WarSclerotic

The Region: Victory over Islamist movements: Possible.

Photo by: Associated Press  

By BARRY RUBIN
11/21/2010 22:30

What British General David Richards means is that the Taliban, al-Qaida aren’t going to be defeated by military action.

General Sir David Richards, commander of the British military and former NATO commander in Afghanistan, gave an extremely important and easily misunderstand interview to the Sunday Telegraph. The headline statement has been Richards’s remark that military victory against al-Qaida and the Taliban is not possible.

Many have seen this quote as one more example of a disturbing trend in which the West lacks the willingness to attain victory – the patience and staying power to fight the revolutionary Islamist threat whose very existence is denied by all too many. This is certainly a real issue and reasonable concern, but Richards isn’t joining that kind of thinking.

The great, secret weapon of these radical forces is a refusal to compromise or give up. No matter how long the battle goes on, how many are killed or how their countries are wrecked, these extremists will go on fighting. This gives them two tremendous advantages:

First, they can wear down (or think they are wearing down) their enemy by outlasting them. The idea is one of winning victory by getting the other, stronger side to give up because its people fear death or don’t want to continue paying the financial price of the conflict, or just lose interest.

Second, they can play on internal defeatist forces on the part of the West. Just by forcing them to kill your people, wreck your buildings and inflict suffering, they can be made to feel so guilty as to abandon the struggle.

There are many in Western political, intellectual and media circles who advocate appeasement, concessions and even surrender. But this does not seem to be what Richards is saying.

According to his interview, Richards views this is as a necessarily protracted struggle; his estimate is that the battle will go on at least 30 years. He points out that military means alone cannot root out an idea.

Richards claims one cannot defeat ideas merely by fighting wars. Islamism, he avers, isn’t going to disappear, nor does he wish to challenge the right of “fundamentalist” Muslims to hold their beliefs.

Instead, he puts forward a practical, functional definition of victory: contain the enemy, prevent it from attacking you. In his words: “You can’t [achieve victory through combat]. We’ve all said this – [General] David Petraeus [the US head of NATO forces in Afghanistan] has said this… In conventional war, defeat and victory is very clear cut and is symbolized by troops marching into another country’s capital. First of all you have to ask, do we need to defeat it [Islamist militancy] in the sense of a clear-cut victory? I would argue that it is unnecessary and can never be achieved…

“I don’t think you can probably defeat an idea. It’s something we need to battle against as necessary, but in its milder forms why shouldn’t they be allowed to have that sort of philosophy?

“It’s how it manifests itself that is the key, and whether we contain that manifestation – and quite clearly al-Qaida is an unacceptable manifestation of it.”

I think a lot of what Richards says is reasonable, though it also contains some dangerous implications. He is obviously not advocating retreat, since he says the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been largely successful and opposes withdrawing in the near future. The problem, rather, is that he is (understandably) focusing on his job of being a British general and fighting wars.

BEFORE CONTINUING, however, it is necessary to point out a potential disaster in Richards’s words that reflects serious errors in Western thinking. If the West focuses only or overwhelmingly on blocking attacks against itself in the short run, that will lead to more attacks in the long run.

The idea that the revolutionary movement’s main front should be launching terrorist attacks on the West is an al- Qaida strategy, not one of the revolutionary Islamists generally. This fact means that Western military and intelligence forces are engaged in fighting al- Qaida. But it is not the main strategic threat. It didn’t take over Iran, the Gaza Strip or large parts of Lebanon. Al-Qaida didn’t wage civil war in Algeria or Egypt. The main strategic threat is not scattered terrorist attacks but a political transformation of the Middle East – countries with huge territories, tens of millions of people and billions of dollars in resources, all of which can be used to spark a lot of future wars and attacks.

Consequently, if the top Western priority is preventing attacks on itself, the second top priority should be keeping Islamists from taking over other countries and using them as bases for further expansion. When Islamists take over somewhere – as in Turkey or the Gaza Strip – it invigorates that ideology, gives it additional financing and safe havens, and inspires many thousands to join its ranks. Coddling Syria, partner in the biggest Islamist alliance, has the same effect.

ALL NON-CONVENTIONAL wars against irregular forces that are fighting for an idea have their special problems. In 1945, many Allied leaders doubted that capturing Berlin or taking Tokyo would wipe out Nazism or Japanese warrior fanaticism. In fact, though, this was achieved because those ideas were seen to be costly failures.

