Afghanistan

[SirSaxa]

Perhaps the board would like to discuss Afghanistan and what the US should be attempting to do over the coming years.

I hope that we could have a sensible, realistic discussion without devolving to ideology, name calling and accusations. For example, can we refrain from using terms like "cut and run" and from referring to American Presidents as "Hitler"?

David Brooks in the NY Times (he's their version of a conservative) wrote an excellent piece on the situation a few days ago. BROOKS PIECE

EXCERPT
Since 1979, we have been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. We’ve fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and we shouldn’t pretend we understand how this conflict will evolve. But we should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it’s in our long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if we do so, extremism will wither.

Afghanistan is central to this effort partly because it could again become a safe haven to terrorists, but mostly because of its effects on the stability of Pakistan. As Stephen Biddle noted in a recent essay in The American Interest, the Taliban is a transnational Pashtun movement active in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is part of a complex insurgency trying to topple the Pakistani regime.

Pakistan has a fragile government with an estimated 50 or more nuclear weapons. A Taliban conquest in Afghanistan would endanger the Pakistani regime at best, create a regional crisis for certain and lead to a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda at worst.

A Taliban reconquest would also, it should be said, be a moral atrocity from which American self-respect would not soon recover.

My opinion?
Afghanistan is the war that merits our attention and efforts because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still very big, long term threats to global stability and American security. Unfortunately, given our lack of success there over 8 years, support for this effort from the American public seems to have seriously waned.

Does the board agree Afghanistan should be a huge priority for the US?
Do we believe the American public does, or will support an increased effort?
Is there some third way to pursue this? Other than:
1. McCrystal's desire for a significant increase in troops and funding?
2. Attempting to maintain "as is" and gradually working our way out?

I really don't see this as a Democratic Party vs. Republican Party issue. To me, this is a critical, national security issue. The US needs to take the lead AND to seek to gain as much international support as possible for our policy there. All of this needs to be explained to the American Public and political leaders of both parties need to support whatever our policy turns out to be in a bi-partisan manner. Can that happen given the current political environment?

[Boz]

I can guarantee you that, if he were to come out and commit the troops that McChrystal is requesting, Republicans, though they may hate him, would come out very much in support of President Obama.

(OK, I can't guarantee anything, but I'd wager a lot of money on it.) Frankly, I think the problems Obama will have if he takes this course of action are not going to come from Republicans, but from his own party. So, I don't think the partisan Washington environment will have anything to do with it, at least not in the way that you meant.

I can certainly sympathize with the President's hesitancy on this issue -- you know he has to be thinking about Vietnam or even the Soviets' experience in the mountains -- but he really needs to act sooner rather than later.

I have said for a long time that our military is going to be in Afghanistan for a long time after we are out of Iraq. It is a fundamentally more difficult conflict, both militarily and politically.

It is fundamentally more difficult, but I'm not convinced that it is fundamentally different. Our field commanders believe they have a strategy that can eliminate the Taliban's military actions, supress their political influence and help stabilize the country, and accordingly, the region. I think, given the success that they have demonstrated in being able to accomplish these goals in Iraq, we need to give them the opportunity to do so.

It is ironic, of course. As soon as he commits the troops -- and I both think and hope that he will (though I have my doubts, I am still thinking he is leaning in that direction) -- he is going to be facing the same questions that Bush did in Iraq about timelines. And he is the one who raised a lot of those questions.

He will definitely get that from the left. But, for my part, if he does what I believe to be the right thing and make this commitment, I would hope that conservatives at least would resist the urge to be snarky and immediately ask him how long they are going to be there. It will take years, not months, and we should know this going in.

Aside from the military commitment, we need to continue to work to support the best and most stable government in Pakistan that we can. And we need to somehow interdict the flow of Iranian arms and advice into this conflict (though I will admit, I'm kind of at a loss as to how we do that effectively).

The American public (and certainly military families, I am sure) are weary of having our forces engaged in this area for so long. But this is not Haiti. We have to be in this for long-term success. There is no other viable alternative. George Will's opinion (and I should add that he shares this opinion with Michael Moore of all people) that we can simply pull out and manage this conflict with air strikes and special forces ("commandos" as Moore puts it) is beyond naive. I am frankly surprised that Will misunderstands this so fundamentally.

