Mullen: 'Very Difficult' Time in U.S.-Pakistan Ties

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military chief warned July 25 that U.S.-Pakistan military-to-military ties were at a "very difficult" crossroads, allowing that a path to progress on that front was not yet clear.

President Barack Obama's administration recently suspended about a third of its $2.7 billion annual defense aid to Pakistan in the wake of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden near the country's main military academy. But it assured Islamabad it is committed to a $7.5 billion civilian assistance package approved in 2009.

"We are in a very difficult time right now in our military-to-military relations," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told a press briefing billed as his last before retirement.

Despite the strain, Mullen said "I don't think that we are close to severing" those ties.

And the retiring admiral said he hoped the two nations would soon find a way to "recalibrate" those ties.

Still, Mullen acknowledged: "we need to work through the details of how this (recalibration) is going to happen."

Top U.S. officer Mullen has suggested that Pakistan's army or Inter-Services Intelligence agency likely killed journalist Saleem Shahzad, who had reported about militants infiltrating the military.

On a visit to Washington, Pakistan's former military ruler Pervez Musharraf staunchly defended the army and ISI. He denied any Pakistani support for bin Laden, who apparently moved to the garrison town of Abbottabad while Musharraf was in power.

U.S. officials have long questioned Pakistani intelligence's ties with extremists, including Afghanistan's al-Qaida-linked Haqqani network and the anti-Indian movement Lashkar-e-Taiba that allegedly plotted the grisly 2008 assault on Mumbai.

Adm. James Winnefeld, nominated to be the number two U.S. military officer, described Pakistan as a "very, very difficult partner."

"We don't always share the same worldview or the same opinions or the same national interest," Winnefeld told his Senate confirmation hearing last week.

Obama has nominated Gen. Martin Dempsey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Dempsey is due to succeed Mullen, who is retiring at his term's end Sept. 30.

The Key to Afghan Pullout

Short-term priorities established by new U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan and eliminate remnants of al-Qaida will heavily depend on making investments in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

Such capabilities also will be critical to a longer-term goal of modernizing U.S. forces to deter aggression globally, particularly in the western Pacific, Central Asia and the Middle East, where major regional threats are likely to arise.

Withdrawing forces safely and finding al-Qaida leaders begins with high-resolution, wide-area sensors continuously watching large swaths of countries from standoff distances. The only proven airborne sensor capable of performing these missions is the E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft, and finding the resources to upgrade these capabilities should be an Air Force priority.

JSTARS has proved its worth in Iraq in the two wars there, in Afghanistan currently, in South Korea during the saber rattling by North Korea in 2009, and in Libya during the initial actions taken to prevent a massacre.

JSTARS alone has the capacity and flexibility to provide real-time ISR and battle management in a full spectrum of scenarios, ranging from precombat crisis management to full regional warfare. When a crisis erupts anywhere, the combatant commander first calls for JSTARS.

So, as Panetta and his military leaders build plans to achieve these objectives for both the short and long term, JSTARS should be the centerpiece of the ISR systems. Small, unmanned aircraft detect activity over small areas in good weather. JSTARS detects stationary and moving targets, even small ones, over extremely wide areas and during all weather conditions.

JSTARScan replace boots on the ground with its proactive, wide-area surveillance to detect trouble and enable safe withdrawal.

U.S. overseas combatant commanders frequently extol the unique value of JSTARS. Army Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, which is responsible for operations in Libya, said JSTARS was integral to the success of early operations there. Commanders of U.S. Central Command have repeatedly referred to the unique capabilities of JSTARS and its vital contributions to the surveillance mission in Afghanistan.

The commander of U.S. Pacific Command requested JSTARS immediately when tensions rose in 2009 on the Korean Peninsula.

Yet despite these ringing endorsements, the Air Force has greatly undervalued JSTARS. It has long recognized the need to install modern engines on JSTARS, which are converted four-engine Boeing 707 airliners, to greatly reduce operating costs and increase capability. It is conducting a highly successful flight test program with new jet engines on the JSTARS test aircraft.

But now the service refuses to proceed with retrofit of the fleet, even though Congress previously appropriated the dollars to install the new engines on the first two production aircraft.

Instead, the Air Force is conducting an analysis of alternatives, due this fall, looking at new aircraft to perform the mission in the future.

Panetta also has strongly endorsed President Barack Obama's directive to find at least $400 billion in savings over 12 years while retaining the capabilities to deal with current and future threats. This is particularly difficult for the Air Force because it must find savings while funding three new high-priority programs: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the KC-46A tanker and a new penetrating bomber.

Another new program to replace JSTARS would be impossible to fund. Therefore, the Air Force must exercise extreme cost discipline in building its ISR road map. That means finding prudent upgrades to existing systems that already perform the missions well, such as JSTARS, rather than costly development programs for replacement systems that require enormous sums in the near term. The JSTARS modernization program fits this formula well.

