House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the public health insurance option will not be included in a package of fixes to healthcare reform legislation.

Pelosi's comments throw a wrench into liberal efforts to reintroduce it to the bill. She shut the door on a possible pathway opened by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who said earlier on Friday that he would "aggressively" push senators to vote for the plan if the House included it in the fixes.

"We had it, we wanted it ... it's not in the reconciliation," Pelosi said at her weekly press briefing. "It isn't in there because [the Senate doesn't] have the votes to have it in there."

Momentum had been building to reintroduce the government-run plan. Over 40 senators have endorsed a letter sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) that called for senators to pass the public option using the budget reconciliation process.

But the number of senators who backed the plan falls short of the 50 needed to pass the package, assuming Vice President Joe Biden votes to break a tie.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a public option supporter, said last week that he will push for a public option in a separate bill should it not be included in the current legislation.

House Democrats are planning to pass the Senate bill and a package of fixes to it, which the Senate will pass using the reconciliation process, allowing them to sidestep a Republican filibuster with a simple majority vote.

The most recent survey by The Hill shows that Pelosi and President Barack Obama need to sway many Democrats to clear a bill by the end of next week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) removed the public option from the Senate's bill in December because he could not attract enough centrist support for the overhaul with it included.

Pelosi gave solace to supporters of the public option, saying that its intent will largely be fulfilled with other provisions in the bill.

"While it may not have a public option, we have a purpose of the public option served by the exchanges" and other reforms, she said.

The Speaker expressed hope that the House would vote on the bill by March 21, three days after the White House's deadline, but said that lawmakers are prepared to take as long as necessary to finish their work.

Pelosi repeated that the House will start working in earnest on finishing the bill once they receive the Congressional Budget Office's score of the proposal.

"I am hoping it will be in that time frame," she said of the March 21 date, "[But] we stand ready as long as it takes to pass a bill."

The House's ability to pass the Senate's bill, however, partially rests on assurances House Democrats want from their Senate counterparts that they will pass a series of fixes to it. Many House Democrats wants several changes made to the Senate's bill and want special deals for certain states stripped from it.

Pelosi remained confident that her rank-and-file would get what they wanted.

"There are certain assurances that we want and that we will get from them before we take a vote," she said.

President Barack Obama is delaying his overseas trip scheduled to begin on March 18 for three days so that he can focus on healthcare. That decision gives House Democrats a few more days to hold a vote before Obama leaves.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/86447-pelosi-public-option-will-not-be-in-health-bill

WASHINGTON — At a time of heavy international pressure on Iran, the State Department said on Thursday that the human rights situation there had “degenerated” since the disputed presidential election last year.

In a toughly worded analysis, the department cited killings of election protesters and acts of politically motivated torture, beatings and rape.

“An already poor human rights situation rapidly deteriorated after the June elections,” said Michael Posner, assistant secretary for democracy, human rights, and labor, as the department released its overview of human rights around the world in 2009. “At least 45 people were killed in clashes,” he said.

The voluminous report, an annual assessment called for by law, also broadly criticized practices in China. Mr. Posner called them “poor and worsening.” The report cites increased repression of ethnic and religious minorities, increased detention and harassment of activists and public-interest lawyers, and continuing repression in Tibet.

It also criticizes the Chinese government’s control of the Internet in that country, though the report did not include the complaints early this year by Google executives about a series of major cyberattacks originating in China. Beijing has vigorously denied having any role in those attacks.

Mr. Posner said that in places like China and Iran, “connective technologies” had proved to be double-edged. While they allow a ferment of sometimes spontaneous organizational activities by dissidents and government critics, they also give governments “greater energy in curtailing freedom of expression.”

In Iran, an opposition Web site reported on Thursday that a prominent political activist who was arrested on June 12, the day of Iran’s disputed presidential election, has been released from prison.

Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister, was released on Wednesday in what was called a “leave from prison,” the Web site, Jaras, reported. Mr. Tajzadeh received a hero’s welcome, and pictures circulated on the Web of two leading opposition figures, Mir-Hussein Moussavi and the former president, Mohammed Khatami, visiting him at his home.

