Latest from Coffee House

The New York Times reports that President Obama has re-opened internal debate about Afghan policy, suggesting that he is going to u-turn from the counter-insurgency strategy that he announced in March. It seems that Joe Biden, who lost the policy argument last time round, might win out with his argument that, “Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.” If Obama were to adopt this strategy, it would put

So, the report written by ISAF commander, Stanley McChrystal, to President Obama on NATO’s Afghan mission has been published. It does not contain a request for more US troops, but most analysts think it is only a matter of time before a request is sent from Kabul. In the recently-published report, McChrystal says: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.” But serious changes will be required. These will have to address what McChrystal calls “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials.” The US general also admits “ISAF’s own errors”. Bear in mind, though, that the report was

Bob Woodward has the scoop that General McChrystal’s review of Afghan strategy calls for more troops. McChrystal is direct, stating that “ISAF requires more forces” and that “inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. He is also clear that these troops are needed now, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” McChrystal has yet to present his request for more troops to the Pentagon but it is clear that he will ask the administration for considerably more troops. Obama now has to decide whether

The latest results from Afghanistan’s presidential election are showing that the incumbent President Hamid Karzai has garnered 54.1 percent of the vote after 92 percent of polling stations declared. Crucially, this puts him above the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a run-off with rival Abdullah Abdullah. But the result has been greeted with derision by observers, while the Election Complaints Commission (ECC) has said a recount and inspection should be done for any polling station where 600 or more votes were cast, or where any single candidate got more than 95% of votes. So what happens next? First of all, expect a fight to develop between the Independent Election

The tension between defence ministers and senior officers has been a running story throughout the summer, perhaps at the expense of the opinions of troops on the ground. The Times’ war correspondent, Anthony Loyd, wrote a piece today describing soldiers’ views in the wake of the Prime Minister’s visit: ‘One can only hope that if Mr Brown had braved the journey northwards from Bastion to Sangin (he didn’t), where British infantrymen are getting killed or wounded at a rate directly comparable to that of their predecessors in Western Europe in 1944, his media men would have first whitewashed the graffiti in the latrine third from the left on the northern wall. ‘“I

Lots of photo opportunities for the Prime Minister in Afghanistan, looking almost louche in shirt-sleeves and tie, but he’s attempted to provide some much needed direction for the Afghan mission. Last month, David Miliband said that Nato must talk to the Taliban and the Guardian reports that Brown is considering reconciliation also. Here are the details: ‘A source close to Brown suggested negotiations with insurgents sympathetic to the Taliban, persuading them to switch sides, now formed a key component of Britain’s war effort. He added: “The more reconciliation, the better.” Diplomatic sources in Helmand suggested such efforts could be on a large scale: “A large part of the Taliban are

The Wall Street Journal’s write up of its interview with the new US commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, demonstrates why more troops are needed in Afghanistan. The Journal concentrates on the suspicion among some in military circles that the Taliban are using the American emphasis on Helmand to strengthen their grip on Kandahar, the capital of the South and the Taliban’s traditional stronghold. The paper reports that the Taliban are setting up shadow government and court system there. However, McChrystal can’t move troops there until the planned reinforcements arrive as those deployed in Helmand ‘have already set up forward operating bases and recruited help from local tribal leaders, who have

Splits appear to be emerging in the Pakistani Taliban after a US drone-strike reportedly killed its leader. The New York Times says that a ‘Pakistani government official and an intelligence official said Hakimullah Mehsud, a young and aggressive aide to the former Taliban leader, had been shot dead in a fight with Waliur Rehman, another commander who was seeking to become the leader.’ As a US official tells the paper, splits within the group can be exploited by the US and the Pakistanis. Also anything that limits the Pakistani Taliban’s effectiveness is to be welcomed—the Pakistani state fully collapsing under jihadi pressure is the nightmare scenario. However, a split within

So what do we learn from the Times’s interview with David Richards, the man who is set to replace Richard Dannatt as the head of the British Army?  Both a little and a lot.  Most of the piece is made up of nice anecdotes and flatering quotes about the general, and he deflects a lot of the weightier questions with utterly uncontroversial answers – i.e. declining to say whether the army is properly resourced, and adding that “our own tactics must reflect the equipment and troop numbers we have.”   But some of his responses are much more eyecatching; as when he claims the “whole process [in Afghanistan] might take

If Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, has been killed that is a major success which should help both in the fight against the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan; Mehsud had up to 20,000 fighters under his command. It appears that a drone hit his father in law’s house while he was there receiving medical treatment. One of his wives is reported to have also been killed in the strike. Drones are a controversial part of the US arsenal, some argue that the collateral damage they inflict turns the population against the coalition and so make them not worth using. But for this kind of operation they are