And the status quo, according to the people who know best, is not going to get the job done.

What's the remaining alternative? We pull out altogether? I know that sounds enticing, but I really don't like the odds of that. I think you'd have that region succumb to complete chaos within a generation or much less.


Finally, I would just like to add: Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. Fascist, socialist, Nazi.

[EasyEd]

Given the mountainous nature of much of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, I have difficulty thinking a "surge" such as that apparently being requested will be successful. This is particularly true as long as Pakistan is off limits to open military action. I do not think such a strategy will work in producing anything like a victory.

I do not think the American public will support a prolonged war in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

I do not think the Democratically-controlled Congress will support a large increase in the number of U.S. forces there; nor will they support a prolonged war.

I do not think President Obama will support any substantial increase in forces in Afghanistan.

I am not even sure the vast majority of Republicans will support a prolonged war.

In summary, I think we will "fail" in Afghanistan/Pakistan leading to Taliban control of nuclear arms in Pakistan and more attacks on the mainland U.S. from Ben Laden and company.

This is not a sarcastic post but one I consider to be realistic.

[Bando]

I'm in full favor of committing to the McChrystal plan and counterinsurgency in general. Obama put a lot of these guys where they are specifically because he wanted a counterinsurgency strategy, which is why I think he's most likely going to approve the troop request. And I don't see how the counterterrorism option (a.k.a. the Biden plan) is any different from what we've been doing the past 8 years.

I also agree with Boz about the political implications. He'll get a lot of flack from the left, but it's not like this isn't exactly what he campaigned on. I think he'll get support in some quarters of the right (McCain, Lieberman, the Weekly Standard), but the loudest (not the majority) of the right is still going to be calling him Hitler and asking for his birth certificate.

All that said, I'm mindful of criticism that the time to try this strategy was 8 years ago. I certainly don't see those opposed to the McChrystal plan as weak or anything.

[jerseyhoya34]

This is an important issue and am glad that we finally have a thread on it. However, I do believe the importance of the issue is overstated in the public debate, largely due to the kind of "appeasement" accusations and related garbage that substitute for ideas in some political circles. Notwithstanding this problem, these kinds of evaluations frequently occur with changes in administration, and changes that they bring about cannot necessarily be identified in the short term. The degree of success that the surge would create in Iraq was certainly not known or expected at the outset, post hoc claims to the contrary.

I see the Afghanistan debate as largely one between the military we have and the military we want to have, to paraphrase a former defense secretary. Don Rumsfeld was right to suggest that our military needs to become lighter in footprint for the war against terrorism. We do not meet cannonballs and such on the open field as much as in guerrilla or urban combat situations, and our traditional military does not project well for those kinds of efforts (to say nothing of post-conflict reconstruction). Our experience in Iraq suggests that the military is not fully capable of some of the more burdensome state-building challenges of the kind that would be necessary in Afghanistan to create a vibrant civil society to the extent possible and create a transparent, legitimate government.
In my mind, this is the aim of the McChrystal plan - to use a counterforce military and hope we can back in to some countervalue gains based on the elimination or reduction of security threats. Our attempts to enact gains through countervalue tactics, such as Karen Hughes's public diplomacy effort, largely proved to be illusory or helpful only at the margins.

I consider this a false hope. Where Iraq presented targets, at least Afghanistan has very few. That being said, the targets are mobile and crafty even within Afghanistan to say nothing of the largely open, mountainous border with Pakistan. We had key targets cornered once in Tora Bora only to have them slip through our hands - perhaps due to our own military mistake or a mistaken calculus in negotiating with local warlord-types. As such, the security situation seems tenuous and whether it would improve in these hot zones is very much an open question.

Even if security is established on the border, are we to believe that there will be a response in terms of civil society? I don't believe so. We gave them Karzai in 2001, and we have ended up with Diem. The legitimacy of our democratic exercise has been undermined, and only a fool would be capable of ignoring it. In Iraq, we managed to hit the problem early, but we're now years deep in Afghanistan, and beliefs may be more entrenched. The idea of more troops coming over when there isn't a noticeable or disproportionate security threat domestically may not be welcome.