Hundreds of opposition activists have been arrested since the presidential election, and most of them remain incarcerated. Human Rights groups have said that none are released unconditionally and that most have posted hefty sums for bail and are summoned regularly to appear in court.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York based group, announced this month that at least 52 journalists remain in prison. On Thursday a lawyer for Saeed Leylaz, a prominent journalist and economist, said that his client’s sentence had been reduced from nine years to six, a term that human rights groups said remained indefensible. The sentence for Bahman Amuwee, another journalist, was reduced from seven years to five, the rights group http://www.rsf.org/&ei=LlyZS7OkCZK1tgeEtfiwCQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DReporters%2Bwithout%2BBorders%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D6XV%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official">Reporters without Borders said.

The criticism in the State Department report was not limited to authoritarian or developing countries. The State Department expressed its "growing concern" over discrimination against Muslims in Europe, noting in particular a Swiss ban on the construction of minarets.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in releasing the report, insisted that the United States holds itself to the same standards it uses to assess other countries.

There was, in any case, criticism for some countries closely allied to the United States.

Even as the Obama administration works to bolster the Afghan government for an eventual American departure, the report described the existing rights situation there as poor. It listed problems like extrajudicial killings, torture, poor prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of expression and discrimination against women.

The election there last year was marred by “serious allegations of widespread fraud,” the report noted.

As for Iraq, the report noted an overarching reality: that violence had significantly decreased last year. Still, it listed numerous rights offenses, including arbitrary killings, disappearances, torture, poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and inadequate protection for refugees.

Mr. Posner also signaled some trends of global concern. One was the increasing efforts by some governments to curtail local advocacy. “No less than 25 governments in the last couple of years have imposed new restrictions on nongovernmental human rights and other organizations,” the report said.

Another was governments’ misuse of national-security or emergency legislation to broadly curtail civil liberties. He said Egypt, Russia and Sri Lanka had all been guilty of this.

 

New York Post
February 28, 2009
Pg. 4

 

Real Iraq Plan: Stay In & Win

 

By Ralph Peters

YESTERDAY, President Obama went to Camp Lejeune. He spoke in front of US Marines, but his real audience was his left-wing campaign supporters.

And his carefully worded speech - its parsing of language worthy of Bill Clinton - may go down in history as his "Mission Accomplished" moment. We'll see who leaves Iraq when.

During last year's presidential campaign, it was evident that Obama wouldn't keep his promises to his leftist base to pull our troops out rapidly.

While he benefited greatly from the troop surge he opposed - which handed him a convalescent Iraq - he's learning that reality trumps rhetoric.

Forcefully delivered, his speech to the Marines served up more waffles than the International House of Pancakes.

Consider his big sound bite: "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." What does that mean?

Will the 50,000 troops he intends to leave in Iraq, the trainers and maintainers, be forbidden to defend themselves? Are they just going to hang out? If terrorists or the Iranians skunk us, are we just going to ask for more?

The enemy gets a say, too. The situation on the ground will determine when combat operations end. Obama's just going to call them something else.

In the immortal phrasing of Ol' Bill, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

As for Obama's claim that "I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," just watch.

We're not going to leave 50,000 support troops in Iraq without combat units to protect them. We'll just ban the word "brigade" and call our shooters "task forces."

The reality all along has been that Obama can't cut and run.

He began campaigning for a second term on Inauguration Day and he's not going to let himself be blamed for "losing" Iraq.

Meanwhile, he's praying that progress continues in Baghdad.

As for yesterday's boilerplate nonsense that "The end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East," hey, if it does, thank George W. Bush. History has a wicked sense of humor.

Of course, the rhetoric's necessary. Obama had to lecture the Marines to placate the angry extremists who put him in office.

The fundamental purpose of the speech was to hide the 50,000 residual troops in plain sight: "It's OK, see? They're not combat troops." Obama's scared as a naked sheriff at a moonshiners' convention.

