OBAMA'S QUAGMIRE: limited war is rarely successful. And Arming Rebels Rarely Works.

Turkish Kurds stand on a hilltop on the outskirts of Suruc, at the Turkey-Syria border, as they watch smoke from a fire caused by the US-led coalition aircrafts in Kobani, Syria. (Lefteris Pitarakis/AP)

DAVID IGNATIOUS, WASHINGTON POST

What happens when an American plan for limited war against the Islamic State meets the savage reality of combat, as happened this week when the extremists pounded Kurdish fighters just inside Syria’s border with Turkey ? The cry rose in Washington and abroad for more American military involvement. This is how conflicts that start off contained begin to escalate.

Here’s President Obama’s dilemma in a nutshell: He has proposed a strategy for dealing with the Islamic State that is, in the words of Harvard professor Graham Allison, “limited, patient, local and flexible.” This calibrated approach makes sense to Allison, one of America’s most experienced strategists, because it limits U.S. exposure in fighting an adversary that doesn’t immediately threaten the United States.

The problem is that military history, since the days of the Romans, tells us that limited war is rarely successful. Policymakers, when faced with a choice between going “all in” or doing nothing, usually choose a middle option of partial intervention. But that leads to stalemates and eventual retreats that drive our generals crazy. The warrior ethos says, “If you’re in it, win it.” The politician rounds the edges.

Allison argued recently in the National Interest that other nations should bear the brunt of this war: “If our friends and allies . . . to whom ISIS [the Islamic State] poses an imminent or even existential threat are unwilling to fight themselves, to kill and to die for their own interests and values, Americans should ask: Why should we?” 

The United States’ problem since World War II is that it has chosen to fight limited wars that had ambiguous outcomes, at best. This was the case in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Only in 1991’s Operation Desert Storm did the United States win a decisive victory, but it had limited objectives and faced a weak adversary. As Henry Kissinger recently observed, the fight against the Islamic State comes when the American public is already demoralized by this chain of non-success.
Frustration with no-win conflicts led Gen. Colin Powell to declare what came to be known as the “Powell Doctrine” — that America should go to war only when vital national security is threatened, the public is supportive, allies are on board and there’s a clear exit strategy. Obama, too, hoped to avoid frustrating, unpopular wars in Syria and Iraq.

Rebel fighters in Nicaragua in 1987. Credit John Hopper/Associated Press

N.Y. TIMES

 C.I.A. Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels.

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency has run guns to insurgencies across the world during its 67-year history — from Angola to Nicaragua to Cuba. The continuing C.I.A. effort to train Syrian rebels is just the latest example of an American president becoming enticed by the prospect of using the spy agency to covertly arm and train rebel groups.

An internal C.I.A. study has found that it rarely works.

The still-classified review, one of several C.I.A. studies commissioned in 2012 and 2013 in the midst of the Obama administration’s protracted debate about whether to wade into the Syrian civil war, concluded that many past attempts by the agency to arm foreign forces covertly had a minimal impact on the long-term outcome of a conflict. They were even less effective, the report found, when the militias fought without any direct American support on the ground.

 The findings of the study, described in recent weeks by current and former American government officials, were presented in the White House Situation Room and led to deep skepticism among some senior Obama administration officials about the wisdom of arming and training members of a fractured Syrian opposition.

Although Mr. Obama originally intended the C.I.A. to arm and train the rebels to fight the Syrian military, the focus of the American programs has shifted to training the rebel forces to fight the Islamic State, an enemy of Mr. Assad.

The C.I.A. review, according to several former American officials familiar with its conclusions, found that the agency’s aid to insurgencies had generally failed in instances when no Americans worked on the ground with the foreign forces in the conflict zones, as is the administration’s plan for training Syrian rebels.

One exception, the report found, was when the C.I.A. helped arm and train mujahedeen rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan during the 1980s, an operation that slowly bled the Soviet war effort and led to a full military withdrawal in 1989. That covert war was successful without C.I.A. officers in Afghanistan, the report found, largely because there were Pakistani intelligence officers working with the rebels in Afghanistan.

