was generally open to greater cooperation, negotiations could take months.

That didn't stop Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from testifying today to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "We will significantly expand support intended for Pakistan to develop the potential of their people." Of course, that's true based on the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan aid bill, which passed in September, and other initiatives, but that's not new.

Committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, honed in on the gaps in the administration's announced strategy.

"It is not clear how any expanded military effort in Afghanistan addresses the problem of Taliban and al Qaeda safe havens across the border in Pakistan," he said. "If these safe havens persist, any strategy in Afghanistan will be substantially incomplete."

Underlying the dynamic is the open question of whether the Pakistani military, which has been getting attacked ruthlessly and repeatedly by extremists lately, has either the capacity or the will to expand its fight to militants who are only interested in creating havoc on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

"[The Pakistani military] feels that they're stretched; they feel that they need to maintain [their ties to the Afghan Taliban] due to potential hostilities with India and uncertainty about the long-term American presence," said J Alexander Thier, director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the United States Institute of Peace.

He said getting Pakistan's government to give up supporting the Afghan Taliban, "out of all of this stuff, is the hardest sell."

Shuja Nawaz, director for South Asia at the Atlantic Council, said that until the Pakistanis respond to Obama's overtures, there is no "grand bargain."

"Basically I think it's a reaffirmation of the commitment to Pakistan," he said, "which is probably all the president can do in letter form."

Several lawmakers from both sides of the aisle told President Obama directly Tuesday afternoon they are concerned about his July 2011 time frame for beginning the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, according to Sen. Kit Bond.

Bond briefed The Cable exclusively upon exiting Tuesday afternoon's meeting between several senior lawmakers and the president ahead of tonight's strategy announcement. Obama called on the legislators to support his new strategy both rhetorically and financially, Bond said, but lawmakers pushed back on Obama's plan to announce that he intends to begin handing off security responsibility to the Afghan government in only 18 months' time.

"I was concerned about beginning the exit in July 2011 because we need a success strategy and not an exit strategy," Bond said, adding that "several others from both sides raised that as well."

Among the other senior senators Bond identified as speaking about their concerns over the withdrawal timeline were Senate Armed Services Committee ranking Republican John McCain, R-AZ and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. Bond is the top Republican on the intel panel.

Obama acknowledged the senators' concerns but explained the time-frame decision as reflecting the administration's desire to "make sure that [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai knew he had to get the security forces built up quickly," according to Bond.

The president also reiterated that the pace and endpoint for the drawdown would be determined by the conditions on the ground, to which Bond said senators asked Obama whether he or the commanders on the ground would make that call. Obama indicated such details were still tentative, according to Bond.

Regardless, Obama asked the lawmakers to get behind the new strategy despite their reservations and "said he expected support from everybody," Bond said. Obama's argument was that the United States spends so much for national security that there was no good reason to short-change this important effort now.

The meeting lasted for about an hour and some but not all of the lawmakers present had opportunities to speak for a couple minutes only. Shortly after, Obama boarded Air Force One on the way to West Point, where he will announce his new strategy to the world at 8 p.m. tonight.

President Obama will not announce a three-year time frame for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, despite a CNN report to the contrary.

"That's wrong. The time frame of three years is nowhere in the speech," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told The Cable. He added that spokesman Robert Gibbs's statement on this issue earlier Tuesday was accurate but did not elaborate.

Gibbs told CNN's John King this morning that "the president will discuss tonight the time frame in which he believes we can transition our forces out of Afghanistan."

CNN then reported that time frame will be three years, according to multiple administration officials.

This sparked a firestorm of reaction on Capitol Hill, with hawks and dovs alike reacting to the idea.

"I hope it's not true," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, who added that he supported Obama expected announcement of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan as "enough."

"I hope it's not an explicit deadline to get our troops out because that undermines the mission, but some mention of a time line or a goal is OK," Lieberman said.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI, said that he was "very happy" about the idea of "having a timeline or some sense that this is not open-ended."

He is simultaneously opposed to the basic idea of increasing troops there in the first place.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he expected Obama to announce "milestones" but not a hard timeline. 

Senior administration officials are set to brief reporters on the Afghanistan strategy momentarily.

As the White House briefs interested parties in anticipation of Tuesday's Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy rollout, more and more details of the new strategy and President Obama's announcement are leaking out.

