The Pentagon announced today deployment orders for six Army brigades, a Wyoming National Guard unit and three military headquarters, all scheduled to arrive in Iraq by next summer. What I found interesting is that the orders call for the military to keep roughly the same number of troops in Iraq it has now, or 14 combat brigades.

But the Pentagon insists that could change by next year.

Currently, there are 15 combat brigades. In all, there are 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The announcement came the same day the military released its quarterly assessment on Iraq, which once again found that while violence is falling “the fundamental character of the conflict in Iraq remains unchanged—a communal struggle for power and resources.” That is, so far, there is nothing suggesting that things have changed enough for the Pentagon to plan any differently for next year.

I wanted to post about the units involved because so many come from areas served by McClatchy Newspapers. So here is the list.

I Corps headquarters, Fort Lewis, Wash.
1st Cavalry Division headquarters, Ft. Hood, Texas.
II Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters, Camp Lejeune, N.C.
4th Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas
4th Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.
1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.
4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.
115th Fires Brigade, a National Guard artillery unit from Cheyenne, Wyo.

Are any of you, dear readers, part of this deployment? If so, I am curious: How are you training differently for this tour?

   An estimated 20,000 refugees have fled into Afghanistan from Pakistan's Bajur tribal agency in recent months to escape fierce fighting between security forces and al Qaida-allied Islamic insurgents, the U.N. refugee agency says.
  Most of the refugees are sheltering with relatives and friends in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar Province, but some 200 families are living in the open, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees said.
   The refugees are among tens of thousands of people displaced by the fighting in Bajur, the northernmost of the seven agencies that comprise the remote Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Most have stayed on the Pakistani side of the border.
   The fighting erupted in August when the Pakistani army launched an offensive under U.S. pressure against Pakistani extremists and al Qaida fighters. The operation followed an upsurge in insurgent violence in eastern Afghanistan. Some experts believe that the offensive provoked the massive Sept. 20 truck bombing that devastated the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, killing at least 54 people.
    A loose alliance of al Qaida-allied extremist groups known as the Taliban Movement of Pakistan has taken control of most of FATA.
   U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, frustrated by what they charge has been Pakistan's failure to deal aggressively with cross-border infiltration by the insurgents, have stepped up strikes on suspected extremist hideouts on Pakistan's side of the disputed frontier.
   The U.S. tactic has provoked a serious popular backlash against the United States and the U.S.-backed government in Islamabad, which vows to defend Pakistani territory against future U.S. strikes. An exchange of fire on the border between U.S. and Pakistani forces on Sept. 25 has further inflamed tensions between the United States and Pakistan, supposed allies against terrorism.
   A dangerous mess in which ordinary folk are caught in the middle once again.

  A new international poll finds that majorities of people in 22 countries don't believe that al Qaida has been hurt by the Bush administration's seven-year-old "war on terror."
  The poll of 23,937 people in 23 countries was conducted between July 8 and Sept. 12 for the British Broadcasting Corp. by the international polling firm GlobeScan of Canada and the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.
  An average of only 22 percent of the people surveyed believed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network has been weakened, according to the poll. Another 29 percent didn't think that al Qaida has been hurt, while another 30 percent said al Qaida has actually been strengthened.
  In another finding, respondents in Egypt and Pakistan _ key allies in the administration's counter-terrorism campaign _ had either mixed or positive views of al Qaida, outnumbering those who had negative views.
  U.S. officials might want to pay particular attention to that last result as they try to devise a new strategy to deal with the sanctuaries that al Qaida and its allies maintain in Pakistan's tribal area bordering Afghanistan. 

No, that's not some sort of caveman grunt ... UNGA is the annual United Nations General Assembly, held here on the banks of the East River every fall. World leaders from the UN's 190-plus member nations, plus legions of delegates, motorcades beyond count and batallions of NYPD officers descend on central Manhattan and tie up traffic for days on end.

The General Assembly -- this year's is the 63rd since the UN was founded in 1945 -- has a well-deserved reputation as a bastion of hot air, with long and florid speeches from presidents, prime ministers and such, most of them politely listened to by the delegates and then quickly forgotten.

I've been accompanying U.S. presidents and secretaries of state to these affairs since the early 1990s.

For reasons I can't quite pinpoint, this UNGA seems more irrelevant than usual. True, important diplomatic business is conducted on the sidelines of the talkfest, in high-level meetings where deals are signed and issues negotiated. But in 2008, it almost seems as if the world's problems are beyond the ability of leaders to solve.

Poobahs from around the world bemoaned the U.S.-centered financial crisis, which could have serious impacts in poor countries especially, and many diplomatically chided the United States for how it's managed its financial markets. But few had concrete answers or proposals.

