Flournoy Speaks, Everyone Listens Posted by Patrick Barry

Yesterday I caught Michele Flournoy, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, at CSIS, where she spoke about the Obama administration's Afghanistan & Pakistan.  There's a lot to go over, and I'm not going to wade into all of it at once, but here are some preliminary observations for those who didn't get a chance to go.

These Ain't Your Daddy's Benchmarks:
Flournoy touched on the infamous benchmarks, a topic widely discussed since the Administration unveiled its strategy review.  If Flournoy's comments were any indication, the Obama team still seems to be grappling with how to balance legitimate concerns over accountability and oversight with a framework that leaves them space to adjust to evolving circumstances in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  There were a few references to the 'lessons' learned from the last administration, whose experience with benchmarks in Iraq proved to be incendiary from a domestic political standpoint.  Flournoy's suggestion - that the Administration hopes to defuse a portion of controversy by exchanging the term 'benchmarks' for the less toxic "measures of progress" - drew some chuckles from the audience, but it was clear from her talk that she doesn't expect this issue to go away anytime soon.  Finally, according to Flournoy, the administration seems poised to deliver some kind of preliminary findings on the "measures for progress" to Congress in the next week or so.  How congress responds will say a lot about how politically salient this issue will be.

Reconcile This:
How the Obama administration plans to reconcile with the accidental Taliban has been another point of speculation. Some have suggested that reconciling with the Taliban is infeasible so long as the security situation remains in their favor.  Others, including yours truly, have wondered how reconciliation can be effective if it does not target the insurgency's leaders, ruthless as they may be, since these figures command huge followings.  Flournoy's presentation offered some clarification about the Obama team's plans in this area.  She appeared to embrace the former view, saying that while the administration is prepared to ween off the insurgents of necessity, reconciliation must come after an effort to reverse Afghanistan's slide into insecurity. But, as one audience member noted, attempts at reconciliation are happening (here, here, here) whether the Obama administration approves or not, so it seems like there's a bit of a disconnect here. 

Whither Pakistan
There was surprisingly little said about Pakistan.  Flournoy ran through the typical line-up of arguments for why it's a concern - terrorism, nuclear melt-down, threat is not just external but internal, not just regional but global, etc - but didn't really delve into the more difficult set of complexities.  No mention was made of the longstanding difficulties posed by Pakistan's ISI, and at first, Flournoy made only oblique references to Pakistan's volatile relationship with India.  I can understand why you would want to proceed delicately in this instance, but communicating a strategy without addressing big chunks of the problem seems insufficient. Of all the balancing acts facing the administration, communicating US expectations to Pakistan's leadership, in a manner that is both sensitive and forceful, will likely be among the most challenging. 

Comments

[rawdawgbuffalo]

all i know is that the taliban is just An Hour Away from the capitol of Pakastan, and Obama need to step his game up

http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2009/04/hour-away.html

[Zathras]

I'm not sure that contacts made by the Afghan government with Haqqani's gang can seriously be called "attempts at reconciliation." More likely they were efforts to avoid armed conflicts over heroin export channels.

I understand why a Defense Department official would feel constrained not to use plain language on the subject of ISI/Taliban collusion. It would violate the rules of the US-Pakistan relationship -- the Americans know the ISI and much of the Pakistani military is preoccupied with India and infested with Islamists, and for both reasons provides money, weapons, training and sanctuary to the Taliban, but it's considered unforgivably rude in Pakistan to mention this. Holbrooke apparently did, and the Pakistanis are besides themselves with indignation.

There ought to be a way for the Obama administration to distribute official views unofficially, through a former Cabinet Secretary in a Democratic administration, for example, or even through a prominent Senator. Beyond a certain point, there isn't much we can do about officials of a major foreign government telling us brazen, infamous lies about their relationship to terrorist groups, even groups that regularly kill large numbers of their own citizens. There is a certain indignity, however, in having to pretend that we don't know we are being told brazen, infamous lies.

[Don Bacon]

I wonder if the Russians had benchmarks.

[Don Bacon]

Flournoy Speaks, Everyone Listens

news report:
The Obama administration will look increasingly to nongovernmental groups, think tanks and coalition partners in its strategy for countering terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Michèle Flournoy, U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies April 21.

"We are going to look for broad and deep contributions not only across the U.S. government, but also from other sectors, from NGOs, from think tanks, from the private sector and also from allies and our international partners abroad," Flournoy told a packed room at the think tank in Washington. "We can't do this alone. This is an effort that is going to be important for all of us to be engaged in."//end report

What Ms. Flournoy didn't say: "And primarily we will be listening to Afghans regarding what they think is best for their own country."

[Peace]

There is no possible way that the United States can create stable governments in Afghanisitan and Pakistan through military force. As long the Americans stay in Afghanistan it strenghthens the hands of the Muslim extremists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. One can only look at how the war in Afghansitan has led to political chaos in Pakistan. US policymakers need to realize that military action has only made the problems worse and we need to look at terrorism as more of a criminal justice issue and not as a dire threat towards the United States.

[Don Bacon]

Admiral Mullen, on the Today show, said that:
* 21,000 more troops are vital to clear and hold Afghanistan
* We can't expect any victory for two years, but we will a clearer picture by then
http://www.hulu.com/watch/69163

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

Let's build on success. The US cleared a lot of Taliban out of Afghanistan, and they're now in Pakistan! Who knew.

recent headline: Taliban advance eastward, threaten Islamabad

Maybe that's why "There was surprisingly little said about Pakistan." by Ms. Flournoy.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!