Moreover, the cost of sustaining the current Air Force force structure is increasing and eating into its investment budget for replacements. Re-engining and replacing older, inefficient parts with lower-cost, modern commercial parts greatly reduces the cost of ownership for JSTARS.

Upgrading JSTARS is a win-win solution. It lowers the development cost to perform the mission and reduces operating and support costs during its life cycle.

Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have formidable challenges ahead in developing strategies and forces to withdraw from Afghanistan, eliminate al-Qaida and deter future major conflicts globally. Pressures to reduce defense spending will make them more difficult. A modernized JSTARS as the centerpiece of the ISR mission is the right way to start.

Retired Gen. Michael Loh, a former U.S. Air Force vice chief of staff and former commander of Air Combat Command. He consults for several defense companies, including Northrop Grumman.

France Says 1,000 Troops To Leave Afghanistan

FORWARD OPERATING BASE TORA, Afghanistan - President Nicolas Sarkozy said July 12 that France would withdraw a quarter of its 4,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next year, becoming the latest NATO power to downsize its combat mission in the war-torn country.

The French leader announced the withdrawal during a surprise visit to meet troops stationed in Sarobi district, northeast of Kabul, and to be briefed on progress against the Taliban by a French general.

"It's necessary to end the war," Sarkozy told journalists at the base. "There was never a question of keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely."

France has around 4,000 troops deployed in the country, mostly in Sarobi, Kabul, and in northeastern Kapisa province.

"We will withdraw a quarter of our troops, that's to say 1,000 men, by the end of 2012," he said. Those remaining in Afghanistan will be concentrated in Kapisa, where they have been deployed since 2008.

"The first group will leave at the end of this year," Sarkozy said, without specifying the magnitude of this "first phase."

That withdrawal will be "in consultation with our allies and with the Afghan authorities," he said, as "the situation allows."

The partial drawdown follows similar announcements by Britain and the United States, as Western leaders look to a final deadline of the end of 2014 to extract all combat troops from an increasingly deadly and costly conflict.

In Kabul, Sarkozy held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was in a somber mood after receiving news shortly before the discussions that his younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai had been assassinated in Kandahar.

Sarkozy did not rule out that French military advisors and trainers would remain after combat troops leave, "if the Afghan authorities want", adding that civilian cooperation would also continue.

"We must not abandon Afghanistan. We will continue to help Afghanistan. We'll go from military to economic cooperation," Sarkozy said after his meeting with Karzai before flying out of the country.

The French leader earlier met the top U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. David Petraeus, who will oversee the initial drawdown of 33,000 U.S. troops set to leave by the end of next summer - effectively ending a military "surge" ordered into Afghanistan, principally the south, in late 2009.

Britain has said 500 of its soldiers will leave by the end of next year. Belgium has also announced some of its troops will depart and Canada last week ended its near 3,000-strong combat mission in the southern province Kandahar.

It was Sarkozy's third visit to the battle-scarred country since becoming president and came two days ahead of the Bastille Day French national holiday. His earlier trips were in December 2007 and August 2008.

His trip came a day after a 22-year-old French soldier was killed in a shooting blamed on "accidental fire" by a fellow French soldier.

France has lost 64 soldiers in the course of the war, according to figures compiled by the independent icasualties.org.

Last month, Sarkozy said "several hundred" French troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan before the end of the year.

His office had said earlier that France would carry out a progressive pullback of its 4,000 troops "in a proportional manner and in a timeframe similar to the pullback of the American reinforcements."

Sarkozy's visit comes days after that by new U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a week after a visit by British Prime Minister David Cameron, with Western leaders focused on efforts to draw down troops and end the long war.

Commanders are now preparing to hand over seven NATO-held areas to Afghan control starting in mid-July, although there is widespread doubt over the ability of Afghan forces to take full responsibility for their own security.

Sarkozy said he shared U.S. President Barack Obama's belief that security had improved since the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in May and that the handover to Afghan troops and police was proceeding smoothly.

Should the situation improve, the pullout of all Western combat troops in 2014 might be "brought forward", he said.

U.S.-led coalition forces have been fighting the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan since they invaded in late 2001 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks orchestrated by bin Laden.

Report: N. Korea Paid Bribes for Nuclear Secrets

WASHINGTON - The architect of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program claims North Korea paid bribes to senior Pakistani military officials in return for nuclear secrets in the 1990s, the Washington Post said July 6.
The Post said documents released by nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan purportedly show him helping to transfer more than $3 million to senior officers, who he says then approved the leak of nuclear know-how to Pyongyang.