The Biden idea, however, tilts too far in the other direction of being an asymmetrical kind of approach that perhaps Rumsfeld would have wanted in an ideal world. It calls for the kind of special operations, light on our feet, cloak and dagger kind of military that we seem to be developing but do not have yet. In any event, I have doubts that it would work in Afghanistan, where they seem to be able to identify an outsider easily and actionable human intelligence seems hard to come by. Who could have expected that Bin Laden would evade us for 8 years and counting? How is it that we don't have a good JPEG of Mullah Omar floating around? The latter could be drinking champagne on the streets of Paris and nobody would ever have reason to know it.

The debate is also colored by classic bureaucratic politics. It is not all too surprising that General McChrystal, an army guy and commander of a military force, would ask for more resources. In that respect, he stands with generations of military commanders, so the fact that he wants resources should not independently carry weight. Indeed, in past administrations, secretaries and military officers have been dismissed for asking for or recommending certain resources.

I ultimately come down somewhere between the Biden and McChrystal approaches, which is to say that we don't have a clear strategy in Afghanistan. We could go the route of high octane counterforce or low octane counterforce with some countervalue action mixed in. That's the presented choice. If it is the universe of choices, a bad set of choices frequently leads to some kind of split the baby initiative. We'll see a modest troop increase and some commitment to special ops, when neither is likely to be successful.

My sense is that our policy recognizes that the aims of counterforce - to eliminate the threat militarily where it exists - cannot be achieved. If so, then the purpose of DHS is what? We know they are likely to attempt to enter the country and continue to monitor phone calls or whatever else precisely because we expect, even absent hard evidence, that they will have entered the country. I can't say this is dumb thinking.

To the extent a military countervalue strategy could promote democratic ideals, it would be helpful and would be what I suggest. It would represent a strategic reversal but one perhaps based in some modicum of thought that has developed in this country. Our military needs to develop in that direction to "drain the swamps" rather than seek always to kill the "#2 guy," of which there have now been many in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, this moment does not present an opportunity for this kind of policy because time is of the essence in Afghanistan.

[The Stig]

Since I confess I don't know the full answer in Afghanistan, I'll just offer up a few points:

- McChrystal is a damn good commander. He's already made a huge positive impact since he got there.

- If you go by the book on counterinsurgencies, we'd need north of 500,000 troops there (over 5 times the amount we have now). Anybody with half a brain (including McChrystal) knows that simply isn't an option in Washington.

- The election fraud hurt, and hurt badly. Any counterinsurgency needs a strong, legitimate partner in the country, and we don't have that now in Afghanistan. That's a huge problem for us.

- The Taliban aren't the same force they were in 1996, when they took the country. In 1996, Afghanistan was in a state of civil war, with all sides committing horrible atrocities. The Taliban were able to sweep to power with lots of popular support basically because all people knew about them was that they'd bring peace and wouldn't rape little kids. After over 5 years of ruling the country, the Taliban had shattered all of people's illusions about them. They're no longer seen as the idealistic young students who will save Afghanistan from chaos, they're seen as the tyrants perpetuating a civil war. Because of that, the Afghan people will be a lot less likely to accept Taliban rule. The Taliban can roam the countryside all they want, but their chances of taking major cities are a lot lower because of that.

- The same phenomenon happened in Pakistan. The Taliban had a lot of sympathy a few years ago, and the Pakistani government refused to fight them. But a few months of Taliban rule in Swat and a video of the Taliban flogging a young girl destroyed most of the sympathy Pakistanis had for the Taliban, and the Taliban push towards Islamabad spurred the government into action. Now the Pakistani military is pushing the Taliban back everywhere, and the Pakistani people are almost all supporting it.

- Even if the Taliban retake power, there's a good chance they won't invite Al Qaeda back. In 2001, an Al Qaeda attack led to the Taliban being overthrown. If the Taliban take power, do you really think they'll want Al Qaeda to turn them into the world's biggest target again?