He piggybacked on the left's hatred of "Bush's war" in Iraq, but had to show his tough-on-security bones during the campaign.

A strategic novice, he declared Afghanistan the good war. Now it's his. And while Iraq looks increasingly like a success story, Afghanistan's going south. Iraq's the prize, Afghanistan's the booby prize.

Success in Afghanistan's a one-off, while even a half-baked democracy in Iraq changes the Middle East. And Pakistan's the monster under the White House bed. In artilleryman's parlance, Obama's speech to the Marines was all flash, no bang.

He's struggling to appear decisive while carving out maximum wiggle room. And in the modern tradition of Democratic presidents, he just wishes these foreign conflicts would go away. But they won't.

Welcome to reality, Mr. President.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."

New York Times
February 27, 2009
Pg. 6

By Ethan Bronner

JERICHO, West Bank — They rappel down a 65-foot tower, navigate obstacle courses, shoot in the firing range and sleep in pristine barracks. They eat in an air-conditioned mess where brushed aluminum glints from every kitchen surface. Rows of Land Rovers stand by. The entrance reads “The Presidential Guard, Always in Front: Strength, Sacrifice, Redemption.”

One year ago, this 18-acre campus built with $10 million of American taxpayer money was another piece of Jordan Valley desert, and Palestinian guardsmen slept on flea-bitten mattresses and took meals on their laps. Along with a 35-acre, $11 million operations camp a few miles away, also American-financed, it is a real step forward in an otherwise moribund process of Palestinian state-building.

“These guys now feel like they’re on a winning team, that they are building a Palestinian state,” said Lt. Gen. Keith W. Dayton, the American who has been overseeing the training of Palestinian forces, as he watched exercises on Thursday. “And I wouldn’t stay if I didn’t think they were going to do it. I have complete confidence in the Palestinian leadership, and I’m convinced the new administration is serious about this.”

The Obama administration’s envoy to the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, arrived in the region for his second time in a month on Thursday. The secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, will be here next week. Despite General Dayton’s optimism, no one doubts that they have their work cut out for them. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are deeply divided, violence and settlement-building continue, and faith in the two-state solution is waning.

But for much of the past year, the Palestinian security forces have trained and increased their role as if all remained on track. Some 1,600 have been through American-financed courses in Jordan. In coordination with Israeli defense officials, Palestinian troops and police officers have taken over much of the patrolling in the West Bank cities of Jenin, Nablus, Bethlehem and parts of Hebron.

Last month, as Israel carried out a war in Hamas-ruled Gaza, some in the Muslim world called on the West Bank to stage a violent uprising in protest. But while there were demonstrations, no such uprising occurred, partly because the Palestinian Authority troops maintained tight order.

All the while, these state-of-the-art facilities were being built, employing hundreds of Palestinian workers. The Presidential Guard College here has been functioning for several weeks, while the National Security Force Operations Camp elsewhere in Jericho will open at the end of next month. Along with police training facilities here supported by the European Union, they represent a new phase in the security plan: sophisticated training under Palestinian command has begun in Palestinian territory.

General Dayton was due to end his three-year assignment, but Mr. Mitchell asked him to stay on for two more years and he has agreed. His decision has been greeted with something approaching jubilation in these camps, where the commanders have come to trust him and to view Washington, through him, as a true ally.

“We have been trained with American money and by General Dayton, and that means a lot to us,” said Brig. Gen. Munir al-Zoubi, commander of the 1,800-man Presidential Guard, the elite force that protects top officials and guests. “We are here to enforce law and order and to use all means to fight terrorism.”

He was asked whether the word “terrorism” was a delicate one.

“Two years ago, we couldn’t talk about or use the term ‘terrorism,’” he said. “Any Palestinian who used the term was called a collaborator. But that is no longer true. We have discovered that many people commit terrorist acts under the cover of resistance to occupation. And we are fighting that.”