Khan passed a copy of a North Korean official's letter, which details the transaction, to former British journalist Simon Henderson, who then shared the information with the Washington Post, the newspaper said.
The Post cited Western intelligence officials as saying they believed the letter was accurate, but they said Pakistani officials have denied Khan's claims and argued that it is a forgery.
Khan - considered a national hero in Pakistan because he played a key role in the creation of the Islamic world's first atomic bomb - has long been at odds with Pakistani officials who have insisted he acted alone.
Khan admitted on national television in 2004 that he passed atomic secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya, but he later retracted his remarks and in 2009 was freed from house arrest, although he was asked to keep a low profile.
Those secrets are nevertheless widely believed to have allowed North Korea to develop a uranium route alongside its existing plutonium weapons program.
The letter, dated July 15, 1998, marked "Secret," and purportedly signed by North Korean Workers' Party Secretary Jon Byong Ho, says "the 3 millions (sic) dollars have already been paid" to one Pakistani military official and "half a million dollars" and some jewelry had been given to a second official.
It then says: "Please give the agreed documents, components, etc to (a North Korean Embassy official in Pakistan) to be flown back when our plane returns after delivery of missile components."
In written statements to Henderson, Khan describes delivering the cash in a canvas bag and cartons, including one in which it was hidden under fruit.
Jehangir Karamat, a former military chief said to have received the $3 million payment, and Lieutenant General Zulfiqar Khan, the named recipient of the other payment, both denied the letter's authenticity to the Post.
The Post report could further heighten tensions between Pakistan and the United States, which has long been concerned about Islamabad's nuclear arsenal.
The two uneasy allies have been increasingly divided since the U.S. commando raid in May that killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in a compound near Islamabad where he had been living for years.

Afghan Drawdown Plan 'Unnecessary Risk': McCain

KABUL - Top U.S. lawmakers on July 3 slammed President Barack Obama's military drawdown plans for Afghanistan as "risky," unsupported by his military commanders and a threat to progress made in the last year.

Withdrawal at the rate Obama has planned on - including the removal of 33,000 surge troops by the end of next summer - "is an unnecessary risk and that is why there was no military leader who recommended it", Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said during a visit to Kabul.

Joined by fellow Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in the Afghan capital, the trio spoke to media after visiting U.S. troops.

Graham described progress in parts of the war-torn country as "really stunning" but warned that "all the gains are still reversible".

"What I'm mostly concerned about is that the accelerated withdrawal of surge forces has created a perception that we are leaving," said Graham.

"Withdrawal is what the enemy wants to hear and our goal is to make sure they don't hear withdrawal and the Afghan people don't hear withdrawal," he later added.

Both Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said Obama's plan was more "aggressive" than they had recommended.

Obama late last month said 10,000 troops would leave this year and all 33,000 personnel sent as part of a surge ordered in late 2009 would be home by next summer, leaving a U.S. force of some 65,000.

There are currently up to 150,000 foreign forces in Afghanistan, including about 99,000 from the United States.

Obama has indicated a series of drawdowns until Afghan forces assume full security responsibility in 2014.

Speaking to CNN's "State of the Union" McCain also lambasted the U.S. leader for not providing adequate troops for the initial 2009 surge - "He didn't give them the full complement they needed. It was about 10,000 short, which then necessitated a second fighting season," he said.

"Look, I question whether this was the right decision or not, but I can't question the president's patriotism," he added.

Obama's announcement pleased practically nobody in Washington - liberals were left wanting more, Republican hawks complained he was going too fast, and top Pentagon officials felt snubbed for having much of their advice overruled by the White House.

The military case for the drawdown, with Obama saying the war aims he set in 2009 had been largely met, was also seen as highly political, as it foreshadowed the argument he will make to voters next year as he runs for a second term.

The Washington debate comes as the U.S.-led coalition hankers for a resolution to the nearly decade-long war, but amid dismal relations between the U.S. and its key War on Terror ally Pakistan.

The Taliban's leadership is believed to reside in Pakistan and the nuclear power is seen to use the insurgent group as a bargaining chip in any regional settlement of power, complicating Western attempts to broker peace.

"Until Pakistan begins to help, its gonna be very difficult," said Graham.

"So our job as members of the Senate is to tell the Pakistani military: You need to choose. You need to choose who you want your friends to be and who you want your enemies to be... Too much is at stake to let this drift any further."

British PM to Drawdown Troops from Afghanistan: Reports

LONDON - British Prime Minister David Cameron is to announce the withdrawal of at least 500 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012 following a similar drawdown by the United States, reports said July 3.

The move would take the number of British troops in Afghanistan below the key figure of 9,000 and mark a major step towards Cameron's stated aim of having all British soldiers out of the country by 2015.

Cameron would announce on July 6 plans to withdraw up to 800 troops by the end of next year, the Sunday Times reported. The Sunday Telegraph put the figure at 500 and said they would leave in mid-2012.

Britain's Ministry of Defence said that some troops would be brought home early but refused to confirm details.

