A Troubled Peninsula

  North Korea is at it again. On November 23^rd, 2010 North Korea launched artillery shells onto South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island. The Island is situatated very close to the North Korean border and is made up of South Korean military installations and a small civilian populations. Two South Korean Marines were killed and dozens were injured. Shortly after the North Korean shells hit the Island, South Korea retaliated, firing back artillery at the North.

The confrontation was sparked by South Korea’s refusal to halt their military drills in disputed waters. North Korea ordered South Korea to stop their military drills, but South Korea refused, prompting North Korea to shell Yeonpyeong Island.

Although this is one possible motive for North Korea’s shelling of South Korea, the attack is most likely linked to the announcement of Kim Jong Un, as the heir to his father Kim Jong II.

Hopefully this attack is not a sign of things to come with the new North Korean leader because this region is highly volatile with North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons and their close friendship with Communist China. The United States, who has a large military presence in South Korea, must work together with the South Korean government at bureaucratic solutions to keep the peace on the Korean Peninsula.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/korea-attack-yeonpyeong-island_n_787294.html#s189509

Moving Forward

At a recent NATO Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, President Obama said that our progress in Afghanistan is improved from last year and called the overall summit “extremely productive.”[i]

Also at the conference, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) announced Saturday its continued commitment to Afghanistan and affirmed the timetable for a full transition to Afghan security forces and leadership that is set to begin in 2014.[ii]

This commitment from ISAF is an important step in accomplishing our mission in Afghanistan. The commitment from ISAF aides us in our goals of establishing a strong Afghan security force and Afghan military leadership. In affirming their commitment to Afghanistan, ISAF is also creating allies between it’s countries and Afghanistan.

Now that the US has the reaffirmed support from ISAF, we can now keep moving forward in Afghanistan and hopefully be ready to start handing over military and leadership responsibility to the Afghans. Although the timetable has been set, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan must be assessed before we start handing over responsibility to the Afghans. We must be cautious with these steps of withdrawal.

We are making progress in Afghanistan, but we must continue to move forward until the time is right to hand over responsibility to the Afghans and withdrawal, whether that be in 2014 or after.

---

[i] http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/20/nato-summit-extremely-productive-a-satisfied-obama-says/

[ii] http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/20/nato-summit-extremely-productive-a-satisfied-obama-says

Free Speech and the Fallen

A funeral is usually a time for peace. A time for closure and a final farewell to a fallen loved one.  Military funerals are especially emotional because in many cases, the fallen serviceman or woman died in combat at a relatively young age.  These military funerals are meant to honor that serviceman or woman for their service for our country. It would incomprehensible to think that anyone would protest at a military funeral right?

Westboro Baptist Chuch Member

Wrong. Shockingly, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church have protested over 200 military funerals over the last few years. These lunatics choose to protest military funerals to spread express their view that “U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.”[i]

This is absolutely disgusting and insensitive that a group of religious fundamentalists would choose the venue of a military funeral to spread their outrageously radical views.  But are the actions of these vile human beings protected under the 1^st Amendment? We will see.

Lance Corporal Snyder

These protests gained national attention when the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq. At the funeral, the protestors positioned themselves around 30 feet from the entrance of the church and held signs that said things such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates the USA.” This protest inflicted extreme emotional distress on Snyder’s family and Matthew’s father, Albert Snyder.

In addition to protesting the funeral the church posted a poem on their website addressed to Matthew Snyder’s parents that defamed the way they the raised Matthew. After the protests and the poem, Albert Snyder sued the church for violating his family’s right to privacy and for inflicting emotional damage. Mr. Snyder initially won the suit in lower courts, but the decision was overturned by a federal appeals court who ruled that the protestors were protected by the 1^st Amendment right to free speech.

The case (Snyder Vs. Phelps) has now reached the Supreme Court where the justices are discussing the issue of right of privacy vs. the right of free speech. Specifically, the main constitutional question in this case is the following: Does the father's emotional pain trump the protesters' free speech rights?

The courts have already heard arguments from both sides and have expressed sympathy towards the Snyder family. Their questioning of Westboro’s attorney, Margie Phelps, suggested that they wish to rule in favor of the fallen Marine’s father, but were not sure if they could. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief."[ii] Other Justices gave hypothetical statements about similar situations involving radicals berating family members of fallen servicemen. The court will not rule on the case until the spring of 2011.

While there have been some indications from the court that they might rule in favor of Snyder, as tragic as it is to say, it is hard to believe that the court will make any ruling that would limit free speech. They will argue that if you limit free speech at funeral then where else will it be limited… the slippery slope theory.

This case is so controversial because it deals with such an emotional situation, a military funeral and grieving father. It also deals with one of the core rights that we as Americans cherish so much, free speech.

It is heartbreaking that the Constitution defends people that are the scum of the earth, but it does. Even people as vile as the members of the Baptist church. It is hard to grasp that the Constitution defends these types of people, people who cause extreme emotional harm to families of the very people who defend their 1^st Amendment rights. It is a harsh reality, but the Constitution defends negative speech the same as it defends positive speech.

Just as the 1^st Amendment defends the vile actions of the Westboro protestors, that same 1^st Amendment right defends anyone who wants to counter-protest these lunatics. This is how a free nation works.

People must counter-protest these radicals and drown out their ridiculous and harmful messages that they are sending to grieving military families. Exercise your first amendment rights and shut these fundamentalists up so that fallen servicemen and their families can receive the respect they deserve.

Rest in Peace Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder           

           

---

[i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/military-funeral-protest-case_n_752310.htmlng

[ii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/military-funeral-protest-case_n_752310.htmlng

Success and Failure on the Campaign Trail

This past summer and fall I had the pleasure of interning on Meg Whitman’s Campaign for governor. There were many exciting moments throughout the campaign and it was very interesting to see how campaigns are ran and how the day-to-day events are scheduled and carried out. I will not spend very much time on my partisan opinion’s about Jerry Brown, but I will just say that he is not the best candidate and is not what California needs right now. What’s tragic is that a sub-par candidate such as Jerry Brown who has no vision or plan for California can win in this state almost merely on the fact that he is a Democrat.

I cannot be too upset over the elections results though. The Republicans gained 60 seats in the House, which gives the GOP the majority. The GOP also gained 6 seats in the Senate. Finally, the GOP also faired well in governor’s races, netting 7 seats. Hopefully the changes that have been made in Congress across the country will help bring this country out of the economic crisis and lead us to success.

Reckless Journalism

Wikileaks, an international organization that leaks secret government information has recently released hundreds of thousands of files about the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. On October 22^nd, Wikileaks released a document that contained 391,832 secret reports from the War in Iraq. This recent leak along with a number of leaks about the Afghan War threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to establish stability in the Middle East region.

Wikileaks is no ordinary media outlet. Wikileaks does not have established war correspondents that report information from the front line. Rather, Wikileaks obtains classified information from anonymous sources that can be submitted to them online or by mail and them disseminates that classified information to news outlets around the world. This is especially troubling because Wikileaks publishes this classified information without understanding the implications of the material or if it is entirely true. 

Wikileaks claims on their website that their publishing of this classified information is an effort to improve transparency and that “this transparency creates a better society for all people.” While I agree that transparency is beneficial to society, I do not believe that it is the general public’s business to know classified information about how our government is conducting a war. The distribution of the classified material that contains many of our strategic goals and operations in both wars is likely to cause more harm then good.

One would be foolish to say that the only people reading these Wikileaks reports is the general public who are just trying to keep their government accountable for their actions. Our enemies, such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are reading these leaks and are probably paying more attention to them then many people in the United States are. These leaks give out valuable information to our enemies such as who our allies in the region are. This allows enemies like the Taliban to seek out and kill allies of the United States who are fighting to establish a better society in places like Afghanistan. Does the dissemination of classified material to anyone and everyone in the world create a better society? I think not. 

Another troubling aspect about Wikileaks and their efforts to create transparency is that they are clearly not a neutral news-media outlet. The editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, a Australian computer hacker who does not have a permanent address is known to be anti-war. His anti-war agenda is made clear in this controversial video of an airstrike in Baghdad that occurred on July 12, 2007. The video, which was posted on a website entitled “Collateral Murder,” is gun-camera footage of a Apache Helicopter attack on insurgents in which two Reuters staff members were said to have been deliberately targeted. The video was carefully edited with commentary and distorted viewpoints that created the implication that there were no armed insurgents in the area, which is clearly not true. What Wikileaks failed to post with the video was the first hand accounts of soldiers in the area or the pilot’s reports that said that there was armed insurgents in the area at the time of the attack. If these reports were added in the video, this attack would not have been such a controversy; it would just have been an example of a tragic situation in which reporters were killed accidently along with the armed insurgents that they were following.

 The information that has been leaked is not the only thing that is worrisome about Wikileaks.  It is the precedent that this organization sets. The ability for someone to anonymously submit information and to have that information organized into a large release of documents is especially frightening. It encourages people like Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is responsible for leaking the Baghdad airstrike video along with over 200,000 other classified documents, to easily submit information anonymously to the organization. People like Manning, who was an intelligence analyst should not have such an easy outlet to anonymously disseminate classified information. This precedent that Wikileaks has set is dangerous and will only become more threatening in the future. Organizations such as Wikileaks must be monitored. Individuals should not have the ability to anonymously give out classified material to an organization that can distribute that material without knowing the dangerous implications of releasing it.

I would rather not know the details of how my government is conducting a war then have the details released in a distorted fashion that fosters anti-war sentiment and benefits our enemies.

The Modern Day Benedict Arnold

Traitor Adam Gadahn

We all know the story of the traitor Benedict Arnold during the Revolutionary War. He was a general for the Continental Army before he defected to the British side and fought against his own countrymen.  Today, in our War against Terrorism we are experiencing a new kind of traitor for a new type of war.

Born in Oregon and raised in rural Riverside, California, Adam Gadahn converted to Islam at age 17 and moved to Pakistan in 1998. After attending a Al-Qaeda training camp, Gadahn quickly became a senior commander within the Al-Qaeda terrorist network where he is a cultural interpreter and a producer of propaganda videos. These videos are typically full of threats to Americans and outreach to other Muslims to take up arms with Al-Qaeda and attack “evil American infidels." In a video that was broadcasted on the 4^th anniversary of 9/11, Gadahn praised the work of the 9/11 attackers and predicted that there would be future attacks in Los Angeles, London, Madrid and Melbourne, Australia. Gadahn has been charged with Treason for joining Al-Qaeda spreading propaganda and threats against the United States. He is on the FBI’s most wanted list and there is one million dollar reward for his capture.[i]

Gadahn has recently came back into the news when he appeared in a new propaganda video was released on radical Islamic websites. In the video, Gadahn urged Muslims living the United States and Europe to carry out attacks where they live. [ii] Gadahn specifically directed his attention to Muslim Immigrants living in the "miserable suburbs" of Paris, London and Detroit in his call to carry out attacks.[iii]

This makes me sick. The thought of a “homegrown” terrorist attacking his own country is just unfathomable. How could someone hate their own countrymen so much that they advocate mass killings of innocent people? I hope this traitor is found soon and prosecuted so that the United States Government can send a message to any other “Americans” who think of turning their back on their country and joining our enemies.

---

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn

[ii] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/23/american-al-qaeda-spokesman-urges-attacks/?test=latestnews

[iii] http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/23/american-al-qaeda-spokesman-urges-attacks/?test=latestnews

The Big Picture in Afghanistan

A decade into the War in Afghanistan, many Americans are wondering what we are doing there and why we ever invaded the country to begin with.  They seem to forget the context in which we invaded the country and surely cannot understand what were still doing in there. After the September 11^th attacks, with support from a galvanized patriotic nation, President Bush ordered an invasion of Afghanistan in order to dismantle the Taliban regime that was harboring terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Only a few years later in 2003, the Bush Administration and senior military officials turned their attention away from Afghanistan and on to the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq took away valuable military resources from the War in Afghanistan. Subsequently, because of the neglected mission in Afghanistan, the Taliban and other insurgent groups were able to make a resurgence that has created problems in the conflict ever since.

 The War in Afghanistan, which was once considered “The Good War” during the controversial Iraq War, has now become a source for polarizing political debate here in the United States. This controversy over the war in Afghanistan and the current military strategy there has also sparked a broader debate over several key components of U.S. Foreign policy. Many Americans today are questioning what our true purpose and interest is in Afghanistan and whether or not we should engage in “nation building” in foreign countries such as Afghanistan.

            To understand the larger issues and questions regarding U.S. Foreign Policy, it is important to analyze the current situation in Afghanistan and our various options in moving forward towards a withdrawal from the conflict. In 2009, President Obama authorized a troop increase of 30,000, which increased our troop levels to a total of 94,000 by May of 2010.[i] This increase in troops is part of a new dedicated strategy for Afghanistan that has been implemented by the Obama administration. The new strategy calls for the use of Counterinsurgency warfare (COIN). Counterinsurgency warfare is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological and civic actions taken by a government (U.S.) to defeat insurgency (Taliban/Al- Qaeda).[ii] Put simply, counterinsurgency is whatever governments do to defeat rebellions similar to the one we are seeing in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan.[iii] At the core of counterinsurgency warfare is the idea of providing protection for civilians from the insurgents and limiting civilian casualties at the hands of the counterinsurgents. This means that the U.S. military’s operations must be strategic and sensitive to ensure that we are not killing innocent civilians, which turns the populous against us and limits our effectiveness in achieving our overall mission. This doctrine of the importance of limiting civilian casualties is put well here: “An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral leads to the recruitment of fifty more insurgents.”[iv]

            Although Counterinsurgency warfare is producing success in Afghanistan, there are a number of other problems in the conflict that are inhibiting victory and peace in Afghanistan. The center of the problems in the conflict in Afghanistan revolves around the instability of neighboring Pakistan. It is important to understand that the conflict in Afghanistan is intrinsically linked to the Pakistan.[v] The war in Afghanistan should be called the Afghani-Pakistani war because we are now engaged in fighting the Taliban and insurgents in both countries, specifically in the border regions where the Taliban and other insurgents have been able to take refuge as American forces push them out of strategic areas in Afghanistan. It is vital that we address this problem of Taliban taking refuge in Pakistan because even if we defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, they will be able to retreat to Pakistan and wait until a favorable time to return to the fight once we withdraw.[vi] These various demonstrate that the harsh reality that until we understand and take control of the problems in Pakistan, we cannot make progress in Afghanistan. [vii]

            In addition to the overall problem of instability in Pakistan, there are a few other detrimental issues that are affecting our success in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency expert and U.S. military advisor Dr. David Kilcullen outlined these various issues concisely in his recent Congressional Testimony about the conflict in Afghanistan. Besides the aforementioned problem of instability in Pakistan, Kilcullen discussed three other major problems that are ongoing in Afghanistan. The first of these problems has to do with the Afghan Government. President Karzai and the government lack credibility and legitimacy with the Afghan people and the international community as a whole. Without legitimacy, the Government has no support from the people it governs. This lack of credibility in the Afghan government causes many Afghans to turn to other sources, like the Taliban or local tribal warlords, to receive basic services such as food, water and security. The Afghan Government’s lack of legitimacy also effects the U.S. Military’s effort to win over the “hearts and minds” of the Afghans because as Kilcullen stated, “you are only as good as the government you are supporting.”[viii] It is imperative for the Afghan Government to gain legitimacy so that they can take control of their country and provide security for their citizens and the overall region.

            Another problem Kilcullen highlighted in his testimony is the issue of President Obama’s set timeline for troop withdrawal that begins in July of 2011. This deadline amplifies many of the other problems that we are experiencing in the conflict. The deadline creates a feeling of uncertainty among the Afghan people on the issue of whether or to be loyal to the United States because they think we are leaving and fear that once we leave, the Taliban will target them for supporting the U.S. This makes it difficult for our troops on the ground to work with the local populous in seeking out the Taliban. The deadline also creates a problem because it is very likely that the Taliban will sit and wait for us to leave and at which point they will make another resurgence like they did in 2003-2004 when we turned our attention to the invasion of Iraq.

            The last problem that Kilcullen discussed in his testimony about Afghanistan is the lack of sufficient resources to provide security for the Afghan population. Many people would question this and ask “what 94,000 American soldiers is not enough.” The answer goes deeper than that. There is a substantial lack of well-trained Afghan soldiers, good-police forces, credible military leaders/experts and legitimate local civilian officials. With this deficit of Afghan resources, most of the work in the conflict is being done by our 94,000 troops, which creates quite a strain on our military. To properly provide security to the local populous, Afghan forces must be trained and able to start taking over the brunt of the work that our military is doing if we ever want to withdraw and leave a stable Afghanistan and region, this must happen soon.

            So when can we withdraw from Afghanistan? We can only withdraw from Afghanistan when the time is right. These aforementioned problems in the current conflict must be addressed and solved before we can leave Afghanistan. We will be able to withdraw from Afghanistan when the Afghan Government and military can adequately provide security and basic services to the country and region. We cannot, under any circumstance, leave Afghanistan that way that is now; we cannot leave a unstable Afghanistan. If we did, we would run the risk of the Taliban returning to the country. The return of the Taliban would spark a regional meltdown (Pakistan) that would take away from everything that we have accomplished in the Afghanistan.

            Why do we care if there is instability in Afghanistan? What are our interests in having a stable Afghanistan? First and foremost, it must be said it is in the United States’ best national interest            to be in Afghanistan. Many Americans seem to forget that we first entered Afghanistan in order to seek out those who were responsible for the September 11^th attacks so that a tragedy like that would never happen again. It is in our national security interests to be fighting extremist groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan so that they cannot take sanctuary there and plan and spread terrorism to the United States and around the globe. Furthermore, it is imperative that we create stability in Afghanistan so that there is not a regional meltdown that would bring Pakistan’s nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists.  

            The thought of terrorists having nuclear weapons is frightening, but it will become a reality if we do not address the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan together. Peter Bergen discussed this point succinctly here: “a stabilized Afghanistan is a necessary precondition for a peaceful South Asia, which is today the epicenter of global terrorism and the most likely setting of a nuclear war.”[ix] In the interest of our own national security and global security, we must continue our efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan of denying terrorists sanctuaries and of creating stability in the region as a whole.

            Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is not only a threat to our interest of national security, but it is also a threat to the related political interest of managing the balance of global power. As the world stands today, the United States is the sole super power in the world, but it wasn’t always like that. For over 40 years we were locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union as both sides built up their nuclear arsenals and prepared for long-range nuclear strikes. The Cold War era was a frightening time for many people, where many people built bomb structures and school children practiced duck and cover drills. There were nuclear weapons as close a Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the U.S. and the U.S.S.S.R. came to the brink of full scale nuclear war. Now imagine terrorists possessing a large nuclear arsenal like Pakistan’s. Not only would this be a grave threat to national security, but it is also would inhibit our ability to engage in trade and other economic ventures with our allies in other Muslim countries. Terrorists with nuclear weapons capabilities would use the threat of nuclear attack to accomplish their own politically motivated goals, which would surely be against the national interests of the United States.

            In addition to national security and political interests in being in Afghanistan the United States also has a moral interest there. After invading the country in 2001 and dismantling the government it is our moral obligation not to leave an unstable country for the Afghans. We cannot just invade a country and then leave it in shambles after we accomplished a certain military goal. It is in our best interest to help Afghanistan rebuild their infrastructure and military. We must ensure that their government is stable and able to provide security to the Afghan populous.

            This process of helping Afghanistan rebuild and stabilizing their government can be categorized as “Nation Building.” Some Americans question why it is our job to rebuild foreign countries’ infrastructure and government and also question what benefits come out of spending billions of American dollars to do so. They see our campaign to bolster the Afghan government and infrastructure as a big mistake. These people are wrong. Our “nation building” efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere are a crucial part of overall U.S. foreign policy strategy for a few important reasons. Nation building is an investment in future allies to help counter our enemies in the overall balance of global power.[x] By rebuilding the government in Afghanistan we are creating an ally in a very important region of the world, a region where we have many enemies. By creating an ally in Afghanistan, we gain power in the region and bolster ourselves against rivals in the region like Iran. This strategy of creating alliances to in counter rivals is part of the core ideal of the overall US foreign policy goal of trying to “prevent rival powers, like Russia, China, or Iran, from amassing enough power to seriously threaten our way of life.”[xi] We would not be able to accomplish this goal if we weren’t engaging in nation building in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

            The process of nation building also promotes stability[xii], which is an important goal of our campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan. By rebuilding infrastructure and promoting a stable government, the process of nation building is creating a stable Afghanistan and is also bringing their economy back to life. Once Afghanistan is stable and the economy is back in full force, we will be able withdraw. After our withdrawal, we will have a strong and reliable ally in the region to counter enemies in the region such as Iran. Nation building is absolutely necessary and essential in order to promote global security and to ensure our way of life.

            The War in Afghanistan has been a long and complicated war so far, but there is hope for the future. If we address some of these problems that have been discussed above and we continue to evaluate the war as it progresses, we will start seeing successes and get closer to a withdrawal from the country. This war is more important than ever and we must stay the course in our mission to create a safe, stable, and terrorist free Afghanistan.

God Bless America and God Bless Our Troops.

                                                      

---

[i] "Number of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Exceeds Total in Iraq for the First Time." The Washington Post. 25 May 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

[ii] The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual New York: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Pg 3

[iii] Kilcullen, David. Counterinsurgency. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Pg 2

[iv] The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual pg. xxv

[v] Fick, Nathaniel C., and John A. Nagl "Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Afghanistan Edition" Foreign Policy Magazine Jan. & Feb. 2009 9 May 2009 <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4587>.

[vi] Perspectives on Reconciliation Options in Afghanistan, Senate Foreign Relation Committee

Cong. (2010) (testimony of David Kilcullen). <cnas.org>

[vii] Ricks, Tom. "The Good War?" Web log post. The Best Defense. Foreign Policy Magazine, 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/06/the_good_war>.

[viii] Perspectives on Reconciliation Options in Afghanistan

[ix] Bergen, Peter, and Leslie Gelb. "Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan." Time 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927095-1,00.html>.

[x] Miller, Paul. "The Realist Case for Nation Building." Foreign Policy 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://easybib.com/cite/form/magazine/pubtab/pubdatabase>.

[xi] “The Realist Case for Nation Building”

[xii] “The Realist Case for Nation Building”

                                                                       

Works Cited

Bergen, Peter, and Leslie Gelb. "Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan." Time 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927095-1,00.html>.

Fick, Nathaniel C., and John A. Nagl. "Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Afghanistan Edition." Foreign Policy 5 Jan. 2009. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/01/05/counterinsurgency_field_manual_afghanistan_edition>.

Kilcullen, David. Counterinsurgency. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Miller, Paul. "The Realist Case for Nation Building." Foreign Policy 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://easybib.com/cite/form/magazine/pubtab/pubdatabase>.

"Number of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Exceeds Total in Iraq for the First Time." The Washington Post. 25 May 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

Perspectives on Reconciliation Options in Afghanistan, Senate Foreign Relation Committeee Cong. (2010) (testimony of David Kilcullen). Print.

Ricks, Tom. "A Good Plan for Afghanistan." Foreign Policy 13 Mar. 2009. Web.

Ricks, Tom. "Letter From Afghanistan." Foreign Policy 29 June 2010. Web.

Ricks, Tom. "The Good War?" Web log post. The Best Defense. Foreign Policy Magazine, 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/06/the_good_war>.

The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual: U.S. Army Field Manual No. 3-24 : Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2007. Print.