One high-level diplomatic source familiar with the details of new strategy confirmed to The Cable that Obama will announce the addition of 30,000 new U.S. soldiers and marines for Afghanistan and up to 6,000 more troops from international partners

The elements of the new strategy and the general outlines of the troop requests were being briefed to various interested parties both inside and outside the U.S. government as early as Friday. 

In his speech Tuesday at the West Point military academy, Obama will outline a mix of a new counterinsurgency-heavy approach for Afghanistan and a new counterterrorism-heavy approach toward Pakistan. The strategy will seek to retake space now controlled by the Taliban and engage more with the local population, while speeding the buildup of the Afghan National Security Forces.

The strategy will specify the premier goal of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as dismantling al Qaeda's international capabilities, but the administration will not include any hard timelines for when success might be achieved or when U.S. troops might withdraw.

"We're not going to be in Afghanistan forever, but we will stay long enough to do the job," is how the source described the president's message. The new strategy will include new military, political, and intelligence-focused elements. While benchmarks will be included generally in the new strategy, the specifics of those benchmarks will remain largely private in the near term.

On the political front, the source said that Obama has decided to put increased pressure on the Afghan government to address issues of corruption and mismanagement by promising to hold Afghan President Hamid Karzai to new and higher standards of governance and the delivery of services, the source said.

The president is also expected to mention a new international conference on Afghanistan to be held in London on Jan. 28, with either Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to attend. (The conference was announced by British Prime Minister Gordon Brow this weekend.)

"The Conference will be an opportunity for the international community and the Afghan government to discuss security transition, governance, economic development, reintegration and reconciliation, and civilian leadership issues, including the endorsement of a civilian counterpart to the Commander of ISAF," National Security Council spokesman Michael Hammer said in a statement e-mailed to several reporters. "The conference is evidence of the sustained international commitment to Afghanistan and will build on the work that we expect the Foreign Ministers of ISAF countries to do together on 4 December at NATO in Brussels."

The number of 30,000 new U.S. troops represents four full combat brigades and an unspecified number of trainers for the Afghan Security Forces. This is less than the 40,000 identified as a medium risk option by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, earlier this year.

"Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely," McChrystal wrote in a classified assessment that was leaked to the Washington Post. "The key takeaway form this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change in our strategy and the way we think and operate."

The final troop decision is seen as a victory for Gates and National Security Advisor James L. Jones, who advocated a troop increase smaller than that sought by the uniformed military but larger than the idea pushed by others in the administration such as Vice President Joseph Biden.

On the Pakistani side, the U.S. and the Pakistani government have worked out a deal that would commit Washington to additional military aid, economic assistance, and intelligence cooperation as part of an expanded effort to combat extremists elements residing in Pakistan, according to the source.

 

What's not settled is exactly what the Pakistanis would have to do in return for the added support. The two sides are in negotiations over what the source called a "grand bargain" that would involve Obama administration support for any of a number of Pakistani asks in exchange for the Pakistani government actually going after all extremist groups in Pakistan -- including those focused on creating havoc in Afghanistan.

The outlines of this offer were communicated in a letter from Obama to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari in a letter delivered personally by Jones. Zardari has yet to formally respond, according to the source.

"Obama is saying to the Pakistanis, if you commit 100 percent we will commit 100 percent," the source explained, adding that the details of exactly what will go on between the Obama administration and the Pakistani government will take weeks or more to iron out.

For that reason and because the White House is extremely aware of Pakistani sensitivities in the wake of the botched rollout of the Kerry-Lugar Pakistani aid bill, Obama is likely to "soft pedal" the Pakistani side of the new strategy during the new strategy announcement, the source said.

Also, the administration is expected to drop the use of the abbreviated term "Af-Pak," which angered many in both countries, while still maintaining the linkage of the U.S. approach to both nations as part of one comprehensive issue.

Top administration officials are already scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill beginning Wednesday.

The White House declined to comment on the details of the strategy as outlined by the diplomatic source.

When Peter Galbraith testified on Capitol Hill Monday, the former U.S. ambassador and U.N. envoy answered questions on the credibility of Hamid Karzai, the elections in Afghanistan, the U.S. mission there, troop levels, and a host of other issues.

