-
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
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
-
Why Has No One Taken Credit?
April 22, 2013 | 189 comments
Loose Canons
Obama Is Losing in Afghanistan
When will Republicans finally call him on is failed strategy?
(Page 2 of 2)
Nation-building placed us on the strategic defensive. Iran, Syria — and our faux ally Saudi Arabia — are the sources of funding, arms, and jihadis who plan and mount terrorist attacks against us. Terrorists cannot be the existential threat they now are without the support of the nations that sponsor them.
For over nine years we have been fighting the terrorists instead of forcing the terror-sponsoring nations to cease their support for terrorism. In those years, we have sacrificed thousands of young American lives, spent hundreds of billions of dollars in combat and fruitless nation-building actions, and have done nothing to stop the sponsorship of terrorism. Bush refused to fight the ideological war despite the advice he received from Tony Blair and Donald Rumsfeld. Obama has compounded that mistake by preemptively surrendering the ideological war. He has gone so far as to ban the terms “jihad” and “Islam” from his National Security Strategy doctrine.
For too long, Obama has controlled the political narrative, limiting it to domestic issues. We hear no debate on the war, just political statements from both sides on issues ranging from Obamacare to the Tucson shootings. Republicans cannot allow Obama to keep the war off the air and on the back pages of the newspapers.
For one simple reason, there must be a debate — of sufficient intensity to flush Obama out of his domestic issues cover — to correct our course in this war. The reason is that we are losing the war.
This war is different from Vietnam in the most important respect. Vietnam wasn’t an existential war, and this one is. We lost in Vietnam but that loss cost us none of our freedoms at home. The war that the terror-sponsors are waging against us is existential: if we lose this war, we lose America and all the freedoms our Constitution preserves.
With apologies to Rudyard Kipling,
If you’re dazed and confused by Afghanistan’s banes
and the thought of withdrawal is all that remains
then quit nation-building and rethink your aims
and fight the real enemy, bolder.
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 (64) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/17/obama-is-losing-in-afghanistan
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
Mike M| 1.17.11 @ 7:53AM
You wanted him, You got him - Barack Obama, architect of disaster.
Alan Brooks| 1.17.11 @ 5:59PM
Babbin is unusually candid for an AS author:
he knows blaming Obama for Bush's war is comparable to blaming Nixon for LBJ's war.
Tomas| 1.18.11 @ 2:19PM
Right, Alan. My thoughts exactly.
Regardless of Obama's ineptitude, if any Republican tried to pin Afghan failures on him the Left will just say, "Well, you started this. And look how well YOU did."
Lose-Lose.
-
Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 6:25PM
As you blamed Clinton.
Old Soldier| 1.17.11 @ 8:09AM
Western politicians just don’t understand the difference between a raid and a war of conquest.
Afghanistan should have been a large raid. We started out right. Special Forces working with natives, Rangers, and air strikes chased the Taliban out of power and sent them running for the hills. Right then and there we were done and should have left.
If the Taliban or Al Qaeda came back, we could have raided the place again – that’s why we spend tax dollars on bombers and maintain Airborne and Air Assault divisions.
Instead we embarked on a crazy nation building exercise that will never, ever work. We spend lives and treasure to prop up the openly corrupt and two-faced Hamid Karzai. Why?
Wayne | 1.17.11 @ 12:13PM
We had McCain and others insisting on "boots on the ground" - huge mistake.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 8:41AM
Mr. Babbin's article showcases a misconception of the world situation encapsualted in the phrase "War on Terrorism." While the symbolic uses to which this expression has been put make it difficult to think about rigorously, one must nevertheless make the attempt, which Mr. Babbin evidently fails to do.
Using von Clausewitz's oft-cited definition, let us consider that war is "an act of force to compel our enemy to fulfill our [political] will." Unfortunately, terrorism is a concept, not an entity, and cannot be compelled to do anything. Particular terrorist groups and individuals can perhaps be compelled; failing that, they can be destroyed. Those who support them, whether states or individuals, can also be compelled or induced to withdraw this support, as in the case of Libya, or destroyed, as in the case of Ba'athi Iraq and the de facto Taliban state in Afghanistan.