"U.K. force levels in Afghanistan are kept under constant review," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

"The Prime Minister has been clear that there will be no U.K. troops in combat roles in Afghanistan by 2015 and it is right that we bring troops home sooner where progress allows and taking account of military advice."

The withdrawal is in addition to the pull-out of 400 British support staff by February 2012 announced by Cameron in May, 200 of which have already left Afghanistan.

Britain currently has 9,500 troops based in Afghanistan's troubled southern province of Helmand, making it the second largest contributor of foreign forces in Afghanistan after the United States.

U.S. President Barack Obama last month ordered all 33,000 U.S. surge troops home from Afghanistan by mid-2012. France quickly followed suit, saying several hundred French troops would leave by the end of this year.

Western nations have set a deadline of the end of 2014 to hand over control of security to Afghan forces despite fears that they are not ready to protect the country from Taliban militants.

Panetta Takes Reins as Pentagon Chief

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta vowed July 1 to keep the U.S. military the "best" in the world despite mounting budget pressures, after being sworn in as the new Pentagon chief.
"As your leader, I will ensure that our nation continues to have the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military in the world - a force prepared to confront the challenges that face us," Panetta wrote in his first message to troops after taking the oath of office at the Defense Department. "Even as the United States addresses fiscal challenges at home, there will be no hollow force on my watch."

Panetta succeeds Robert Gates, who won praise from Republicans and Democrats during his 4½ years on the job.
Panetta assumes office amid growing calls to rein in government spending, with an increasing number of lawmakers saying the massive defense budget can no longer be excluded from cutbacks.
Acknowledging "tough budget choices" on the horizon, Panetta said: "We must preserve the excellence and superiority of our military while looking for ways to identify savings."
The proposed defense budget for 2012 is about $671 billion, including $118 billion for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With a gradual transfer to Afghan forces due to begin this year, Panetta said the U.S. "must remain committed to working closely with our Afghan and international partners to ensure that it never again becomes a safe haven for al-Qaida and its militant allies."
On Iraq, he said the U.S. will need "to reinforce that responsibility, for the future security of Iraq must belong to the Iraqis themselves."
Panetta, however, made no mention of NATO-led air operations in Libya launched in March.
Some lawmakers have accused President Barack Obama of overstepping his legal authority in the Libya conflict, which has proved unpopular with Americans. But the Obama administration has argued the U.S. is playing a limited, supporting role in the operation.
At his swearing-in ceremony, Panetta also pledged to "protect" U.S. troops, according to military spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan.
Panetta was quoted as saying there was "no higher responsibility for a secretary of defense than to protect those who are protecting America."
Panetta, 73, is the oldest incoming U.S. secretary of defense and the first Democrat to hold the job since William Perry in 1997. He stepped down as head of the CIA to take the Pentagon job

U.S. Says It Will Provide Hardware to Philippines

WASHINGTON - The United States on June 23 said it was ready to provide hardware to modernize the military of the Philippines, which vowed to "stand up to aggressive action" amid rising tension at sea with China.
Filipino Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, on a visit to Washington, said the Philippines hoped to lease equipment to upgrade its aged fleet and called for the allies to revamp their relationship in light of the friction with China.

"We are determined and committed to supporting the defense of the Philippines," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a joint news conference when asked about the hardware wish-list from the Philippines.
Clinton said the two nations were working "to determine what are the additional assets that the Philippines needs and how we can best provide those." She said del Rosario would meet Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other Pentagon officials.
Tensions in the strategic and resource-rich South China Sea have escalated in recent weeks, with the Philippines and Vietnam alarmed at what they say are increasingly aggressive actions by Beijing in the disputed waters.
Several Southeast Asian nations have been seeking closer relationships with the United States, which since last year has called loudly for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.
"We are concerned that recent incidents in the South China Sea could undermine peace and stability," Clinton told reporters, urging "all sides to exercise self-restraint."
Del Rosario, with Clinton at his side, said that the Philippines was a small country but is "prepared to do what is necessary to stand up to any aggressive action in our backyard."
The Philippines has announced the deployment in disputed waters of its navy flagship, the Rajah Humabon. One of the world's oldest warships, Rajah Humabon is a former U.S. Navy frigate that served during World War II.
The Philippines has historically bought second-hand hardware, but del Rosario said that President Benigno Aquino has allocated 11 billion pesos ($252 million) to upgrade the navy.
Shortly ahead of his talks with Clinton, del Rosario said that the Philippines was asking the United States for "an operational lease so that we can look at fairly new equipment and be able to get our hands on that quickly."
"We need to have the resources to be able to stand and defend ourselves and, I think, to the extent that we can do that, we become a stronger ally for you," del Rosario said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States signed a defense treaty with the Philippines in 1951, five years after the archipelago's independence from U.S. colonial rule. Del Rosario said he believed the treaty - which calls for mutual defense in the event of an attack in "the Pacific area" - covers the South China Sea.
The United States has been providing military aid to the Philippines primarily to fight Islamic militants in the wake the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Del Rosario said that al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf has largely been defeated, estimating that only about 200 guerrillas remained.
"The Philippines' relative success in counter-insurgency coupled with pressures in the regional environment compel a reorientation of focus and resources," he said.
"A reset in our relations has therefore become an imperative to allow the alliance to continue to meet domestic goals while contributing to global stability."
China has said that it will not resort to the use of force in the South China Sea but has also warned the United States to stay out of territorial spats.
"I believe some countries now are playing with fire. And I hope the U.S. won't be burned by this fire," China's vice foreign minister Cui Tiankai said.

