-
Obama’s Drone War
May 23, 2013 | 16 comments
-
How Long Is This War?
May 20, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 148 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
Loose Canons
Debating Groucho’s War
The level of debate on the war in Afghanistan has sunk to new lows.
So Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, “I went on a safari to Afghanistan, and one night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I’ll never know.” Then Bill Kristol said Steele should be fired for cruelty to elephants and Ann Coulter said no, Kristol should be fired because Steele had shot a liberal elephant in Obama’s pajamas.
Well, it didn’t go quite that way but it may as well have. The level of debate on the war in Afghanistan — even among Republicans — has risen to heights previously reached only by the Marx Brothers.
Republicans can no longer afford a frivolous debate on the war. They have allowed George Bush’s nation-building strategy to morph into Obama’s without attempting to undertake the most urgent task in war: if what you are doing isn’t working, you have to start at the beginning and examine whether you’re fighting the war the right way, or even fighting the right war.
Let us admit that what we are doing in Afghanistan — or anywhere else — isn’t working. Defending Obama’s approach to the war simply because it’s a continuation of Bush’s leaves Republicans — and all Americans — in the attitude of Britain’s pre-war government. As Churchill described it in 1936, it was “decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent.”
War, as Sun Tzu wrote about 2300 years ago, is of the most vital importance to the State, the province of life and death, the road to survival or ruin. In short, a war is to be defined as a matter of national survival to which the state must devote all its intelligence, will, and resources to winning. This we have not done. So let us begin by evaluating the war in Afghanistan in those terms.
Is the war in Afghanistan a matter of national survival? If so, how must it be fought?
If we withdraw from Afghanistan, what will the consequences be for America?
As defined first by Bush and now by Obama, the answer to the first question is no and makes the second moot. The goal of that war was to rout al Qaeda in Afghanistan and to prevent that nation from becoming the sanctuary from which terrorists could and did mount attacks against the United States that it was before 9-11.
But al Qaeda, as Gen. Petraeus testified in his recent confirmation hearing, is now relocated to Northwestern Pakistan. As its Somali branch al Shabab proved with last Sunday’s attack in Uganda, al Qaeda has the ability to mount attacks outside the nations in which its forces are based. And, as the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq shows, when U.S. forces begin to withdraw, it quickly returns. It will return to Afghanistan too, soon after we leave.
For all our rhetoric about fighting an unconventional war, we have — since 9-11 — been fighting an unconventional enemy under a conventional strategy. Nothing is gained by the counterinsurgency “clear, hold and build” strategy because clearing the terrorists from one area just lets them slip into another and reestablish themselves, and return whenever we abandon the ground we gained.
The Bush-Obama nation-building strategy, as I’ve written here many times, is a self-imposed quagmire that condemns us to fighting the enemy’s proxies. You cannot defeat an enemy by only fighting his proxies.
Right now, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is rejecting the foundation for General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency, saying that tribesmen and sheiks shouldn’t be recruited into the local security forces on which the counterinsurgency depends. Petraeus — in between visits to the Aspen Institute — dropped in on Pakistan’s army chief Parvez Kayani to praise Pakistani efforts against the “Pakistani Taliban” while diplomatically avoiding mention of the Pakistani-Afghan Taliban who use Northwest Pakistan as a sanctuary from which they mount attacks against our forces in Afghanistan.
Terrorism is, and will forever remain, an existential threat as long as nations such as Iran, Syria and others (notably Saudi Arabia) are free to sponsor it. But having spent almost nine years fighting an unconventional war on a conventional strategy, we are compelled to debate the questions that Democrats studiously avoid and Republicans haven’t had the courage to ask.
What happens if we withdraw from Afghanistan?
The Karzai government is weak and unpopular. It won’t long stand against the Taliban and al Qaeda will certainly return quickly. We cannot long suppress al Qaeda with drone attacks, which depend on the sort of highly accurate intelligence we don’t have (and will be impossible to gather from abroad).
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/14/debating-grouchos-war
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
CharlieEcho| 7.14.10 @ 6:35AM
You don't expect our current administration, or anyone in the balcony to do the wise thing do you? It would take troop strength of 20 to 1 in order to gain any control in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Somalia. We should withdraw to our own borders and become secure there. Once we are secure in our own spaces our might can be once again used to guide the world. Guide not control. Have we not learned anything in the past century.
