The War and the Election in Afghanistan by US and UK Experts

Prior to the presidential election on August 20, the Brookings Institution has released special issues on Afghanistan. In the above videos, Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, talks some key points of the war and the election. He says that the Taliban is extremely strong at present. Riedel insists that the coalition can win the war through rebuilding Afghan security forces to contain, not eliminate Taliban forces. Quite importantly, Riedel points out that “the race is competitive this time, which makes the result of this election more legitimate than that of previous one." The legitimacy of the elected government is critical for the HOPE OF THE CHANGE in this war, Riedel says. Finally, Riedel argues that the United States is the only actor to intermediate mutual distrust between Afghanistan and Pakistan, regarding Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistani territory.

The above video comments are concise and insightful. In Iraq, successful election and legitimate government discouraged terrorists. This election is a turning point in Afghanistan as well. Furthermore, I would like to mention two articles.

Jeremy Shapiro, Director of Studies at the Brookings Institution, says that the success of this election is a matter of domestic politics in the United States and Europe as well. American and European governments send troops to promote the value of democracy, and good achievements will enhance their domestic and international grounds (“The 2009 Afghan Elections and the Future of the International Community in Afghanistan”; Brookings Research and Commentary; August 13, 2009).

Vanda Felbab-Brown, Fellow at the Brookings Institution, warns that the United States and NATO allies not give interventionist impression to Afghan people, and respect self-motivated initiatives by Afghan leaders and citizens (“The 2009 Afghanistan Elections and the Future of Governance”; Brookings Research and Commentaries; August 13, 2009).

As the election is coming, Taliban attack is getting intensified. As I mentioned in a previous post, recent sharp rise in the number of casualties is a controversial issue in Britain. In face of bitter criticism to the Afghan policy, Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said the war is winnable. Ainsworth stressed that the British forces are making progress to defeat the Taliban and help Afghanistan protect their country on their own.

The British forces started the Operation Panther’s Claw in June this year for intensive offense against the Taliban in Helmand province. Since then, the number of casualties soared dramatically, as shown in the table below.



Source: BBC


General Sir Richard Dannatt who is leaving Afghanistan, articulated that good governance in Afghanistan and Pakistan would secure the British public in the end, and appealed morale support for this war despite current difficulties (“Ainsworth defends Afghan mission”; BBC News; 17 August 2009).

The incoming head of the British Army, General Sir David Richards refuted the rumor of a 40 year stay of UK forces in Afghanistan, and defended the Defence Secretary, regarding war objectives (“General Sir David Richards backs Bob Ainsworth on Afghanistan time frame”; Times; August 17, 2009).

Shortly after the election, General Stanley McChrystal of the US Army will address a strategy assessment as the head of the coalition (“RPT-Obama to seek to rally support for Afghan war effort”; Reuters; August 17, 2009). This election is a landmark for the future of Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda will not disappear immediately, even though the election succeeds. The post-election assessment by General McChrystal is a must to read, in order to understand the prospects of the War on Terror.

The Russo-Western Tug War over Ukraine

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev postponed dispatching new Russian ambassador to Kiev, and blamed Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko for his anti-Russian policies, such as arming Georgia against Russia and pursuing NATO membership. This is a pressure on the forthcoming Ukrainian presidential election in January 2010. According to Lilia Shevtsova, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Moscow Center, "It is a message to any new leader that we will deal with you only when you accept our demands." (Medvedev issues ultimatum to Ukraine leadership”; Financial Times; August 12, 2009).

In the TV speech broadcasted by Russia Today on August 10, President Medvedev explains why he sent such a hash message to Ukraine. Medvedev stressed common cultural heritage and history between Russia and Ukraine. However, he denounced Ukrainian defense policy to supply its weapons to Georgia in the war over South Ossetia. In cultural and educational policy, Medvedev blamed the Ukrainian government for excluding the Russian language at school and public organizations. In the economy, Medvedev criticizes Ukrainian restrictions on Russian businesses. On history, Medvedev blamed Ukraine for illustrating the Great Patriotic War as a battle between dictators. Considering current enthusiasm for Stalin in Russia, the Yushhenko administration has aroused Russian ire. See the video below.





