Recent accusations by a federal inspector general that additional oversight was urgently needed for foreign aid flowing into Afghanistan did not sit well with officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

USAID officials argue they're on the same page with John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), when it comes to oversight concerns.

In his April quarterly report to Congress, Sopko's office frequently praises USAID's oversight efforts. But they also note examples of past or potential future misuse of taxpayer funds, such as USAID providing $179 million in funds for the 2014 elections, even though no new Afghan election laws have passed to thwart fraud. One SIGAR audit found USAID approved plans for two hospitals that could cost $18 million without ensuring future funding or that Afghans could sustain them with staffing.

In a speech this week, Sopko offered another example, arguing the Afghan electric company was not as capable as USAID had claimed. "SIGAR's audit work says otherwise," he argued.

It may be a case of dueling perspectives between a watchdog looking for imperfections and a government agency tasked specifically with sending money into some of the most imperfectly governed places on earth.

USAID spokesman Ben Edwards emailed this statement from USAID, in response to Sopko:

"USAID has a stellar record of protecting U.S. tax dollars in Afghanistan.  We have 12 years of experience implementing programs and delivering results. USAID is committed to ensuring accountability for all taxpayer funded projects.  Before giving any on-budget [direct] assistance to the Afghan government, USAID assesses the capacity of the ministries involved to properly budget for and carry out the proposed projects.  USAID utilizes robust financial controls to monitor taxpayer funds and expected outcomes.

Indeed, Afghanistan has made dramatic development progress over the past decade, which would not be possible without the help of U.S. taxpayer funding designed to improve the government's capacity to manage its own development and deliver goods and services to the Afghan people.  For example, assistance to the Afghan Ministry of Public Health has dramatically expanded access to health care-resulting in an unprecedented increase in Afghan life expectancy of 15-20 years in a decade.

The U.S. development mission in Afghanistan is not without challenges, but is necessary in order to ensure Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists from which to attack the United States."

The U.S. government's watchdog over taxpayer money in Afghanistan today will deliver a clear and sobering message: if Kabul is unable to do a better job safeguarding and spending the billions in U.S. funding coming its way, Washington should shut its wallet.

"We need to have the courage to withhold funding if progress is not made by the Afghan government," Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John Sopko will say in a speech he is scheduled to deliver at the New America Foundation on Wednesday, according to an advance copy provided exclusively to the E-Ring. 

Sopko since last summer has turned in a steady stream of reports finding millions of dollars from the Defense Department, State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development going to waste. The offenses range from poorly designed and managed reconstruction projects on the U.S side to lax oversight by Afghan government offices. In the SIGAR's latest quarterly report to Congress, Sopko trains his sights on direct foreign assistance delivered through USAID, and questions the Afghan government's ability to maintain safeguards over the cash influx.

"And, more importantly, USAID must be willing to stop funding Afghan ministries if they do not live up to these safeguards," Sopko will say.

UPDATE: SIGAR Going After ANSF

Sopko also announced in his speech that the SIGAR for the rest of this year will focus its auditing power on measuring the state of security in Afghanistan. That mission may seem far afield from usual inspector general bean counting. But the effectiveness of any U.S. funding is dependent, Sopko said, on the U.S. effort to stand up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

"Because of SIGAR's ongoing concerns with the ANSF," he said, "SIGAR is building a body of work to eventually answer the ultimate question - are the Afghan National Security Forces ready?"

The E-Ring reported last week that SIGAR found the ANSF was 20,000 people short of its personnel goals. "The number of troops ready for duty is even lower when you consider AWOL employees, desertions, and ghost employees," Sopko said on Wednesday.

But those numbers are a guess, at best, due to poor recordkeeping, which means the true U.S. cost for supplying, training, and maintaining Afghan forces is unknown.

"The DOD told SIGAR there is no way to validate the ANSF's personnel numbers," he said, "often derived from reports prepared by hand by Afghan troops. It is hard to know if the afghan army and police are ready if we don't know how many troops are available to fight insurgent forces."

Sopko also warned that next year's parliamentary elections may prove to be no more legitimate that the last round, which was marred by fraud. Afghans have not changed their elections laws, leaving the process open to continued voter fraud, ballot box stuffing and fake voter identification cards, he alleged.

"Unless we fix problems like these before the 2014 presidential election, the Afghan people may have powerful reasons to question the results."

 

More than 80 percent of the Defense Department’s Afghanistan reconstruction contracts are vulnerable to putting U.S. taxpayer money into enemy coffers, a government watchdog says in a new report.

According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), a poorly written section of the defense authorization bill means that “millions of contracting dollars could be diverted to forces seeking to harm U.S. military and civilian personnel and derail the multi-billion dollar reconstruction effort.”

“The possibility that taxpayer money could be supporting the insurgency is alarming and demands immediate action,” said John Sopko, the SIGAR. “Every effort should be made to implement stronger controls that protect our troops and ensure the success of our reconstruction efforts.”