There is no country that would stand to gain by the control of a country such as Afghanistan. There are many that would gain with the destruction of the United States within our own borders. We are expending great resource in the wars we are executing. We are not winning.
While our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion there are rules to follow in doing so. Radical religion must be watched the same as racism. Our resources should be used at home. When our home is secure, our world will be too.
Alan Brooks| 7.14.10 @ 4:56PM
"Michael Steele said, "I went on a safari to Afghanistan, and one night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." Then Bill Kristol said Steele should be fired for cruelty to elephants and Ann Coulter said no, Kristol should be fired because Steele had shot a liberal elephant in Obama's pajamas."
And Mark Sanford said "take a hike."
potkas7| 7.14.10 @ 7:29AM
In his classic The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, author Steven Covey offers the advice, "Begin with the End in mind..." So what is the end in Afghanistan? What is it supposed to look like when we're done? Let me suggest to you that the best to be hoped for is that it will look like Pakistan.
In 2001 we had a goal: to avenge 9/11 and effect a regime change. We did that in the first six months. That we are still there 9 years later trying to "help" is noble, but helping is beyond out ability if we don't have a clear and understandable blueprint for what we're supposed to accomplish so we all can know when it's time to leave.
Old Soldier| 7.14.10 @ 8:27AM
I've never understood what "victory" was supposed to look like in Afghanistan. I've never even heard a logical scenario of exiting gracefully.
When we do get sick of this and go home, it will be satisfying to watch the Karzai clan go down. I hope some of them are captured before they skip town with their millions in stolen U.S. taxpayer money.
Christopher Holland| 7.14.10 @ 9:04PM
If nobody can say what victorylooks like, then it probably does not exist and the war is a waste of time. There is no Plan A to win the war in Afghanistan, so it is time to go to Plan B - except there is no Plan B either. This is what a giant fubar looks like.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 8:05AM
I've said it before:
General Petrayus, husband your troops, husband your troops. We are going to need them, and their courage.
JimH| 7.14.10 @ 8:15AM
Rufus T. Firefly for president. Then we can all be Marxists.
grant1863| 7.14.10 @ 11:02AM
thanks for the chuckle. God help our troops as we await a better civilian leader.
Louis Jenkins| 7.14.10 @ 8:36AM
Wow. A lot to digest. Steele is right in that it is Obumar's war. Oburmar is fighting the war his way, one hand tied behind him. Don't want to get "In your face" so to speak. Fight the war the way a fight is supposed to take place, or bring the troops home. I am tired of seeing our men and women killed for the promise of a withdrawal date.
"Obama's administration demands that our enemies be labeled without reference to Islam. As long as that continues, we cannot win the ideological war. "
Margie| 7.14.10 @ 10:56AM
Rush Limbaugh could fight this war better with half his brain tied behind his back.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 12:08PM
Margie,
Now that was FUNNY!
Margie| 7.14.10 @ 1:15PM
Tee hee. Thanks. Funny and TRUE!! Just imagine as I do at times.. a wonderful fantasy in my mind~ Rush as President, Sarah as perhaps V.P. or at least part of the admin.. imagine all the good guys, all of our wonderful conservative friends in every job available in our government~ just name them all, Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even the much maligned Michael Savage, Mark Levin (especially!), and on and on the list goes. Imagine Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams.
Imagine YOU~LLL's~Northern Rebel~Al Adab~Ret. Marine~Amen Bro~Bydand75~OK you get the picture & sorry to leave so many excellent people out! But what a dream!
Mike| 7.18.10 @ 11:43AM
I guess Bush also fought the Afghan war "his way" since he basically half ...ssed it for years. I'm no Obama supporter but to pin this war on him and the subsequent failure on him, seems ridiculous.
If Bush hadn't ignored Afghanistan while bogging us down in pointless war in Iraq we would not be having this discussion.
Blackknights 1802| 7.14.10 @ 9:04AM
This is Obama’s war, not just because he is now President. In his own words during his campaign “it is the right war”. It was the right war then because he had to prove to the American public that he wasn’t a typical, left wing, anti-war radical. It was for the votes, stupid.