It is this destruction of terrorist-supporting states that creates the problems with which Mr. Babbin unsuccessfully wrestles in his article. Let us consider states as entities that effectively exercise a monopoly of overt force within a particular jurisdiction. It is not sufficient for us that states refrain from actively supporting or "sponsoring" terrorism. They must rather take action to suppress terrorists and to deny them the ability to train for and prepare their actions. This requires a far greater degree of will. Even more importantly, it requires a great degree of capacity; there are many entities considered "states" which are either non-functional or partially functional, in that they do not exercise and effective monopoly of force within their recognized jurisdictions -- put simply, they cannot enforce their institutional will within their own territory. Consider Somalia, Colombia, Yemen, Pakistan, Colombia, and so on, to focus on the most directly relevant. Destruction of the Somali state would be very nearly irrelevant, while destruction of the Colombian state would be positively counterproductive, not to mention entirely immoral.
More to the point, consider post-Ba'ath Iraq and post-Taliban Afghanistan. The United States could govern their former territories itself for an indefinite period, thereby imposing its own monopoly over the overt use of force in their former jurisdictions. We did this in both places, initially, though arguably not clear-mindedly or very well. To do this effectively over the longer term would require a commitment of manpower, money, and will much greater than anything of which the United States has seemed capable for the last twenty years. Instead, we have chosen to establish functioning Iraqi and Afghan states, with the intention that these will fulfill our political will in regards to terrorists throughout their territories. As Mr. Babbin points out, this has not gone uniformly well. One might argue that we have attempted to carry it out so quickly that there is no realistic hope of long-term success, especially in Afghanistan, given that land's history and current situation.
In this case, then, one should argue for longer-term, larger-scale US presence, or direct American government of Iraqi and Afghan territory. Only this would prevent the creation of "terrorist havens" in these non-functioning states. To advocate withdrawal in order to avoid "nation building" is to put one's head in the sand. Similarly, what would Mr. Babbin have us do in regard to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Morocco, Algeria, etc? Some of these states do actively support terrorist groups which are directly hostile to us, and have proven that they will not cease this support in response to mere threats. Do we destroy these states? Even if we had ample means, after the destruction, what then? What about the states which are not actively supporting terrorists, but are simply incapable of suppressing them effectively? Should we destroy them and govern their territories directly? Should we provide aid to make them more effective? How is this different from "nation-building," except in degree? More to the point, what if the aid fails to make them sufficiently effective?
These are the important strategic questions, and they go straight to the heart of America's real will and actual capacity to solve this problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Babbin seems to lack the perspicacity to perceive them, much less to address them.
"Old Soldier," above, does better than Mr. Babbin, offering the only credible counter-policy. However, I doubt that the US could execute it effectively. Would we carry out those raids with the force and violence required to destroy and deter to a sufficent degree? Would we be willing to initiate such raids preemptively, or could we muster the will to do so only after having been struck? Based on "Old Soldier's" policy, we should already be launching simultaneous, large-scale strategic raids into the Phillipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. We do not have the resources to do so. Do we have the will to acquire them, and, once acquired, to use them?
Old Soldier| 1.17.11 @ 12:54PM
Sure we have the resources. Despite the Sec. Def's best efforts, the USMC is a lethal force of raiders (they used to have a dedicated Raider Regiment).
Our 75th Ranger Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division and 173rd Airborne Brigade are also built for those kinds of missions. The 101st Air Assault can go in slower but heavier. Of course the USAF and our Naval Aviators are capable of inflicting painful lessons without any ground troops.
Israel recently busted up the Syrian nuclear project, like the earlier Iraqi one, then went home.
Political will is a different question and out of my bailiwick. We certainly had the will when it came to Afghanistan – just not the brains or historical wisdom to properly define the mission. You have to be in a pretty bad place diplomatically to send me in to kill people and break things.
We seem to get a guilty feeling after busting things up. We start writing checks for the damage, fixing things and babysitting people without recognizing that the issue hasn’t been resolved. The Middle Eastern psyche has no soft-spot for such sentimentality.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 3:21PM
Speaking as a fellow active-duty soldier, I'll say that any real resolution of the question of the sufficiency of our forces could be decided only in relation to specific operational plans for the repeated and overwhelming strategic raids that you propose. Given the last two decades of my own experience, I'd say that we'd be hard-pressed to execute and maintain them simultaneously with our existing assets. But let's agree that we could execute them serially, or overcome that difficulty by some other means. Does this accomplish our objective? Maybe we'd destroy some terrorist groups, and terrify all hostile states to the point that they refrain from providing any further support to other terrorists -- a very unlikely outcome, to be sure, though a desirable one. Even if that occurred, though, there would continue to be large areas over which the "ruling" states failed to exercise meaningful control.