The big change in those two years has been the Hamas takeover of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority’s hope to turn the West Bank into a model that will reduce the appeal of Hamas.

General Zoubi added that his forces had been trained in human rights, at their request, and in how to shoot without killing when capturing an armed suspect. There are five classrooms for 50 students each on the campus. On Thursday, one of them had a first-aid class going on.

Israeli defense officials say that the development of the Palestinian security forces is a real step forward and that the more the Palestinians do in the West Bank, the less Israel will do. But the Israelis also said that if they did not carry out their night raids on Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists in the West Bank, the area would be a lot less stable.

So there is cooperation. An Israeli officer inaugurated the firing range here, shooting a Palestinian weapon to test it and give his seal of approval. But tensions remain. General Zoubi said new uniforms and protective vests for his men were still waiting at a port in Israel because the Israelis had not released them. And the need for consultation with the Israelis to move his men around frustrates him.

General Dayton is one of the few military men who ply a path between the Palestinian and Israeli officers on a daily basis. He is diplomatic when asked about the tensions.

But his commitment to helping the Palestinians build a responsible and serious security force is enormous. He hopes to have a well-trained battalion based in each of eight West Bank cities when he is through.

He said he first became aware of the importance of this conflict beyond its borders when he was leading weapons searches in Iraq in 2003. As he and his men entered barracks of the Iraqi Republican Guards, he kept seeing drawings on the walls showing Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, a sacred Muslim shrine, being strangled by a cobra symbolizing Israel.

At the National Security Forces Operations Camp, still under construction, he met on Thursday with Maj. Gen. Shawki al-Safadi, who has spent his entire adult life wearing the uniform of a Palestinian soldier, starting in 1968 in Jordan, when he was part of the armed wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

General Safadi was asked why he turned from an approach of combat to one of coexistence with Israel.

“Anyone can call for peace,” General Safadi responded. “But like General Dayton, I have had a lot of experience. My generation understands the need for peace because we lived under conflict. We were willing to live together in one country. But the Jews want their own homeland. We have come to accept that. And we Palestinians need peace more than any people in the whole world.”

Washington Times
February 26, 2009
Pg. B1

By Bill Gertz

China intelligence gaps

The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific says he is concerned about the lack of strategic information available on China's military forces despite U.S. spy agencies identifying Beijing's military as a key collection target.

"There are more gaps than I'd like to discuss here," Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters in Hong Kong on Feb. 18.

Adm. Keating went on to identify key Chinese military developments that are a concern, including a submarine buildup, "area denial" weapons, such as using long-range ballistic missiles to target aircraft carriers; anti-satellite weapons and cyberwarfare efforts.

The comments on intelligence gaps highlight a long-standing problem of lack of information on China's military and intentions.

For example, in 2001, a 12-member commission of experts from outside the government, headed by retired Army Gen. John H. Tilelli Jr., found that U.S. intelligence on China's military was flawed.

Also, the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment in December 2000 warned that the Pentagon could not predict the outcome of a conflict between China and Taiwan because of intelligence gaps.

The late Peter W. Rodman, an assistant defense secretary, told reporters in 2006 that there were "gaps" in U.S. intelligence on China that caused surprises in the past, such as the new Yuan-class submarine that was unknown to U.S. intelligence until a photo of it was published in 2004.

Chinese Col. Chen Zhou stated in an exchange with Chinese bloggers Feb. 19 that a recent white paper sought to "handle well the relationship between transparency and confidentiality." He stated that "increasing military transparency serves to increase mutual trust among countries. But transparency is relative; it must not affect the interest of national security."

A U.S. defense official said the intelligence gaps on China have persisted for more than a decade. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of intelligence shortfalls. He blamed the gaps in part on limited U.S. human intelligence and electronic spying.

An intelligence spokesman had no immediate comment.

Adm. Keating said China's recently released annual defense white paper failed to address U.S. concerns about the Chinese military buildup.