Obama figured that his State Department goons could easily talk their way out of this one. Months go by and empty suite gasbag Holbrooke is sent to oversee the situation. The problem was that McChrystal submits a request for more troops. Oh no, that wasn’t in the plan. Is that why it took so long for Obama to respond?
If Obama were against the war from the beginning, then criticism of Steele’s remarks would be valid. But the blabber-mouth-in-chief put his arms around it. So now, he owns it.
JP| 7.14.10 @ 9:34AM
We should leave Karazai and Afghanistan. Karazai is a survivor; I'm sure he or someother tribal leader will do fine without us. Besides, all of the action and drama is happening in Pakistan. We could still keep spec ops troops in Afghanistan, but the real problem lies in Pakistan.
Old Soldier| 7.14.10 @ 12:49PM
Hamid Karazai will survive just fine - back in Pakistan where he was before we kicked out the Taliban. More likely in Switzerland or Southern France living off his embezzeled millions.
JP| 7.14.10 @ 4:45PM
Perhaps. Perhaps not. In international politics one must play the cards one is dealt. During the FDR administration, advisors complained about a thouroughly corrupt dictator who was also a reliable ally. FDR replied to the complaints, "He may be a SOB. But at least he is OUR SOB!"
Afghanistan is a primative polyglot of ancient tribes whose memories and vendettas go back to Alexander the Great. Iraq, in comparison, is cosmopolitan. The terrain, the backwardness, and the religious traditions of Afghanistan preclude the kind of nation-building we did in Iraq (and even in Iraq it is questionable whether democracy there will survive). Obama and Co. after a clue what to do. Politics drives everything. It is too bad 100,000 servicemen's lives hang in the balance there.
PolishKnight| 7.14.10 @ 9:52AM
It's rather interesting that the author suggests we should label our enemy (radical Islam) without really going through with it even in the article by referring to the isolated term "terrorism". In addition, his claim that we fought against communism directly by labeling it by name is amusing. What has the Democratic party been since the times of FDR? And most of Western Europe is socialist.
A similar conundrum faces us today. "moderate" Islamicists, in Saudi Arabia, are cheering on the Islamic terrorists even as they are needed as "allies" and providers of resources. The left also has hopped into bed with radical Islam as a knee jerk reactionary move against GW Bush.
So what we're facing here is less like the cold war and more reminiscent of WWII with Stalin and Hitler going at it. The biggest threat to modern COMMUNISM today is Islam. Let's hope they leave something behind...
Bill| 7.14.10 @ 10:07AM
If we're going to leave according to the well-known timetable that has us starting to leave in July 2011, then the Taliban and al-Qaeda only have to wait another year or so and the U.S. (and the rest of the coalition) won't be a factor anymore.
So why put any more U.S. troops in harm's way, to be injured or killed during the next year? Why not just get out now?
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.14.10 @ 10:29AM
If I recall correctly, Abraham Lincoln approved Bill Sherman’s scorched earth march to the sea because it was his desire to break the will of the Confederacy to continue the fight. I also recall being quite upset when I witnessed on tee vee just after OUR brave troops had entered Baghdad and an American Hero was ordered to remove OUR Flag from a statue of his-last-name-is Hussein so as not to offend the Iraqis. To make matters even worse, the ruler of Sadr City was allowed to maintain his own private army. Correct was to impose martial law and confiscate all Iraqi weapons. By the actions of the Bushies, it was clear that their objective in Iraq was not to secure a military victory but a political one. If the objective is merely political we should have marched on saddamn with ambassadors and lawyers, not Our Precious Troops.
Korea and Vietnam were political wars. After more than 50 years the unending war on the Korean peninsula remains a powder keg awaiting the deadly spark. Except after all these years of dithering, North Korea is a nuclear power as is Pockey-stan. Vietnam’s political solution was exposed as a lie by Operation Frequent Wind, an apt description of political discourse, at the end of April 1975. All the money squandered in Southeast Asia pales in comparison to just one minute spent in silent contemplation at The Wall. Lincoln and Sherman were right. Truman was right on Japan. The Allies were right on Dresden. The objective of war is to win. Our objective whenever we ask Lady Liberty’s Children to offer their lives in noble sacrifice should also be to win. As Korea, Vietnam and now Afghanistan prove, political solutions don’t work. Military solutions do.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“I believe it is peace for our time . . . peace with honour.” - Neville Chamberlain
Only 921 days to go.