Obama: U.S. to Pull 30,000 Out of Afghanistan by Summer 2012

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama on June 22 ordered all 33,000 U.S. so-called surge troops home from Afghanistan by next summer, declared the beginning of the end of the war and vowed to turn to "nation building" at home.

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks June 22 in the White House. (Pool photo via Agence France-Presse)

In a pivotal moment for U.S. national security strategy, Obama also signaled in a 13-minute primetime speech that the United States would no longer try to build a "perfect" Afghanistan from a nation ravaged by generations of violence.

"We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding," Obama said in the East Room of the White House in an address blanketing U.S. television networks at a time of rising discontent on the war.
"Even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end," Obama said.
The president's speech came as domestic political support fades for the war following the killing of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden by Navy SEALs on May 2, and as Washington backs fragile Afghan reconciliation talks with the Taliban.
His decision on troop numbers amounted to a rejection of appeals from the Pentagon for a slower drawdown to safeguard gains against the Taliban and to allow a new counterinsurgency mission to unfold in eastern Afghanistan.
The president said that he would, as promised, begin the U.S. withdrawal next month and that 10,000 of the more than 30,000 troops he sent to war in an escalation of the conflict in 2009 would be home this year.
A further 23,000 surge troops will be withdrawn by next summer, and more yet-to-be announced drawdowns will continue, until Afghan forces assume security responsibility in 2014.
"This is the beginning - but not the end - of our effort to wind down this war," Obama said.
"We will have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we have made, while we draw down our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government."
Although Obama said the tide of war was receding, there will still be more than 65,000 troops in Afghanistan when he asks Americans to give him a second term in November 2012.
Obama also argued that his policy of escalating the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida had forged substantial progress and had allowed him to commence troop withdrawals from a "position of strength."
He said that documents seized from bin Laden's compound in Pakistan showed that al-Qaida was under "enormous strain."
"Bin Laden expressed concern that has been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that have been killed, and that al-Qaida has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam - thereby draining more widespread support," he said.
U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and top Pentagon officials had asked for a slower drawdown through summer 2012 to allow them to solidify gains in southern Afghanistan and to mount counter-insurgency operations in eastern districts.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Obama's decision, represented an "unnecessary risk" and noted Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates had recommended a "more modest withdrawal."
But Obama's timetable may be too slow for critics who want faster withdrawals from a war launched 10 years ago to oust the Taliban after it offered al-Qaida a haven before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Some of Obama's fellow Democrats and some Republicans are demanding a faster U.S. exit from Afghanistan, and questioning the huge $10 billion-per-month cost of the conflict at a time of deep fiscal pain.
Obama argued the surge had made progress towards key objectives he laid down at the start of the escalation, namely: reversing Taliban momentum, disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida and building Afghan forces towards an eventual assumption of security duties.
One official said the U.S. operation against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan tribal regions had "exceeded our expectations," saying 20 of the group's top 30 leaders, including bin Laden, had been killed in the last year.
Administration aides also rejected criticism that Obama's decision would put recent gains in danger and increase the chances that Afghanistan will slip back into an abyss of deep violence.
Obama also placed the Afghan mission in the context of his wider foreign policy and war strategy, arguing he has removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and will oversee the promised full withdrawal by the end of this year.
He announced that a NATO summit to review progress on Afghanistan will take place in his hometown of Chicago in May 2012, alongside the G8 summit of industrialized nations.