The section of the law in question gives DOD power to keep funds from companies who associate with enemy elements. But, SIGAR said, the rule “only applies to contacts more than $100,000 -- but roughly 80 percent of contracts awarded in Afghanistan fall below this threshold.”

SIGAR also found that contracting agencies simply do not know who their subcontractors are, on many projects. That's a typical problem across the federal government for oversight officials, who often must rely on prime contractors, often small overseas companies, to identify their subcontractors adequately.

Spoko has turned up the heat on the federal government since taking the position last summer. On Wednesday, he took a moment to boast, in House testimony, that his office has produced more investigations in the last 3 months than were completed in the previous nine months. But inspector generals can effect change only if the government heeds their recommendations, he argued.

“SIGAR currently has 73 open recommendations. If all of them were accepted, the U.S. government could potentially save about $450 million,” he said.

Sopko named several factors contributing to wasted U.S. taxpayer money in Afghanistan, including poor planning, security, and monitoring.

Additionally, the U.S. has failed to establish an anti-corruption plan across the spectrum U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

“More than two years ago, SIGAR recommended that the United States develop an integrated anti-corruption strategy. Although the U.S. Embassy in Kabul produced a draft strategy, it was not adopted,” he said.

There is plenty of money to keep watch over. Congress has appropriated nearly $93 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction since 2002, Sopko said. Last fiscal year, Central Command’s Joint Theater Support Contracting Command “awarded 9,733 contracts, valued at approximately $1.7 billion,” according to the SIGAR report.

To keep U.S. money out of enemy hands, CENTCOM now publishes a list of suspect companies -- so far, just five companies -- but Sopko’s team found contracting officers aren’t checking the list.

UPDATE: Following the release of the SIGAR report, Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced the “Never Contract With The Enemy” bill, on Thursday. “American taxpayer dollars should never benefit our enemies,” said Ayotte, who co-authored the original provision with former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. The new language fixes the problem, the senators said in a statement, “by allowing officials across government to more expeditiously stop contracts that have been found to benefit our enemies.”

The flag has been passed at Central Command. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin took command from retiring Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis on Friday, as CENTCOM's focus shifts after more than a decade of war to an end-of-combat period for Afghanistan and expanded counterterrorism across the rest of the region.

“Ten years ago, both Jim Mattis and Lloyd Austin were in the Iraqi desert, on opposite sides of the Euphrates River, helping lead their troops in the drive to Baghdad,” said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, according to transcripts provided by the Pentagon.

Pentagon reporters were not invited to travel with Hagel to cover the ceremony.

“Jim Mattis has been front and center in every major combat operation this nation has conducted for more than two decades,” Hagel said.  Mattis in his time urged his troops to fight with a “happy heart” and “to always engage their brain before they engaged their weapons.”

“General Mattis,” Hagel said, delicately, “knows that if we are going to ask young Americans to put their lives on the line for our security, then they must be able to trust and have confidence in their leaders.  That's why he always spoke directly and truthfully, no matter the audience -- an essential element of leadership.”

But Mattis rarely spoke to the press, or in public for that matter, during his CENTCOM command. Before taking the warrior-diplomat role at CENTCOM, inherently a politically-sensitive posting, the gruff-talking Marine was known for colorful quips. Our favorite: "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."

Mattis saluted into the sunsent with one more good one: “Here today you see a reminder to the maniacs who, by attacking us on 9/11 and thinking -- thinking that they could scare us, we remind them that the descendants of Valley Forge don't scare. Mr. Secretary, Chairman, I would happily storm hell in the company of these troops who I haven't the words sufficient to praise, so I will not try. They know how strongly I believe in them, how strongly they have demonstrated to the world that free men and women can fight like the dickens.”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “The challenges the volatile CENTCOM region presents can sometimes seem almost insolvable, yet Jim looked beyond the risks and sought to understand and to consider what was possible.”

“He has a legendary understanding of military history and of historical context. It's rumored, by the way, that his personal library once numbered over 7,000 volumes. And he just didn't have them to look at the pictures; he actually read them, so he claims."

For Austin, his experience closing out the Iraq war -- Austin succeed Gen. Ray Odierno when Operation Iraqi Freedom became Operation New Dawn -- is part of why he was chosen to lead CENTCOM during the coming closing years of the Afghanistan war.

“It was a tough job, combining political challenges with the uncertainties of combat and war, but he completed his mission with a steady, wise, and resourceful hand,” Hagel said.

“I am confident, all members of our institution are confident that General Austin is prepared to lead this command at a time of dramatic change, challenge, and turmoil in its area of responsibility.”

Austin wasted no time using his position as a chance for a little diplomatic outreach, saying, “And as King Hussein of Jordan likewise wisely stated, ‘Without peace and without the overwhelming majority of people that believe in peace, defending it and working for it and believing in it, security can never really be a reality.’”

Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer until three months ago, is skeptical of the need for a so-called drone court.