There's been lots of talk about the U.N. Millenium Development Goals, a pledge by the world's nations in the year 2000 to improve the lot of the world's poorest, including by halving poverty by 2015. A recent UN report found progress toward that goal. But the world economic slowdown could reverse that progress, and no one expects all the Millenium goals loftily proclaimed eight years ago to be met.

On other fronts, efforts to contain Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs appear to be failing again. Worries about the environment and food security continute unabated.

Several major leaders skipped this year's UNGA, including Venezuela's Hugo  Chavez, and Russia's Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. President Bush gave a speech that made no attempt to hide his disdain for the gathering. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's annual rants here are no longer new and this year's speech was, in a word, ugly, dripping with anti-Semitic slurs and innuendoes. I found it personally distressing to hear applause afterward. (The U.S. and Israeli delegations sent a diplomatic message by vacating their seats in the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech, leaving only junior note-takers to observe).

UNGA also brings in its share of celebrities. Rockers Bono and Bob Geldof are here. This morning, I was about to step on an escalator when a delegation whisked around a corner in front of me. Among them was a familiar face it took me a few seconds to recognize as former Defense Secretary William Perry. A split-second later, I was stopped by a security man who extended his palm in the "hold-up" gesture. Actor Michael Douglas appeared a foot away, glanced at me, said "thank you," for letting him butt in front and disappeared up the escalator.

Douglas and Perry were headed to a press conference to support the Comprehensive (nuclear) Test Ban Treaty. The CTBT is also in trouble, having never gone into effect because many nuclear powers, the United States included, have not signed it.

I must admit, I have a bit of affection for the State Department. I've covered the place as a a journalist off and on for - gosh, can it be 19 years? I've found there's little truth to the caricature of the "striped-pants set." Most diplomats I know are smart, hard-working and exceedingly patriotic. Many put themselves in harm's way - in Iraq, Afghanistan or, as the last week's news illustrates, Yemen and Pakistan.

Having said all that, the State Department is a bit, shall we say, traditional. Change comes slowly to the ways of diplomacy and to the halls of Foggy Bottom.

State revolves around words, endless words. The department does not have tanks, guns and planes, like the Defense Department. It doesn't have spy satellites and eavesdropping devices like U.S. intelligence agencies. It doesn't have dollars at the ready, like the Fed (!!), or even a particularly large budget. It has words. Words, and fabulous bits of nuance, are how treaties are negotiated and how U.S. foreign policy positions on everything from territorial claims in the Arctic to Russia's invasion of Georgia are made clear. A slip of the tongue, especially in today's 24-hour, time-compressed news cycle, can literally start a war, or at least set off a violent protest somewhere overseas.

The point of this -- yes, there is a point! -- is that I've been thinking about some major changes that State Department spokesman Sean McCormack and his shop have introduced in the daily State Department briefing for reporters. Being a bit of a traditionalist myself, I'm not sure how I feel about them yet.

First, the daily briefing -- where journalistic representatives from both U.S. media and all the foreign media based in Washington can ask questions on any aspect of U.S. foreign policy -- has been permamently moved from mid-day (12:30pm or so) to 10:30 a.m. The reason is all about U.S. public diplomacy for foreign audiences. Having a U.S. spokesman out there in front of the cameras at 10:30 in the morning Washington time allows the department to get America's message to the Middle East, Europe and even Africa before the end of the business day there. (Whether this makes a difference in real terms, given the unpopularity of many U.S. policies overseas is open to debate).

More fundamentally - the recently renovated press briefing room at the State Department now features a podium flanked by two flat-screened TVs, so that the briefings sometimes now include ... you might want to take a seat at this point ... PICTURES!

Recent briefings have included graphics showing Russian military dispositions in Georgia, and images of the bombed U.S. Embassy in Yemen.

This might seem like a no-brainer to most people, long overdue in fact, a mild concession to the Internet Age. So far, the use of images seems fairly tame, merely to inform and provide supplemental data for the briefings. But being an ink-stained wretch, I'm innately suspicious of images ... and it's not hard to see how this practice could evolve to where it's a political campaign style-exercise in spin. The power of image, sound bite and emotion over cold, hard facts, as it were.

I'm confident, though, that my colleagues in the State Department press corps won't let that happen. Neither, come to think of it, will the slow-changing traditionalists in the U.S. Foreign Service.
   

Wherever he is, be it a cave somewhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border, or hidden in a safe house in some teeming South Asian city, terrorist Osama bin Laden isn't heard from much anymore. By one count, he's made 25 video and audio statements since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks little more than seven years ago - less than four per year, on average.

