Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta confided to reporters while on the way to a NATO conference that the U.S. would end its combat role in Afghanistan a year earlier than expected, and will soon begin to shift responsibility increasingly to CIA and DOD Special Operations Forces rather than large, conventional ground forces. The announcement surprised—and alarmed—the Afghan government and key American allies. The White House has spent a lot of energy trying to walk this comment back, and have expressed irritation that this major revision of policy should have emanated from the White House.

The plan would represent a major shift in operational strategy, resulting in the removal of the 32,000 “surge” forces sent in to reinforce our struggling counter-insurgency/nation-building (COIN) effort. The new focus will rely more on SOF/paramilitary units to counter residual terrorist threats, elite commando teams that will target insurgent commanders and terrorist leaders. U.S. forces will continue to train Afghan military and police units, on whom more of the day by day burden of fighting the war will fall.

The Washington Post reports that Panetta’s remarks also “poured fuel” on an ongoing debate within the administration over the right mix of negotiating with the Taliban and killing them. Some officials feel that the revelation weakens the NATO/US hand before more talks with Taliban representatives in Qatar later this month.

The United States now has about 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, with about 22,000 slated to come home by fall. Previously the administration had said that 2014 would see the end of U.S. combat operations, and now that timetable appears to have been moved up at least a year.

The revised strategy would appear to represent a reversal of President Obama’s description of the Afghan conflict as the war that needed to be fought (as opposed to Iraq) and the surge of troop strength he committed just last year to the war. Political and military realities have now superseded any previous assessments, as the American public wearies of the war in an election year and the Afghan partnership is fraying. Civilian and military leaders alike are disappointed by the continued incompetence and corruption of the Karzai government, the abysmal performance by police units, and the tenacity of the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

While the war has always been unpopular with Obama’s base, the conflict is enduring a lessening of support from Republicans and Independents as well. All are tiring of the seemingly endless conflict and the difficulties in changing the Afghan culture. More are gravitating to the approach advocated earlier by Vice-President Joe Biden which would rely more on Special Operations forces, raids, drone attacks, and “targeted assassinations” of key Taliban leaders.

The Panetta “announcement” also comes alongside the unauthorized leak of a NATO study that predicts a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan following the departure of ISAF forces (US/Europe). The estimate provides further fuel to stoke the disgruntlement of the American populace with the costs of the war, both in terms of lives and money, and the seemingly improbable quest for a successful outcome. Panetta’s statement will be greeted with shock, initially, on the part of our Allies, but most will be only too glad to see an earlier departure timetable.

Most likely the new approach will be resisted by the military commanders on the ground, who feel they are making progress and need more time, more money, and more troops. That’s not likely to happen, making General John Allen’s task as the ISAF commanding general much more challenging than it is even today.

////////////

Speaking of Secretary Panetta’s bluntness, two other recent comments by the SecDef have also generated surprise and some shock. First it was the revelation that a Pakistani doctor (name provided!) was instrumental in assisting the U.S. in ascertaining Osama bin Laden’s residence and his location. This was done before the doctor could be spirited out of the country and it is far from clear why Panetta revealed this doctor’s role.

Panetta also hinted strongly that there is a strong likelihood that Israel would strike Iran as early as April, a highly unusual muse by a Defense Secretary. I’m personally not sure if this isn’t just part of a coherent “public diplomacy” (disinformation) campaign being conducted by the West to convince the Iranian leadership that an Israeli attack is imminent and they’d better become more accommodating with respect to their nuclear program. Whichever, we are witnessing a flurry of “insider leaks” from Israel and the U.S. that seem to indicate that the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran is becoming more likely. Certainly the comments from Tel Aviv are also pointed in that direction.

Meanwhile, In Tehran, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in a defiant address, said that nothing would impede his regime from its objective of acquiring nuclear weapons. “Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to pursue our nuclear course”, he proclaimed. Khamenei seemed buoyed by the possibility of an Israeli strike, in fact, and almost welcomes it.

What worries me is that he just might. With the Iranian economy in a tailspin, the populace increasingly disgruntled with the religious and civilian leadership, and social media stirring up the youth, the mullahs and the military may feel that the only thing that could salvage their position and unite the Iranian people would be an attack by Israel and, by implication, the U.S.

