National Security

Panetta to FP: He'll be a Mediator in Asia

DoD responds to Middle East unrest, a secret nuclear war plan, and more.

Welcome to Monday's edition of Foreign Policy's Situation Report.

Follow me @glubold or e-mail me at

Sign up for Situation Report here: 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Asia, where he announced that Japan would host another land-based X-band radar system as a counter to the threat posed by North Korea. The announcement comes amid ongoing fears in China that such systems are aimed to contain the Chinese, not the North Koreans. But in a joint news conference with Japanese officials, Panetta said, "We have made these concerns clear to the Chinese: North Korea and the use of these ballistic missiles is a threat to our security," Mr. Panetta said.

Panetta left Japan and is in Beijing for his first trip to China as defense secretary -- he will also visit New Zealand -- and is scheduled now to visit Xi Jinping, China's heir apparent, who resurfaced recently after disappearing from public view for about two weeks. Panetta is in Asia during escalated tensions between Japan and China over a territorial dispute over a set of islands in the East China Sea.

In an exclusive interview with FP's National Security Channel before leaving, Panetta cast himself as a mediator between the two countries. "What we've urged both China and Japan to do is to resolve these disputes as peacefully as possible as well, and that will be one of the things I will urge Japan to do," he told FP in his Pentagon office Friday. "In the stop in Japan as well as China, these kinds of disputes have to be, we have to find a way to resolve them peacefully." The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is attempting to develop a "code of conduct" for territorial disputes, but Panetta said the U.S. is still waiting for the group of nations to create an enforcement mechanism with "teeth."

Panetta also said that the public exchange between the U.S. and Israel over "red lines" masked a more serious conversation about what Iran is actually doing. He said countries don't have "a bunch of little red lines" that determine what they're going to do. "What they have are facts that are presented to them about what a country is up to, and then they weigh what kind of action has to be taken in order to deal with that situation," he said. "I mean, that's the real world. Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner."

Regarding any rift in U.S.-Israeli relations over disagreements about what should or should not be done about Iran as a growing threat, Panetta shrugged: "Let's just say, when you have friends like Israel, you engage in vigorous debates about how you confront these issues, and that's what's going on."

Unrest across the Middle East, which has subsided in the short-term in many places, nonetheless poses dangers in the long-term. Panetta said the U.S. is pre-positioning additional security forces and is looking at as many as 18 places to which to deploy them. "We're paying particular attention to areas that we have to be prepared in the event that these demonstrations get out of control," he told FP.

Amid questions that the Obama administration may have misread warnings of how much of a tinder box the Middle East is, Panetta urged caution in drawing "big, big conclusions" about what has taken place and why before investigations conclude. "We have seen videos and commentaries and burning of Qurans that have instigated demonstrations," he told FP, "and have instigated situations where violence occurred, and I don't think it necessarily represents that somehow the wrong policies were put into place."

On Afghanistan, not surprisingly, Panetta sounded confident that the recommendation ISAF Commander Gen. John Allen would make in November would give Allen the fighting force he will need through 2013. There are indications that Allen will want to keep as many of the 68,000 troops in the country as long as possible next year.

"My view is that the president of the United States will rely a great deal on the recommendations of General Allen as to what he needs to accomplish the mission," Panetta said.

Read the entire Panetta interview with FP here:


REVEALED! Presidential Decision Directive 59, Jimmy Carter's classified plan for nuclear war, which sought a nuclear force posture that ensured a "high degree of flexibility, enduring survivability, and adequate performance in the face of enemy actions." If deterrence failed, the United States "must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable." In other words, the U.S. was going to try to beat the Soviets -- and its guidelines still inform nuclear policy today, even though there are no more Soviets. Read it here:

Look who's hanging with Mark Zuckerberg? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, that's who, reports Killer Apps' John Reed. Dempsey, along with a handful of other Defense Department officials, were in Silicon Valley in August picking the brains of leaders throughout the valley and discussing the need to quickly share information on cyber threats. Conversations between the Defense Department and Silicon Valley, which included officials from Google and other companies, were meant to see how private sector innovation could counter cyber-threats the government and industry confront.