In the same vein, let's say that we'd withdrawn from Afghanistan in the fall of 2002. What would the situation be there now? Similiarly with Iraq; had we withdrawn in the winter of 2003, what would have happened? In such hypothetical situations, whichever government we had installed would most likely have either (a) quickly fallen or (b) been ineffective in controlling its territory. That's the real problem. With either outcome, terrorists can find some degree of sanctuary in a place like that. Do we then leave anyway, only to return after the next major attack? If so, what's the point of leaving, or, alternately, of going in the first place?
I don't think that strategic raids are always a bad policy -- see the Somali city of Eyl for details on that -- but, like any raid, they are appropriate in a particular set of circumstances, for a particular type of objective. And one must be willing to carry them out. I assert that it's unrealistic to think that America as it exists today will muster the sustained political will to execute a policy of repeated, preemptive strategic raids. After the outrage of September 11th, whatever resolve the public manifested was exhausted three years later. If we then accept a policy of repeated strategic raids executed punitively, to find and kill those responsible for the latest attacks, we must recognize that this involves ceding the initiative to those plotting these attacks. If we do that, we are essentially hoping that they continue to focus on the kinds of impractically spectacular attacks that we have so far been lucky in detecting and preventing.
Ron Adolph| 1.18.11 @ 11:22PM
Paul,
What an interesting and spot response, but pulled up short. While old soldier may be correct that we have the means, we do not, as a nation have the political will. The parallels to Viet Nam are myriad. There can be no good end to this; the American people are war weary and, as I have seen this before upon my return from Viet Nam, the American people want us done with this and most other "brushfire" wars.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 8:41AM
Mr. Babbin's article showcases a misconception of the world situation encapsualted in the phrase "War on Terrorism." While the symbolic uses to which this expression has been put make it difficult to think about rigorously, one must nevertheless make the attempt, which Mr. Babbin evidently fails to do.
Using von Clausewitz's oft-cited definition, let us consider that war is "an act of force to compel our enemy to fulfill our [political] will." Unfortunately, terrorism is a concept, not an entity, and cannot be compelled to do anything. Particular terrorist groups and individuals can perhaps be compelled; failing that, they can be destroyed. Those who support them, whether states or individuals, can also be compelled or induced to withdraw this support, as in the case of Libya, or destroyed, as in the case of Ba'athi Iraq and the de facto Taliban state in Afghanistan.
It is this destruction of terrorist-supporting states that creates the problems with which Mr. Babbin unsuccessfully wrestles in his article. Let us consider states as entities that effectively exercise a monopoly of overt force within a particular jurisdiction. It is not sufficient for us that states refrain from actively supporting or "sponsoring" terrorism. They must rather take action to suppress terrorists and to deny them the ability to train for and prepare their actions. This requires a far greater degree of will. Even more importantly, it requires a great degree of capacity; there are many entities considered "states" which are either non-functional or partially functional, in that they do not exercise and effective monopoly of force within their recognized jurisdictions -- put simply, they cannot enforce their institutional will within their own territory. Consider Somalia, Colombia, Yemen, Pakistan, Colombia, and so on, to focus on the most directly relevant. Destruction of the Somali state would be very nearly irrelevant, while destruction of the Colombian state would be positively counterproductive, not to mention entirely immoral.
More to the point, consider post-Ba'ath Iraq and post-Taliban Afghanistan. The United States could govern their former territories itself for an indefinite period, thereby imposing its own monopoly over the overt use of force in their former jurisdictions. We did this in both places, initially, though arguably not clear-mindedly or very well. To do this effectively over the longer term would require a commitment of manpower, money, and will much greater than anything of which the United States has seemed capable for the last twenty years. Instead, we have chosen to establish functioning Iraqi and Afghan states, with the intention that these will fulfill our political will in regards to terrorists throughout their territories. As Mr. Babbin points out, this has not gone uniformly well. One might argue that we have attempted to carry it out so quickly that there is no realistic hope of long-term success, especially in Afghanistan, given that land's history and current situation.