- The real issue isn't Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

[derhoya]

Sept 30, 2009 6:28:23 GMT -5 The Stig said:

- The real issue isn't Afghanistan, it's Pakistan.

I absolutely agree. A strong, legitimate Pakisti gov't that has better relations with India will stabilize that entire region and make the Afghan issue more manageable.

[SFHoya99]

Investment.

I heard a great talk over the summer from an admittedly academic expert on Afghanistan -- but he has been over there for most of the past few years.

His big point was simply that we need to make our goals (hunting down and eliminating the influence of our enemies) align with Afghani goals (infrastructure, schools, economy, a better life in general).

Good thing that's also the responsible, moral and ethical thing for a country that bombed and invaded another country to do.

It's one of several places I disagree with many in my party -- but there's no way we should exit. There needs to be both a plan for ensuring the peace but also continued and increased investment in improving Afghanistan overall. That leads to their political stability, which is what the U.S. ultimately desires.

(His other big point was that we don't pay enough attention to the region as a region -- while countries like China routinely meet with leaders from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc., as a group, the U.S. has no cohesive policy for the region and deals with each country as a one off. It seems like a good idea, but not as important to my mind as a Marshall-style Plan for Afghanistan, and for that matter, The Iraq.)

[AustinHoya03]

Sept 29, 2009 14:49:39 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Given the mountainous nature of much of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, I have difficulty thinking a "surge" such as that apparently being requested will be successful. This is particularly true as long as Pakistan is off limits to open military action. I do not think such a strategy will work in producing anything like a victory.

I do not think the American public will support a prolonged war in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

The NYT released a poll with multiple questions on Afghanistan last weekend.

www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html

Assuming the poll data is accurate, it appears ed is right that most Americans don't want a prolonged war. In answer to the question "How much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of troops in Afghanistan?" over 50% of those polled answered either "less than 1 year" or "1-2 years." Also, a greater percentage of those polled thought the United States should decrease troop levels than increase troop levels.

[Boz]

WARNING: RUMOR MILL ONLY. THIS IS SPECULATION, SO TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS.

With that being said, Bill Kristol was on Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday, and mentioned a rumor he's been hearing that SecDef Gates will be out by the end of the year, to be replaced by Chuck Hagel.

I agree with Kristol that IF (please see note above) this were to happen, I think we can pretty much bank on the fact that the US will not be committed long-term to Afghanistan, at least not militarily.

If you read my opinion earlier in this thread, you'll know that I find this troubling. For now, I'll just file it away as a troubling rumor though. Kristol has been wrong on rumors before of course, but he's not exactly an unconnected rube, so I'm guessing he is actually hearing people actually talk about this. But that doesn't mean it will happen...or even that it's likely to happen.

If Obama does commit to Afghanistan in the manner McChrystal has requested prior to the end of this year, there's no way Chuck Hagel becomes SecDef. Of that I'm pretty certain.

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2009 9:59:19 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Investment.

I heard a great talk over the summer from an admittedly academic expert on Afghanistan -- but he has been over there for most of the past few years.

His big point was simply that we need to make our goals (hunting down and eliminating the influence of our enemies) align with Afghani goals (infrastructure, schools, economy, a better life in general).

Good thing that's also the responsible, moral and ethical thing for a country that bombed and invaded another country to do.

It's one of several places I disagree with many in my party -- but there's no way we should exit. There needs to be both a plan for ensuring the peace but also continued and increased investment in improving Afghanistan overall. That leads to their political stability, which is what the U.S. ultimately desires.

(His other big point was that we don't pay enough attention to the region as a region -- while countries like China routinely meet with leaders from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, etc., as a group, the U.S. has no cohesive policy for the region and deals with each country as a one off. It seems like a good idea, but not as important to my mind as a Marshall-style Plan for Afghanistan, and for that matter, The Iraq.)

1. "Good thing that's also the responsible, moral and ethical thing for a country that bombed and invaded another country to do."

Um, their country's lack of governance (at best) or collusion (at worst) allowed a massive attack that killed the most people - the vast majority of them entire innocents, including numerous children - in one day in over a hundred years, and the people that did it threatened to do it again.