The Middle East’s modern history is not so different. True, some basic concepts – expelling Western influence, destroying Israel, finding some miracle solution to become wealthy and powerful overnight – did remain over decades.

Yet the ideas building mass movements and inspiring attacks were discredited, including Nasserism in the 1950s-1970s era; Ba’thism as a regional movement; Marxism; Cuban-style guerrilla warfare; the belief in Saddam Hussein as messiah; the belief in quick upheavals after Iran’s revolution; and faith in Osama bin Ladin as messiah. Each time an idea was defeated, some years of relative quiet went by and the scope of the problem was often reduced.

To prove a movement and its ideas have failed, the first step is to ensure that it doesn’t win a quick and easy victory. The second step is to defeat it soundly and throw it out of power where possible, as happened in Afghanistan. In other places, though, the West did the opposite, for example, saving the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.

The third step is to root out the movement in a serious manner. The West doesn’t have the stomach to do the dirty work necessary to succeed here. And given the fact that the present-day problem is within the framework of Islam, it is probably impossible and certainly undesirable for it to do this.

So who can do it? Other Muslims. The Saudi, Algerian and Egyptian regimes, with all their shortcomings, have been willing to fight in this manner.

The PA has been too weak to do so and too eager to use the Islamists for its own purposes against Israel. The Lebanese government has been too weak while lacking Western support and facing an enemy which enjoys full Iranian-Syrian backing. In Afghanistan, the government – partly due to its sensing Western faint-heartedness – also seems inclined to try to make a deal with the Taliban.

The final stage is an ideological assault on the enemy ideology. But given the “infidel” nature of the West, its ignorance about Islam (albeit an ignorance that is the exact opposite of what it is usually accused of holding) and refusal to acknowledge how jihadism and revolutionary Islamism are deeply rooted in the texture of Islam, this also can only be accomplished by other Muslims.

The real moderate reformers are too weak; Muslim phony moderates and apologists for the radicals try to hide the truth. That leaves governments in Muslim- majority countries, some of which are incapable of tough action. Moreover, even the strongest Muslim-majority country regimes use this weapon against their own enemies, and thus keep it alive.

At least, however, the West can understand the nature of the enemy and the basis of its appeal. And it must understand that radical Islamic views and practices on its own soil are likely to lead to revolutionary Islamist movements.

Richards is saying that the Taliban, al- Qaida and revolutionary Islamists aren’t going to be dissolved into nothingness by Western military action.

That’s true. But there are other ways of attaining victory.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report November 22, 2010, 8:43 AM (GMT+02:00)

M-600 surface missile – now guided

Israeli Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin took his leave from the Israel cabinet Sunday, Nov. 21, with a stern warning:  “Tel Aviv will be a front line in the next conflict,” he said.

debkafile‘s military sources report: Syria and Hizballah now possess thousands of surface missiles from Iran with enhanced ranges of up to 300 kilometers and they are being outfitted by Iranian engineers with guidance systems. The new guided Fateh-110, M-600 and Scud D missiles hardware can pinpoint any part of Israel within a 10-meter radius in defiance of Israel’s aerial and anti-missile capabilities, say Israeli and Western missile experts. Hizballah and Syria have been furnished by Iran with the means for fighting a new, far more comprehensive war.

All of Syria’s chemical Scud C and D warheads have been converted into guided missiles, and so have the 1,000 Scud Ds kept in Syrian bases near the Lebanese border ready to push across to Hizballah in a military confrontation with Israel, which Hassan Nasrallah said ten days ago he would welcome.

During the three-week war of 2006, Hizballah launched 500 rockets a day – relying on sheer, terrifying numbers against populated areas, mostly in the North – to bring Israeli armed forces low.

A dozen a day of the guided, long-range weapons would do far more damage, say our military sources. Iran’s allies would likely go for Greater Tel Aviv in order to sow demoralization in the most densely populated part of Israel and devastate its industrial and financial centers.