Robert Gates' Victory Lap

Before stepping down as U.S. secretary of defense in a few weeks, Robert Gates is taking a victory lap, warning the country - and implicitly, his successor, Leon Panetta - that cuts in military spending would increase risk to the force and the country. But the secretary exaggerates the threats facing us, and he misconstrues the benefits that we derive from our enormous military.
Most important, Gates focuses on the risk of spending too little without considering the risks associated with spending too much.
During his long tenure as defense secretary, Gates could have overseen a serious review of roles and missions; he refused, believing that he could fend off deep cuts in spending while preserving a military posture designed to defeat the Soviet Union. His failure to re-evaluate the purpose of the U.S. military merely postponed the inevitable day of reckoning and has increased the risk that our overburdened force will be asked to do more with less.
Gates has scored some successes and deserves credit for his willingness to ax a few unnecessary and costly weapon systems. These decisions, Gates likes to claim, saved more than $300 billion. But that amounts to less than 5 percent of projected military spending over the next decade. Plus, a number of these programs were already slated for cancellation, the cuts might never materialize, and Gates intended that much of the savings from cuts be plowed back into the Pentagon, not returned to taxpayers or devoted to deficit reduction.
A military that costs less needs to be smaller and do less. Thankfully, we can cut military spending and reduce the burdens on the force without undermining U.S. security. Indeed, we are extraordinarily secure, by any reasonable measure.
What makes us secure? The combination of nuclear weapons and favorable geography. We can effectively rule out the prospect of land invasion (most countries can't), and a million-man amphibious operation from the sea is extremely unlikely. Any leader foolish enough to launch an overt attack on the United States would have to get past the Navy and the Air Force. These forces exist to deter attacks, and win a decisive military victory if deterrence fails.
Most of the growth in spending over the past decade, however, has gone to the Army and Marine Corps, to fight very different sorts of conflicts: nation-building operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that are indecisive by their nature. But as those missions draw to a close, both forces can be returned to pre-9/11 levels. After all, Gates has said that we are unlikely to attempt "forced regime change followed by nation-building under fire" any time soon.
This wise judgment reflects the fact that such missions are enormously costly, unpopular with the American people and unlikely to achieve their stated objectives in a reasonable amount of time.
Most important, they aren't necessary. Good counterterrorism, which is to say effective counterterrorism, is cheap. It includes operations that have successfully degraded al-Qaida's capabilities over the past decade - like the one that killed Osama bin Laden. These occasionally rely on the precise application of force. But stationing 100,000 or more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter, is at best irrelevant, and often counterproductive.
The U.S. needs to focus its military efforts in a few key areas that are vital to U.S. national security, and call on other countries to do more for their own defense and in their respective regions.
Gates suggests that shedding certain roles and missions, and shifting burdens to others, entails intolerable risks. People in other countries might choose not to direct some money from generous social welfare programs to defense. Perhaps they will refuse to share some of the costs of keeping the oceans free from pirates, or fail to keep local troublemakers in their respective boxes.
According to Gates, that is a risk not worth taking. He seems to believe that every problem, no matter how small or distant, will inevitably arrive on our shores. Therefore, we cannot rely on other countries to do more - or anything, really - to defend themselves and their interests. As he told graduates at the University of Notre Dame, "make no mistake, the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators, and terrorists in the 21st century, as in the 20th, is hard power - the size, strength and global reach of the United States military."
But our military power doesn't do all that he says that it does, and understanding the limits of that power is both prudent and wise. The United States is an exceptional nation, but we are not the indispensable nation.
Today, American taxpayers provide half of the world's military spending, while our share of the global economy has fallen to less than one quarter. It isn't realistic to expect 5 percent of the world's population to bear these costs indefinitely. Gates seems to think that it is, or, at least, that there is no alternative. But if there is no alternative to U.S. power, then that is largely a problem of our own making. And it is one that we can solve.
Gates failed to do so; it is not clear that he even tried. Here's hoping that his successor does.