But there was a time when bin Laden spoke, and wrote, a lot. In fact, he was often quite forthright about his plans, declaring jihad, or holy war, on the United States in 1996. Few in this country paid attention at the time.

Several interesting compilations of bin Laden's utterances, interviews and even poems have recently come to light.

Thanks to Secrecy News, a project of the Federation of American Scientists and one of our favorite sources here at N&S, we have a US government compliation of bin Laden's public statements between 1994 and early 2004. The compilation was done by the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which has since morphed into the agency's Open Source Center. You can check out the lengthy PDF file here. Secrecy News said it obtained a copy of the document, which has not been approved for public release. (One has to ask why not, since it is basically a compilation of unclassified, open source material).

The compilation includes bin Laden's 1996 declaration of jihad against the Americans; his 1998 "fatwa" urging jihad against "the Jews and Crusaders," and much else, including many of the al Qaida leader's post-9/11 remarks.

Even more intriguing is an on-going study by Flagg Miller, a professor of religious studies at the University of California-Davis of 1,200 audiocassettes recovered in late 2001 from bin Laden's compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The tapes, 20 of which contain recordings of bin Laden himself, help trace his evolution from Saudi dissident to terrorist mastermind and symbolic leader of jihad worldwide.

It's more than a little eerie to listen to bin Laden declare the establishment of a "safe base" in the Hindu Kush mountains in 1996, long before most Americans had heard his name.

   The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency has given a clean bill of health to Libya in a new report that raises fresh concerns about the smuggling network that supplied illicit nuclear technology and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
   The smuggling ring led by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, had access to "a substantial amount of sensitive information related to the fabrication of a nuclear weapon," says the confidential IAEA report, a copy of which was obtained by Nukes and Spooks.
   Agency investigators looking into Libya's now-defunct nuclear weapons program determined that the materials included documentation on how to shape highly enriched uranium metal into the explosive core of a warhead. The information was "more up to date than . . . a related document found in Iran," the report said.
   "Much of the sensitive information coming from the network existed in electronic form, enabling easier use and dissemination," said the report. "Clearly this is a matter of serious concern to the Agency."
   Officials involved in Iran's uranium enrichment program have confirmed to IAEA investigators that they had extensive dealings with the Khan ring. But they insisted that they never asked for or used weapons-related information that that it provided, and Tehran contends that the program it kept hidden for 18 years is strictly for peaceful purposes.
   IAEA investigators began working to confirm details of Libya's nuclear weapons program after the Tripoli government renounced the effort in 2003. The latest report, which provides the most detailed description to date of the Libyan effort, is the first on the subject produced by the agency since 2004.
   "Libya has stated that it took no concrete steps in connection with the information made available to it on weapons design and fabriation" said the report. "Based on an assessment of Libya's industrial capabilities, and on all other information available to the Agency, the Agency has concluded that Libya's statement in this regard is not inconsistent with the Agency's findings."
   The report is to be discussed by the IAEA's 35-nation board later this month. Another agenda item will be an update on Iran's nuclear program. One thing about that report is certain: there is no chance of Iran getting a cleaning bill of health.

Read the new IAEA report: http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/09/12/16/800-Landay-Libya.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf

Just as it did exactly seven years ago, a large flag draped over an outer Pentagon wall today. This time, it didn’t look out to a smoldering fire or rescue workers desperately searching through the rubble that used to be the Pentagon wall and American Airlines Flight 77. Today, it looked out to rebuilt Pentagon and its memorial to the 184 killed in the 9/11 attacks on America’s symbol of military prowess.

In a somber, yet touching ceremony, the Pentagon unveiled the memorial. It consists of benches with each victim’s name etched out. If, as you read a person’s name, you see the Pentagon in front of you, he/she was killed in the building; if the name looks out to the sky, it means they died on the flight.  A shimmering pool of water is below each bench, representing life.

Throughout the building today, people talked about where they were 9/11 and how many times they have been to Iraq and Afghanistan since. The president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all referred to the dark, sudden moment when everything changed, how terrorists turned a plane carrying innocents into a bullet loaded with fuel.

What struck me as I watched the ceremony was the seemingly invisible divider between the military’s leadership, and how they viewed this memorial. Some seemed to have an eye toward history as they made their remarks. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talked about how the memorial was a reminder of an attack that launched a new kind of war: “Today we renew our vows to never forget how this long struggle began, and to never forget those who fell first.” President Bush talked about how future generations will know that “we did not fail. …They will learn that freedom prevailed.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, focused strictly on the victims and the military’s service to country. There was no talk about an ideological war or its role in encouraging freedom.

“The spirits of those who perished here live on in this place, in us, in others who know the ‘great reward of service.’ And their lingering spirits unite with those who now rest, those who gave the last full measure, answering the call trumpeted on this great field,” Mullen said.