2. Most people in the USG will admit freely that the US does the kinetic stuff (killing people, capturing terrorists) very well. It does not do the diplomatic stuff (building roads and bridges, creating the necessary precepts for stable civil society) - Gates has called in the past for more funding to go to State. It's very very hard to do, however.

3. Best of luck meeting with India and Pakistan together - the US special representative originally scheduled for both had to be cleaved in two because of the fact that those two countries hate each other and got really annoyed with a proposed flight to Karachi to Delhi every six months.

State and DoD usually bunch Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Middle East/CENTCOM sphere and India and China in the Asia/PACOM sphere, but you need some organizing precepts since everything is interconnected in some way. Most US efforts in the past have included all relevant countries.

[SFHoya99]

Oct 2, 2009 9:05:42 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

1. "Good thing that's also the responsible, moral and ethical thing for a country that bombed and invaded another country to do."

Um, their country's lack of governance (at best) or collusion (at worst) allowed a massive attack that killed the most people - the vast majority of them entire innocents, including numerous children - in one day in over a hundred years, and the people that did it threatened to do it again.

And I absolutely support the invasion. This isn't me thinking the US did something wrong.

But it isn't that simple. Countries aren't individuals. I don't think we should punish a six year old in Afghanistan for his "country's lack of governance." We did what we had to do to protect our own people; I have no problems with that.

But that doesn't mean we should do it with no regard for the people we affect.

2. Most people in the USG will admit freely that the US does the kinetic stuff (killing people, capturing terrorists) very well. It does not do the diplomatic stuff (building roads and bridges, creating the necessary precepts for stable civil society) - Gates has called in the past for more funding to go to State. It's very very hard to do, however.

That may be true, I'm not going to argue terribly because I can't. But these things aren't impossible, either. We pump a lot of money into foreign. Funneling a larger portion of that to Afghanistan is the least we can do.

The speaker I heard had plenty of examples of quality work going on -- schools being built, etc. There just should be more.

To be honest, people do "really, really hard" things all the time. Its in our best interest and our ethical interest to do this, so that makes it worth it.

3. Best of luck meeting with India and Pakistan together - the US special representative originally scheduled for both had to be cleaved in two because of the fact that those two countries hate each other and got really annoyed with a proposed flight to Karachi to Delhi every six months.

Apparently plenty of other countries do get it done, but if they don't cooperate, fine. But meet with as many who will meet together as possible.

Or at least have a coherent strategy.

State and DoD usually bunch Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Middle East/CENTCOM sphere and India and China in the Asia/PACOM sphere, but you need some organizing precepts since everything is interconnected in some way. Most US efforts in the past have included all relevant countries.

Again, I can't argue and don't care to look it up, but the speaker I heard would differ. Either way, it was a minor point to me compared to the other.

Which was simply -- you can't root out the Taliban/Al-Qaeda without Afghani help. And don't get help in what you want unless you help with what they want.

[jerseyhoya34]

Obama made some comments yesterday that suggest that Biden may be losing the battle within the administration (i.e. disinterest in scaling back to a focus on the AfPak border). Other recent developments include a WH-McChrystal undercurrent on chain of command issues.

[EasyEd]

McChrystal was clearly out of line in speaking out in public supporting his strategy/troop level position. Whether he's right or wrong on the issues, President Obama is still the Commander-in-Chief and McChrystal works for him. He should make his positions known in private and if he can't support what comes out of the President, he should resign. The same goes for Biden.

[Boz]

I don't want to detract from the seriousness of this thread, but this seemed like an appropriate place for this link:

www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/10/07/arts/design/07borrow.ready.html

Yes, this is hanging in the White House.

[theexorcist]

Oct 7, 2009 15:43:17 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

McChrystal was clearly out of line in speaking out in public supporting his strategy/troop level position. Whether he's right or wrong on the issues, President Obama is still the Commander-in-Chief and McChrystal works for him. He should make his positions known in private and if he can't support what comes out of the President, he should resign. The same goes for Biden.

I'd disagree that "the same goes for Biden".