But the Afghan-Soviet war was also seen as a cautionary tale. Some of the battle-hardened mujahedeen fighters later formed the core of Al Qaeda and used Afghanistan as a base to plan the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. This only fed concerns that no matter how much care was taken to give arms only to so-called moderate rebels in Syria, the weapons could ultimately end up with groups linked to Al Qaeda, like the Nusra Front.

“What came afterwards was impossible to eliminate from anyone’s imagination,” said the former senior official, recalling the administration debate about whether to arm the Syrian rebels.

Last month, Mr. Obama said he would redouble American efforts by having the Pentagon participate in arming and training rebel forces. That program has yet to begin.

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said last week that it would be months of “spade work” before the military had determined how to structure the program and how to recruit and vet the rebels.

“This is going to be a long-term effort,” he said.

Obama’s strategy to fight Isis cedes too much control

THE GUARDIAN

By addressing the political and presentational aspects of the use of force in advance of military operations, President Obama has signalled a shift in American foreign policy culture, at least in the design of his strategy. In terms of delivery too he has indicated a greater emphasis on CIA-led counterterrorism operations compared with US military-led counterinsurgency operations. But almost every element is fraught with risk and, because he has subcontracted more to other nations than previous US presidents, he has less control over outcomes.

The timing of the speech, just two days after the announcement of a new Iraqi government, is no coincidence. It is evidence of intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity to ensure that the Maliki regime’s parochial Shia domination does not recreate the conditions that led to the crisis. There is, however, no indication that the new government will be able to unite a country whose identity faultlines are now fractured beyond repair. If that government fails then in a decade or so, the grievances that led to the rise of Islamic State (Isis) may breed another virulent rebellion.
The decision to involve regional, mostly Arab, countries in the conflict represents the most immature and risky part of the US strategy. Middle Eastern countries have spent billions on their defence capability but have shown a remarkable reluctance to deploy it beyond quelling mostly unarmed civilian rebellions. A history of petty squabbling and so little experience of political cooperation or joint military operations further reduces their potential impact. If the anti-Iranian attitude of the Saudis and other Gulf states is not checked before any troops from those countries arrive in Iraq then there is a danger of sparks flying if they come into contact with the Iranian military “advisers”, who appear to be advising very close to the frontline.
Increasing efforts to remove President Assad from power in Syria is probably the greatest strategic flaw. Identification and maintenance of a single clear aim is a maxim of strategic success. If defeating Isis is the main aim of this strategy then why complicate an already difficult task by simultaneously engineering regime change in Syria? It seems that US foreign policy has still to evolve through a realisation that the only thing worse than the tyranny of dictators is the anarchy that succeeds them, as illustrated by the removal of Saddam and Gaddafi.
In terms of delivery, too, the strategy has risks. Integration of air and land forces is a highly skilled task that even western forces struggle with. As the British discovered in Afghanistan, delivering air support to ground troops under fire in a timely and accurate fashion is not always possible, prompting one British army major to describe his air force as “utterly, utterly useless”. If the Iraqi, Iranian and Arab forces on the ground do not understand these difficulties then any delays or failures in US air support may be interpreted as a western ploy to permit losses to those forces.
President Obama’s primary objective of “degrading and destroying” Isis is to be achieved through counterterrorism operations where the CIA has a lead. This is the one element of strategy where the US has full control and a formidable track record of success. However, it is also one that is most full of pitfalls. It is no accident that Obama only mentioned Somalia and Yemen as examples where that strategy has been employed with success against al-Qaida instead of the Afghanistan and Pakistan tribal belt where its leadership and operational capability were mostly destroyed. A considerable number of civilian deaths occurred from the drone strikes there, resulting in a huge political backlash in the region with continuing insecurity and the emergence of a militant anti-western movement. Unless there is an improvement in intelligence and greater restraint in the use of drones, there is a danger that each successful attack on Isis could generate new recruits radicalised by the deaths of innocents.

CEASE FIRE IN GAZA, CIA HACKS SENATE COMPUTERS IN DC, POSSIBLE CUOMO INVESTIGATION IN NY

Baz Ratner/Reuters

Israel and Hamas have agreed to a 72-hour ceasefire, according to an announcement from Secretary of State John Kerry. “The United Nations representative in Jerusalem, Special Coordinator Robert Serry, has received assurances that all parties have agreed to an unconditional humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza,” Kerry said in a joint statement with United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon.