In this case, then, one should argue for longer-term, larger-scale US presence, or direct American government of Iraqi and Afghan territory. Only this would prevent the creation of "terrorist havens" in these non-functioning states. To advocate withdrawal in order to avoid "nation building" is to put one's head in the sand. Similarly, what would Mr. Babbin have us do in regard to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Morocco, Algeria, etc? Some of these states do actively support terrorist groups which are directly hostile to us, and have proven that they will not cease this support in response to mere threats. Do we destroy these states? Even if we had ample means, after the destruction, what then? What about the states which are not actively supporting terrorists, but are simply incapable of suppressing them effectively? Should we destroy them and govern their territories directly? Should we provide aid to make them more effective? How is this different from "nation-building," except in degree? More to the point, what if the aid fails to make them sufficiently effective?
These are the important strategic questions, and they go straight to the heart of America's real will and actual capacity to solve this problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Babbin seems to lack the perspicacity to perceive them, much less to address them.
"Old Soldier," above, does better than Mr. Babbin, offering the only credible counter-policy. However, I doubt that the US could execute it effectively. Would we carry out those raids with the force and violence required to destroy and deter to a sufficent degree? Would we be willing to initiate such raids preemptively, or could we muster the will to do so only after having been struck? Based on "Old Soldier's" policy, we should already be launching simultaneous, large-scale strategic raids into the Phillipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. We do not have the resources to do so. Do we have the will to acquire them, and, once acquired, to use them?
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.17.11 @ 9:06AM
Hussein is LOSING in Afghanistan? Is it because he doesn't allow our troops to actually KILL THE ENEMY, unless they are at least a hundred feet from the nearest civilian? Is it because our Troops aren't allowed to call in Artillery Strikes or Air Strikes, until everyone has left the Target Area? Is it because we don't use the AIR FORCE anymore?
I miss REAL WAR. I miss B52's and their CARPET BOMBING. I miss NAPALM and CLUSTER BOMBS.
Instead, all we get are these CLUSTER F***S in the White House. Re-Creating their Blueprint for every War. VIETNAM.
They claim to Honour our Fathers, and Grandfathers. They call them: The Greatest Generation. But, by their INACTIONS on the BATTLEFIELD, they MOCK their their Greatness.
Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Greatest Generation did what had to be done, for VICTORY over our enemies.
Civilian Casualties? Our Enemy specifically TARGETS Civilian's. That's their PLAN.
Kill WOMEN. Kill CHILDREN. Kill FAMILIES.
"They were at War with us, but we weren't at War with them." 911 Commission's findings.
There should NEVER be another Democrat Commander In Chief. They're Soft On Crime. Weak On Defence. And they never saw a Defence Budget or a Weapons System, that they didn't want to cut. They are simply, INCAPABLE of defending this nation.
I say: Turn loose the Dogs Of War.
And let the Democrats be in charge of their new Openly Gay recruits.
It's a perfect fit.
Old Soldier| 1.17.11 @ 12:55PM
You mean like the Soviets did?
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 9:14AM
It kills me that people like Bill Kristol are such vigorous defenders of this war, which has long since been an obvious debacle (has history taught these people nothing?). Republicans' knee-jerk impulse to advocate war is just as bad as Democrats' knee-jerk impulse to surrender preemptively.
We don't fight wars to win anymore; well, I guess it's ok to win - just as long as we don't upset our enemies TOO terribly much.
Babbin's right that Viet Nam was not an existential war, and therefore we had the luxury of losing it.
While the fight against Islamists is indeed existential, there is not a single politician who believes that enough to stand by their convictions. For them, the whole war on "terror" is an esoteric abstraction, little more than a thought experiment and, in any case, far less satisfying than looting what's left of the national treasury.
Better to have the TSA grope innocent travelers and call it a day.
Meanwhile, good Republicans stand by and support this execrable president for incompetently pursuing a hapless policy, and Democrat propaganda organs like the NY Times, which treated every casualty in Iraq as if it were a genocide perpetrated personally by Bush, is more or less silent on Afghanistan - which, for even the casual observer, it ought to be obvious that we're losing.
The question isn't whether we're going to fall as a nation - it's already begun. The question is whether we'll rot entirely from the inside via debasement of the dollar and cultural decadence, or whether jihadists will deliver the coup de grace and walk right in the front door to claim America as another conquest in its drive to build a global caliphate - even as our liberal elites smile beatifically, pleased beyond words at the extent of their own tolerance.
Oh, but wait: Never mind. We're not doomed to lose to Islamists! The Pentagon's "Diversity Commission" has just announced that it is "discrimination" for women to be denied combat roles.