NavyBrat | 7.14.10 @ 12:07PM
Gil.
"Lincoln and Sherman were right. Truman was right on Japan. The Allies were right on Dresden. The objective of war is to win. Our objective whenever we ask Lady Liberty’s Children to offer their lives in noble sacrifice should also be to win. As Korea, Vietnam and now Afghanistan prove, political solutions don’t work. Military solutions do."
Well said, sir. Even before the Dark Age of Obama, my Dad used to say that this country was no longer in the business of winning wars. I continue to agree.
“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect.”...Musashi
By speaking of dates for withdrawl, requiring our guys to announce raids, or not raiding at night, how is this basic principle accomplished? It isn't.
“Do nothing which is of no use.”...Musashi
I think we can chalk "political solutions" up into the things that are of no use category.
Mushashi was NEVER defeated as a swordsman. And his fights were the most base of all human conflict. Man to man. From this, knowledge of ALL types of warfare are made clear, for ALL warfare, when you break it down, is about men fighting men, regardless of technology. Our warriors today know this. Our politicians would do well to learn it.
Occam's Tool| 7.14.10 @ 12:35PM
Correct, Mr. Gill O'Teen. Myself, 10 million Afghan civilians are not worth the life of one American soldier. The best approach is to be "no better friend, no worse enemy." Offer to be nice, but if they go pear-shaped, obliterate them until they surrender.
Old Soldier| 7.14.10 @ 1:02PM
The problem is that the earth in Afghanistan is already scorched. There is nothing there worth destroying, just stone-age savages with Sovit weapons.
Christopher Holland| 7.14.10 @ 9:23PM
The place is not worth the bones of a single American soldier then. If it is not worth fighting for then it certainly isn't worth dieing for. Wasting lives on pointless wars that can't be won and mean nothing if they are won is the acme of bad decision making. The whole idea of sending the best and brightest to West Point is to avoid this type of egregious stupidity. I suspect that the military nowadays is specifically designed to develop officers who do not think about what they are doing. Afghanistan is the work of a military that has no ideas and does not think. The Afghanistan war is war by consultants and people who manage by putting ticks into boxes and filling out the paperwork
In the 1950s when the French were fighting in Viet Nam, the army chief of staff was General Matthew Ridgeway and the chief of plans was General 'Jumpin' Jim' Gavin. Gavin and Ridgeway did a detailed assessment of fighting in Viet Nam and decided that the army did not have the capability to fight an extended war in a tropical third world country. It would take a long time and a lot of money to make the necessary changes and develop the in-country logistics that the Americans would require. At the end of the day, it was not worth the effort and Eisenhower kept America out of Viet Nam. Where is the same thought now, where is the Matt Ridgeway and the Jim Gavin who know what the hell they are doing?
ALAN CAMPBELL| 7.17.10 @ 4:06PM
His name is General Shinseki and he was forceably retired by Rumsfeld, Bush, and the JCS!
JP| 7.14.10 @ 4:52PM
Gil,
All wars are political. Clausewitz's dictim that war is politics by other means still holds true. I think the point you are making has to do with the proliferation of security specialists who use abstract ideas and methods not to win wars, but to fine tune nuanced political outcomes that years later look totally abusrd. LBJ had dozens of advisors who swam in rivers of abstractions while the US was suffering close to a thousand casulties a week.
Nothing has really changed. Highly credentialed civilian and military experts continue to express thier abstract ideas via spread-sheets, statistical analysis, and power point presentations. To add to the mix, in recent years legal experts (aka Pentagon lawyers) have staked out thier turf by creating incomprehensible ROEs (Rules of Engagement). All of this abstraction is costing us lives and money ($12 billion a month).
George True| 7.14.10 @ 11:22AM
Bush was nowhere near the dummy that the left made him out to be. The Iraq war was winnable because of the open terrain, and the fact that it was actually a more-or-less civilized population with established infrastructure. One of our military leaders (don't remember who) said once that you have to choose carefully which war to fight based not necessarily on how righteous it is, but on how winnable it is. Iraq was winnable.