And, here in the U.S., as the 2012 presidential election moves closer, the question of which candidate is closer to Israel will be a key campaign debating point. That means that the impetus for the administration and the GOP candidate to appear fully supportive of Israel at this crucial juncture will drive positions further toward backing whatever Tel Aviv decides to do. I suspect the Israeli leadership knows that full well, and that factor may also enter into their own calculations on the timetable and advisability of a strike this year.

Keep watching—this will only get more interesting!

• Tyrus W. Cobb,

Former Special Assistant to President Reagan

February 5, 2012

Has the Central Intelligence Agency become the

Tactical Intelligence Agency?”

 With

 Rae Huffstutler

Former Executive Director, the CIA

 And other Intel community veterans

The Ramada Inn, Thursday, February 9, 9:00 am

Increasing attention has been directed at a covert intelligence war and paramilitary activities that have become a key part of American national security strategy. To a great extent implementation of this approach relies heavily on U.S. military Special Operations Forces and the paramilitary arm of the Central Intelligence Agency. The new warfare the CIA is engaged in is heavily dependent on the use of unmanned armed aircrafts (drones) and covert operations in key areas of concern – Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. This has led some observers to assert that the CIA has relegated its decades long principle focus on strategic analysis to a secondary position as it becomes, in essence, “The Tactical Intelligence Agency”.

We are fortunate to have Rae Huffstutler with us for this discussion. A graduate of U.C. Berkley with a degree in Economics, he joined the CIA in 1958 and spent much of his career analyzing the USSR. He headed up the Soviet division and was the Director of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). Huffstutler’s last assignment was as the Executive Director (COO) of the CIA. In those roles he guided the Agency’s evolution in technical collection and analysis and the rise of the CIA as the preeminent analytical and estimate agency (diminishing the role of the military services).

 We will use a different format for this session – more a “Meet the Press” style interview. We will want to ask Rae about the role of the CIA in developing Soviet estimates, the increasing importance of overhead photography, the tension between policy makers and analysts, and specific activities. This will include addressing the charge that the Agency now and in the past has been engaged in “targeted assassinations”, previously by such means as phony cigars but today through the employment of UAVs, Special Forces, and “cyber intrusion”.

  We will also get comments from some veterans of the Intelligence community who are part of our NSF. Please join us for what will most certainly be an informative and provocative discussion.

 Please RSVP (ACCEPTANCES ONLY)by clicking this link or by calling 746-3222. A complete breakfast will be served. There will be a $15 dollar charge at the door for the presentation and breakfast. We recommend arriving by 8:30 to enjoy some pre-presentation food and conversation.

]]> http://nationalsecurityforum.net/meetings/nsf-meeting-february-9th-militarization-of-the-cia/feed/ 0 http://nationalsecurityforum.net/meetings/nsf-meeting-jan-26-islam-and-the-arab-turmoil/ http://nationalsecurityforum.net/meetings/nsf-meeting-jan-26-islam-and-the-arab-turmoil/#comments Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:47:32 +0000 Maria http://nationalsecurityforum.net/?p=742 Continue reading →]]> The National Security Forum Presents:

“Islam and the Arab Turmoil”

 With

 Richard Hobbs, John Jandali, and Larry Martines

 The Ramada Inn, Thursday, January 26^th, 9:00 am

The Arab Spring showed early promise of ushering in an era of democracy in the Mideast, but recent events raise instead the specter of Islamic militants seizing power, the peace treaties and tacit arrangements with Israel disintegrating, and Iranian influence spreading. Our distinguished panel will first look at the ideological underpinnings of Islam—how Jihadist in orientation is the religion and what influence does that belief system have in driving events today? The primary focus of the panel, however, will be on analyzing the dynamic political changes underway in the region, following the Egyptian elections (where the Islamic parties won a majority), Syria on the precipice of civil war, unrest in Iran, and ferment in formerly stable monarchies (Bahrain). We will also look at how key Islamic groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood are faring.

COL/Dr. Dick Hobbs will begin the program with an overview of the influence of Islam on contemporary Muslims. Hobbs will assert that Islam is fundamentality a totalitarian ideology, not a religion in the Western sense, but a guide for every aspect of life. He will show that Islam commands the creation of a government ruled by Sharia, that it is a capital crime to leave Islam – apostasy – that violence supersedes toleration – abrogation – and that while there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam.