The ceasefire will begin at 8 a.m. Friday and allow humanitarian aid to reach those in need in Gaza. Ground forces will remain in place for the duration of the ceasefire and Israeli and Palestinian delegations will depart to Cairo for negotiations aimed at reaching a “durable cease-fire,” according to the statement. “This cease-fire is critical to giving innocent civilians a much-needed reprieve from violence,” the statement said. “During this period, civilians in Gaza will receive urgently needed humanitarian relief, and the opportunity to carry out vital functions, including burying the dead, taking care of the injured, and restocking food supplies. Overdue repairs on essential water and energy infrastructure could also continue during this period.” -

Read it at The New York Times

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

After repeated denials from the head of the CIA that his agents hacked into Senate computers, the spy agency’s Inspector General’s Office found that they did in fact do it. The report says CIA personnel improperly accessed Senate Intelligence Committee computers when they were being used to put together a report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program.

“As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth,” John Brennan said in March. “I mean, we wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s—that’s just beyond the—you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.” On Thursday, Brennan briefed and apologized to Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss. The Senate report, which is expected to be released soon, was investigating the CIA’s use of interrogation methods that some deemed torture in secret overseas prisons during the Bush administration. When asked in the spring if he would resign if CIA hacking turned out to be true, Brennan said he would leave that to President Obama. “If I did something wrong, I will go to the president, and I will explain to him exactly what I did, and what the findings were. And he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go.” The White House said today that Obama has “great confidence” in Brennan. Senator Mark Udall, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, says the revelation "shatters" his confidence in Brennan.

Read it at McClatchy

Reuters

Things are heating up in New York as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, has threatened Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo with an investigation for possible obstruction of justice or witness tampering over the governor's cancellation of his own anticorruption commission. The written warning from Bharara's office came in response to public statements by former members of the commission that were in support of Cuomo—but were made as a result of calls from the governor or his emissaries. "We have reason to believe a number of commissioners recently have been contacted about the commission’s work, and some commissioners have been asked to issue public statements characterizing events and facts regarding the commission’s operation," the letter said.

Read it at the New York Times

OBAMA DECLARES 'WAR WITHOUT END' OVER AND PLANS TO CUT DRONE USE. HE STILL WANTS TO CLOSE GITMO

HUFFINGTON POST

Faced with growing questions over the legality and scope of his counterrorism policy from Congress and elsewhere, President Barack Obama said Thursday that he has codified the process his administration goes through before launching a drone strike.
Nevertheless, he gave an impassioned defense of drone strikes in countries such as Somalia and Yemen as an essential counterterrorism tool, presenting them as the best possible option.
"To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance," Obama said. "For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power –- or risk abusing it....

As part of a realignment of counterterrorism policy, he said he would curtail the use of drones.

He spoke of returning to his plan to close the military detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, renewing the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and adjusting to an environment where homegrown terrorists pose more of a threat than an organized 9/11-style attack.
"As we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11," Obama said....

"Dozens of highly skilled al-Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield," he said. "Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives."....

At one point, Code Pink co-founder Madea Benjamin heckled the president after he started speaking about Guantanamo. "I'm willing to cut that young lady interrupting me some slack, because it's worth being passionate about," he said. For several minutes, Benjamin intermittently questioned the president before being escorted from the event.....

A hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay has grown to over 100 prisoners. Thirty of them are being force fed, which the United Nations considers torture.
Obama addressed the force-feeding Thursday. "Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?" he asked.

Nearly 12 years after the 9/11 attacks, invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent war on terror, Obama said at some point, it would end. "Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands," he said.

NY TIMES: The precise ramifications of his shift were less clear than the lines of argument, however, because the new policy guidance he signed remains classified, and other changes he embraced require Congressional approval. Mr. Obama, for instance, did not directly mention in his speech that his new order would shift responsibility for drones more toward the military and away from the Central Intelligence Agency.

But the combination of his words and deeds foreshadowed the course he hopes to take in the remaining three and a half years of his presidency so that he leaves his successor a profoundly different national security landscape than the one he inherited in 2009. While President George W. Bush saw the fight against terrorism as the defining mission of his presidency, Mr. Obama has always viewed it as one priority among many at a time of wrenching economic and domestic challenges.