Actually Russians felt critically nervous when US Vice President Joseph Biden visited Ukraine and Georgia, following the Moscow summit between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev from July 6 to 8 to reset US Russian relations. Russia Today interviewed Ivan Eland, a political analyst at the Independent Institute, on July 20. Eland says that the United States is sending a mixed signal. As Obama told the United States wants to improve relations with Russia, while endorsing NATO expansion. In the interview, Eland soothes Russian public concern with the mixed signal, and emphasizes that Russia hosted the President while Ukraine and Georgia hosts just the Vice President. Therefore, he says that the United States will not ruin the relationship with Russia for the sake of Ukraine and Georgia. See the following video.





Both videos illustrate widespread viewpoints among Russian policymakers, regarding the advance of the Free Europe into the Former Soviet Union. In other words, Russian leaders still retain Soviet styled geopolitical instinct.

As Lilia Shevtsova told the Financial Times, President Medvedev said that the relationship with Ukraine would not be normalized until a new leader supplants current President Yushchenko (“Medvedev: No Normal Ties with Ukraine Under Current Leaders”; VOA News; 14 August 2009).

Tomas Valasek, Director of Foreign Policy and Defence at the Centre for European Reform, has released an insightful report to understand the tug war between Russia and the West, entitled “Why Ukraine matters to Europe” in December 2008. He points out that Ukraine has tremendously signaling power, as it is the largest country between the EU and Russia in terms of area and population. EU members in Eastern Europe want a strong and stable buffer against Russia. Once Ukraine joins the EU, this will have significant influences on from EU neighbors like Belarus and Moldova to Caucasus nations.

Quite importantly, Valasek points out that if Ukraine succeeds in developing a transparent political system and a credible market economy, it would undermine the appeal of Putin-styled state controlled capitalism. Therefore, Russia wants to slow down Europeanization of former Soviet nations beyond geopolitical considerations.

Most importantly, Valasek argues that poor governance in Ukraine dominated by corrupt oligarchs is a hurdle for the membership to the EU and NATO. Also, this provokes Russian interventionism, as Vladimir Putin said to George W. Bush, “George, Ukraine is not even a state.”

Both Western and Russian media tend to focus on geopolitical rivalry, but the Ukrainian must be reformed as well. Tomas Valasek mentions invaluable points to advance Ukrainian bid for EU and NATO membership, and read the report for detail. The West needs to help Ukrainians build good governance to fulfill the qualification for the Atlantic community and separate themselves from Soviet legacies. Once Ukraine is successfully Europeanized, things in the New Cold War between the West and the Russo-Chinese axis will be in our favor.

General Petraeus Speaks on Iraq and Afghanistan

General David Petraeus delivered a keynote speech at the event, entitled “Striking a Balance: A New American Security” by the Center for a New American Security on June 11. General Petraeus is too well known for his success in Iraq, and currently, he is the head of the Central Command whose operational scope ranges from Kazakhstan to Kenya, and Egypt to Pakistan. In the presidential election last year, Republican candidate John McCain mentioned Petraeus the most important advisor.

See the above video, just over 1 hour. Petraeus tells how the Coalition achieved success in Iraq, and how to apply this success to Afghanistan. Also, he explains how multilateral counterterrorist policy interactions are preceded (Also, see the text).

Quite importantly, General Petraeus defined, “The overriding mission of a military force in counterinsurgency has to be to secure the people, to protect the population.” Antiwar, anti-American, or anti-Western leftists must keep these words in mind, and stop committing themselves to dubious political manipulations to help bloody terrorists and autocrats.