Dr. John Jandali will analyze events in Egypt and Syria, primarily. The recent parliamentary elections in Egypt have given more than 60% of the vote to Islamist parties. What does that mean? Can the U.S., or should the U.S., work with the Muslim brotherhood? Syria has descended into virtual civil war, with the minority Alawite (Shia) government under Bashar al-Assad combating a revolution led by the majority Sunnis. Jandali will also touch on unrest in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Larry Martines will direct special attention to the current condition and future influence of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Should the Syrian government fall, what would this mean for Lebanon, and in particular, Hezbollah. How strong is Iranian influence with both groups, and to what extent will the turmoil in the Middle East, and in Iran itself, impact these groups.

COL/Dr. Richard Hobbs is a retired combat infantry officer, professor, and businessman. He has worked, taught, and written in the international arena for over 50 years including at the Pentagon, the State Department, and in international operations for a major corporation. A.F. John Jandali is of Syrian descent, has a PhD in international politics & economics, is a former professor of Political Science (Wisconsin, UNR), and for the last two decades has been in the private sector, currently VP/ General Manager of Boomtown Casino Reno. Larry Martines, former Director of Nevada Homeland Security, retired from a major law enforcement agency. He is a consultant for “three letter” government agencies on international terrorism, has been a multi-national corporate security chief, and has served on a RAND Global Terrorism think tank.

Please RSVP (ACCEPTANCES ONLY)  by calling 746-3222. A complete breakfast will be served. There will be a $15 dollar charge at the door for the presentation and breakfast. We recommend arriving by 8:30 to enjoy some pre-presentation food and conversation.

The new Defense Guidance is being driven first and foremost by the fiscal crisis. The 2011 budget agreement requires the Pentagon to reduce spending by $487 billion, with $263 billion of that over the next five years! And that’s only if “sequestration” isn’t implemented in FY 2013, a move that would require another $600 billion in cuts!

Geographic and mission shifts

The Guidance shifts the focus of military planning to the Asia-Pacific area, calls for deep reductions of Army and Marine ground forces in favor of air and naval forces, abandons the “2-war” capability concept, and says good-bye to nation building and counter-insurgency operations.

Specifically, the Army will be reduced to 490,000 troops from 570,000 and the Marines to 175,000 from 202,000. The President and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta justified the downsizing by emphasizing that the U.S. is now “looking beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”, and is unlikely to be engaged again in long-term nation building with substantial ground force commitments. The document directly states that “U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations”.  The Pentagon leadership hastened to add that we would retain the “know how” to conduct COIN operations if necessary and the ability to “regenerate” appropriate force levels if required. That might be very hard to achieve.

Panetta said the U.S. will increase its power projection capabilities, “focus on enhanced presence”, capitalize on our “technological edge”, maintain a force that is flexible, adaptable and nimble, and, above all, be cost effective. Hmm?  Does this sound like Don Rumsfeld 10 years ago?

Geographically, the shift of emphasis to the “Asia-Pacific” theater portends a major rethinking of our base and force presence in Europe. Look for a major drawdown of our presence there and a demand that our allies take on more of the regional commitments as well as assisting in our global responsibilities. This all makes strategic sense given the low threat level presently in the European theater.

The enhanced presence will mainly be in the waters south of east Asia, but not with respect to Korea, ironically considering the turmoil in Pyongyang following the death of Kim Jong Il. Nor does it say anything about Japan. The focus is on China and the oceans and seas nearby.

The Guidance is quite clear with respect to the abandonment of any pretense of maintaining the ability to fight two major contingencies simultaneously. In reality we lost that option years ago, if we ever really had it, but this is the first time that it has been acknowledged. We now will have the ability to fight one major war, while handling other minor contingencies. Realistic.

What is driving the new focus of the Guidance clearly are concerns over the growing military might of China and what is seen as the PRC’s expansionist goals in the South China Sea and beyond. Thus in place of the “Air-Land Battle” doctrine of the Cold War era, the Defense Guidance emphasizes the priority that the “Air-Sea Battle” doctrine now has.

What are the weapon choices for implementing this guidance?

The President stated that “We will continue to get rid of outdated Cold-war systems, so that we can invest in the systems for the future”. What might these weapons be? Probably nuclear weapons for starters, although they are relatively inexpensive. Secretary Gates already cut the buy on the F-22, thinking that there is no country that could significantly challenge our air superiority. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, hobbled by cost overruns and serious technical issues, might be a candidate for reduced purchases. Ironically, given the stress on power projection, the Pentagon also plans to reduce our aircraft carriers from 11-10 (probably reflecting valid conclusions that the Chinese will soon have missile capabilities to take out carriers and surface ships rather quickly).