Johnson, who personally approved the legal authority behind every major military strike ordered by the secretary of defense and President Obama until January 1, says the U.S. military is best equipped to conduct targeted killings of terrorism suspects abroad, without the need for a new court.

This morning, Johnson, who has returned to private practice, is at Fordham University to deliver a speech that he bills as the first to tackle the pros and cons of such a court. Johnson directly challenges advocates of the idea, including senators calling for more oversight and transparency, such as Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), intelligence committee chairwoman, and his old boss, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Legal authority for targeted strikes against terrorism suspects that are conducted by the military is already in place, Johnson argues. What is needed, he offers, is more transparency around how those suspects are identified. Some secrets about targeted operations, Johnson claims, can be revealed without compromising national security.

“Most people, I think, do not have a quarrel with the bottom-line conclusions and results,” Johnson says in the speech, an advance copy of which was obtained by The E-Ring. “The problem is that the American public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in secrecy.”

Because U.S. officials will not confirm targeted killings even though they are widely reported by the media, the government is losing the trust and support of the public it is trying to protect, Johnson claims. But, even though an oversight court may sound like a good idea because judges are thought to be fairer than White House politicos, Johnson argues that a new court would be problematic and unnecessary -- at least for the military.

“We must be realistic about the degree of added credibility such a court can provide,” he said. Those few cases that would require the court’s approval likely would be kept secret anyway, and most of those cases still would be approved. The current FISA, or foreign intelligence court, is “derided” as a rubber stamp by the same groups calling for a new drone court, he notes.

Johnson analyzes three possible versions of a drone court and argues why all three would fail. A court that reviews all desired strikes away from a battlefield and against terrorists, including by the military, would be a logjam and require too much evidence to act in real time. A court that reviewed only the evidence for strikes against U.S. citizens abroad would require an impractical standard of intelligence, essentially forcing the government prove it knows the exact nationality of every target, American or not.

Finally, Johnson offers his least bad option: a court that would review and approve lethal force only against terrorists known to be U.S. citizens “but only in instances not part of a congressionally-authorized armed conflict conducted by the U.S. military.” In other words, this court would review killings of Americans abroad conducted by the CIA or other non-military agencies.

“In my view targeted lethal force is at its least controversial when it is on its strongest, most traditional legal foundation. The essential mission of the U.S. military is to capture or kill an enemy. Armies have been doing this for thousands of years. As part of a congressionally-authorized armed conflict, the foundation is even stronger.”

“Lethal force outside the parameters of congressionally-authorized armed conflict by the military looks to the public to lack any boundaries, and lends itself to the suspicion that it is an expedient substitute for criminal justice.”

Johnson also notes that courts are not equipped to decide “questions of feasibility of capture and imminence,” which can change rapidly.

Finally, he argues, the president has the constitutional authority to use force, and the debate over killing terrorists one-by-one seems to naively forget that the president has sole authority to launch a nuclear strike that could kill millions of people.

“Article II of the Constitution states that the President ‘shall’ be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That is his burden and responsibility,” Johnson argues. “He may delegate his war-fighting authority within his chain of command, but he cannot assign part of it away to another branch of government, nor have it taken away by an act of Congress.”

In the end, Johnson says more transparency will go a long way, if administration officials are willing to find that path.

“Put 10 national security officials in a room to discuss de- classifying a certain fact, they will all say I’m for transparency in principle, but at least 7 will be concerned about second-order effects, someone will say ‘this is really hard, we need to think about this some more,’ the meeting is adjourned, and the 10 officials go on to other more pressing matters.

“Last year we declassified the basics of the U.S. military’s counterterrorism activities in Yemen and Somalia and disclosed what we were doing in a June 2012 War Powers report to Congress. It was a long and difficult deliberative process to get there, but certain people in the White House persevered, we said publicly and officially what we were doing, and, so far as I can tell, the world has not come to an end.”

You can read the full speech here:

Newly installed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sat in his first weekly meeting of U.S. defense and military leaders of the Afghanistan war, in the Pentagon on Friday, to go over the current state of ongoing operations there.

Hagel heard briefings from his top war commander, Gen. Joseph Dunford, from Kabul; Gen. Jim Mattis, head of Central Command, speaking from Tampa; and other leaders, according to senior defense officials.

The morning briefing, which discussed specifics the officials would not divulge publicly, follows Hagel’s broader overview briefing of the Afghan war held Thursday in the Pentagon by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Peter Lavoy and Lt. Gen. Terry Wolf, who is the J5, or director of strategic plans and policy on the Joint Staff.

Participants in the Friday secure video teleconference, known as a SVTC (pronounced: siv-itz), included Dunford; Mattis; Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter; Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, director of the Joint Staff, standing in for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey; Pentagon policy chief Jim Miller, undersecretary of defense for policy; Mike Vickers, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and others.

One of the military’s rising stars just got even brighter. Maj. Gen. Michael Nagata is being assigned to command special operations forces across Central Command, the military’s geographic command stretching from the Middle East to Pakistan.