"We do not think it is as forthcoming as the Chinese think it is," he said. "We want to understand why they feel compelled to develop underwater capabilities to the extent that they are. We'd like to have a better understanding of their notion of area-denial weapon technology. We'd like to know better why they are concentrating in certain areas of space operations. We'd like to understand more fully their cyberwarfare technology and intentions."

The Chinese arms developments are known, but there are areas "where their stated intentions don't appear to us to align with their obvious developments that we see," he said.

"Transparency involves a certain insight or ability to see. We want an ability to understand and not just to see the weapons that they are developing."

Adm. Keating said his command is "very carefully" watching China's buildup of both nuclear-missile and attack submarines as well as diesel submarines, which number about 65 and are increasing their patrols farther from Chinese coasts.

He defended a security failure in 2006 when the aircraft carrier battle group led by the USS Kitty Hawk allowed a Chinese submarine to sail undetected within torpedo range of the ship.

"No danger presented to either," he said. "The carrier was in a very relaxed posture. If there were some heightened state of tension, we would, believe me, we would not let them get that close. But we are watching the submarine technology very carefully. We want them to understand that there are rules of the road, both figurative and literal, and it is very much in their best interest to observe and operate by those rules of the road."

China's military has rebuffed repeated efforts by Pacific Command and the Pentagon to reach a maritime agreement on naval operating rules.

The Chinese Embassy declined comment.

Defense budget work

Pentagon officials are working behind the scenes to finish the latest annual defense budget to be sent to Congress in the next several weeks. Budget officials have been asked by the new administration to fit all programs into a total spending request of about $527 billion.

Budget cuts are expected to include sharp reductions in numbers of tactical military aircraft and perhaps scaling back plans for building three of the Navy's new high-tech $3.3 billion warships known as DDX. Also on the chopping block are numbers of F-22 jets.

Air Force Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff, told reporters Feb. 17 that the service is unlikely to seek to buy the 381 jets it once said were needed. Gen. Schwartz said he will be discussing plans to buy F-22s with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in the near future.

Asked about comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that about 60 F-22s will be bought over three years, Gen. Schwartz said: "I won't dispute Adm. Mullen's characterization, but as I've indicated, I have yet to discuss this with the secretary of defense."

Gen. Schwartz also said that as far as fighter jets go, "the expectation is the F-35 will predominate in the fighter fleet." The F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, will begin coming on line in 2013, he said.

"And certainly it will be our intent and certainly our recommendation that the F-35 production rates are sufficiently high to enjoy both production efficiencies on the one hand which will benefit not only the U.S. customers here including the Navy and the Marine Corps, but also our overseas customers," Gen. Schwartz said. "The rate of acquisition will be at a rate which can assist us with our aging issue."

One program likely to remain is for a planned new long-range bomber, according to a defense official.

Pentagon burrowing

The Pentagon is investigating an assertion from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, that Bush administration political appointees are "burrowing" into career positions at the Pentagon.

"We do not believe any 'burrowing' took place but are conducting an audit of special hiring authorities to ensure nothing occurred under the radar," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

"However, concern that any Pentagon employee, whether career or a political holdover, would seek to frustrate the execution of the new president's policies is unfounded. We are at war. We have a commander in chief. We all, both military and civilian in the Defense Department, follow the president's directives, guidance and orders as professionals."

The comments were made in response to a Feb. 4 letter from Mrs. Feinstein to Mr. Gates asking for an investigation into burrowing by Bush appointees in the Office of Detainee Affairs.

"I ask that you immediately review the circumstances behind the conversion of these positions and the hiring of any former Bush administration appointees as career or temporary appointments in that office," she said.

A defense official said the request was prompted by reports that Tara Jones, a former aide to a Republican senator, who worked as a contractor in public affairs and became a political appointee in the detainee office, is seeking to secure a nonpolitical career position.

The official said any probe should not be limited to Bush appointees but include burrowing by Clinton administration aides, such as Kaye Whitley, a political appointee who became a highly paid GS-15 in the office for prisoner of war and missing in action issues.