Cyber warfare is highlighted often in the Guidance, so expect significant increases in denial capability as well as offensive cyber intrusion capabilities. Look for an expansion of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Predator drones, which have become a mainstay of our counter-terrorism operations and will be more fully integrated into war planning for major contingencies.

Any capability that enhances the work of Special Operations forces will be given a high priority since CIA-JSOC forces and requirements will receive more attention. In countering threats in places like Yemen, Somalia, or even Pakistan, the direction will favor the employment of aerial drones and Special Operations forces. They are cheaper and less politically intrusive.

The Defense Guidance comes under quick and heavy criticism

Critics were quick to dump on the new Guidance. Some feel the focus on a singular threat (China) in place of “strategic pluralism” fails to anticipate where threats may arise. They note that we have been very weak in forecasting where U.S. forces might need to be committed over the past 20 years, and the Guidance foregoes flexibility on that front. They also point out the maintaining “multiple capabilities” complicates a potential enemy’s planning.

Nearly everyone adversely impacted by this shift has raised alarm bells, including organizations that protect military retiree and health benefits, which will certainly be reduced! Army and Marine related groups are understandably apoplectic, as are major defense firms producing weapons for the current environment or for the “Fight two major wars simultaneously” contingencies. Not too many main battle tanks to be coming off the assembly lines in the future.

In sum however, these critics fail to take under consideration the fiscal crisis the country faces. Reductions across the board are coming down the line and the Pentagon cannot be exempted. Indeed, as the President pointed out, we will continue to spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined! And with a public mood decisively shifting away from “foreign entanglements”, the Defense Guidance does reflect political as well as economic realities.

Do you agree? For your information the Defense Guidance is attached. Take a shot at rewriting it!

Tyrus W. Cobb

Former Special Assistant to the President

For National Security Affairs

Click here: http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

 “The European Economic Crisis:

Implications for the U.S.”

 With

 Dr. Gerald O’Driscoll

 Senior Fellow, the CATO Institute

The Ramada Inn, Thursday, January 5^th, 9:00 am

 Some time back we believed the worst possible outcome to the European fiscal crisis was a Greek default. Now a much wider disaster seems all too likely as the Eurozone could become the center of another global financial crisis. Markets have lost faith, driving up interest rates and threatening the stability of even major states, Italy most importantly. (Italy owes $2.5 trillion and must refinance $530 billion of that debt in 2012. It recently issued new debt at 8%, a rate that—if sustained—could force the country into default). A full-blown breakup of the Eurozone, given the exposure of American banks and investors there, would undoubtedly spread the crisis to U.S. financial institutions.

A sense of how vulnerable the U.S. economy could be if the euro currency union cracks apart is scary, especially if one considers the volume of American exports to the euro zone—about $330 billion a year—and several hundred billions more in U.S. investments and several trillions of dollars of other financial contracts between the two economies. U.S. banks alone have more than $220 billion at risk through investments in German and French banks alone.

Will European countries return to local currencies? Would that provoke civil strife in Europe (UBS AG predicted just that)? Would a disorderly collapse of the euro-zone lead to a global financial crisis? The new Chairman of the JCS has openly worried that the defense budgets of our European allies will decline precipitously. Warranted?

Gerald O’Driscoll is a widely quoted expert on banking and monetary policy. He has served as Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation, was VP and Director of policy analysis at Citigroup, and was VP and senior advisor at the Dallas Fed.  Dr. O’Driscoll holds a PhD in economics from UCLA and has appeared on Fox, CNBC, Bloomberg and other media outlets.

The session will be held at the Ramada Inn on East 6^th St between Sutro and Wells Avenues. A full breakfast will be served ($15 payable at the door). Please RSVP to this email or by calling 746-3222 (ACCEPTANCES ONLY!). The session is open to the public but we do need RSVPs from those wishing to attend. Coffee will be on at 8:15, the breakfast out by 8:30. Come early and enjoy some conversation with old friends.

Links to articles:

Click here: Austerity Reigns Over Euro Zone as Crisis Deepens – NYTimes.com

Click here: Nobody Understands Debt – NYTimes.com