Nagata first gained attention as deputy of the U.S. military contingent in Islamabad, Pakistan, or the Office of the Defense Representative to Pakistan (ODRP). There, Nagata earned a reputation as a brighter-than-most, frank-talking officer who often impressed top brass and military reporters with his assessments of the ground situation in the region throughout the halting relationship between the U.S. and Pakistani militaries.  

From there, Nagata was brought to the Pentagon, where he is currently deputy director for special operations on the Joint Staff, earning his second star just last September in a ceremony that drew some big names, including former Gen. David Petraeus. 

One glowing review comes from retired Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who held the post Nagata is about to step into at Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT). Kearney later rose to deputy commander of Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and then deputy at National Counterterrorism Center. "Operating from the shadows in support of the fight against al Qaeda and affiliate's senior leaders," he told the E-Ring, "General Nagata has developed inter-agency, country team and U.S. embassy relationships throughout CENTCOM and the Horn of Africa. This unassuming and affable leader with a lethal intellect has in-depth experience with IA partners, regional international SOF and intelligence partners, and integrated with his Special Forces background make him the perfect choice to lead all theater SOF forces in a networked partnership against CENTCOM's terrorist and conventional threats.

"Nagata's experience as the deputy ODRP in Pakistan and his current assignment as the deputy director for special operations in the J-3 shop of the Joint Staff have given him key insights to U.S. policy and earned him a reputation as a direct communicator with deep knowledge of players friend and foe in the region."

Now, he will command all special operators in arguably the most important region in the world for counterterrorism. While Mali and Algeria command current headlines, the Pentagon has focused intently on the region from the Arabian Peninsula to Pakistan as a hotbed for future counterterrorism operations. Nagata undoubtedly will use his old Islamabad contacts -- including with Army chief Gen. Parvez Kayani -- to press for keeping U.S. special operations forces as involved as the president desires.

"He's a quiet warrior. There's very few people in uniform today who have his depth of knowledge about the nature of the wars we've been fighting," said another military officer who is close to Nagata, but wished to remain anonymous. "He's been there, and he's led there and he's utterly brilliant. But you'll never hear him say it. I don't know of anyone who 'gets it' more than him when it comes to understanding the geo-political complexities of that part of the world."

As commander of Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), Nagata will operate out of MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., which houses both Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

He likely will still see plenty of Washington time, though. One of his superiors is SOCOM commander Adm. William McRaven who told the E-Ring at Foreign Policy’s 100 Global Thinkers Gala in November that he spends much of nearly every week working in Washington, face-to-face with President Obama and his top national security team leaders.

Chuck Hagel has built up a long and detailed record of his thinking on national security. In speeches and op-eds, Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has presented a vision of American foreign policy that calls for building alliances, even with adversaries, and for recognizing the limitations of force and the patience required of diplomacy. Here are 10 quotes from President Obama’s nominee to succeed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that give us a better idea of what to expect from the former senator.

1.    “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.”

At the height of anti-Iraq War fever in November 2006, the Bush administration was facing a decision: double-down with a massive troop “surge” or pull out before the insurgency could do any more damage. As party lines ruled the day, Hagel published an op-ed in the Washington Post that broke ranks and said out loud that the U.S. was not winning the war. Hagel opposed the coming troop surge and advocated withdrawal. “We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” he wrote. By then, Hagel’s opposition was no secret, but the article stuck in Washington’s collective mind.

When Hagel retired in 2008, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said this in his floor tribute speech: “Senator Hagel's opposition to the war carried very special impact. He is a conservative, a member of the president's own political party, and a military veteran. In fact, he still carries shrapnel in his chest and remnants of burns to his face from his service as an infantryman in Vietnam. Senator Hagel now calls Mr. Bush's war in Iraq ‘an absolute replay of Vietnam.’”

2.    “The worst thing we can do, the most dangerous thing we can do is continue to isolate nations, is to continue to not engage nations. Great powers engage.”

The foreign policy debate over engagement with antagonistic regimes like Iran and North Korea -- and even China and Russia -- continues to rage. Hagel, in a keynote speech to the Israel Policy Forum in New York in December 2008, put himself at odds with the large chunk of Washington -- and Congress -- that prefers sanctions and military threats to diplomacy in attempts mitigate threats abroad. But Hagel’s focus on alliances will fit nicely with the Pentagon’s desire for “relationship building” and “building partner capacity” with friendly foreign armies. In warning that the military can’t fix Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, Hagel has called for the U.S. to work the region’s countries into “some alignment of common interests.”  

3.    "I told Obama he should pick Biden as his running mate."

In 2008, Barack Obama had a wide selection of Democrats from which to pick his vice presidential running mate. Obama, a young, one-term senator with a worldly personal background but little experience in governance, had already sought out foreign policy mentoring from his elders in Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), Hagel, and Joe Biden, a longtime senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Biden’s own run for the presidency fizzled, Obama kept him in close counsel and made the white-haired elder his second, with Hagel’s blessing. Since occupying the White House, Obama has kept Hagel close. Now the president has Biden at his side, Kerry at the State Department, and Hagel in the Pentagon.

