National Interest USA

The acronym MENA stands for Mission Element Need Assessment. It’s a document constructed to objectively assess if the self-interests of the United States are compelling enough to warrant the institution of a change to national policy or the initiation, continuation or termination of national action including, but not limited to, acts of war.

A MENA supports what eventually becomes a combination of Presidential Orders, National Security Decision Directives and Congressional Acts and Mandates that instruct the country’s apparatus to act accordingly. At this point in time with respect to Afghanistan, that process assumes that sufficient national interest exists to warrant that the United States needs to (a) conduct active military operations in the theater and (b) engage in a program of reshaping the Afghan nation and culture. This conclusion was arrived at nearly a decade ago by the Bush Administration and is currently embraced by the Obama Administration. The questions about Afghanistan boil down to (a) whether or not the conclusion is still valid and (b) what direction the dialectic is headed, so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no trouble with pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth and killing them. I remember writing cautiously about Afghanistan about a decade ago when Osama Bin Laden fled there and the process of winnowing down the Al-Qaeda network’s influence began in earnest. I worried we might be doing some of it the wrong way. We had picked up where we had left off in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was the occupier fighting by proxy using local mercenary armies sprinkled with US advisors and leveraged by US aerial might. It felt too much like the toe dipping that got us into trouble in Vietnam. I also thought that in our myopia we were discounting too much the lessons learned by the Russian military in these very same mountains. I still contend that politically we could have — and strategically, we should have — gone in there and done the bulk of the job ourselves. Afghanistan should have been a lopsided battle between two foreign forces making as little collateral impact on the local populace as possible. It was not to be.

As Afghanistan unfolded I worried that actively continuing to fund and encourage the militarization of the Afghan regime — and by consequence its domestic and foreign opposition — and attempting to introduce cultural “American-style Westernization” into the country would have dire future consequences. This was not the Mesopotamia where the world’s first great libraries were founded, where the Tigris River created the basis of national organization, and secularization — granted at the hands of a brutal dictator — had been established. No one has ever succeeded at permanently altering the cultural tribalism of Afghanistan. No one has because tribal organization is a natural equilibrium dictated by the terrain. An axiom of global stability applies, “Mother Earth does not care what the monkeys scurrying about on her surface think.”

I actually like Afghanistan as a battleground. It’s probably one of the world’s best “kill boxes” for concentrating a threat and engaging it in isolation. The fact that Al-Qaeda was stupid enough to retreat there is what I like to think of as a “Blessing of Allah” giving the infidels the perfect laboratory to practice the Art of War.

Sadly, so far I think we’ve missed scoring our touchdown.

The threat to the U.S. National Interest which was once so clear you could use a push pin to mark where it was has become diffuse. The rules of engagement have become Byzantine. Strategic military advantage has steadily degenerated to it’s inevitable stalemated equilibrium. And most dire of all, what we are seeing is the primary target learning to escape the ideal set-piece capture box and move eastward into the populated sanctuary of Pakistan where the potential regional destabilization of a sub-continent threatens to undermine future global stability.

The United States of America will follow that threat because we have to. Al-Qaeda remains a clear and present danger not just to our country but many others. I have no doubt that a multi-national mission to maintain contact and effect continued attrition remains necessary. Quite honestly, it remains in the world’s interest to contain that threat in Afghanistan’s remoteness and continue to extract as much attrition as possible. How well we can do this dictates when what must come next will happen.

The day when Afghanistan’s battlegrounds will go fallow is coming. If and when the threat migrates, its value to the United States and the world will surely diminish below the effort required to be there. Then the Afghans will be left to pick through the detritus of our visit.

They are a resilient people and they’ve do so many times in the history of mankind. I’m not so worried about the power and politics of that country. I’m confident that no matter what we do, it will remain largely the same. They have within them an abundance of leadership, not always the kind we approve of, but then again, whose domestic political backyard doesn’t look like that. It takes up to three lifetimes — almost two centuries — to slowly demobilize a nation of tribal armies. The Afghans have never had that much peace in their history. It’s what they live with and truthfully, they’re better at it than most people on this planet.

What I do worry about are the consequences of the feeble Westernization we have imposed on these people. We’ve installed a more efficient political apparatus in the hope that it will mean the blossoming of democracy and plurality. But history is full of instances where that infrastructure only served as a conduit for warlords with ambition to rise more rapidly to dictatorship. We’ve enabled — make that encouraged — individuals to dream beyond the limits of their mountains. Some have taken our admonition to heart. When at last our occupation ends, I fear for them most of all. Their suffering will likely be brutal. We will owe those who supported us just as we owe so many others before them that believed in our promises of what were ultimately to be unsustainable dreams. It doesn’t have to turn out that way, but it will unless we make it important enough not to.

This is what rests on the shoulders of President Barack Obama. It is for him and his Cabinet to find peace with honor in Afghanistan. To set into motion how we will honor those who stood by us in the challenges they will face after we’ve gone. And to prepare and align our diplomatic and military forces for the next stage in the pursuit of those who seek to harm us. That’s my mission element need assessment.