By contrast, after toppling the Taliban, under Bush we only kept about 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obviously only a fraction of the number needed to "win" in Afghanistan. But Bush wasn't trying to win there. He kept just enough troops to keep a loose lid on the situation and keep Al Qaida from coming back in and setting up shop again. In that he succeeded. You can argue that it was a waste of American lives and treasure, and you might be right. But I think Bush was smart enough to realize that a major pacification and nation-building effort in Afghanistan would be prohibitive in cost and highly questionable as to whether a good outcome could ever be attained even after many years. Also, he realized the folly of trying to do anything major in Afghanistan while the Iraq war still raged on.
Along comes neophyte Obama, who understands very little about anything, let alone having any knowledge of military strategy or history. In his ignorance he promptly proclaims Afghanistan to be the "good" war, the one we should have been fighting instead of Iraq. So he escalates the war, pumping up the troop levels to 120,000, while at the same time instituting a self-defeating strategy of announcing to the enemy that we will withdraw by a certain date. No matter what the outcome, he now owns the Afghanistan war. He wrapped his arms around it as candidate Obama, and escalated it as president. It will stick to him like a tar baby, as well it should.
I do not pretend to know the solution for Afghanistan. If it were in any other location, I would be inclined to say the hell with it and get our boys out. On the other hand, if (when) we pull out of there, the Taliban will surely take over again, and it is likely Al Qaida will have a safe haven there again. And the first thing they will do is destabilize their next door neighbor Pakistan. And if (when) they succeed in installing an Islamic theocratic regime in Pakistan, then that mullocracy would have its hands on 70 nuclear warheads, plus missiles to launch them anywhere in the Middle East or Europe. (Or give them to whoever they see fit.) We are rightfully worried about Iran now having enough fissile material to make two nukes. Imagine an Iran-style theocracy in Pakistan having 70 of them. This is the true risk of failing in Afghanistan.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 12:12PM
George True,
Once again...splendid thought. Thank you.
SpiralArchitect| 7.14.10 @ 4:15PM
Fortunately, there are still factions such as The Pentagon and certain aspects of the Intelligence community that will have input to such dangerous issues.
We do not have to meekly await the posse of clowns (aka TheCabinet) to get out of the circus car to iniate our downward spiral towards world Jackassification.
Mike| 7.18.10 @ 11:49AM
We didn't "win" in Iraq. We temporarily stabilized a creaky foundation that will collapse the minute we leave the place.
However, we did provide a stable ally for our new worst enemy - Iran.
We lost the moment we set foot in Iraq. We lost trillions of my tax dollars and thousands of American lives.
And I disagree about Bush - I voted for him in 2000, but I came to see him as the buffoon that the left portrayed him as.
Ned the Red| 7.14.10 @ 11:30AM
If Afghanistan is to be used as future stepping off point to conquer all of our enemies of the same persuasion then we will succeed and the price will be worth the payment.
We should be open and honest about it and not pretend that we are there for any other reason. It is fine with me if we stay for sixty five years (like Germany and Japan) just so long as we use it to our full advantage defeating our enemy.
Good column, as it points out the futility of doing the mission half-assed and then leaving. Hell, we ought to be offering up the best land in Afghanistan to American citizens if they settle there and promise to improve it. If we want to play at being Romans, then let’s be Roman, besides the uniforms would look really cool.
The next time we hear any crap from Hamid about how tribesmen and sheiks shouldn’t be recruited into security forces, we should say in our best Borg imitation, “You will be assimilated.”
Dyslexiea of the Borg| 7.14.10 @ 11:57AM
I am Dyslexia of the Borg. Your ass will be laminated!
L. Ross| 7.14.10 @ 11:56AM
If you examine stable governments in Southwest Asia, you will find that most of them begin with genocide. When people are convinced that you have the will and the means to destroy them all, they will invariably sit down, shut up, and color. Hussein didn't rule Iraq as a cruel tyrant just because he was a cruel tyrant. That is what it takes to establish order in that part of the world. NO ONE has ever been able to establish order in Afghanistan. Alexander the Great got his hat handed to him. The Brits in the 1800's had the same. So did the Russians in the 1980's. Short of complete extermination, I'm not sure we could ever claim victory there. Them dudes are nuts.