4.    “There is no glory in war, only suffering.”

At the ground-breaking for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in 1982, a much younger Hagel uttered that bold phrase, reflecting the disdain of the nation at the war. Hagel and his brother, Tom, served together in Vietnam, earning Purple Hearts at a time when Americans did not support the troops like they do today. But the wounds have never healed. Hagel frequently invokes the “folly” of Vietnam and is viewed as a non-interventionist. That makes him an interesting pick to lead the military at this moment. In May 2011, once again at the wall, Hagel repeated the phrase in a speech. Keep that in mind as Hagel likely directs the end of the Afghanistan war and the beginning of the expensive post-war era for millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, some facing a lifetime of emotional and physical healing. “As we have painfully learned from the tragic misadventure of Vietnam, society must always separate the war from the warrior. We do not celebrate the Vietnam War. We commemorate and historically recognize it.”

5.    “I don't have to be President. I don't have to be a senator. I just have to live with myself.”

On the Senate floor in late 2008, tribute speeches poured in over Hagel’s reputation as an independent voice and respected leader on foreign policy and national security that ignored party lines. As a result, there is a record of praise for Hagel that would appear to make his confirmation far easier than has been portrayed recently. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security.” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called Hagel “one of the bravest and most fiercely independent Members of this legislative body.” Reid said that quote, which he appeared to paraphrase on the Senate floor, was Hagel’s answer to those calling for him to run for the presidency or vice presidency. Byrd said: “The Senate needs strong, independent voices like Senator Hagel -- lawmakers who are willing to put the best interests of our country and American people over partisan politics.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said, “In the Senate, Chuck embraced responsibility for U.S. national security as few Senators have in recent decades.”

6.    “The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”

Perhaps the loudest pre-nomination concern over Hagel has been his allegedly insufficient support for Israel. But in a 2006 speech on the Senate floor, Hagel said the U.S. should walk and chew gum at the same time in the Middle East. He said that Israel has the right to defend itself, he blasted Arab attacks, and he called for an international military force to deploy along the Lebanese border. But he also said: “The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an ‘us against the world’ global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America's global leadership, our trust and influence, further isolating Israel, and it would prove disastrous for both countries, as well as the region. It is in Israel's interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.” That position may not mesh with some senators’ views. But how different is it from the White House’s?

7.    “We must avoid the traps of hubris and imperial temptation that comes with great power.”

With the United States more than a year into the global war on terrorism, Hagel invoked the anti-imperial warnings of Winston Churchill in delivering the Landon Lecture at Kansas State University. It was February 2003, and the Bush administration was on the verge of invading Iraq -- an action that would marry U.S. troops to that country for eight years. Hagel set the bar high for using American military force to solve foreign policy problems. Staring down the concern over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Hagel said, “American purpose requires more than the application of American power,” warning that the U.S. would have to stay in Iraq for post-war rebuilding. “War, if it is necessary, should be a means, and not an end, to achieve a plan of action to encourage conflict resolution and peaceful change in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.”

8.     “We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history.”

In 2009, Hagel challenged President Obama and the United States to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq sooner rather than later, arguing that neither war was America’s to win. “Win what?” he asked, explaining that changing minds and the quality of life in places like the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region would require “political accommodation and reconciliation.” That term was far more controversial three years ago, when Hagel inked it in the Washington Post.  And, again, Hagel pushed for long-term, multinational coalition building across regions that work with perceived adversaries to find common interests. “Does anyone believe we will get to a responsible resolution on Iran without Russia?” Good question, still.


9.    “It's never a good easy clean choice in foreign policy.”

In a 2007 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Hagel basically rejected the “with us or against us” approach of the Bush administration and took a sharp jab at the talking points heard on the presidential campaign trail. Hagel was basically telling the partisans in Washington to leave national security to the grown-ups. Look for him to show his appreciation for nuance in the massive Defense Department by resisting rhetorical spit-balling from Obama’s detractors on issues like the budget, China, Iran, Russia, and even Israel.

10.    “Time is the most critical commodity you have.  If you squander the time, if you squander the moment, if you squander the opportunity, if you squander the boldness, what price do you pay on that?” 

In that same CFR forum heading into the 2008 election cycle, Hagel criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to promote international alliances, spending too much time reacting to crises and not driving a long-term strategic vision. He later challenged President Obama to start thinking about how to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, Pentagon workers describe 2012 as a year spent in waiting -- for a budget, for troop numbers in Afghanistan, and, frankly, for a new defense secretary. If past is prologue, don’t expect a Secretary Hagel to slow roll into the job. Could he convince the president to speed up an Afghanistan war ending sooner than 2014? It wouldn’t be out of character.

Pentagon officials expect President Obama to decide “in a relatively short period of time” how many U.S. troops will stay in Afghanistan after 2014.

Pentagon press secretary George Little gave that timeline in Wednesday’s morning press gaggle, but added that the more eagerly anticipated number -- the expected pace of the drawdown in Afghanistan this year -- was still unsettled.