What lawmakers failed to bring up were the allegations that Galbraith, an advisor to Kurdish Regional Government in the aftermath of the invasion, abused his position to advocate for policies that would benefit companies in which he had a huge financial interest.

Perhaps the cozy atmosphere was to be expected, for the globe-trotting diplomat was returning to friendly territory: Galbraith is a consummate Capitol Hill veteran and insider. He was a professional staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1979 to 1993.

Galbraith reportedly stands to make upwards of $100 million from stakes in Kurdish oil fields he secured while he was an advisor to the Kurdish regional government. Galbraith has admitted he helped secure contracts for the Norwegian company DNO at the same time he was advising the Kurds on the formation of the Iraqi constitution, which granted significant control of new oil fields to the Kurdish government.

When one of those fields, named Tawke, struck riches in 2005, Galbraith's stake became hugely valuable. His push for more Kurdish autonomy had contributed to a massive personal financial windfall. During the same time period, Galbraith was also an advisor senior U.S. lawmakers such as then-Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who also advocated for increased federalism and regional autonomy in Iraq.

"What is true is that I undertook business activities that were entirely consistent with my long-held policy views," Galbraith told The New York Times. "I believe my work with DNO (and other companies) helped create the Kurdistan oil industry which helps provide Kurdistan an economic base for the autonomy its people almost unanimously desire."

"So, while I may have had interests, I see no conflict."

But none of that came up in Galbraith's testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, chaired by John Tierney, D-MA. That subcommittee has a reputation for taking on thorny oversight issues the House Armed Services Committee shies away from, and Tierney is not known to pull his punches.

But Tierney stuck to the hearing's title, which focused on the Afghan elections, and Galbraith wasted no time in repeating his harsh criticisms of Karzai, the Afghan government, the U.N. mission in Kabul, and his former boss at the U.N. mission, Kai Eide.

Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon fired Galbraith from his post as the number two U.N. official in Afghanistan after he had a falling out with Eide, formerly a close personal friend, over the U.N.'s role in the disputed August presidential election.

The blame for the current situation in Afghanistan falls to both Karzai and Eide, Galbraith explained. He warned against sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as Obama is expected to announce next week.

"It's clear that a fraud-tainted Karzai government, considered illegitimate by a large part of the country, cannot fulfill the role of a reliable partner. And thus, we're in the situation that although the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in 2009, as it has every year since 2004, in my view sending additional troops is no answer," Galbraith testified. "Without a credible Afghan partner, they cannot accomplish their mission and sending them is, therefore, a poor use of a valuable resource."

Galbraith also called Eide "a terrible manager" and said that Western staff is now fleeing the office of the U.N. mission in Kabul after being demoralized by the U.N.'s lack of action related to monitoring and dealing with the election fraud.

"Kai Eide, the head of the mission, knew [the Independent Electoral Commission] wasn't independent; nonetheless, he chose not to act and as a result, more than 200 million of American taxpayer dollars were wasted, and of course, it has cost lives because the military mission has become much more complicated," Galbraith said.

 

UPDATE: Galbraith disputed the reporting in the New York Times article in a letter to the editors of Vermont's Rutland Herald, which in part reads:

At the time the Iraqi Constitution was negotiated in 2005, I was a private citizen with no connection whatsoever with the U.S. government. In short, I was in no position to push through anything. At the request of Kurdistan's leaders, I did offer them advice on how to negotiate best to achieve their goals. But I never participated in any negotiations and was never in the room when they took place.

The Kurds put forward their proposals for the Iraqi Constitution on Feb. 11, 2004, proposals that included Kurdistan control over oil on its own territory. At that time, I had no relationship with DNO, and DNO had no involvement in Iraq. When Kurdistan's leaders asked for my advice 18 months later (which I provided informally and on an unpaid basis), they knew I was being paid by DNO. They saw no conflict of interest for obvious reason that Kurdistan's goal of controlling its own oil was completely congruent with the economic interests of companies that the Kurds brought into the region.

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.

 

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

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.

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

Washington has been abuzz with stories speculating about the role of special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, the gregarious U.S. diplomat who has been somewhat absent from public appearances recently.