I'm SOOOO glad the Pentagon has its priorities in order.
Why, once the Jihadists hear this, I'm sure they'll learn their lesson. "Gee, America's really serious about social justice; their Pentagon has just issued a devastating blow to "bigotry!" Better leave them alone," they'll say to each other.
I'm all for women in the military - in fact, I think we should create entire divisions populated exclusively by women and throw them at the enemy in Afghanistan - after all, as our culture never tires of telling us, women are superior to men, and, since men have fought most of the wars up until recently, I think it's high time we let women make up for the lost time.
Have at it ladies, and pass the bon bons.
I have one recommendation: Those who complain the loudest about our racist, sexist, bigoted, homophic, right-wing, Chauvinistic society should be in the infantry.
I think we should start by conscripting Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama, Maureen Dowd, Jeanine Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, and the women from The View.
It's over, folks; when the Pentagon is busying itself remaking the army for the purposes of appeasing political correctness - and not even pretending that its real mission is to kill people and break things - it's only a matter of time before our official counter-insurgency strategy will be to greet the marauding hordes with flowers to put in their gun barrels and complementary copies of Maureen Dowd's "Are Men Really Necessary?".
Won't we be surprised when that's the last image we see. Because, the truth is, in the 21st century, America itself is no longer necessary.
PineKnot| 1.17.11 @ 9:35AM
Bravo, Mr. Babbin, for writing the truth about the war in Afghanistan!
The whole country is not worth the blood of an American fighting man(to paraphrase Bismarck), and we should take our leave, with a promise to rain death and destruction down if the country welcomes Al Quaida back in. We should also burn the poppy fields as we leave. .
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 9:35AM
In Vietnam, we faced a national-socialist state which used insurgency and overt conquest to subvert and destroy an authoritarian Western client state. Without getting into the internecine, and nearly meaningless, Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyite-Stalinist-Maoist distinctions, let it suffice to say that this enemy was motivated by an internally consistent ideology (as well as nationalism) and openly supported by the great powers which promoted it. These great powers controlled the majority of the world's population, as well as military forces potentially capable of the opposed conquest of Korea, Japan, and Western Europe; they were also ready for the complete destruction of the United States, Western Europe, and Japan and the near-extermination of their populations. They did not merely wish for these things; they had in hand the means to accomplish them. The war in Vietnam was viewed as a symbolic contest between these hostile great powers and the West and Japan.
If this conflict was not "existential," in what sense can the current conflict with various Salafist terrorist groups be said to be so? In one sense only: the majority of Americans believed, without a doubt, that even if Vietnam were lost, even if Japan and Europe surrendered to Soviet domination, the whole of American society would retain -- indefinitely -- the will to resist our own conquest by the Soviets, and would fight this fate until destroyed. In the current conflict, the analogous belief is absent, or at least not universal.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 9:51AM
Excellent comments, Paul.
I would just say that we did lose Viet Nam and we did continue to exist; therefore, technically, it was not existential.
Perception is all and, forgive me if my history isn't great, but after Tet - and Walter Cronkite's pronouncment - a critical mass of Americans tilted toward the "what the hell are we fighting for thousands of miles away?" school.
By that point, the media-pop-culture complex had done its damage and proclaimed that, thenceforward, America was the cause of all of the world's misery, and that all wars in which America was a combatant were, ipso facto, unnecessary and fueled by a greedy oligarchy.
And we have been dragging that millstone around ever since as part of our self-flogging attempts to atone for the sin of being a prosperous hegemon.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 10:08AM
Grzmlyk, thank you for the complement. I agree that, as you point out, Vietnam was clearly not an existential conflict. I argue that if this was true of Vietnam -- in the plain meaning of the phrase -- then it is also true of the "War on Terrorism," in the plain meaning of the phrase.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 10:31AM
Hi Paul:
I certainly agree that the "war on terrorism" is not perceived as existential - and in fact, as many have pointed out, it is simply impossible to wage - much less win - a war against a tactic. So it's no surprise that America's interest in this conflict has become flaccid.
Besides, as promulgated by the mainstream media - and politicians eager not to "offend" (and this includes George Bush) - Islam itself is a swell religion we ought to welcome. By this false thinking, the trouble is caused by a FEW bad Islamic apples - those jihadists who become radicalized by poverty and destitution brought about by the U.S. This ignores the fact that most of the Jihad's leaders, from Bin Laden on down (and including most of the hijackers of 09/11) are educated, and in fact many of them received their educations in America.