SIMON MANN

WASHINGTON: The US President, Barack Obama, has called for an end to the bitter debate over healthcare reform, committing Democrats to a last-ditch effort to pass laws that are expected to extend health insurance to an additional 30 million Americans.

To do so, Mr Obama confirmed the use of a parliamentary tactic known as reconciliation, but shrugged off Republican charges that its use would amount to an abuse of power.

“The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future,” Mr Obama said during a choreographed media announcement where he was flanked by medical workers wearing white lab coats.

“They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.

“I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

The palpable sense of urgency contained in the President’s announcement has been reflected increasingly in the words of Democratic strategists conscious that 13 months into the Obama presidency, the administration remains focused heavily on its healthcare reform and not on job creation.

With Mr Obama’s popularity sagging, data due for release today is expected to reveal accelerating job losses in February.

Unemployment sits a shade under 10 per cent, but the recession’s impact has hit black and Latino communities particularly hard, with jobless rates of 16.5 per cent and 12.6 per cent.

A further 20 million Americans say they still cannot get enough work.

Marc Morial, the president of the National Urban League, which works for economic self-reliance for African-Americans, said the US needed “a strong, targeted jobs bill … and we need it now”. He described the recent $US15 billion ($16.6 billion) jobs bill, with tax relief for small businesses that take on new workers, as “timid” and “weak”.

A victory on healthcare would finally free up Democrats to throw everything at job creation in the lead-up to November’s midterm elections.

But the course that the Democrats have chosen is complicated. The healthcare bill originally passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve will now be sent to the House of Representatives, where Democrats command a big majority. Once passed by the House, the details of the reform will be fine-tuned in a reconciliation bill that will take in some measures proposed by Republicans while extracting other highly contentious items that favour individual states.

While a reconciliation bill, like all legislation, requires a simple majority for it to be passed, debate on such a bill is limited to just 20 hours in each chamber, negating an attempted filibuster.

While reconciliation has been used more than 20 times since its introduction in 1974, Republicans argue that in this case it is inappropriate.

The Obama administration pointed out that the Bush administration used reconciliation to push through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2001 and 2003.

A Republican senator, John Thune, said using the tactic for a big revamp of one-sixth of the US economy without any bipartisan support was ”unprecedented”. “It’s not a done deal,” Senator Thune said. He hoped “reasonable Democrats” would join Republicans to kill off the legislation.

First family to fly in … President Obama and his family will visit later this month. Photo: Reuters/Jason Reed

Barack Obama’s trip to Australia this month is in jeopardy as the US President pushes to clinch historic healthcare reform in America, one of his key election pledges.

Mr Obama, with his family, is expected to arrive in Australia on March 22 for a three-day tour after visiting Guam and Indonesia. But some fellow Democrats have expressed concern that the President’s absence will come during the critical final act of his revamp of the healthcare system, which is expected to extend health insurance coverage to an extra 30 million Americans.

Mr Obama will address a joint sitting of both houses of Parliament on March 23, the government confirmed yesterday.

”The United States is our most important friend and ally,” the leader of the house, Anthony Albanese, said in Canberra. ”President Obama will be a very welcome guest in our country.” Mr Albanese also announced that the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, would address a joint sitting next Wednesday.

Mr Obama said yesterday that Democrats would use a parliamentary tactic known as reconciliation to thwart Republican attempts to block the reforms.

”It’s his judgment call,” the Democrat congressman Elijah Cummings told the Bloomberg news agency. ”But it would be a good sign if perhaps the trip were postponed until we get healthcare done … Moments like this don’t come often. We’re at a crucial time.”

In Canberra, the US ambassador’s children are preparing to play host to the Obamas.

”My kids are practising their Wii skills so they can go one-on-one with Sasha and Malia,” Jeffrey Bleich said.

It was ”not accidental ”, Mr Bleich told the Herald in Sydney yesterday, that Mr Obama was visiting Australia earlier in his term than any other US president. ”The US has no better friend in the world than Australia and this is one way of demonstrating it in a very concrete fashion.”

He said the visit would reinforce a partnership already in great working order and there were no plans to ask Australia to provide more troops for Afghanistan at this time.

”All the big issues we are working on, we are working with Australia. I think the meetings between the President and Prime Minister will be about those big global issues – Afghanistan, counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency, climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, broader regional free trade, scientific and technological exchange.”

He expects China’s expanding role to be on the leaders’ agenda, but Mr Bleich played down the prospect of any role for the Mandarin-speaking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a conduit between the world’s two biggest economies. ”At the end of the day, it’s a bilateral relationship, and it has to be done bilaterally. That is how hard issues are addressed and how hard issues are resolved,” Mr Bleich said.

Some have portrayed China’s blocking actions at the Copenhagen climate change conference and refusal to back sanctions against Iran’s nuclear ambitions as signs of a more assertive foreign policy. Mr Bleich said he would not call China’s evolving interaction more assertive, but rather a reflection of a more mature relationship, and it was normal there was some friction.

with Ari Sharp