"These issues are hardly ever raised about Clinton politicals who obtain career positions," the official said.

Wall Street Journal
February 25, 2009
Pg. 8

By David Crawford

A suspected Syrian nuclear site bombed by Israel has been converted to a military installation for firing missiles, a Syrian delegate told diplomats in Vienna at a Tuesday meeting of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

The statement, which took many in the room by surprise, came during a discussion of inspections of the site by the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a Vienna-based diplomat.

IAEA investigators took soil samples in June in an effort to determine whether there was nuclear development at the site as Israel has alleged. An IAEA report last week said the samples has unexplained traces of low enriched uranium used in nuclear fuel.

The report received wide coverage in Israel. Israel believes Syria has secretly supported Hamas and Hezbollah militants who attacked Israel with missiles. A Syrian nuclear program, if confirmed, could further destabilize the Middle East.

Until Tuesday's meeting, the IAEA hadn't reported Syria's claim that the site has a missile-related military function, which Syria says means it shouldn't be open to free inspection. The Vienna-based diplomat said the IAEA believes the site's current function is irrelevant to the investigation.

At the meeting, the Syrian delegate recalled a conversation in June with the head of the IAEA inspection team, Olli Heinonen, saying he had referred to missiles then, the diplomat said.

IAEA officials in Vienna could not be reached, and its office at U.N. headquarters in New York had no comment on the disclosure. Israeli diplomats in New York and Washington had no comment.

USA Today
February 24, 2009
Pg. 11

 

The U.S. essentially has four options — from best to worst — going forward in Afghanistan.

 

By Ralph Peters

The conflict in Afghanistan is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of concentrating on the critical mission of keeping Islamist terrorists on the defensive, we've mired ourselves by attempting to modernize a society that doesn't want to be — and cannot be — transformed.

In the absence of a strategy, we're doubling our troop commitment, hoping to repeat the success we achieved in the profoundly different environment of Iraq. Unable to describe our ultimate goals with any clarity, we're substituting means for ends.

Expending blood and treasure blindly in Afghanistan, we do our best to shut our eyes to the worsening crisis next door in Pakistan, a radicalizing Muslim state with more than five times the population and a nuclear arsenal. We've turned the hose on the doghouse while letting the mansion burn.

Initially, Afghanistan wasn't a war of choice. We had to dislodge and decimate al-Qaeda, while punishing the Taliban and strengthening friendlier forces in the country. Our great mistake was to stay on in an attempt to build a modernized rule-of-law state in a feudal realm with no common identity.

We needed to smash our enemies and leave. Had it proved necessary, we could have returned later for another punitive mission. Instead, we fell into the great American fallacy of believing ourselves responsible for helping those who've harmed us. This practice was already fodder for mockery 50 years ago, when the novella and film The Mouse That Roared postulated that the best way for a poor country to get rich was to declare war on America then surrender.

Even if we achieved the impossible dream of creating a functioning, unified state in Afghanistan, it would have little effect on the layered crises in the Muslim world. Backward and isolated, Afghanistan is sui generis (only example of its kind). Political polarization in the U.S. precludes an honest assessment, but Iraq's the prize from which positive change might flow, while Afghanistan could never inspire neighbors who despise its backwardness.

Recalling failures of Vietnam

Echoing Vietnam, we're pouring wealth into Afghanistan, corrupting those we wish to rally; we're fighting with restrictions against an enemy who enjoys sanctuaries across international borders; and our core enemies are natives, not foreign parties (as al-Qaeda was in Iraq).

If the impending surge fails to pacify the country, will we send another increment of troops, then another, as we did in Southeast Asia? As the British learned the hard way, Afghanistan can be disciplined, but it can't be profitably occupied or liberalized. It's inconceivable to us, but many Afghans prefer their lives to the lives we envision for them. The lot of women is hideous, and the lives of nearly all the people are nasty, brutish and short. But the culture is theirs.