In Iraq, the Allied Forces moved out of the Green Zone, and decided to live close to Iraqi people so that soldiers could work together with them. In Afghanistan, coalition soldiers cannot live among people, because it is difficult to find empty houses to live in small villages and rural areas. However, Petraeus says that Western forces can behave as good partners and good neighbors by staying near the village. Simultaneously, he tells that irreconcilable bad guys must be captured and killed.

Showing a diagram of counterterrorist strategy on the slide, General David Petraeus says that the Allied Forces needed “to challenge them for popular support, go after them, attack their ideology, disrupt their command and control, cut their links to senior leaders, reduce the flow of money available to them, take away their weapons cashes and explosives, cut the flow of foreign fighters.” In Iraq, the Coalition cut the support for terrorists from safe havens in Syria through this way. In Afghanistan, similar approaches are taken to cut supports from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan in Pakistan.

General Petraeus speaks gently, intellectually, and lucidly, with occasional humor. This video will be of some help to understand his personality, as well as the strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Yoshiki Hidaka, David Petraeus is considered as one of possible Republican presidential candidate for 2012. In my view, no other candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, are so well qualified as he is. Respectable personality is no less important than political values.

It is too early to talk about 2012, as nobody knows who runs for the election. In any case, watch this video to feel cool head, warm heart, and real action hero personality of one of the key world leaders.

Magical Camelot at the Goodspeed Opera House, East Haddam, CT

The cast of Camelot celebrates the lusty month of May. Diane Sobolewski photos.

Lerner and Loewe's glorious musical Camelot is more than one brief shining moment on stage, it is an evening of magical musical theatre, a total delight for the senses. At the Goodspeed Opera House in East Haddam, Connecticut the musical has many charms, from the moment of Guenevere's arrival, to the final message of King Arthur about his Knights of the Round Table. Here is a summary of my full review and slide show which appear in Berkshire Fine Arts.

Marissa McGowan and Mollie Vogt-Welch in Goodspeed Musicals CAMELOT. Photo by Diane Sobolewski.
Directed with a sure hand and clear vision by Rob Ruggiero, the musical's book has a reputation as being a bit unwieldy, but someone has done some judicious editing, pruning and possibly even a little rewriting. It's an improvement. The actor-singers are all first rate, and in a last minute substitution, I was fortunate to have been able to see the incredible Marissa McGowan in the role of Guenevere, rather than Erin Davie. McGowan blew me away, and was very faithful to the role as I remember it from the first production which I saw in 1960 at the Colonial Theatre In Boston. That starred Julie Andrews, Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and Roddy McDowell.

Loyalties are tested between Lancelot (Maxime de Toledo) and King Arthur (Bradley Dean) in Camelot at the Goodspeed. Photo by Diane Sobolewski

Of course, comparisons are inevitable, even almost half a century later. So here goes. McGowan was every bit as good as Julie Andrews. Their voices are similar. When I closed my eyes, Bradley Dean seemed to be channeling Richard Burton and made an equally impressive King Arthur. However, Maxime de Toledo as Lancelot didn't remind me of Robert Goulet at all. He is much taller, louder and, well, cavalier. He exudes self assurance while Goulet was more vulnerable. Adam Shonkwiler as Mordrid made his character downright sinister, while Roddy McDowell only played himself. He never did have much range.

As Mordred, Adam Shonkwiler's Seven Deadly Virtues tickles wickedly in Goodspeed's CAMELOT. Photo by Diane Sobolewski.
In you take in a performance, you will likely notice the incredible sound the small pit band of just eight pieces creates using new arrangements by Dan DeLange. His choice of instrumentation is as much a work of genius as the music of Lerner and Loewe.

King Arthur (Bradlley Dean) and Merlyn (Herman Peters) begin the quest for right in Camelot at the Goodspeed. Photo by Diane Sobolewski

A short rant: Watching and listening to the video below will help you understand why I felt disappointed this summer at Barrington Stage's otherwise delightful Carousel and Berkshire Theatre Festival's well done Candide. Both companies substituted twin pianos for the usual pit bands in their productions. Even with twenty fingers, the sound is thin. But even that disappointment pales in comparison to those oozy second-rate, phony synthesizers gumming up things at the Mac Hayden Theater in nearby New York State. They are an insult to the composers whose creations are the heart and soul of the form. Musicals should be, must be, musical, not some bargain basement knockoff.