The military have a very specific rules set regarding the chain of command. Biden does not. McChrystal should not have spoken out on the issue, but Gates, Clinton, Jones, and Biden don't have the same chain of command issues.

A "team of rivals" with Clinton lambasting Obama in the press is a hallmark of a remarkably dysfunctional Administration, and would probably lead to Obama demanding that Clinton resign, but it's not on the same level as McChrystal saying the same thing. The military, for a large number of reasons, is different.

[CO_Hoya]

Oct 2, 2009 9:05:42 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Um, their country's lack of governance (at best) or collusion (at worst) allowed a massive attack that killed the most people - the vast majority of them entire innocents, including numerous children - in one day in over a hundred years, and the people that did it threatened to do it again.

Is that correct?

I don't know much military history, but I can think of 4 Allied attacks during WWII that had more civilian casualties in one day.

• Hamburg, July 27, 1943, ~40,000 (link)
  
• Dresden, Feb 13-15, 1945, 24,000-40,000 over 3 days (link)
  
• Hiroshima, Aug 6, 1945, 70,000-80,000 (link)
  
• Nagasaki, Aug 9, 1945, 40,000-60,000 (same link as above)

I would guess that there were other attacks during WWII by the Axis powers that also killed thousands of civilians (Rotterdam?). I just don't know them.

Or maybe I just didn't understand your statement.

[strummer8526]

Oct 7, 2009 16:42:00 GMT -5 CO_Hoya said:

Oct 2, 2009 9:05:42 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Um, their country's lack of governance (at best) or collusion (at worst) allowed a massive attack that killed the most people - the vast majority of them entire innocents, including numerous children - in one day in over a hundred years, and the people that did it threatened to do it again.

Is that correct?

I don't know much military history, but I can think of 4 Allied attacks during WWII that had more civilian casualties in one day.

• Hamburg, July 27, 1943, ~40,000 (link)
  
• Dresden, Feb 13-15, 1945, 24,000-40,000 over 3 days (link)
  
• Hiroshima, Aug 6, 1945, 70,000-80,000 (link)
  
• Nagasaki, Aug 9, 1945, 40,000-60,000 (same link as above)

I would guess that there were other attacks during WWII by the Axis powers that also killed thousands of civilians (Rotterdam?). I just don't know them.

Or maybe I just didn't understand your statement.

Change his statement to "peace-time attack" and problem solved.

[theexorcist]

Oct 7, 2009 16:42:00 GMT -5 CO_Hoya said:

Oct 2, 2009 9:05:42 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Um, their country's lack of governance (at best) or collusion (at worst) allowed a massive attack that killed the most people - the vast majority of them entire innocents, including numerous children - in one day in over a hundred years, and the people that did it threatened to do it again.

Is that correct?

I don't know much military history, but I can think of 4 Allied attacks during WWII that had more civilian casualties in one day.

• Hamburg, July 27, 1943, ~40,000 (link)
  
• Dresden, Feb 13-15, 1945, 24,000-40,000 over 3 days (link)
  
• Hiroshima, Aug 6, 1945, 70,000-80,000 (link)
  
• Nagasaki, Aug 9, 1945, 40,000-60,000 (same link as above)

I would guess that there were other attacks during WWII by the Axis powers that also killed thousands of civilians (Rotterdam?). I just don't know them.

Or maybe I just didn't understand your statement.

My qualifier should have been "in the United States". The hundred years' reference was to the Civil War, which hold the dubious "record".

[The Stig]

If anybody's really interested in the issue, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held some really great hearings on this issue. They've done a great job at gathering diverse viewpoints. What's really telling is that well-intentioned and intelligent people have come to very different conclusions about what to do, and some remarkably intelligent and knowledgeable people have freely admitted that they don't know what we should do.

To watch the hearings, click on the hearing's name (the big print in blue). You can skip through Kerry droning on and on at the start and just listen to what the witnesses have to say. The Q&A can also be interesting. You can also click on a witness's name to read their prepared opening statement (which is often not what they actually said in the hearing).

foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090916p.html
foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090917a.html
foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg091001a.html
foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg091007p.html

The first and third hearings were the best, in my opinion.