An irony of the episode in Benghazi is that while Amb. Chris Stevens stood for more engagement with local populations, not less, his death will create more security around American installations, thus diminishing American diplomats' ability to engage. Jason Pack, writing on FP, notes: "If he were still alive, Stevens would understand that cowering inside the embassy has the potential to make Libya more, not less, dangerous for U.S. personnel."


Asia, In The Heat of the Moment

No Rest for Unrest

Seeing Red Lines


  • Jerusalem Post: German Chancellor Merkel says there is still time for a political solution.
  • Haaretz: U.S. will go to war with Iran in 2013, former U.S. ambassador to Israel tells CBS.

Eleven Years and Counting

  • CS Monitor: Green on blue attacks have killed 51 in Afghanistan.
  • NYT: "Audacious raid" in Afghanistan's south that killed two U.S. Marines shows Taliban's reach
  • CNN Security Clearance: Melee in Afghanistan over film leaves 15 police injured.


National Security

The Surge in Afghanistan Ends

The Monday Morning Quarterbacking on Libya, You Just Can’t Bomb Syria, and more.

Welcome to Friday's edition of Foreign Policy's Situation Report.

Follow me @glubold or e-mail me at

Sign up for Situation Report here:


Tomorrow marks the end of the surge in Afghanistan, as the last of the 30,000 troops President Obama ordered to Afghanistan in November 2009 return home. Soon, only about 68,000 American troops will remain in Afghanistan, and come mid-November, ISAF Commander Gen. John Allen will make recommendations to Obama about how much of that force should remain in the country through next year. Much of the remaining conventional combat power will work in eastern Afghanistan and with Afghan units. The jury is still very much out on what the surge accomplished and what it didn't. And its effects won't fully be felt for many months. There are still pockets of violence where surge troops operated, and it is still far from clear if the Afghan National Security Forces will be able to step up to create a sustainable piece.

For now, ISAF spokesman Col. Tom Collins wrote in an e-mail to Situation Report that the surge was "clearly successful" because it brought "time and space" for the Afghans and coalition forces to achieve some key markers. It pushed insurgents out of the main population centers of the south, like in Kandahar City, and the communities along the Helmand River Valley. "There are still pockets of periodic violence to in outlying areas to be sure, but these populated areas are largely free of violence today," Collins wrote.

The surge also gave room to the Afghan army and police to grow, from 80,000 members of the Afghan National Army and 73,000 national police in January 2009 to 189,000 and 148,000 respectively. Last month, over 80 percent of the operations in the south were led by the Afghan Army, according to Collins.

In an exclusive interview with Situation Report last month, ISAF Commander Gen. John Allen said he would watch the post-surge environment in the south:

"I'm going to watch it very closely because this in the end, of course, is the spiritual homeland of the Pashtun rebellion. So for us it is less about a full-up conventional battle her than it is about consolidating our holds on the population," he said.


Meanwhile, the Monday morning quarterbacking has begun about Libya and how the U.S. appeared to miss the signals that would have hinted at the violent attack in Benghazi. How, on the anniversary of 9/11, could the building be so vulnerable even as officials knew a video that could incite violence was spreading across the Internet? Libya was known to have many armed militant groups, some of which are tied to Salafi extremists or jihadis who fought in Iraq and elsewhere. Administration officials have been reluctant to say much about the failure as the FBI and Department of Justice begin investigations.

"Qaddafi loyalists" had been blamed for inciting the violence this week, but analysts have pushed back on that notion because it ignores a serious problem of emerging extremism, especially in a place like Benghazi, home to the revolution that toppled Qaddafi in the first place.

"There has been a pattern of militant extremist violence picking up the last few months, but it's very easy to blame it on the Qaddafi loyalists," Sean Kane, who worked for a Swiss NGO in Libya up until this summer, told Situation Report. "And there is some reluctance to confront it directly in my view."

Extremist acts there were not new, he said, recalling an incident in January in which a meeting of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi turned violent, with extremist groups attempting to take advantage of public anger on an issue to foment violence.

Much of the extremist influence on the ground in Benghazi emanates from the city of Derna about three hours away. A State Department cable leaked by Wikileaks titled "Die Hard in Derna" details how the city became a refuge within Libya for returned foreign fighters and provided a climate for extremist influences that may have contributed to the violence this week in Benghazi: "...frustration at the inability of eastern Libyans to effectively challenge Qaddafi's regime, together with a concerted ideological campaign by returned Libyan fighters from earlier conflicts, have played an important role in Derna's development as a wellspring of Libyan foreign fighters in Iraq," according to the cable. "The [government of Libya's] limited ability to extend its writ in eastern Libya -- along with limited social outlets, dim economic prospects and the town's historical role as a center of resistance -- have fostered a landscape in which Derna's angry young men view the conflict in Iraq through the lens of dissatisfaction with their government and with the USG's perceived support of it."

