Head Scratching Posted by Patrick Barry

Some of these Congressman have got me scratching my head.  Take Congressman McCaul.  After rambling for a minute or so, he finally gets to his main point, and of course, its about time lines.  In McCaul's view, one of the lessons of Iraq was that refusing to commit to time lines instills confidence in the U.S.' indigenous partners.  But weren't the Awakenings motivated to turn against the insurgency because they realized that the U.S. would leave eventually??  Hasn't Secretary Gates repeatedly warned that the instant Afghans view us as occupiers, we're lost? My brain hurts.

Gates Smackdown Posted by Patrick Barry

Sec. Gates treats Rep. Mack's assertion - that the president's strategy emboldens the Taliban, leaving them time to 'lay-low' and 'plan' - with what it deserves: total derision. 

Gates: 'As if they need any more emboldening'

something for everyone? Posted by James Lamond

Sec. Clinton was just asked (it was really more of a statement) about the strategy being seomthing for everyone. To paraphrase:  for those who want to get out there is the time table for those who want to stay there is the surge. However, that does not seem to be the response from the different groups.  The hawks seem to befocussing on criticizing the timetable.  While the focus of the war skeptics seems not to be on the time table and the planned transfer but rather critical of the troop increase.

What Royce Reveals about Pakistan's Interests Posted by Patrick Barry

Congressman Royce wonders whether the Pakistani intelligence service is making presumptions about its support for militant groups in Afghanistan that are in fact not in its interests.  Sec. Clinton agrees, but points out that she has witnessed a remarkable shift in Pakistan's security calculus, evidenced by their offensives in Swat and South Waziristan against the Pakistani Taliban and the TNSM.  I'm slightly amused by this, because it seems like that shift in calculus coincided exactly with the period in which those militant groups began targeting Pakistani institutions with much more ferocity.  So from that perspective, Pakistan has been perfectly consistent in the way it calculates its interests!  When it feels threatened, it responds.  When it isn't threatened, it sits back.  As long as the Afghan Taliban doesn't threaten the Pakistani state (and there's no clear indication that it does, or will), why should the Pakistanis take strong action against them?

I will join Pat for a little bit of live commentary on the hearings Posted by James Lamond

Robert Wexler is asking about Sen. McCain's comments on time tables.  Secretary Gates's response is , in part, that the Bush administraion accepted firm timelines for Iraq and that Obama is accepting a time frame for the begining of a process.

The main response from conservatives -even those who general support the overall strategy -has been to criticize the idea of a time table or time frame, saying that it will embolden al Qaeda.  But as Matt Duss pointed out last year at the Wonk Room, what al Qaeda actually wants is the limitless military adventures into central Asia that John McCain, Jon Kyl, and Saxby Chambliss advocate for.

Bring the Payne Posted by Patrick Barry

Congressman Payne nails it: Whatever you think about the war, its clear that the Bushies and their cronies don't have a leg to stand on. 

Strain on the Military Posted by Patrick Barry

Delegate Faleomavaega presses Sec. Gates and Admiral Mullen on how the President's strategy for Afghanistan will impact an already strained military. 

Gates and Mullen respond by saying that the recent growth and planned growth in the size of the military will help reduce that burden.  However, Jon Soltz over at VoteVets is not so sure.

Back to Mullen for a Moment Posted by Patrick Barry

In his opening remarks, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen said something I want to return to for a moment.  He once again reiterated that addressing the issue of governance is fundamental to a successful mission in Afghanistan.

Progressives have been emphasizing governance for months, and it's clear that Mullen understands its importance.  But what if the governance piece can't be addressed? If 6 months from now, the Karzai government is just as kleptocratic as it is today, if efforts to strengthen linkages between Kabul and provincial and district level power sources doesn't pan out, the by Mullen's logic, the mission will have been compromised, probably irrevocably. What happens next will say a lot about the administration's willingness to hold itself accountable.

Gates on Pakistan's Strategic Calculations Posted by Patrick Barry

Sec. Gates takes a question on Pakistan's support for militant groups operating along its borders with Afghanistan.  According to Gates, Pakistan has historically lent a hand to such groups, in part because of the lack of U.S. commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan. 

That answer doesn't address what in my view is the larger part of Pakistan's equation - maintaining strategic depth visive India.

And we're off Posted by Patrick Barry

The House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Afghanistan has moved to questions.  Sec. Clinton responds to Chairman Berman's question on budget for the civilian surge, saying there is not yet a precise cost of that influx of civilian resources.