Even "our man in Kabul," President Hamid Karzai, put his self-interest above any greater cause. Reborn a populist, he backs every Taliban claim that the U.S. inflicts only civilian casualties in virtually every effort against terrorists. Karzai is convinced that we can't abandon him.

We should do just that. Instead of floundering in search of a strategy, we should consider removing the bulk, if not all, of our forces. The alternative is to hope blindly, waste more lives and resources, and, in the worst case, see our vulnerable supply route through Pakistan cut, forcing upon our troops the most ignominious retreat since Korea in 1950 (a massive air evacuation this time around, leaving a wealth of military gear).

Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:

Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.

Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.

Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home, renewing our strategic capabilities.

Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.

Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy. Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge.

A reality check

In any event, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, will determine the future of Islamist extremism in the region. And Pakistan is nearly lost to us — a fact we must accept. Our strategic future lies with India.

President Obama pitched Afghanistan as the good war during his campaign, while rejecting our efforts in Iraq as a sideshow. He got it exactly wrong. Now our new president either needs to lay out a coherent, detailed strategy with realistic goals, or accept that, by mid-2002, we had achieved all that conventional forces could manage in Afghanistan.

We don't need hope. We need the audacity of realism.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author of Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.

Washington Post
February 23, 2009
Pg. 17

In The Loop

By Al Kamen

On the foreign policy front, Alexander "Sandy" Vershbow, a highly regarded career diplomat who has been ambassador to NATO, Russia and most recently South Korea, is said to be moving to the Pentagon to work for Michele A. Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy (the old Douglas Feith job). At the State Department, Daniel Poneman, a former top National Security Council aide, is expected to take over the nonproliferation portfolio for the undersecretary-in-waiting for nonproliferation, Robert Einhorn, while Rose Gottemoeller, former director of the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow Center, is said to be picking up the other assistant secretaryship for verification and arms control.

With Philip Rucker

Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)
February 22, 2009

By Associated Press

BAGHDAD — The American military is shipping battlefield equipment through Jordan and Kuwait, testing possible exit routes in advance of a U.S. withdrawal in Iraq, military officials said.

The convoys — carrying armored vehicles, weapons and other items — mark the Pentagon's first steps in confronting the complex logistics of transporting the huge arsenal stockpiled in Iraq over nearly six years.

It's also part of a wider assessment, ordered by U.S. Central Command, to decide what items the military can transfer, donate, sell or toss away once a full-scale withdrawal is under way, Marine Corps and Army officials told The Associated Press.

"Because they are starting to see a potential reduction of forces, they are looking to get more stuff out," Terry Moores, the deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, said Saturday.

"We started slow," Moores said, but added "it's picked up speed" in recent months.

The Iraqi-U.S. security pact, which took effect Jan. 1, calls for American troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities by June 30 and completely pull out troops by 2012 — a timeline that could speed up if President Barack Obama keeps to a campaign promise to have troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

In testimony before the U.S. House of Representative earlier this month, the independent Government Accountability Office said the Pentagon needed to redefine its withdrawal strategy, saying it did not take into account either the security pact deadline or Obama's possible accelerated timeframe.

The biggest obstacle is the question of how to move tens of thousands of personnel and millions of tons of equipment out of Iraq, according to testimony by a GAO managing director.

The U.S. brought most of its material in through Kuwait, one of the main staging grounds for the 2003 invasion. There are currently more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The capacity of facilities in Kuwait and other neighboring countries may limit the speed at which equipment and material can be moved out of Iraq," the GAO report said.

It recommended looking at multiple routes through Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, where the U.S. has already constructed bridge overpasses for heavy tanks on the road between the Iraqi border and the Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Mersin.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the Pentagon has already examined exit routes through Turkey and Jordan. Both countries, longtime U.S. allies, support the withdrawal planning contingencies, said Mullen.

The Marines have made 17 shipments of vehicles and weapons — totaling 20,000 items — through Jordan's Aqaba port, using contractors to haul the items to either commercial container ships or U.S. Navy ships, Moores said in a telephone interview from Bahrain, the base of the U.S. 5th Fleet.