With Tanglewood so near, and music lovers flocking to the area, serving up second rate music in these productions will eventually backfire. Local theater companies cut budgets this year in response to economic realities, but don't be surprised if we see reputations and audiences decline as a result. I am not the only one who has felt cheated of the full experience one is supposed to get at a musical. Thank goodness for the new arrangements the Colonial Theatre has made with C-R Productions and the Cohoes Music Hall. Their production of The Producers last June provided a pit band, the only one in the long Summer Theater Season in the Berkshires.

The video was produced by the Goodspeed prior to opening night.

The trip to East Hadam took 2.5 hours from North Adams, and can be cut to 1.5 hours from south county. It is well worth the trip. If the weather is pleasant, you might want to take a picnic supper. The Goodspeed has set up picnic tables along the banks of the Connecticut River where they are located, and it makes for a nice break after the drive, and before the theatre.

The Goodspeed Opera House is on the Connecticut River with adjacent picnic grounds.
For more information and tickets, visit Goodspeed Musicals for details. You can also call the Box Office at 860.873.8668. Be sure to plan ahead. The wonderful old Victorian theater on the third floor of the landmarked building only has 398 seats which often sell out to the locals. There is an elevator. Don't miss the mini patio for drinks and a splendid view of the river.

The Debate on British Troops in Afghanistan

Britain is considering a surge in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda guerrillas. Throughout the postwar period, Britain has been pursuing the policy of “punch above its weight” to maintain the position as one of influential powers, while struggling with shortage of military budget and manpower. In Afghanistan, British ground forces face insufficient support from the air, and they are much more disadvantaged to engage in counterterrorist operations than American forces. Prime Minister Gordon Brown decided to send withdrawn troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to defeat insurgents. This strategy has been considered since the Blair era, and now, security in Iraq has improved while things in Afghanistan is evolving increasing serious.

In view of the rise of casualties among British soldiers, Army General Sir Richard Dannatt requested more troops and equipments in Afghanistan (“Troops need more, says Army head”; BBC News; 17 July 2009). At the Westminster parliament, Conservative leader David Cameron asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown to clarify the objective of the war in Afghanistan, in order to maintain public support for it. Also, Cameron expressed serious concern with helicopter shortage, and criticized defense policy of the Brown cabinet (“PM challenged over Afghanistan”; BBC News; 16 July 2009).

The controversy on the Afghan mission is getting increasingly intensified among the public. The Conservative Party urged to send more British troops in Afghanistan in order to speed up trainings for Afghan armed forces and the police (“Conservatives to increase British troop levels in Afghanistan, David Cameron hints”; Daily Telegraph; 3 August 2009). After talks between Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, General Stanley McChrystal of the US Army said Britain would send additional 2,000 soldiers (“Britain to send 2,000 extra troops to help train Afghans”; Times; 2 August 2009).

Britain must resolve equipments and manpower problems, while maintaining global commitment. As shown in the table below, Britain shares disproportionately great burden in the Afghan mission.




Source: Economist


Currently, the British public is supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, as Britain takes pride in its military success. However, both hawkish Tory and dovish Liberal Democrat are critical to strategic troubles of the current administration. Particularly, helicopter shortage is so serious that the out-going head of British army General Dannatt needs to use an American one. The incoming head, General Sir David Richards, mentions contending viewpoints in British defense policy. British generals complain that White Hall policymakers give preference to big arsenals such as strategic nuclear weapons and war ships, but do not give sufficient consideration to land battles against insurgents (“British forces in Afghanistan: And the soldier home from the hill”; Economist; 16 July 2009). Labour MP Mike Gapes, who led to release a report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, criticized high casualty rate of British troops, and administrative sectionalism among the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department of International Development. Furthermore, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague questioned who was in charge of the war in the cabinet (“Tell us why we're in Afghanistan, MPs say”; Times; 3 August 2009).