Check this out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03.....d3__3.html
martin j smith| 7.14.10 @ 12:05PM
I think that or foreing policy and in tern our war pocliy has been distorted by factors stemming at least as far back as the coalition of WW II. We became involved with an alliance with the USSR a nation based on the destruction of capitalism and domination of their country--but since the Nazis hated everyone we were forced to join forces
knowing full well we were really enemies. FDR and even to some extent Churchill was willing to placate Stalin to keep him happy for good or bad reasons. In the end, the Western powers and the USSR were indeed to square off and reach dangerous levels of conflict. Ihe United Nations another offshoot of WWII was another factor ( as was the League of Nations ) being tyed to am international body contrans polciy for better and worse. Then there is pure internatl politics such that wars become political footballs for the vying parties. Bewteen these constraints it is my view very difficult to develope a sensible war policy. Thus Bush I and II, Obama, and evengoing back to truman in Korea we could not find a winning effort. I am not totally against the idea of a United Nations,but when our national security as at the mercy of adversary natiuns, I question the validy of creating a sensible policy. In the end our interests need to come first.
AMENBRO| 7.14.10 @ 12:07PM
Bomb Iranian, Pakistani, NUCLEAR SITES. Completely STRAFE, NAPALM & CLUSTER BOMB Taliban & all other assorted malcontents ASSES into the land of Virgins, Milk & honey. Let em eat dates outa virgins navels.
AS IT IS, THEY HAVE NO VALUE ON HUMAN LIFE ANYWAY, DO THEY ?????
Quit wasting Blood & Butter.
Get it done & move on. Scare hail outta China & Russia in the process & finish what we shoulda finished in WWII
davelnaf| 7.14.10 @ 12:12PM
Mr. Babbin makes many good points about Afghanistan. I would like to add one more.
Having only been a civilian contractor in Afghanistan my opinion about what we should do there might be dismissed out of hand. But it was clear to me when I was there that the war was going to take a long time to win using the current strategy of seeking and destroying the Taliban wherever and whenever possible.
The biggest problem we have in Afghanistan is that the Taliban fight literally because there is—from their point of view—nothing better to do. Much of this is due to the human and natural resources one finds in the eastern half of Afghanistan where nearly all the fighting occurs. The land is poor, mountainous, and mostly wasteland and the people here are, for the most part, either subsistence farmers or Taliban. Most of the farmer and non-Taliban have no more ambition in life than to survive by surviving the current war and it will take a long time to turn these people and this land into a nation, if ever. All the external will in the world will not change this reality.
A better strategy for the long haul—and there will be a long haul—might be to desist from nation-building and return to our original strategy, which was to disrupt Al Qaeda and the Taliban and, in particular, prevent the former from reconstituting in Afghanistan to plan further attacks. Fortify large bases like Bagram and Kandahar and develop the Intel resources needed to find the Taliban whenever they venture near these bases in force. The Taliban might then remain in other parts of Afghanistan. If they are foolish and fanatical enough to allow Al Qaeda back in punish them the way they were punished back in 2001. The strategy of boots on the ground makes sense in traditional military conflicts against traditional foes, but the Taliban are a throwback and wedded to perpetual war as a way of life. This is a disease you can only manage not cure.
Holding onto land is the old Soviet game and won’t work in Afghanistan.
John II| 7.14.10 @ 12:29PM
Makes sense. As does the Babbin piece.
It would also make sense, I think, to unite our various armed forces under the umbrella of a single grand strategy directed relentlessly in multiple ways specifically against Islamic jihadism. To communicate appropriate contempt for the enemy, we could call it "Operation Bust-Up-the-Place."
Duff| 7.15.10 @ 8:46AM
Declaring war on a religious sect is ALWAYS a good idea. Look at well the Romans did in their war against Christianity....
If the US is seen as actively persecuting a religion, even a radical fringe element, all that will do is attract our various enemies to a rallying point.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.14.10 @ 12:20PM
Davelnaf,
Thank you.