As one of Mullen’s staffers told me, the focus of his speech was “here, this moment. …Today.”

The "world," of course, does not get a vote in the U.S. presidential election. And the fact that global public opinion is trending Sen. Barack Obama's way is hardly a huge surprise. It confirms our own soundings in our foreign travels and talks with foreign diplomats in Washington and elsewhere.

(We could speculate all day as to why this might be true. President Bush is deeply unpopular throughout much of Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. Views of the United States have darkened dramatically during Bush's tenure. Then there's the fact that Obama is an African-American with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, which makes him appealing to many foreigners).

Nonetheless, data is data, and two new polls released Wednesday show that large swaths of foreign audiences favor Democrat Obama to win over GOP nominee Sen. John McCain.

The first poll, sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and four other organizations, found that 69 percent of Europeans surveyed had a favorable view of Obama, compared with 26 percent who viewed McCain favorably.

Moreover, 47 percent believed relations between the United States and Europe would improve if Obama is elected. Just about the same percentage--49 percent--thought relations would stay the same if McCain wins the big prize.

The survey questioned roughly 1,000 people in the United States and 12 European countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria. Check it out. There's a lot more there on US/European views of what are the most important global challenges.

A second poll, done for the BBC World Service in conjunction with the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found that majorities in EVERY ONE of 22 countries surveyed favored Obama over McCain. The average overall was 49 percent for Obama, 12 percent for McCain and (beating McCain) 21% who had no opinion or said it would make no difference.

The countries surveyed were all across the planet, including Europe, Asia, South America, the Middle East, Africa and Australia. The largest majorities favoring Obama were in Kenya--not surprisingly--with 89%; Italy with 76% and France with 69%. Interestingly, there was no country where a majority thought a McCain presidency would worsen relations -- most just seemed to think they wouldn't improve.

None of this means that Obama would have an easy ride in foreign affairs if elected, and McCain a nightmare. It seems more likely that a President McCain would have some convincing to do, while a President Obama would encounter expectations so high he could never hope to meet them.

All this made me recall an interview I once did with a senior Arab diplomat, whose name shall go unmentioned here. He argued, half seriously, that since the United States has such a huge impact on virtually everyone else in the world, foreigners should get some percentage of the votes for U.S. president. I listened politely, thinking, Yeah, good luck with that.

Let me begin today’s posting by thanking all you loyal readers for coming back to us. We haven’t been blogging as often as we would like, but now that the summer doldrums are over, we promise a better flow of information.

Here in Washington, pols and soldiers alike are abuzz about the latest Bob Woodward book on the Bush administration. Excerpts have been appearing this week in the Washington Post. So far, the Post has printed pieces about the period leading up the surge in Iraq.

I find it particularly interesting because I was living in Iraq at the time and so I have a firsthand understanding of how decisions made in Washington landed in Baghdad. How those decisions came about has always been a mystery to me. I was especially fascinated by this section, which appeared in Sunday's Post, that describes the administration decision to surge troops in Iraq.

The problem during the Vietnam War, Bush told me in 2002, was that "the government micromanaged the war" -- both the White House and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. Micromanaging the Iraq war from the White House had been a red line for Bush. The generals' words almost always were unchallenged gospel. He did not want to second-guess them.

That was about to change.

"We must succeed," Bush said. "We will commit the resources to succeed. If they" -- the Iraqis -- "can't do it, we will."

On the ground in 2005 and 2006, the war often felt like it was being managed by Washington. Indeed, the surge was the first time I felt like the decision-making process had shifted from Washington to Baghdad.

The decision to keep troops in mega bases, even as violence rose in Iraq, seemed like an effort, in part, to keep troop deaths down as the public was increasingly outraged by the increase in numbers (as it turned out, it may have had an opposite effect); the push to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi forces even though there was little evidence they could handle the growing violence at times felt like a U.S. political effort to say the Iraqis are taking control of their country (even though they couldn’t); and even the troop level itself seemed to be driven by concerns the U.S. was occupying Iraq instead of the need on the ground. 

The scores of handover ceremonies, in which the U.S. would “hand over” responsibility to the Iraqis, always captured this tension best. So often, I would attend one only to watch the province go back under U.S. military control before it was handed over to the Iraqi again, sometimes in a matter of months. At one ceremony, which included 1,000 Iraqis troops being handed Chinese –made plastic swords as gifts as commanders exulted the progress being made, a U.S. commander afterward told me the brutal truth.

“How does this handover to the Iraqis change your duties here?” I asked.

“It doesn’t,” he said. “This is just for show. ...We will be back on patrol tomorrow.”