“We’re not there yet,” Little said. “The real focus, at this point, is on the post-2014 enduring presence number.”

Pentagon officials have said for months that the U.S. first wanted to determine what the so-called “enduring presence” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 would look like before determining how to get there.

For some, that may sound like the definition of putting the cart before the horse. But not at the Pentagon, where Little said the “glide slope,” or pace of troop exits from Afghanistan through 2014, should be dictated in part by what the president wants to leave in place after in 2014.

Little said that Gen. John Allen, the International Security Assistance Force commander in Kabul, has passed his recommendations to the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but there are not yet plans for any troop announcements. However, speculation has turned to next week, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai is scheduled to visit Washington. According to the Wall Street Journal, Karzai departs for the U.S. on Monday. 

Officials in Kabul provided an interesting moment-in-time glimpse of the Afghanistan war today with concurrent press releases from the International Security Assistance Force.
 
ISAF first boasted in a news release to reporters that three kandaks, or Afghan brigades, had completed “clearing operations” in Helmand province for one week in November.
 
The accomplishment: the Afghan National Army was able to sustain them logistically all by themselves. Even when the Afghans took casualties, they did not request evacuation assistance from ISAF.
 
“The clearing operation highlights the 215th Corps’ ability to deploy kandaks as part of an operation and sustain them logistically for a week,” the ISAF statement said.
 
Three brigades, inside their own country, for one week.
 
Minutes later, ISAF released a statement condemning yet another insurgent bombing the command said killed and injured “several” Afghan civilians, this time in Uruzgan province.
 
Brig. Gen. Günter Katz, an ISAF spokesman, lamented that “the insurgency has continued its murderous assault on Afghan civilians.”
 

This week, the Pentagon's internal news service ran a new story under an old photo, with a headline that read:  "Commander: Afghan forces gaining capability, respect." The fact that has to be said tells perhaps more than the actual story.

In the past week, military officials from Kabul to Washington have entered a spin battle with journalists reporting on the ground over just how well the war is going. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday said the Afghanistan war plan was "solid," and the plan toward a 2014 withdrawal remains in place, pending the assessment from outgoing war commander Gen. John Allen expected in Washington next month.

"It's a plan that we have a tremendous amount of confidence in, and we've seen it already working effectively to try to accomplish the transitions that we're trying to accomplish. I really think that the best thing we could do at this point is to stick to it and make sure that we implement it the way it was designed to be implemented," he said in a Pentagon press conference.

Stewart Upton, a Marine Corps public affairs officer well-known around the E-Ring currently serving in Kabul, wrote a commentary in Foreign Policy in which he insisted the media was missing the picture. "Many of us on the ground don't understand the recent pessimism," he wrote.

U.S. Army Col. John Shafer, commanding officer of Regimental Combat Team 6, gave an interview to the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service, two of the Defense Department's most closely-crafted messaging machines. In Shafer's assessment, he said, "Afghan national security forces have had to step up to meet the challenges that the Taliban have presented. And overwhelmingly, they have done very well and been very successful."

"I think we are well on track," he added.

Central Command ran the above photo of Shafer standing shoulder to shoulder with Afghan National Army Brig. Gen. Abdul Wasea, commanding general of the 2nd Brigade, 215th Corps. The picture is dated March, 2012.

Just last week, Afghan commanders visiting the Pentagon sounded more weary than appreciative of U.S. help, but acknowledged insider attacks were splintering the two sides.

But another picture of what Afghanistan feels like on "the ground" also was offered by New York Times' Kabul bureau chief Allisa J. Rubin. Rubin this week wrote a chilling account of just how dangerous Afghanistan remains, how hostile Afghans are toward their American minders, and how little trust exists between the U.S. military and some Afghan security forces. Rubin was told of how an Americans refused to let an Afghan colonel pass  a check point. A seemingly low-level offense, but not to Afghan soldiers tired of their American minders. An Afghan commander told Rubin, as she described it:

“My solders were ready to shoot him in the face.”

That resentment extended to me.

“Look at this bitch — they kill us and she comes here to spy on us,” one soldier said while we were interviewing his comrades.

Another agreed, “They are all spies,” he said.

As you watch tonight’s presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy, remember this: there are few things Americans care less about than foreign policy. And, conveniently, there are fewer things Americans know less about than foreign policy.

But Americans have opinions, nonetheless. Since 2010, there have been more Americans saying they wanted to pull troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible than those saying the United States should stabilize that country first. By a roughly 60-30 percent gap, Americans are more worried about China’s economic strength than its military power. More than 60 percent have no faith that sanctions will sway Iran to give up its nuclear program. And more than 65 percent of Americans think the administration is treating Israel just fine. As for Russia, only 2 percent of Americans think it’s the greatest threat to the United States.

National security is not run by referendum, however. But keep those statistics and these others released last Friday in mind when Obama and Romney try to strike a balance tonight between looking like a strong commander-in-chief, but not one who is wasteful or itching to get the U.S. too involved around the world. Americans want a tough president, but one who is ready to focus his attention back home, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest findings.