General Sir Mike Jackson told that structural reform of the Ministry of Defence was necessary to follow the recommendation in the House report led by Gapes, in order to focus on tightly defined strategic objectives. Current operations include counternarcotics missions as well as defeating insurgents (“UK troops 'given too many tasks'”; BBC News; 2 August 2009). If the allied forces were to focus on definite objectives, rapid trainings for Afghan security forces are required.

The Afghan problem is strongly related to British foreign and defense policy across the globe. Prior to the Falkland War, admirals of the Royal Navy objected to sacrificing aircraft carriers for the sake of Trident SLBMs. After the war, Prime Minister-then Margaret Thatcher decided to maintain carrier squadrons. Here again, Britain faces a dilemma between managing resource problems and maintaining global military presence.

Paul Cornish, Head of the International Security Programme, and Andrew Dorman, Associate Fellow, both at the Royal Institute for International Affairs, explore British defense policy. In 1998, the government released “The Strategic Defence Review (SDR)” to define British defense objectives: commitment to Europe, partnership with the United States, securing British economic interests, and defending British freedom. In order to fulfill the above aims, “After all, a careful strategic assessment might well reveal that the United Kingdom will need aircraft carriers and fast attack aircraft as well as ‘men on the ground’ .“ Cornish and Dorman proposes to withdraw troops from Germany and possess fewer types of fighters for maximum availability, thereby transform personnel and equipments more effective and cost-efficient (”National Defence in the Age of Austerity”; International Affairs; April 2009).

Finally I would like to mention an article on Afghanistan by Sir Adam Roberts, President of the British Academy and Professor at Oxford University. In a periodical published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Sir Adam comments that British and American forces have much lessons to learn from past counter insurgent operations, and foreign troops should not behave as eternal occupiers (“Doctrine and Reality in Afghanistan”; Survival; February 2009).

Policy discussions on Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan have profound implications to other US allies. Within limited resource, free nations need to explore maximum contributions to global security and defend their own sovereign interests. Some allies like Japan have mush to lean from British experience, in order to pursue greater presence in global politics and strengthen alliance with the United States.

Three Minutes of Jaw Dropping Imagination: "Civilization"

Marco Brambilla should do a past life regression. He might discover he was once Hieronymus Bosch (1453-1516), known to the Spanish as El Bosco. To prove my point, I submit for your edification, this unbelievable video, "Civilization," which reminds me of the triptych, The Garden of Earthly Delights at the Prado in Madrid.

Watch this video full screen if at all possible!

Civilization, a video mural created for the new Standard hotel in New York City, depicts a journey from hell to heaven interpreted through modern film language using computer-enhanced found footage. This epic video mural contains over 300 individual channels of looped video blended into a multi-layered seamless tableau of interconnecting images that illustrate a contemporary, satirical take on the concepts of Heaven and Hell.

Of course, picking The Rite of Spring: Ritual of the Ancients by Stravinsky puts it over the top. Look for the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man and Michael Jackson entering Heaven.

A Request for Donation

New Global America, the publisher of Global American Discourse, would like to request donations from citizens of the willing as you are.

Promote our democracy! Defeat our enemies! And pursue our co-prosperity!

Free nations of the world, unite!

Let’s explore more influence on the world. Let’s act for civic initiative.


We need your donation.
from Individual citizen: 1,000 yen (or more if you like)
Incorporation: 3,000 yen (or more if you like)

Bank account:
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
Higashi Ikebukuro Branch, Futsu (checking) account
Account number: 1804071
Account holder's name: New Global America


Please let us know when you donate. Send an e-mail from the profile page. Let's get to know each other very well. Thank you very much in advance.