Top Al-Qaida Militant Killed in Pakistan: Officials

ISLAMABAD - A U.S. drone strike likely killed Pakistan's Al-Qaida commander Ilyas Kashmiri, in what would deal a major blow to the terror network a month after Osama bin Laden's death, officials said June 4.
The 47-year-old Kashmiri is one of the most feared operational commanders of the network that bin Laden founded and has been blamed for a string of high-profile attacks on western targets, as well as in India and Pakistan.
He has a maximum U.S. bounty of $5 million on his head, and Pakistani officials said he was the target of a U.S. drone strike in South Waziristan on the Afghan border on June 3, in which nine members of his banned group died.
His killing would likely be seen as a huge achievement in the United States after U.S. Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in Pakistan, itself feted as the greatest psychological victory over al-Qaida since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A senior Pakistani security official said there were "strong indications" that Kashmiri had been killed, but that it was impossible to provide 100 percent confirmation so soon after the attack without access to the bodies.
The corpses were burnt beyond recognition and swiftly buried. Militants also barred access to the site of the attack in Ghwakhwa in South Waziristan, a militant stronghold despite a sweeping Pakistani offensive in 2009.
"There are strong indications that he has been killed in the strike, but we cannot confirm it and we are still trying to confirm it," the senior Pakistani official said on condition of anonymity.
Pakistani officials said Kashmiri had been in the area for several days and that all those killed were from his Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islam (HuJI) group.
Senior security officials explained that confirmation would be difficult unless Kashmiri's family or his group officially announced his death.
"According to our reports, he was present here in this area. We have information that he has been killed but no one has seen his dead body," local administration official Naimat Ullah told AFP.
Another security official said two close associates who usually travel with Kashmiri, Amir Hamza and Mohammad Usman, were killed.
Kashmiri is understood to have been in the area to discuss strategy should the Pakistani military launch an offensive in North Waziristan, as has been predicted as part of the fallout surrounding bin Laden's killing.
Anti-terrorism experts have long described Kashmiri as one of al-Qaida's main operational commanders. He reportedly escaped a U.S. drone strike in North Waziristan in late 2009.
He has been blamed for multiple attacks in Pakistan, including the two most humiliating assaults on the military - a May 22 siege on a naval air base in Karachi and in October 2009 on the national army headquarters in Rawalpindi.
Counterterrorism officials believe he was the main coordinator of a terror plot targeting Britain, France, Germany and the United States, which was apparently in the early stages when detected by intelligence agencies in 2010.
Kashmiri's family in the village of Thathi in Bhimber district, more than nine hours' drive from Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, said June 4 they had not been in contact with him for six years.
"We came to know through TV. We don't know whether he is dead or alive," his elder brother Mohammad Asghar said by telephone.
A spokesman for Pakistan's umbrella Taliban faction said Kashmiri was "alive and safe," and had not been present at the time of the strike.
In January 2010, a U.S. federal grand jury indicted him for terrorism-related offences in connection with a plot to attack Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten following uproar over blasphemous cartoons.
Listed on U.S. and U.N. terror blacklists, Kashmiri was born in 1964 in Azad, Kashmir. He is about 6 feet tall and weighs about 200 pounds.
He has black hair and been seen with a thick beard dyed white, black, or red at various times.
He has lost sight in one eye, and often wears aviator-style sunglasses. He is missing an index finger, according to the U.S. State Department.
The June 3 drone attack was the ninth reported in Pakistan's border area with Afghanistan, branded by Washington the global headquarters of al-Qaida, since U.S. commandos killed bin Laden in the garrison city of Abbottabad on May 2.
The raid sent shockwaves through Pakistan's seemingly powerful security establishment, with its intelligence services widely accused of incompetence or complicity over the presence of bin Laden close to a military academy.

Petraeus Preparing for Afghanistan Drawdown

KABUL, Afghanistan - Planning is underway for the initial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and the details are being closely guarded by the officer overseeing the process, U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus.

U.S. ARMY GEN. David Petraeus, commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, speaks June 3 during an interview at his office in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Thomas Brown / Staff)

"The ground-truth is there's one action officer on this effort," Petraeus, commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, said June 3 during an interview at his office inside NATO's headquarters here. "You're looking at him."

Petraeus expects his options will be delivered to the White House before the end of June, around the time he is likely to testify before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to become director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. He dismissed recent media reports suggesting the initial drawdown would include between 5,000 and 10,000 troops, saying nobody could have that information because he has not shared it with anyone.

Neither Petraeus' commander's initiatives group nor his executive staff has participated in the development of options for the president, the general said. The effort has taken place in his office, behind his own desk.

"There may be one or two folks on the staff who think they know something about it; they might be deceiving themselves because there are misdirection plays out there," Petraeus said. "I want to assure everybody above me that this is not going to leak, that there will be no kinds of atmospherics as a result of leaks."

Before they're presented to President Obama, Petraeus' plans will be shared only with Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates and Mullen, he said, will most likely be the ones who take it to the Oval Office.

Petraeus is likely hoping to avoid a repeat of late 2009, when his recommendation for a troop surge in Afghanistan - a proposal meant only for the president - was leaked to the media, fueling pre-decisional speculation for weeks. Upon announcing the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops, Obama made it clear those forces would begin to leave in July 2011.

"What a commander in my position should do is to provide the chain of command and president with options to implement the policy … at a pace determined by conditions on the ground," said Petraeus, who led CENTCOM during deliberations over the troop surge.

The recommendations for the president, Petraeus said, are informed by visits to ground commanders across Afghanistan, including the volatile southern provinces where Marines and soldiers continue to battle Taliban fighters in what used to be their exclusive stronghold.

Important considerations also include the purview of Mattis, whose context is the entire theater, not just Afghanistan, and by Gates and Mullen, who must consider broader global context. At the top is Obama, who faces difficult fiscal challenges and an atmosphere in Congress where there is waning support for the war.

"Every level above me has a broader purview," he said.

Pakistan Raises Annual Defense Spending 11 Percent

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's government jacked up defense spending and government employees' pensions in a new budget June 3 that set a deficit of 4 percent of GDP.

The budget for the fiscal year 2011-2012 starting July 1 came as pressure mounts on Pakistan to launch a military offensive in the restive North Waziristan region, known as the hub of Taliban and Al Qaeda linked militants.

It earmarked 495 billion rupees ($5.7 billion) for defense, an 11 percent increase on the current year.

"We stand by our valiant men, who are laying down their lives to safeguard our country," finance minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh told parliament. "The country has constantly been suffering because of the existing security situation," but the government was determined to improve the economy and provide security to the people, he said.

More than 4,410 people have been killed across Pakistan in bomb blasts and suicide attacks blamed in Taliban- and Al-Qaeda-linked militants since July 2007.

The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for a string of recent attacks against government security forces and has vowed to launch even larger ones to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden, shot dead in a U.S. raid last month.

The total budget for the next year was fixed at 2,504 billion rupees ($29.1 billion), with a budget deficit of 850 billion rupees ($9.9 billion), or four percent of gross domestic product (GDP), Shaikh said.

The budget also provides rises of up to 20 percent in government employees' pensions and promises to bring at least 2.3 million new taxpayers into the tax net.

Pakistan has long defied Western pressure to end giant tax-dodging in a country where barely 1 percent of the population pays at all, as a corrupt bureaucracy starves energy, health and education of desperately needed funds.

The International Monetary Fund last year halted a $11.3 billion assistance package over a lack of progress on reforms, principally on tax.

In the wake of catastrophic 2010 floods that cost the economy $10 billion, Washington donated hundreds of millions of dollars and demanded that Pakistan's rich, whose lifestyles outstrip many in the West, step up to the plate.

Shaikh said Pakistani exports grew by 28 percent, an unprecedented rate, during the current fiscal year.

"We also hope that our remittances will reach a level of $12 billion by close of this year," he said, adding: "Our foreign currency reserves have reached $17.3 billion."

He said that the government had achieved some macrostability, checked inflation and begun to impact the growth rate.

Local newspaper The News reported this week that Pakistan had decided to launch a "careful and meticulous" military offensive in North Waziristan after a recent visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Islamabad.

But Lt. Gen. Asif Yasin Malik, the corps commander supervising all military operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, told reporters on June 1, "We will undertake operation in North Waziristan when we want to."

Al-Qaida Plotted to Kill Lockheed Martin Chief: Testimony

CHICAGO - A Pakistini-based branch of al-Qaida was hatching a plot to kill the head of U.S. defense group Lockheed Martin, self-confessed terrorist David Coleman Headley testified in a U.S. court Tuesday.

In this courtroom drawing, David Coleman Headley faces U.S. District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber on March 18 in Chicago. (Carol Renaud / AFP via Getty Images)

"There was a plan to kill him because he was making drones," Headley testified during the Chicago trial of his childhood friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana.

Headley pleaded guilty to 12 terrorism charges related to the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks and other unrealized plots in the wake of his 2009 arrest in Chicago.
He is testifying against alleged co-conspirator Rana in exchange for avoiding the death penalty and extradition to India, Pakistan or Denmark.
Headley testified that he secretly used Rana's office computer for research on the plot to assassinate the Lockheed Martin executive but dismissed his brief online search there as insignificant.
"My research is more in-depth than Googling someone a couple of times," he testified during cross-examination by Rana's defense attorney.
Headley said he was working on the plot with Ilyas Kashmiri, the commander of the Pakistani-based terrorist organization Harakat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI), and a senior member of al-Qaida.
Headley pleaded guilty to working with Kashmiri on a plot to attack the Danish newspaper Jyllen Posten, which published controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, after Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) got distracted with the Mumbai plot.
Rana is accused of providing Headley with a cover and acting as a messenger, with prosecutors alleging he played a behind-the-scenes logistical role in both the Mumbai attacks and another abortive plan to strike Copenhagen.
Rana, a Canadian-Pakistani and Chicago businessman, has denied all charges, and his defense attorneys argue that he was duped by his friend, whom he had met in military school.

Pakistan Nuclear Security 'Of Concern': NATO

KABUL - The head of NATO said on May 24 that he was confident Pakistan's nuclear weapons were safe, but admitted it was a matter of concern, the day after the worst assault on a Pakistani military base in two years.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen speaks during a joint press conference at the presidential palace in Kabul on May 24. (Shah Marai / AFP via Getty Images)

Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Afghanistan on a one-day visit and met President Hamid Karzai to discuss the transition of security from NATO-led troops to Afghan security forces, which is due to begin in July.

Rasmussen was asked if NATO was concerned about Pakistan's nuclear weapons after it took Pakistani forces 17 hours to reclaim control of a naval air base from Taliban attackers and following the death of Osama bin Laden.
"I feel confident that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe and well protected," said Rasmussen. "But of course it is a matter of concern and we follow the situation closely."
The attack in Karachi, the worst on a base since the army headquarters was besieged in October 2009, piled further embarrassment on Pakistan three weeks after the al-Qaida leader was found living in the city of Abbottabad, close to the country's military academy.
Rasmussen was scheduled to wind up his Afghan visit on May 24 after spending a night and a full day in Afghanistan.