What does that mean for these five issue areas that have been announced for tonight’s debate?

“America’s Role in the World”

This topic goes to the heart of the U.S. military’s footprint around world and how the next president intends to use it -- and never mind the militarization of foreign policy, because that’s a phrase barely mentioned in the Pentagon. Obama has presented Congress a five-year plan that offers a robust global counterterrorism presence with a significant downsizing of the Army and Marine Corps, a plan strongly backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a pivot/rebalancing toward Asia. That means a leaner military. Defense spending could get aired out tonight here and it could be interesting. The brass are on record that they want to reset, refit, and retrain the force for the post-Iraq and Afghanistan world. Few are calling for what Romney is advocating: a significant increase in the troop presence in the Middle East and a 4 percent GDP-sized spending account for the Pentagon. More likely, the candidates will present their views in basest of terms: the open hand of Obama versus the “no apology” of Romney and American exceptionalism. But will they challenge each other?

“Our Longest War -- Afghanistan and Pakistan”

There is less daylight between Obama and Romney on any topic than Afghanistan. That’s mostly because Romney has not offered any different course other than promising to be more attentive to commanders on the ground, which allows him to imply Obama has not done so. In his Tampa acceptance speech, Romney didn’t mention Afghanistan. Republicans are divided over what to do there next. And even though Democrats by 98 percent think Obama’s pullout order too slow, the president gives Romney little room here. The U.S. and NATO are committed to the 2014 deadline -- whether you believe the U.S. will keep fighting that long or not. Unless moderator Bob Scheiffer draws something out of the candidates, those watching among the 67,000 troops in Afghanistan can expect little more than a rehashing of the justification for extending the war another two years.

“Red Lines -- Israel and Iran”

Romney has tried most to distinguish himself as a better friend to Israel than Obama. But as they speak, the United States and Israel are preparing to begin a massive war game that’s unofficially geared as a united defense against an Iranian missile threat -- the expected response from Tehran should anyone try to knock out their nuclear program.  “Who loves Israel more?” is now staple campaign fare. Look for Obama tonight to defend his love for Israel and press Romney to say what, exactly, he’d do differently than the current administration. Look for Romney to allege that Obama’s sanctions-loving, Israel-ostracizing public posture is only making the region less stable.

“The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism”

Obama might use some of this time to explain just how extensively the Pentagon is preparing for or engaged in counterterrorism operations country-by-country across the Middle East and North Africa. U.S. officials are working the new post-Arab Awakening governments to secure relationships and military ties they’ll need to track and keep a thumb on al Qaeda and other extremists. Under Obama, security and stability still drives Middle East policy. Romney will likely continue to hit Obama on botching Benghazi, on not helping the Syrian rebels enough, and for allowing extremism to spread throughout the region. It could be the most interesting exchange of the night, especially if the president opts to highlight U.S. military activity in the region under his watch.

“The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World”

For some national security watchers, this topic should be called “The Rise of China’s Military.” But it’s not, for a reason. Most Americans are far more concerned about China’s economic rise than they are about J-20 stealth fighter test runs. Romney has made trade with China a centerpiece of his campaign. Don’t expect a debate over strategic power here -- it’s probably the segment to step out and grab popcorn as the candidates discuss manufacturing jobs and currency manipulation. Or to flip over to what tens of millions of other Americans tonight will actually be paying close attention to: Monday Night Football.

Once decidedly hawkish, Republicans have grown more divided over whether to leave Afghanistan, according to a new poll released Friday that also shows Democrats overwhelmingly agree with President Obama’s timetable for exiting the war.

Just 2 percent of Democrats polled said that Obama was pulling troops out of Afghanistan “too quickly,” and a significant majority of respondents from the left firmly opposed his committed war policy -- a position backed by NATO -- of removing combat troops over a two-year period while Afghan forces receive more training.

Americans overall showed little patience for sticking out the Afghan training mission. Even Republicans are now evenly divided at 48 percent over whether the United States should keep troops in Afghanistan “until the situation has stabilized” or remove them “as soon as possible,” according to the survey results.

For Democrats, there is no such conflict: 73 percent of respondents said that the president should pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan right away, while just 22 percent favored holding out for stability. Independents polled echoed Democrat sentiments, at 58 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press’s poll release comes three days before the final presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney, which will focus on foreign policy.

“The Democrats have been always less supportive of our involvement in Iraq. It’s not surprising that there would be so few who would say [Obama’s] moving too quickly,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, on Friday.

“I mean, what’s really interesting is that the Republicans are equally bearish about the course in Afghanistan, yet divided over whether we should leave. There are more Republicans these days who say we should get out quickly than there had been. But still, it is an issue among Republicans; it’s not an issue among Democrats, it’s not an issue among Independents.”

The American public is also showing less interest in foreign policy issues of any kind in years, Kohut argued.