Salacious headlines such as "Holbrooke missing from Afghan talks" and "Where's Dick?" have led off articles citing unnamed sources to speculate that the White House had sought to diminish Holbrooke's usually public persona, especially since the last-minute diplomacy to convince Afghan President Hamid Karzai to allow an election runoff was led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

But in an exclusive interview with The Cable, Holbrooke refuted the reports of his marginalization with a mix of indignation and bewilderment. He's been intimately involved in all the goings-on related to the situation in Afghanistan and his lack of media appearances is due to his hectic and relentless work as part of the administration's ongoing review of the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, he said.

"I didn't know I was missing in action because I was kind of busy all day," said Holbrooke, denying that the White House had given him any instructions to lay low or stay out of the public eye, as has been alleged.

Holbrooke and his staff have been working late hours every day to feed information to the endless string of White House meetings on Afghanistan. He broke away Wednesday evening to attend a reception at the New America Foundation to celebrate the publication of the latest book by his wife, Kati Marton.

He said he "has no interest" in the press stories discussing his lack of face time with the media, but took exception to one editorial in the New York Times, which wondered aloud about his status.

Holbrooke's absence from Afghanistan during what many see as a crucial time in Afghan politics also spurred rumors and speculation that Holbrooke was not welcome there because of a reported feud with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a feud that Holbrooke has clearly denied.

"The truth is that I go Afghanistan every two months and I was there less than two months ago. When I came back, I knew we were plunging into the biggest imaginable policy debate," Holbrooke said. "So [Secretary of State] Hillary [Clinton] and I mutually felt that my place at this time was to stay here."

Holbrooke said he will travel to Afghanistan and India next month, on the tail end of Clinton's trip to Pakistan, but the exact dates haven't been worked out yet.

"That was always the plan," he said.

His concern is that he isn't sure about the timing of President Obama's decision to rollout the new Af-Pak strategy and he didn't want to be abroad when the announcement is made.

"This is the most intense policy review before a big decision that I've ever been involved in," said Holbrooke. "He's really thinking it through."

There will be a principals meeting on Af-Pak in the White House Thursday and a National Security Council meeting led by Obama within the next few days.

Holbrooke said he had 25 conversations with Kerry throughout the recent election negotiations, including two on Wednesday (although he did not attend Kerry's latest meeting with Obama). Kerry's preplanned presence in the region to deal with the fallout of his Pakistan aid bill was fortuitous, Holbrooke explained, and he fully supported Kerry's representation of the U.S. government in the region this week.

"We encouraged John to get in on this," he said, "I have never seen a better interaction between a member of Congress and an executive branch on a major issue and the stakes yesterday were extraordinarily high."

He rejected the notion that Kerry was supplanting his role as the face of American policy in Afghanistan.

"Only a troublemaking journalist would think of something like that," Holbrooke joked.

ASIF HASSAN/AFP/Getty Images

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.”

In which we scour the transcript of the State Department's daily presser so you don't have to. Here are the highlights of today and yesterday's briefings by spokesman Ian Kelly:

• The Afghanistan Electoral Complain Commission has begun sorting through the complaints of election fraud, which will go on for an undetermined time, after which the Independent Elections Commission will weigh in and, well, you get the picture (Don't hold your breath). "It's important that we allow the ECC and IEC the time they need to eliminate the fraud that they have discovered," said Kelly, "The publication of those final and certified results will tell us whether there's a need for a second round."
• The Taliban are not a domestic indigenous group that can be tolerated, somehow less dangerous than al-Qaeda, Kelly said, adding they do pose a treat to the United States and its allies. "I think what we're fighting there is this whole idea of destruction and mass murder in the name of religious extremism. And I would put them all in the same category. They're using the same tactics."
• Kelly rejected the idea that the State Department failed to do the spade work to make sure the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan aid package would be well received in Pakistan, after severe criticism emerged from Islamabad. "I think what we're seeing is a debate and a diversity of opinion in the Pakistani parliament. We welcome this kind of debate," he said.
• Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was in Israel today and met with President Shimon Peres and with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Tomorrow he will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
• The U.N. Goldstone Report is "not on the agenda" of the now moved-up October 14 Security Council meeting, but "we have to assume" that Libya is going to bring it up, Kelly said. "it would be impossible to prevent it from being raised, impossible, because any member can raise whatever subject they want," he added..
• Undersecretary of State William Burns met today in Washington with Prince Nayef, Saudi undersecretary of the Ministry of Interior, who's in charge of combating terrorism.
• The second Russian city that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit next week is... Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan!