The Washington Post's Walter Pincus has an analysis of Robert Gates recent articles and media appearances. He writes:

A longtime Russia analyst during his years with the CIA, Gates today sees Moscow as less of a threat than do many inside and outside the U.S. military establishment.

Pincus is referring to statements like this one, from Gates' piece in the new Foreign Affairs:

Russian tanks and artillery may have crushed Georgia's tiny military. But before the United States begins rearming for another Cold War, it must remember that what is driving Russia is a desire to exorcise past humiliation and dominate its "near abroad" -- not an ideologically driven campaign to dominate the globe. As someone who used to prepare estimates of Soviet military strength for several presidents, I can say that Russia's conventional military, although vastly improved since its nadir in the late 1990s, remains a shadow of its Soviet predecessor. And adverse demographic trends in Russia will likely keep those conventional forces in check.

Good point, but do "many inside and outside the U.S. military establishment" really disagree with it? I find it hard to believe that even those who think the military is neglecting conventional threats by focusing on counterinsurgency would argue that Russia today is a comparable threat to the Soviet Union.

If there actually is a real debate about this, I'm glad Gates is the one in charge. Here's hoping he and his colleagues continue the recent strategy of basically ignoring Russia's pointless military posturing and focusing their attention where real damage can be done.

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

In recent days, the number of pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia has started to fall. French troops arrested eight pirates on January 1st, turning them over to the Somali government. The EU mission also saved a Greek tanker from kidnapping on January 2nd. A Danish warship sunk yet another pirate vessel after warning flares set that ship on fire (the pirates were rescued from the wreck, and remain onboard the Danish vessel). And a Chinese cargo ship flat out-maneuvered the pirates on January 2nd.

A round of applause might be in order. After a slew of hijackings last fall, the world's navies finally seemed to get serious about fighting the pirates. Previously, many countries feared that arresting pirates could lead to awkward legal proceedings and even amnesty suits by suspects claiming they could be put to death at home if extradited. All good points. But then, so are the tens of thousands of ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden each year. From the looks of it, squeamish fighters once reluctant to pick up pirates are increasingly keen to do just that. Whatever they're doing, it seems to be working.

On land, however, few are noticing the calm at sea. Ethiopian troops are at last pulling out of Somalia, as they promised to do late last year and the mortars are still flying in Mogadishu.

Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Having bid farewell to the Green Zone last week, U.S. forces today opened the brand new Baghdad embassy, which will house "1,200 employees, including diplomats, troops and staff from 14 federal agencies."

For a detailed look at America's new digs in Iraq, it's worth revisiting architectural historian Jane Loeffler's analysis of the structure from the September/October, 2007 issue of FP, written before it was constructed:

It will be six times larger than the U.N. complex in New York and more than 10 times the size of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Beijing, which at 10 acres is America’s second-largest mission. The Baghdad compound will be entirely self-sufficient, with no need to rely on the Iraqis for services of any kind. The embassy has its own electricity plant, fresh water and sewage treatment facilities, storage warehouses, and maintenance shops. The embassy is composed of more than 20 buildings, including six apartment complexes with 619 one-bedroom units. Two office blocks will accomodate about 1,000 employees. High-ranking diplomats will enjoy well-appointed private residences. Once inside the compound, Americans will have almost no reason to leave. It will have a shopping market, food court, movie theater, beauty salon, gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis courts, a school, and an American Club for social gatherings. To protect it all, the embassy is reportedly surrounded by a wall at least 9 feet high—and it has its own defense force.[...]

If architecture reflects the society that creates it, the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad makes a devastating comment about America’s global outlook. Although the U.S. government regularly proclaims confidence in Iraq’s democratic future, the United States has designed an embassy that conveys no confidence in Iraqis and little hope for their future. Instead, the United States has built a fortress capable of sustaining a massive, long-term presence in the face of continued violence.

Yeah, it's safe to say there's going to be a sizeable U.S. presence in Iraq for a while.

The first thing to say about the coup attempt that followed the death of Guinean President Lansana Conté is that it's something of a miracle it took 24 years. The president, who died of diabetes Monday, was hardly a beloved exemplar of democratic values. By the time of his death, even the once-loyal Army was starting to mutiny over low pay. In fact, for many West Africa watchers, Guinea's fall into chaos has only been a matter of time. 

For more than two years leading up the president's death, political wrangling and unrest were the norm. General strikes in 2006 paralyzed the country. Conté refused to leave power and poverty was consuming the country. I was in Senegal at the time, and the stories we heard there were fierce: Strikes were so strictly adhered to that any passing soul on the street would be shot. There was violence between police and civilians -- as has also become the norm in times of crisis in Guinea.

In the compromise that ended those strikes, the president finally named a prime minister. There have been several in recent years, and the most recent, Ahmed Tidiane Souare, was a close Conté ally whom the International Crisis group wrote in June "puts reform at risk." Democratic legislative elections were scheduled for this month.

Instead, Guinea got a coup. 

So now what? For now, the military has the reins, despite claims from Souare that he retains control. The perpetrators of the coup, calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development, have called a curfew and promised elections in two years. As in previous times of tension, soldiers fill the streets and much of Conakry is shut down. Companies, such as mining giant BHP, are closing offices for now. Other countries in the region are condemning the coup.

So what at first seemed like a Christmas miracle for Conakry has taken a dangerous turn for the worse.

Photo: SEYLLOU/AFP/Getty Images

So, that "exact" Taj Mahal replica that a Bangladeshi filmmaker is constructing near Dhaka turns out to be a more of a crappy carnival attraction. Here's video:

of Global Voices has more from the Bengali blogosphere.

There is a crisis. People are dying. Sending peacekeepers sounds great -- they come with U.N. neutrality, a mandate (usually) to use force, and the promise to do something. Who doesn't want to help out in places like the DR Congo, Zimbabwe, and Somalia?

If only it were so easy, writes the U.S. Government Accountability Office in a report released today. Future peacekeeping missions will be plagued by complex logistics, extensive troop needs, daunting political circumstances, and a reluctance from member states to donate troops and resources.

But the report is even more jarring. One cannot help but notice that the "hypothetical" situation described in the report sounds not-so-vaguely reminiscent of Somalia, to which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested sending peacekeepers just this week.

The potential new mission’s area of operations would have limited infrastructure and utilities, lacking roads, buildings, and water, and would thus require increased logistical planning...the potential new operation would be in a high-threat environment, political factions would recently have been fighting for control of the country, and there would be large numbers of internally displaced persons...According to UN planners, a potential new force would likely require units with the capability to deter threats from armed factions supported by international terrorist groups, which previous operations did not have to take into account to the same degree.

Sound familiar? There are only few countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have that level of chaos with possible international terrorists to boot -- and Sudan already has two U.N. missions.

So what would a peacekeeping mission to Somalia look like? This "hypothetical" country would require 21,000 troops, 1,500 police, 4,000 to 5,000 civilian staff, and a costly helicopter force to supply aerial surveillance 24 hours a day. According to the report:

There are a limited number of countries that provide troops and police with needed capabilities to meet current needs, and some potential contributors may be unwilling to provide forces for a new operation due to such political factors as their own national interests and the environmental and security situation in the host country.

The U.N. is already short 18,000 troops to staff its mandated missions around the world, and is missing 22 percent of the needed civilian personnel. The GAO warns that, though there are efforts to help the U.N. close the gap, the U.S. has failed to support some incentives such as increased protection for civilian forces. And Somalia is far less appealing a locale than Liberia, Cote D'Ivoire, and maybe even Darfur.

So peacekeeping is failing -- or it might, if the world tries this particular case. Blue helmets are not one-size-fits-all countries. Hopefully Congress will read this "hypothetical" between the lines.

Photo: STUART PRICE/AFP/Getty Images

As I wrote on Monday, the United States is hoping to send U.N. peacekeepers into turbulent Somalia. Yesterday, a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the use of force on ground in Somalia to stop pirating passed. In a press briefing afterward, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was very cryptic in response to the final question:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) does this resolution mean that –

 

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

 

QUESTION: -- you can intervene militarily in Somalia?

 

SECRETARY RICE: We – there is a very – there is a very clear, longstanding understanding in international politics about the role of UN Security Council resolutions in this regard, and the fact that it is the Transitional Federal Government that is desirous of not having their territory used for safe haven for pirates. And so that is what has just taken place here in the Council.

Stay tuned...

Our top "story you missed" this year was that the U.S. was already boosting its troop levels and building permanent infrastructure in Afghanistan, in a manner similar to the Iraqi "surge". As we noted, though, no one had yet taken steps to engage local militias and former insurgents, a key component of counterinsurgency strategy. That may now be changing:

The U.S. military will soon launch a pilot program to raise local militias, paid by the Pentagon, in an effort to improve security throughout the country. [...] 

The new program in Afghanistan, tentatively dubbed the Afghanistan Social Outreach Program, has a number of backers. Two weeks ago, it was approved by President Karzai, with the endorsement of the ministers of interior and defense. "There is common agreement among the Afghan leadership, people, and international forces that there needs to be a bottom-up approach to security and progress in this country, as well as a top-down central government approach," says Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

As in Iraq, the Afghan forces would be on the U.S. payroll, which officials hope will also entice some former insurgents to work with NATO forces. "We bring money so we can hire young men to be the first line of defense" in small towns throughout Afghanistan, says a senior U.S. military official in Kabul. "We wouldn't be surprised if some of them used to be insurgents. We figure this is a way to crack the nut."

The two tribal situations couldn't be more different, so I wouldn't get too optimistic about Gates and Petraeus pulling another one out of the hat. But it's another sign that Obama might have a head start on his Afghanistan strategy.

(Hat tip: Small Wars Journal)

Photo: DAVID FURST/AFP/Getty Images

When I asked Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper what one would need to eliminate piracy off the Somali coast, he answered with a question: Are you fighting them on land or at sea?

Over the weekend, it seems the Bush administration answered: both.

In addition to the international vessels patrolling offshore, a U.S. resolution is already circulating in the U.N. Security Council calling for a limited U.N. peacekeeping force to bring stability to the East African nation. The United States also wants Ethiopian troops to stay through the U.S. presidential transition. And they'd like to add Eritrea, Ethopia's breakaway neighbor and favorite adversary, to its state sponsors of terrorism list.

Talk about a hard sell.

First, the administration is calling for a light U.N. mission, in a country where even heavy force has been ineffective.

Second, no one -- not the Ethiopians, not the African Union, not the United Nations -- wants to go to Somalia. For the two-year lifetime of the tiny African Union mission, the international community has struggled to find troops for the operation.

Finally, you can expect this to ratchet up tensions in the region. Eritrea is indeed rumored to supply the Somali Islamists with weapons. But Ethiopia and Eritrea have an ongoing border dispute that has left both sides exceedingly militarized. Acceding to Ethiopian wishes by putting Eritrea on the terror list is like playing Russia roulette. With all live rounds.

After a weekend in which the Somali president fired his prime minister (only to have him effectively re-instated by parliament) there is little reason to believe that the weak government will not fall instantly once foreign troops are gone.

Light a match, and the whole place might just blow.

Photo: JOSE CENDON/AFP/Getty Images

As a world conference on curtailing Somali piracy gets underway in Nairobi, the Bush administration announced today that it will push for international action -- a last-ditch attempt to stabilize the East African nation.

Good luck matey, you'll need it. As Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper tells FP in this week's Seven Questions, it will take weeks -- maybe months -- even to get coastal surveillance under control.

And then there is the problem of instability on land that drives the trade in ransom. The administration tried and failed in 2006 to bring a government of "good guys" to power. Halting piracy (a symptom of the same disease) won't be any easier. Back then, the United States funneled money to the right people to set things in motion. Too late this time -- ransom payments already keep the pirates rolling in the millions.

In short, this is no easy problem, and there are no modern fixes for the most medieval of scourges. Despite the 1,400 German soldiers pledged for the $1.4 million proposed project of anti-piracy, you just can't buy time.

Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper has the goods.

Photo: KHALED FAZAA/AFP/Getty Images

Michael Crowley's new piece on Afghanistan should be a sobering read for liberal hawks:

For the left in the Bush era, America's two wars have long been divided into the good and the bad. Iraq was the moral and strategic catastrophe, while Afghanistan--home base for the September 11 attacks--was a righteous fight. This dichotomy was especially appealing to liberals because it allowed them to pair their call for withdrawal from Iraq with a call for escalation in Afghanistan. Leaving Iraq wasn't about retreating; it was about bolstering another front, one where our true strategic interests lie. The left could meet conservative charges of defeatism with the rhetoric of victory. Barack Obama is now getting ready to turn this idea into policy. He has already called for sending an additional two U.S. brigades, or roughly 10,000 troops, to the country and may wind up proposing a much larger escalation in what candidate Obama has called "the war we need to win."

But, as Nagl understands at the ground level, winning in Afghanistan will take more than just shifting a couple of brigades from the bad war to the good one. Securing Afghanistan--and preserving a government and society we can be proud of--is vastly more challenging than the rhetoric of the campaign has suggested [...] The challenge of exiting Iraq was supposed to be the first great foreign policy test of Obama's presidency. But it is Afghanistan that now looms as the potential quagmire.

It's certainly worth questioning to what degree the Democrats' enthusiasm for the fight in Afghanistan has been an effort to protect their right flank while opposing the war in Iraq. This isn't so say that this fight isn't necessary, but it's going to be far more painful than most of its supporters realize.

For what it's worth, the U.S. escalation in Afghanistan has, to a large extent, already begun.

What would possess you to get on a cruise ship headed for the pirate-laden Gulf of Aden is beyond me. But apparently, that's what 650 or so passengers did, only to have my fears fulfilled and be attacked by... pirates. Their Rome to Singapore voyage on a U.S. vessel was impolitely interrupted by gunfire on Tuesday.

Luckily, the good ship avoided capture. As CNN dramatically put it: "The ship took evasive maneuvers and accelerated to its full speed of 23 knots or 27 mph." That's some speedy driving.

But as we all know by now, others have not been so lucky. A Ukranian weapons ship and a Saudi oil tanker are still being held for ransom.

Back on land, the chaos ensues. The Ethiopian troops who have occupied the country since December, 2006, are pulling out next month, and the government is nervous it won't be able to stay in power (no wonder, since it was installed by Ethiopia to begin with). Peacekeepers are nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, the former Islamic government is gaining lost territory.

Hell of a cruise.

Photo: ERIC CABANIS/AFP/Getty Images

Incredibly, just one.

That's way down from the monthly average of 21 deaths since May, and given that 2008 has already been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a single death is a notable figure. But it's probably unlikely that security there is any making solid, long-term gains: A U.S. military spokeman told the LA Times that insurgents scale back operations during the colder months, which might have led to fewer deaths last month.

And notably, Spc. Jonnie L. Stiles died in mid-November when a suicide bomber struck his convoy. As Obama and Petraeus hone in on a new strategy for Afghanistan, suicide attacks, which have been the terror tactic of choice there for just the past few years, are sure to remain the primary threat to U.S. troops.

Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

When it comes to whether President-elect Obama should follow through on plans to base a missile defense shield in Europe, everyone's got an opinion. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says dropping the shield program would pave the way toward improving U.S.-Russia ties. French President Nicholas Sarkozy says the shield isn't worth all the trouble and should be scrapped. The LA Times editorial board says Obama should make up his own mind, before basically telling him to ditch the shield.

In favor of the shield are U.S. defense hawks like John Bolton, some top military officers, NATO, and current (and possibly future) Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

What Obama thinks about all of this isn't entirely clear. After a conversation between the president-elect and Polish president Lech Kaczynski last week, Kaczynski seemed to get the impression that Obama and expressed support for the shield, which will be partially based on Poland. Obama's people say he never promised any such thing:

"President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable," McDonough said.

Bolton characterizes this statement as "weak and ambiguous." He's right, but it's probably the best the Obama team can do at the moment.

In an ideal world, I suspect Obama would scrap Star Wars. It's an expensive and unnecessary program that stands in the way of Obama's goal of engaging Russia on more pressing matters. But as Time's Mark Thompson points out, extravagantly expensive military programs take on a momentum of their own and are often harder to shut down than they are to start.

Then there's the matter of agreements that the Obama's predecessor signed with Poland and the Czech Republic. Mevedev's recent bluster has also put Obama in a position where he would look awfully weak by acquiescing to Russia's wishes.

The fact that the Obama team hasn't come down strongly on either side of this debate yet seems to be driving partisans crazy, but there's little reason for him to dive in headfirst before there's even national security team in place. This issue is a lot more complex than either side usually admits and Obama is right to take his time.

In an interview that appeared on the front page of the Financial Times today, a senior Chinese military official gave some "hints" about China's aircraft carrier program. "Even if one day we have an aircraft carrier, unlike another country, we will not use it to pursue global deployment or global reach," promised Major Gen. Qian Lihua, director of the the Defense Ministry's foreign affairs office.

In last week's FP List, we called for Agent 007 to secretly gather evidence about China's naval capabilities. Far from being reassuring, these vague comments from the Chinese military make James Bond's (hypothetical) task even more urgent. We'd like to know the truth.

In response to the FT article, Richard Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a security think tank, told me today that "China has waged an at times sophisticated and at times facile campaign of disinformation surrounding its aircraft carrier program."  He believes the world will never get a transparent description of China's carrier program.

The irony, though, is that this latest "campaign of disinformation", while growing more sophisticated, clings tightly to its facile notions. On the one hand, the Chinese government has deployed an English-speaking and "avuncular"  military official (as the FT describes Qian) to massage the international press corps, which is quite unprecendented for China's notoriously tight-lipped military. Yet the Chinese government seems to believe that other countries will not question its intentions, that simply averring it has no wide ranging naval ambitions is enough to divert the world's attention elsewhere.

When pressed about its technological capabilities, "the [People's Liberation Army] will seek to couch their missions in defensive terminology," Fisher says. "However, the usual approach ... is to assess the capability of the platform, its electronics and weapons, and then assume they will be used to the maximum envelope of those capabilities for any range of offensive and defensive missions." When China does launch an aircraft carrier, it's possible that the crosshairs will be trained only on the Taiwan Strait. But that certainly can't last forever. Qian will have to find an easier pill for the rest of the world to swallow.

Photo: KIM JAE-HWAN/AFP/Getty Images

It's commonly known that vast quantities of vice leave Afghanistan's borders each year, but German forces are fighting back. Media reports show that German military bases in the country received shipments of more than a million liters of alcoholic beverages last year. That included 990,000 liters of beer and 69,000 liters of wine. If all of this were consumed only by the 3,600 German troops stationed in Afghanistan, that would come out to 275 liters of beer per soldier.

Back in the Fatherland, the opposition Free Democrats party, which requested these figures from the military, seized on the revelation as a sign that more must be done to relieve the boredom of German troops. But the Defense Ministry shrugged these concerns off, saying troops were "well within" the two-cans-per day limit. The ministry added that the drinks, which are for purchase, are also consumed by German police, journalists, and diplomats. Even Foreign Minister Franz Walter Steinmeier likes to kick back a cold one when he's in country. "When he visits Afghanistan occasionally one or two cans of beer will be downed," said one Foreign Ministry spokesman.

If President-elect Obama pressures Germany into sending its troops south to fight the Taliban, maybe they'll have fewer chances to tank up. But so long as Chancellor Angela Merkel adamantly refuses to let this happen, I say "Prost!"

Photo: MICHAEL KAPPELER/AFP/Getty Images

Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has erupted again over the last several weeks, continuing an ongoing war that has left more than five million people dead. But now, as many times before in Congo's rather dreary history, the region is getting sucked in.

Human Rights Watch reports today that Ugandan rebels from the Lord's Resistance Army are now pillaging northeastern Congo. Zimbabwean and Angolan troops are reported to be involved, too. Bravo to Angolan peacekeepers, who have volunteered for the ongoing U.N. mission there, but the whole thing harkens ominously to the late 1990s, a time when Angolan troops supported the Congolese government against Zimbabwean and Namibian troops in country.

In other words, neighbors of this conflict cannot be assumed innocent.

The stakes are high. Even in comparison to the last decade of Congo's history, today's conflict is worrisome. An already desperate humanitarian situation is now dire, as this week's photo essay demonstrates. UNHCR already reports that 250,000 people have fled their homes in the last two months, bringing the total displaced to 800,000. Camps are unsafe, and UNHCR is trying desperately to relocate 60,000 civilians from the front lines. At least 1,000 cases of cholera have been reported in over a month's time -- countless more no doubt go unrecorded.

The big picture: power-sharing is eroding in Zimbabwe, South African politics are a mess, and the West is in no mood to help. A regional conflict in Congo is the last thing Africa needs.

Photo: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

Over the past week, Israel has hosted many services, speeches and events in honor of former Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin. The national hero and Nobel Peace Prize recipient was assassinated 13 years ago by Yigal Amir, a Jewish extremist who opposed Rabin's peacemaking work.

Israel's top politicians used the occasion to highlight messages of peace. One Israeli soldier, however, appeared to be less than riveted while attending a memorial ceremony earlier this week, showing his lack of interest with what his Air Force base commander deemed a "disrespectful act": a yawn. Apparently, he didn't even cover his mouth. 

The faux pas came during the commander's own remarks. So loud and disruptive was this yawn that the commander paused for a "few minutes." This display of disinterest earned the soldier 21 days in jail.

But does the punishment fit the yawn? 

The soldier's mother doesn't think so. The woman recounted the episode to Israel Radio, saying that she'd raised her son on Rabin's legacy and that he wasn't being disrespectful, he was merely tired.  

But, if Rabin's memory impresses any lessons on those in the company of our boorish yawner, especially now as elections approach and peace negotiations hang in the balance, perhaps it's that peace requires superhuman energy and staying power.

Rest up, Israel. There's much work ahead.

A wedding in Afghanistan reportedly ended in tragedy on Monday, when a missile fired by a U.S. aircraft slammed into the crowd, killing 40 civilians and wounding 28 others. When I saw the news, I wondered, why does the United States always seem to bomb weddings in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Part of the reason is that America's enemies are lying about the effects of American air strikes. "During the air war leading up to Gulf War I, it was amazing how U.S. airstrikes seemed to systematically hit Iraqi schools and hospitals," noted Wayne White, a former deputy director in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research for the Near East and South Asia, in an interview today. "[These claims] turned out to be, in most cases, Iraqi propaganda."

But that does not minimize the very real limitations of air power, and the fact that many strikes do indeed hit civilians. As far as weddings are concerned, a crowd of revelers can be hard to distinguish from a gathering of insurgents from the bird's-eye view of a spy drone. From afar, celebratory gunfire can also make a joyful wedding appear to be an angry mob. Air power's trouble in delivering pinpoint strikes, combined with the time lag between receiving intelligence and bombing a target, also increases the likelihood of civilian casualties.

White knows the limitations of allegedly "smart" munitions. "An airstrike which generally uses a 500-pound bomb, even if it hits its target in many cases, there's going to be collateral damage," he notes.  Airstrikes were never meant to be used in an urban environment or in villages, he argues, because of their lack of precision.

However, there has been an increasing reliance in air power in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to make up for a lack of troop strength and also out of concern for soldiers' safety. In Afghanistan, air missions have risen 31 percent during the past year due to increased fighting and a lack of boots on the ground. Faced with the decision of killing a high-value target with a missile, which could also claim the lives of civilians in the area, and sending in ground troops, which could result in the death or injury of American soldiers, commanders are increasingly looking to air power. "It really comes down to the belief that they are more expendable than we are," White says. "[Iraqis and Afghans] see this as something that indicates that they count less than we do."

The lag time between receiving intelligence and launching a missile at a target also increases the risk of civilian casualties. Let's say an intel unit intercepts a phone call from a known insurgent in which he reveals his location. A spy drone would then be vectored towards that area to pinpoint the target. Half an hour may pass from the moment the intelligence arrived to the time a bomber is in position. During that time, the insurgent may have left, and unrelated activity in the area -- a wedding, for example -- can be mistaken as the target.

Photo: FILE'; Joseph Giordono-Pool/Getty Images

I got a military press release on this story yesterday, and it seems little else is known about the incident:

An Afghan national in Meywand, Khandahar province, reportedly doused a U.S. civilian working with the U.S. military with a flammable liquid and lit the worker on fire. Another U.S. civilian then shot and killed the attacker.

The burn victim sustained serious injuries and was transported to a Coalition forces medical facility for treatment.

That's pretty horrible. The interesting bit, however, is this detail:

The U.S. civilians were working with teams of anthropologists and psychologists that help the U.S. military with cultural awareness.

There's a fierce debate among anthropologists about the morality and practical effects of working with the U.S. military, a topic we addressed a few months back in a debate between Hugh Gusterson and Peter D. Feaver.

One aspect of the discussion we didn't really delve into was the military's controversial "human terrain teams," in which social scientists actually embed with military units to advise them on cultural issues. It sounds like the civilian was a member of such a team; I imagine this incident in Afghanistan will make it even harder to recruit qualified folks.