Earlier this month, Israel’s Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, said it was possible that in the next war, large segments of the population would have to be evacuated from their homes.
Former head of the Israel Mission Defense Organization Uzi Rubin said recently: “The enemy has achieved aerial supremacy without even having aircraft.” Iran’s fully-guided Fateh-110 rocket would enable Hizballah and Syria to strike critical Israeli facilities with dozens rather than hundreds of rockets, he said.
Hizballah and Syria have 1,500 warheads that could strike the Tel Aviv area. “This is a revolution,” said the missile expert.
debkafile‘s military sources note that Rubin did not mention Israel’s missile and rocket defense systems, the Arrow, Iron Dome and David’s Sling, as able to thwart the new Syrian and Hizballah guided weapons – for good reason.  Those systems are not up to intercepting heavy hails of thousands of incoming missiles. Even if only scores reached their targets, the damage would be tremendous.

As for aerial strikes against launching sites, Hizballah has dismantled its missile bases and scattered the warheads widely apart in underground bunkers and natural caverns, from which they can be launched.

Official: Iran to increase nuclear output despite possible talks with world powers – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Since the last round of talks between Iran and big powers in October 2009, Tehran has continued to stockpile low-enriched uranium (LEU) and now has enough for at least two atomic bombs, experts say, if refined to a much higher level.

By Reuters

An Iranian lawmaker dealing with foreign policy said on Sunday Iran would increase its production of nuclear fuel despite a possible resumption of talks with major powers over its disputed uranium enrichment program.

Iran will probably try to blunt international pressure on it to curb enrichment once it resumes talks with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. The venue and agenda of the talks have yet to be agreed upon.

	The reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant is seen, just outside the southern city of Bushehr, Iran, Saturday, Aug. 21, 2010
	Photo by: AP

“Iran will increase the production of nuclear fuel to secure its needs,” Esmail Kowsari, a member of parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency, without giving details.

Since the last round of talks between Iran and big powers in October 2009, Tehran has continued to stockpile low-enriched uranium (LEU) and now has enough for at least two atomic bombs, experts say, if it was refined to a much higher level.

Iran, a major oil producer, says it wants only LEU for the running of nuclear power plants to boost its electricity supply.

In remarks that could deepen Western suspicion Iran will try again to avoid addressing its enrichment drive, Kowsari joined other Iranian officials in asserting that Tehran may not discuss its nuclear program at all.

“From the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic, the nuclear issue has been finished and raising that in this round of negotiations has no point,” he said, according to Mehr.

Iranian officials have said Tehran would be willing to address general global political and economic issues.

Similar talks last year yielded a deal in principle under which Iran would have shipped out the bulk of its stock of low-enriched uranium in exchange for higher-enriched fuel for a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer care.

That understanding unraveled when Iran backed away from its terms and later started producing higher-enriched uranium itself, raising Western concerns about an advance towards the threshold of weapons-grade material.

In June, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, reiterating its demand that it suspend enrichment — a process which some countries fear could lead to Iran producing bomb-quality fuel.

The Islamic Republic has also been hit by more far-reaching sanctions imposed by the United States and the EU, but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed them as no more effective than a “used handkerchief”.

Ahmadinejad has also asked the powers to declare their opinion on Israel’s alleged nuclear arsenal and whether they come to the table as Iran’s friend or foe — issues Western diplomats say are irrelevant to the essence of the talks.

Iran’s arch-foe Israel has not rule out striking Tehran militarily to prevent it from getting an atomic bomb, if diplomacy fails.

The six powers want Iran to suspend enrichment activities which can have both civilian and military uses, in exchange for trade and diplomatic benefits on offer since 2006.

FRONTLINE: Tehran Bureau: Iran’s Military Exercises Send Strategic Message to Israel, US | PBS.

by MICHAEL CONNELL

19 Nov 2010 19:4615 Comments

Large-scale war games include test of “upgraded” air defense missile system.

[ primer ] Iran launched five-day military exercises on Nov. 16 to test its air defenses in case of an attack on its nuclear sites or other sensitive facilities. The war games — dubbed Defenders of the Sky of Velayat III — are the largest exercises ever held, according to the government. In a key development, Iran tested a new air defense missile system.

The exercises come at a sensitive time, given tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, talk of a future Israeli strike, and scheduled diplomatic talks in December. As in the past, the new war games have been accompanied by a fair amount of bluster, bravado and strategic messaging. Their primary purpose, beyond training and testing new systems, is to showcase Iran’s capabilities and deter potential attackers.

Given the advance rhetoric, Iran appears to be primarily messaging Israel, although other countries, including the United States, are also on the list.

The exercises were preceded by tactical drills that simulated real combat in Fordo, Tehran, Natanz, Bushehr, and Isfahan, all sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program, according to Brigadier General Ahmad Mighani, the head of Iran’s Air Defense Forces.

In another signal to the outside world, Iran tested a new air defense missile system known as the Mersad, or “ambush” in Farsi. It has been coupled with a domestically produced surface-to-air missile (SAM) called the Shahin, or “hawk” in Farsi. It is a reverse-engineered version of the I-HAWK first produced in the 1970s.

Tehran claims that Iranian scientists developed the new systems, which can identify and hit incoming missiles at low and medium altitudes. Iran also tested a new radar, which it claimed has a range of 3,000 kilometers or about 1,875 miles.

The test follows Russia’s decision in September to comply with U.N. sanctions and not deliver the advanced S-300 SAM system that Tehran had ordered. Iranian officials have been furious at Moscow’s unwillingness to follow through on the deal, with Iranian legislators even calling for the government to sue Russia at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Iranian state television has implied that the Mersad test is linked to the failed S-300 deal. It reported that the new system is an “ungraded version” of the Russian S-200 anti-aircraft missile system but has the same capability as the S-300.

The Mersad/Shahin system, even with upgrades, is actually a far cry from the S-300. But in testing it, the Iranian military is sending a defiant — if somewhat exaggerated — message to Israel, the United States, Russia, as well as its own people that it is not dependent on Moscow’s help to defend Iranian air space.

The exercises are being coordinated by the Khatam ol-Anbiya Air Defense Base, under the control of Iran’s regular military, although other services, including the Revolutionary Guards, the police, and the Basij also appear to be involved. The last large-scale war games were in May in the Persian Gulf.

The latest exercise will be a critical test for the new command and its ability to coordinate operations across multiple services and agencies — not an easy thing to do in a country with two parallel military chains of command, one for the regular military and another for the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

On the operation’s second day, the Iranian press reported that six unidentified foreign planes had intruded on Iranian airspace but were intercepted and forced to retreat. This rather interesting bit of news generated a stir in the Western media — until Press TV, an Iranian state-run English-language news outlet, reported that the incidents were actually mock intrusions and part of the exercise. The next big Iranian military exercise — with IRGC ground forces taking the lead — is scheduled for late December. Stay tuned for more messaging.

Michael Connell is director of Iranian Studies at the Center for Naval Analyses, a nonprofit institution that conducts research and analysis in Washington, D.C. This article is presented by Tehran Bureau, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars as part of the Iran project at iranprimer.usip.org.

via IsraCast: Gates’ Misreading Of Iran.

Menashe Amir: “U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates Iran Assessment Is Gross Misreading Of Iranian Psychology”

“Current Sanctions Are More Biting But Are Not Crippling Enough To Force Iranian Regime To Kill Project”

“Ludicrous For U.S. Defense Secretary To Ease Pressure On Iranian Regime By Saying Military Strike Would Only Provide Short Term Solution Of Two-To-Three Years”

IAF F-16I

U.S. Secretary of State Robert Gates has come out against a military strike against Iran arguing that it would only provide a short term solution of two-to-three years to the Iranian nuclear weapons threat. At the same time, Gates told the Wall Street Journal that the latest UN sanctions are biting much harder than anyone expected. Israeli analyst Menashe Amir takes issue with the Gates assessment charging that it is another misunderstanding of the Iranian situation, similar to the approach of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter that led to the Khomeini Revolution and the Islamist regime that now rules Iran. If Israel ever decides to go it alone against Iran, Israel Air Force pilots will likely lead the way. The traditional seven days of mourning has just ended for two airmen. Maj. Emmanuel Levi and Maj. Amihai Itkis who were killed when their F-16I crashed in the Negev. Writing a tribute in the Israeli daily Yisrael Hayom, a former Israel Air Force commander Maj.Gen.(res.) Eitan Ben Eliyahu shared his thoughts and feelings.

The F-16I aircrafts, the backbone of the Israel Air Force, are now flying once again in Israel’s skies after being grounded immediately after the crash that killed the two airmen. The fact the jets have been ordered back into the air, indicates that a technical defect did not cause the aircraft to crash into the Negev desert during a night-time training flight. It was not the first time Israeli pilots have been killed and as always the country was stunned by the sudden news that two of its best, brightest and most dedicated defenders had died while protecting the Jewish state.

Maj.Gen.(res.) Eitan Ben Eliyahu, a former Israel Air Force commander wrote this tribute on hearing of the tragedy: “If you are numbered among the Israel Air force family, a moment of paralysis strikes you. If you are an ordinary citizen you feel that something dramatic and sad has happened – this is accompanied by a sense of helplessness and anxiety that flows mainly from not knowing what might have happened there in the cockpit. And there is the question – how can it be prevented in the future? Since Israel’s borders have been reduced, except for when the IAF spreads its wings over the Mediterranean and Europe, the IAF compresses its training in the skies over the state. With no alternative, and in order to avoid noise and overcrowding in the airspace over central Israel, the skies of the Negev have become the IAF’s main training area. Although the Negev is being developed, most is still covered in darkness that simulates battle conditions, but which also necessitates peak alertness and sharp reactions.

Amichai Itkis, Imannuel Levi

Under these conditions our sons and daughters train night and day. While they acquire supreme skills in the air they are also accompanied by the unknown and sometimes danger. Major Amihai Itkis and Maj. Emmanuel Levi were there as a matter of routine, they flew the F-16I the most sophisticated and effective aircraft existing in the world today. In Israel’s hour of need, and alas when the day comes when the state’s security is endangered, its pilots and navigators will be on guard, well trained – outstanding, and surpassing their rivals by several grades. And in order to be there with the required proficiency, for years they focus night and day in their studies, training, in introducing innovations, and setting new challenges. Each and every time, they set even higher standards than existed just a short time before.

No one knows for certain yet just what happened in those few seconds when the two experienced airmen were in distress. Was it a sudden technical defect? Did the darkness blur their senses or did their orientation veer out of control? The facts will be ascertained in the near future and the IAF will do the right thing to reduce, as far as possible, similar cases in the future. Meanwhile we will be with the bereaved families whose grief is difficult to describe. We will bid farewell to our hallowed fallen with the honor they so deserve and say in a loud and clear voice to our soldiers: ‘We are with you, we appreciate you and cherish your spirit of volunteering, for your steadfastness that knows no limits, for your refusal never to tire and for your determination to always return to the arena as soon as possible. The entire state stands by your side.’ ” The words of former Israel Air force commander Maj.Gen.Eitan Ben Eliyahu.

Twelve years ago, Amihai’s elder brother Barak was also killed on duty while serving as a Lieutenant in the Israeli Navy. Maj.Itkis was engaged and the marriage was set for another four months. Maj.Emmanuel Levi had served as an officer in the Paratroops before volunteering for the pilot training course. Since his childhood, he had also dreamed of becoming an airman in the Israel Air Force. If Israel ever decides the Iranians have dropped all pretense and goes all out to acquiring the A-bomb, and there is no choice but to go it alone, it will be Israel Air Force pilots who carry the brunt of the preventative operation.

Robert Gates

Gates & Iran: In any case, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates still contends that international sanctions will provide the only long term solution. Gates told the Wall Street Journal: “The sanctions have really bitten much harder than anyone anticipated and we have some evidence that Khamanei is beginning to wonder if Ahmadenijad is lying to him about how much trouble the economy is really in”. Gates was of the view that everything else is a short-term solution, a two-to-three year solution: ” And if it’s a military solution it will bring together a divided nation and make them absolutely committed to attaining nuclear weapons. They will just have to go deeper and more covert.” This assessment by Secretary Gates was not music to the ears of Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who recently told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the West must convince Iranian leaders it must be willing to attack Iran’s nuclear targets, if they do not desist from their nuclear weapons program.

Menashe Amir at IsraCast Studios (Photo: Tomer Yaffe)

What can be said about Gates’ statement? Menashe Amir, an Israeli analyst on Iran, calls it another U.S. misreading of the situation in Iran. Amir told IsraCast: ‘The latest sanctions may bite more but they are not crippling and they will not kill Iran’s nuclear weapons project. Far stiffer sanctions will be be needed. The analyst said it was ‘ ludicrous’ for Gates to declare that a military strike would only provide a two-or-three year solution and would serve to unite the Iranian people behind the regime’s intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. Amir contended:” This was another example of America’s misreading of Iranian psychology, similar to that of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose policies precipitated the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and enabled the fanatic Islamist regime to take power”. Amir is of the view that opponents to the regime believe that the nuclear weapons program is a disaster for the Iranian people. Moreover the Gates approach actually runs counter to America’s own National Intelligence Estimate that found the Iranians suspended their nuclear weaponization project for a time in 2003, for fear the U.S. forces in neighboring Iraq might attack Iran. Amir said: ” When the Iranians feel they are seriously threatened by the U.S. they give in!”