"Jordan and Kuwait offer a great mix of routes and great infrastructure to get our stuff out," he said.

The shipments through Jordan also have given the leaders in Amman an "understanding about what it takes to move equipment and personnel," he said.

New snag in speaker choice

The struggle to select an Iraqi parliament speaker hit another snag Saturday after a Sunni party demanded a court ruling on the voting rules — threatening further delays on key legislation, including a law on investment in Iraq's oil fields.

Iraq's parliament has been in gridlock since the resignation of the Sunni speaker in December after complaints about his abrasive language and erratic behavior. Under Iraq's power-sharing rules, his replacement must be Sunni but lawmakers have been unable to agree on a candidate.

The impasse has frozen debate on important measures such as Iraq's budget and regulations on foreign oil investment and sharing revenue among the nation's various groups.

The latest twist came when the largest Sunni political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, asked for the nation's Supreme Court to rule on how many votes are needed: a majority from the 275-seat parliament as the current rules say, or just most of the lawmakers casting votes.

Wall Street Journal
February 21, 2009
Pg. 5

By August Cole

The Obama administration is expected to unveil a Defense Department budget next week that ensures wrenching decisions at the Pentagon about which weapons programs should face cuts.

The financial crisis and the $787 billion economic-stimulus package have shaken up many long-term assumptions about government spending. The preliminary budget for fiscal 2010, which starts Oct. 1, will be the White House's first chance to reveal what its spending priorities will be across the federal government. A more detailed version is expected in April that will reveal the winners and losers.

With fiscal pressure mounting, many in the defense industry are braced for what could be the beginning of a protracted campaign to pare spending on big programs. Most defense companies reported record profits in 2008, and some contractors have grappled with cost overruns and delays on their biggest weapons programs, making them easy targets for cutbacks.

In the defense contractors' corner: national-security-minded lawmakers, as well as those trying to protect local jobs.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been trying to use the Pentagon budget as a tool for achieving his broader policy goal of balancing the military's traditional orientation toward big wars with today's focus on unconventional missions against insurgents and terrorists. Mr. Gates said last week he has already been hunting for items he can pare back, in order to ensure "the budget reflects the need to balance current and future capabilities and the president's priorities." Even before the financial crisis, he pressed hard for such changes.

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment on the budget.

The Obama administration's base budget for the Pentagon will likely be higher than last year's, according to people following the process. But that's because the base budget is expected to roll in many additional costs that previously had been accounted for separately. In recent years, billions in Defense Department spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other items, were appropriated outside the Pentagon's base budget.

Mr. Gates said last week that he is trying to fold such war costs and other supplemental spending into the general Pentagon budget, but that he is not able to move as quickly as he would like, citing "today's economic realities."

For fiscal 2009, Congress so far has allocated about $66 billion in such supplemental funding, on top of the Defense Department's base budget of $513 billion. Mr. Gates has estimated that approximately another $70 billion in fiscal 2009, which ends Sept. 30, will be needed, and a request to Congress is expected soon.

In fiscal 2008, the Pentagon had a base budget of $480 billion and $187 billion in supplemental spending.

"Overall spending, when you count the base [budget] and the supplemental, will go down" from fiscal 2009, said Robert Work, vice president of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. Mr. Work, who was also on the Obama transition team, said that the White House's Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department appear to have settled on a base budget figure ranging from $535 billion to $540 billion for fiscal 2010.

Lawmakers also expect a similar figure, according to people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Gates's vision for a leaner budget is bumping up against the military's own assessment of its weapons needs. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said Tuesday the service will ask for more Lockheed F-22 Raptor fighters, though Mr. Gates has said the planned 183 jets are sufficient. But Gen. Schwartz also cut back the Air Force's previous goal of buying 381 of the $143 million jets.

For Boeing Co., a more than $200 billion Army modernization effort, shared with SAIC Inc., is expected to come under pressure, despite success in speeding up deployment of some systems.