As I posted the other day..."napalm every poppy field".
.....every single one.
Make the local chiefs "senators", then let them run the show.
Best regards from a fellow "CB" (Civilian Builder) heh in years past.
Occam's Tool| 7.14.10 @ 12:38PM
Oh, I think you can cure it...by making cooperation pleasant and confrontation horrific. The Soviets offered no carrot, only stick. We should do both. But our stick MUST be there, and it MUST be savage.
morris wise| 7.14.10 @ 1:19PM
Camel owners understand that without proper training the camel is wild and worthless, only after months of beatings a camel has earned the right to wear a saddle. Training a bride is more difficult, she is also wild and worthless and it takes years of harsh discipline before she is fit to be called a wife. A man can be judged by his camel and the obedience of his family, a man with an untrained family and a wild camel is an apostate, and should be stoned to death.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.14.10 @ 6:33PM
I certainly hope you are not advocating spouse abuse nor that we enroll in the Michael Vick School of Animal Husbandry. Also, it was not necessary for me to train my Boss. She trained me.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Stats won't get you in the playoffs. Winning will get you in the playoffs.” -
MICHAEL VICK, Palm Beach Post, Nov. 6, 2005
Only 921 days to go.
Gerald Stephens| 7.14.10 @ 2:07PM
For the moment we are ensnared in Obama's game. It is pitiful to watch American military personnel being killed as nothing more than a move in the game. Cast your minds eye to the endless grief occasioned with each loss.
Regaining control of congress will foil his game but to what end? America is THE battleground. If our leadership at every level of government is incapable of or unwilling to steel the people for a full defense of the Republic internally and by crushing external ideological and theocratic scum, the nation will continue to be consumed by 'game players'
John Guardiano| 7.14.10 @ 2:33PM
Old Soldier,
I explain @NewsReal Blog what it means to win in Afghanistan:
http://bit.ly/bD1n2k
Regards,
John
ncatty| 7.14.10 @ 3:19PM
Folks, please review the 4th paragraph from the end in the article. Mr. Babbin advocates "whatever is necessary...to destroy Iran's ability to build and deploy nuclear weapons." That is a big deal. Are we really up for it?
Puprle Lips| 7.14.10 @ 4:55PM
Of course we are up to. But our political class certainly is not.
Christopher Holland| 7.14.10 @ 9:26PM
You only need to ask one question: where do you prefer to see a mushroom cloud - over Manhattan or over Tehran? After that this is not such a big deal at all.
Thom| 7.14.10 @ 5:36PM
By their nature, defensive military operations are both manpower and time intensive. Before we handed over “victory” to “defeat” in Vietnam we had over whelming superiority of forces there with just our forces alone over both the Cong and the NVA. What went wrong? We didn’t kill enough of the enemy fast enough to break their will to fight. Throughout the 12 years there we drew lines on maps that provided both the Cong and NVA sanctuary from our efforts. For the entire ground war in Vietnam the enemy maintained the ability to pick the time and place of their efforts and thus control their losses. Sound familiar?
To win in Afghanistan in military terms would require ground forces we don’t have, ROE we won’t use and time no wants to spend. And lots of money to support our high tech forces over 8000 miles away in one of the most remote areas of the world. Bush understood this from the get go, clearly as he maintained no more than 20,000 US personnel there for most of his time as CNC. Most were logistics, not combat forces.
To win in Afghanistan King Obama would have to revisit the ghost of LBJ and find out what half assed efforts accomplishes over a decade amount of time. At best we will keep the current or future government of Afghanistan afloat (currently providing them 3 times their own GDP in aid) or simply declare “victory” like we did in Vietnam and watch the place fall apart from a distance. King Obama is the living personification of Forrest Gump where as understanding any aspect of military matters is concerned. It is all academic to him and thus way above his pay grade to grasp that the “right war” is the one you spare no expense in winning. The troops have already started coming home by the usual means when a dunce plays army with live troops.
Yosemeti Sam| 7.15.10 @ 2:33AM
Whatever happened to the Conan Barbarian philosophy of victory?
" To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women"
Um, the Taliban/Al Whatever - they do have comfort women, right ?
Or do they bugger themselves in times of abstinence?
LOL.