Indeed, the void left by the toppling of strongman Muammar Qaddafi -- and the many stockpiles of weapons he left -- created an environment allowing armed groups to grow in strength. Many Libyans have been demanding of their government a stronger security force.

"We had asked the government many times to help create a strong military, to put the police everywhere, to secure the city," said Najla Elmangoush, a professor of criminal law at Benghazi University and an activist in Benghazi, told Situation Report. But the governmental response has not been robust amid widespread security challenges in a country lacking much in the way of security infrastructure.

While most Libyans are considered moderates who don't have a problem with foreigners, there are some groups who "don't like Libya," she said.

"They are people with their own agenda and they try to make conflict in this country," said Elmangoush. Violence on the ground in Libya, she said, isn't typically a big problem. "The problem is these weapons with the wrong guys with the wrong groups with the wrong agenda, and they try to ruin the peace process," Elmangoush said.

Meanwhile at State, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said yesterday she was able to give few details about security around the Benghazi building where the attack occurred. "What I can say is that, as we did with all our missions overseas in advance of the September 11th anniversary, and as we do every year, we did evaluate the threat stream and we determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew," Nuland said during a press conference Thursday. "But I can't speak to any other diplomatic conversations that might have gone on with the Libyans."

And, as Kevin Baron of the E-Ring reported, a CRS report earlier this year warned Congress that security had deteriorated since the election in July and that the government has not appeared able to stop attacks on buildings or prevent assassination attacks on former regime officials. "The attacks on the U.S. offices in Benghazi were the latest and most severe in a series of attacks on foreign diplomatic facilities and international organizations in Libya," according to the CRS report.


Does Libya become Iraq? There are a raft of angles to the question of whether the U.S. and international community essentially checked the box on Libya after the revolution and moved on too quickly, leaving a government lacking the capacity to provide security or governance and leaving in the vacuum room for extremist elements to emerge. Christopher S. Chivvis, writing on FP, asks if the international community was naïve. No matter what happens in Libya, he writes, "history will recall that NATO's intervention saved lives in Benghazi and opened new prospects for Libya's future. But the post-conflict order has been in limbo ever since Qaddafi was killed last October." He adds: "The nightmare scenario that Libya could go the way of Iraq in 2004 is still not likely, but no longer seems implausible," he writes.


Did the international community fail Libya by ignoring the signs of extremism? Mary Habeck on FP's Shadow Government writes that there were indications of al-Qaida-affiliated groups rising. "Now Ansar al-Sharia has been implicated with  responsibility for this latest attack on the U.S. consulate. If this is true, then Libya's security problems are no longer a matter solely of local concern, but have global implications. Even before this attack there was evidence to suggest that al Qaeda was involved in Libya. Although there is no proof of al Qaeda participation in the original uprising against Qaddafi, high-ranking al Qaeda leaders did make their way to Libya at the end of 2011," she writes.


You can't just bomb Syria. The E-Ring's Kevin Baron explains why the WMD problem in Syria can't be just blown away. "'s why, defense officials privately concede: Even if the Pentagon knew the targets, knew that they contained biological or chemical weapons, knew which specific agents were hidden at each site, had the right vehicles and ordnance to penetrate air defenses and fortifications, determined the agents were sufficiently away from populations and in calm wind conditions, determined their use or insecurity was imminent and that there was a high-probability that all of those factors were correct -- well, it's not that simple."


Correction: Yesterday Situation Report referred to an exclusive interview former CIA Director Michael Hayden had with the news site Newsmax, in which he criticized the move to go into Libya at the time for failing to take into account the first and second order effects of toppling Moammar Qadaffi. A headline on the Newxmax story cast his criticisms in a far more negative light, suggesting he was calling the invasion "Obama's Libya Adventure." Hayden did not make that comment in the taped interview or the accompanying article.  

Blowing up

The Nexus of Politics and Foreign Policy

The Film