MI chief: Tel Aviv may be target in next war against Israel – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Speaking during final appearance at weekly cabinet meeting, Amos Yadlin warns Israel not to be misled by relative calm in the Middle East.

By Barak Ravid

Israel should not be misled by a recent lull in regional violence, outgoing Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said Sunday, adding that Jerusalem’s enemies were continually building up their military power.

	Military Intelligence Major General Amos Yadlin.
	Photo by: Olivier Fitoussi

Giving farewell remarks during his final cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Yadlin said that “Israel’s deterrence is very strong but the lull shouldn’t mislead anyone, the opposite is true. Our enemies are strengthening and arming.”

Yadlin also warned that a future potential war involving Israel could see fighting “on more than one front ,” adding that “Tel Aviv could also become a front.”

“There is a struggle against Israel’s very existence, against which national awareness and intelligence must be readied,” Yadlin said.

The MI chief, who will be replaced by Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi after concluding his five-year term, also spoke of Iran as the greatest threat facing Israel, “not only in the nuclear respect.”

“Iran is sending its long arms to aid anyone who is working against Israel,” Yadlin said.

His comment came after less than a week after warning Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran was busy setting up two new nuclear installations.

Yadlin also told members of that committee that Iran has sufficient enriched uranium to manufacture a single nuclear device and may soon have enough for making another bomb.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 21, 2010, 1:11 PM (GMT+02:00)

US troops in combat in Afghanistan

The NATO summit’s agreement of Saturday Nov. 2010 on staged handovers to Afghanistan security forces by 2014 is a good fit for Taliban’s longstanding fundamental demand for foreign troops to quit Afghanistan as the precondition for talks on an end to the war that will restore them to power in Kabul, debkafile‘s military sources report.

Taliban’s response Saturday night addressed elements left out of the NATO statement: The Americans and NATO face defeat in Afghanistan, said Taliban – notwithstanding US troops reinforcements and changes of generals – a jab at Gen. David Petraeus, who recently too over command of the war.

The Afghan insurgents took the NATO statement as the Western alliance’s admission that it cannot defeat them, had in lost the will to do so and sought only an elegant way out of spelling out the word defeat; “transition” to Afghan security forces sounds more honorable.

But even that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not willing to concede. Therefore, the fighting will continue to rage as Washington uses the NATO blueprint for maneuvers to open indirect or direct negotiations with the Taliban for ending the war.
The insurgents will moreover press their attacks – less to seize more territory than to drive bigger wedges among Western allies, taking advantage of the badly disunited front US President Barack Obama found in Lisbon.

Exit timelines vary from one NATO leader to another.
According to the summit document, “The transition process towards Afghan control of security matters is to begin in July of next year and end with full Afghan control by the end of 2014.” The alliance also signed a document reinforcing its long-term commitment to Afghanistan’s security even after NATO combat operations end.

2014 was not defined explicitly as the date for ending combat operations.

On administration official said Saturday that the President would personally decide when conditions were ready for US troops to draw down. The Pentagon called 2014 “aspirational” and US Secretary of State called it “a goal not a timeline.”

Meanwhile, two of the larger NATO contingents are not waiting for any goals or timelines; they are on their way out of Afghanistan.
President Nicolas Sarkozy is getting ready to recall 3,850 French troops next year, while British Prime Minister David Cameron has withdrawn the 9,500-strong British contingent from direct combat activity. On Nov. 14, British Commander-in-Chief Gen. Sir David Richards said bluntly, “You can’t defeat the Taliban or al Qaeda militarily, only contain them…”

The Western powers are even more at odds on the Iranian nuclear issue than they are on Afghanistan. No coherent, agreed plan for dealing with Iran’s approaching attainment of a nuclear weapon has been laid out in Washington, London, Paris or Berlin – or even an agreed strategy for their nuclear talks with Iran early next month. Tehran, like the Taliban, is therefore preparing to harden its bargaining stance at those talks, encouraged by US-led Western retreats from Iraq, Lebanon and now Afghanistan to assume that Washington will continue to give way.

Stuxnet may be part of Iran atom woes: ex-IAEA aide – Yahoo! News.