“Even though Americans continue to think the United States should play a global leadership role … the public is decidedly more isolationist,” he said. “A lot of the fall-away obviously has to do with lessons learned about terrorism as a national security threat.”

The number of people now saying the United States should pay more attention to domestic issues than foreign ones has jumped to 45 percent, the highest polling number for that question since the end of the Cold War, Kohut said.

Earlier this year, when asked to name "the most important problem facing the nation," which is a classic polling question, just 7 percent of those surveyed “volunteered any foreign issue,” Kohut said, including the war in Afghanistan. In 2004, that number was percent; in July 2008, it was 25 percent.

On the politically hot issue of Libya, Pew found only 28 percent of the public was following the Benghazi attack investigations, and was evenly divided on party lines over Obama's handling of them. The survey was conducted two weeks ago, on October 4-7, between the first two presidential debates.

“The partisan gap is so wide: 68 percent of Democrats approve of the administration’s handling and 73 percent of Republicans disapprove,” Kohut said.

Though Americans consider Libya and Syria important issues, they balk at America’s responsibility to get involved. Yet on Iran, the question of “taking a firm stand against Iranian actions” received 56 percent support to just 35 percent preferring to “avoid a military conflict with Iran.” One reason, Kohut said, could be that the public might be concerned about a prolonged conflict if the United States jumped into Syria, as compared to a perception that more targeted military strikes would be used against Iran.

But Iran also sharply divided Americans by party lines. “Fully 84 percent of conservative Republicans favor taking a firm stand against Iran’s nuclear program. Fewer than half as many liberal Democrats (38%) agree,” reads the Pew report.

There’s also a large age gap over military intervention with Iran. Roughly half of the respondents under age 29 -- but just 24 percent of those over 65 -- chose to “avoid military conflict” with Iran.

On China, Romney appears to have gained traction on economic issues. The public has grown, Kohut said, “much more inclined to get tough” on trade policies.

“People are concerned about China. Again, given that concern, the public does not look at the Chinese as our enemy,” Kohut said.

“Trade policy was the one foreign policy issue which voters clearly prefer Mitt Romney over Obama -- by a 49 to 45 percent margin,” said Kohut.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does not like to take reporters on his overseas travels, but even the Pentagon press corps was surprised when he appeared in Afghanistan unannounced this week.

It had become standard practice in recent years that when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff visits the war zone, he takes a rotation of reporters along with him. After all, he is the senior-most ranking U.S. military officer and senior military advisor to the president.

So in Thursday's Pentagon press briefing, Dempsey was asked to explain why he kept this visit secret.

"I kept it under wraps because I was afraid you all would ask to come with me," he said, jokingly. He also did not take Col. David Lapan, his spokesman.

"No, I kept -- the truth is I originally planned to go to Pakistan to meet with [Pakistan's military chief] Gen. [Parvez] Kayani, and because of some of the issues related to that film, he and I discussed postponing that visit," he said. The two generals did postpone. "And then, with the available time I decided to extend my trip in Afghanistan."

But by Dempsey's own account, there appear to be few secrets that needed keeping on what amounted to a standard battlefield tour in Afghanistan and high-level meetings with President Hamid Karzai's new defense minster, interior minister, and two corps commanders.

Reading from a statement, he said, "I actually returned from Afghanistan just yesterday. While there, I visited our troops in Kandahar and in Helmand province. I walked the ground at Camp Bastion."

"I also met with coalition and Afghan leaders, and I tell you this, the Afghan forces are not only gaining capability, but they also are importantly gaining confidence."

"I'll also tell you that our Afghan partners are working with us to shut down the threat of insider attacks. As one Afghan army commander told me, insider attacks are an affront to their honor, at odds with their culture and their faith."

He later added, "I can tell you, without hesitation, they are taking this as seriously as we are."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced at the briefing that partnered joint operations had returned to normal, after a pause initiated by war commander Gen. John Allen. But Panetta and Dempsey were unable to give an exact count or percentage of operations that entails. Before the pause, U.S. Officials frequently said that 90 percent of operations in Afghanistan were partnered with Afghan security forces.

Dempsey has proven to be a quieter chairman than many of his predecessors in recent tims. He spoke to the issue in January, telling National Journal he would not be rushing to get on the Daily Show, rather picking and choosing when he wanted to leverage the bully pulpit.

Indeed, it was not the first time Dempsey has left journalists behind, and it likely won't be the last. Reporters also were noticeably kept away during his swing through Southeast Asia this summer. He also did not take reporters on his previous overseas trip to a very public meeting of NATO military chiefs, held in Romania, at which NATO received an update on the Afghanistan war from International Security Assistance Force commander Gen. John Allen.That stop was followed by Dempsey's visit to Turkey, where the chairman talked with his counterparts on NATO's border about the Syrian civil war.

On that trip, Dempsey did give one interview, to the American Forces Press Service, an arm of the Pentagon's massive public relations apparatus. He even made news, calling the insider attacks a "very serious threat."