Don't look now but

The CIA is declaring al-Qaeda defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.
"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Why the success? As Galrahn at Information Dissemination points out, the "surge" was certainly a major factor. However, when this type of ideological victory is achieved, the Iraqis and Saudis themselves are responsible for victory. They made the choice. Now, the surge in security forces allowed them to make that choice by providing a security overlay in Baghdad but most of the security in places that archived such stunning success, like Anbar province, was done at the tribal level where military officials created a loose alliance with tribal militias who, in many cases, were supplied by the United States but were also part of the insurgency. These local leaders had to decide to cast there lot with the United States, which required trust. Tactical revisions by the Petraeus squad put troops into the communities where they were able to attain that trust by winning hearts and minds but without those local leaders making the choice, we'd be dead in the water. General Petraeus always understood this, others, sadly, did not.

On a political note, it will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this assessment. Could Obama declare victory in Iraq? It would certainly provide a reason, albeit a misguided one, for pulling US forces out.

Comfort not Carriers

I didn't think much of the New Cooperative Maritime Strategy when it was issued last fall. In my opinion, the sea services really failed to make a case for a modern fleet to the American public because it was unnecessarily vague regarding platform acquisition, roles, and missions. The one glimmer of hope in the entire thing was the strategy's emphasis on soft power; in other words increasing deployments of the U.S.N.S. Hope and Comfort to disaster areas instead of making a "show of force" by deploying a battle-group centered around a carrier. The following article in The Baltimore Sun does a very good job discussing what I'm talking about:

Embracing new role: The nation should support the U.S. military as it takes the lead in global disaster response
By Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann

Quietly, and perhaps without fully realizing it, the U.S. military has begun embracing a new, wide-ranging international role that will compel it to intervene in many countries throughout the world. Yet this is a role that virtually every country would support and one that should be widely embraced here as well: the role of global first responder.

The Myanmar military government's shocking and disastrous refusal of international assistance in the wake of the recent devastating cyclone has masked one broader positive development - the surprising speed at which aid, especially on the part of the U.S., was offered. In contrast to the initially hesitant U.S. response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (characterized as "stingy" by U.N. Undersecretary-General Jan England), this time, first lady Laura Bush set a decisive tone, saying that the U.S. was prepared to send massive assistance immediately. This willingness reflects not just a good-natured desire to help but also a realization that dealing with international disasters has become a national security priority.

In some ways, this is an odd development. Responding to natural disasters has never been a core mission of the U.S. military. It rarely drives procurement decisions or strategic thinking, and responses to disaster situations have tended to be ad hoc. Yet this is changing. As the Center for Naval Analysis concluded, "Climate change threatens to add new hostile and stressing factors." As large-scale disasters grow more common, so too will U.S. military involvement in these types of missions.

The eventual U.S. response to the Indian Ocean tsunami was a pivotal event. After the tsunami, 15,000 troops, a carrier task force and a Marine expeditionary force deployed to the region, with the U.S. Navy effectively setting up a "sea base" off the coast of Indonesia. This flotilla of ships enabled supplies to be transported to the coastline, where ports and roads were all but washed away. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, commented, "We literally built a city at sea for no other purpose than to serve the needs of other people." Only the U.S. military had the ability to conduct such an operation.

While Indonesia still is a long way from completely recovering, the American response made a tremendous difference. And our assistance did not go unnoticed. A Pew Survey found that 80 percent of the citizens of the world's largest Muslim-majority country had a more favorable opinion of the United States after our response.

What worked abroad was also employed at home: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Navy set up a base at sea in which to assist New Orleans. That same year, in the wake of a major earthquake in Pakistan, U.S. assistance was quickly sent, and Pakistani television showed American helicopters ferrying aid to remote mountainous villages and American medics helping the injured.

And in November, the man in charge of the military's response to Hurricane Katrina, Adm. Timothy Keating, now the head of U.S. Pacific Command, sent a Marine Expeditionary Unit to assist Bangladesh in its recovery from a devastating cyclone. Admiral Keating noted that he worked with the Bangladeshi government before the storm had even hit. The Navy is so pleased with its performance in these missions that it introduced new recruiting commercials highlighting its role in disaster recovery.

Some may see the mantle of global first responder as a distraction from "hard" security concerns. But engaging in these operations promotes U.S. interests.

First, such missions act to maintain precious stability. After the 2004 tsunami, there was a real danger that chaos, even unrest, would spread beyond the disaster zones. Our response not only saved lives but also helped stabilize the area.

Second, it improves the image of the U.S. Responding to disasters demonstrates to the world the goodwill of the American people and can serve to improve our standing in world opinion, as it has in Indonesia. As Admiral Mullen explained, the tsunami intervention showed another side of "American power that wasn't perceived as frightening, monolithic or arrogant."

Third, such missions help cast our global military posture in a better light. Countries will be more accepting of a U.S. military presence in their neighborhood if they know that our military will be there to help if disaster strikes. Adopting this role also enables the U.S. to build closer relationships with countries, as in Bangladesh, where joint preparations helped avert an even worse disaster and improved our relations.

Finally, responding to natural disasters is the price of being the world's largest superpower. As the guarantor of global security, the U.S. is looked to not just for its ability to deter threats but also for its ability to help when countries are in need.

Responding to disasters should therefore not be seen as a burden on the U.S. military, but should be embraced as an opportunity.

Win hearts and minds and you get allies instead of terrorists pure and simple.

A Real Exit Strategy

Great piece from The Christian Science Monitor on the need for jobs and a cultural rebirth:

What Would Really Rebuild Iraq
By Walter Rodgers and Yasmeen Alamiri

Oakton, Va. - "Iraqi mothers want the same thing for their children American mothers want for theirs," President Bush has said. "A place for their child to grow up and get a good education and be able to realize dreams."

The president is correct. The two institutions Iraqis prize most are family and education. But the US military occupation and the insurgency have produced a total disruption of both. Can Iraqis return to social normalcy so long as US troops – and their enemies – are engaged there?

One has to look no further than the Palestinian territories to discover the long-term effects of children not going to school. Israel's occupation and perennial lockdown of Palestinians created a new uneducated generation seeking salvation through the radical Islam of Hamas.

In Iraq, disruption of education and family life seems to be having a similar effect. A UN report suggests that "non-state armed groups" are ratcheting up their recruitment of Iraqi children. Witness the recently released Al Qaeda-in-Iraq videos showing preteen boys in paramilitary training. Iraqi Interior Minister Fawzi al-Hariri has acknowledged this problem. He hopes a $5 billion job creation program will offer an alternative to militia or gang activity.

The lesson should be obvious: Foreign military occupations of Muslim lands from the Crusades to the present are disruptive of indigenous cultures, destructive, and sooner or later, hated.

We've got increasing security thanks to "the Surge" so the rebirth needs to take advantage.

Happy Memorial Day

"From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother..."

-Henry V
William Shakespeare


(Hat-tip to the War Historian)

Happy Memorial Day everyone.

Update

Okay, so I lied. National security's not really dominating the news at this point but, as always, a Memorial Day post will be forthcoming...