In any case, the clash between Islam and the West is existential, and we will simply refuse to acknowledge this until it is too late.
I guess it's good that China is now the world's lone superpower - they can fight it out with the Caliphate, and then we can become a vassal state of whomever prevails.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 10:54AM
While I suspect that your comments were offered with tongue in cheek, I will say that I do not foresee the same outcome. If the West is decadent, in the sense that it has exhausted the internal resources fueling the development of its civilization, then this is certainly no less true of Islam, particularly among the Arabs. In fact, I would argue that it is more true. The analogy that I would use, as you do below, is the Western Roman Empire, which decayed internally and was seized by barbarians who immigrated -- albeit by force of arms -- seeking to inhabit it, not realizing that by thus changing its nature, they were destroying that which they sought to join. Western Rome was not conquered by another civilization; it eroded away. Its embers were eventually used to light another fire, called Christendom. This eventually smashed itself apart, and the pieces were used to build the West, which conquered the whole world before committing suicide -- starting in the Great War -- and gradually eroding in turn.
So there's some metahistorical assertions, plus some seriously mixed metaphors, for your consideration.
China is a different case, but theirs was an exhausted civilization revitalized by contact with the West. Whether they will synthesize it into something new and developing, or merely rhyme with our last 150 years before reaching the same end, remains to be seen. Same thing, in a different way, for India.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 11:17AM
Good points again; I agree with you assessment of the sweep of history.
But I would say that Islam's attempt to become a hegemon don't have to be a sign of strength; indeed, it is proof of its inherent weakness and long-term unviablity.
But just as a cornered rat will fight most viciously, Islam is lashing out, trying to blame its problems on the West and promulgating the falsehood that, if only they control the globe, they will regain the glory that has long been denied them by the West.
And of course there's nothing rational about the zealotry of a true believer.
And just as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, hatred of the West, or a desire for subjugation of it, will serve to unite Islam in spite of its disparate and ultimately incompatible internal inconsistencies. And there are one hell of a lot of Muslims in the world to be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of Allah.
Saudi Arabia may be just as decadent as the West, but it is out of that decadence that the radical fundamentalism of Wahhabism was born.
I believe we in the West have lost the will to fight off these toxic interlopers and it will be cold comfort indeed if we are eviscerated by a movement that itself is doomed.
And just as Christendom rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, I believe it is entirely possible that Islam, a religion with a built-in mission, may well fill the vacuum left by an exhausted and depleted West.
BackToBasics| 1.18.11 @ 2:55AM
I've wondered if a society that is less diverse ethnically will remain strong for longer periods such as in the case of China, India (although with a large Moslem minority) and Japan.
I am not an historical expert but except for the slaughter brought on by Mao Zedung's communistic "cultural revolution" I do not recall huge upheavals and huge slaughters in any of the 3 nations I mentioned. Perhaps China's prosperity will last longer than the west's did. Japan is fading mostly due to lack of births and too small an area and India still has a much larger Moslem problem than China and it still has Caste problems. But still they are long-lasting cultures and may yet outlive Western Europe and America's time at the top.
And regarding America, I think we took a turn for the worse when our leaders reacted to the race riots of the 60's by essentially buying peace with blacks through the establishment of the welfare state. It also was the beginning of the politically correct dialogue that has warped our ability correctly analyze the problems our country is facing culturally. The white leadership responded in fear to the racial riots and we have not gotten over this fear yet. There's still a racail divide that is further compounded by illegal immigration. I fear this divide has yet to run its full course in a negative sense. When it does I think it has the potential to tear America apart in ways that would not so easily occur at least in Chian and Japan.
So I contrast America in this example with the more less ethnically diverse Chinese, Japanese and to a lesser extent, Indian societies. I think the eastern cultures have a good chance of outlasting the west because of their cultural homogeniety.
Tina B| 1.17.11 @ 9:44AM
I am so there with you Grzmlyk. Right up until that last part. Then I get scared. Then I remind myself, I have read the last chapter of The Book, and the good guys win. Maranatha.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 10:00AM
Thank you, Tina.
I hope you are right, but I'm not so sanguine; every state in history has collapsed, and I'm reminded very much of Rome's last days - the days of unqualified, incompetent emperors, porous borders, over-extended commitments, decadence, "bread and circuses" and a degraded army.
I am also reminded of the comments generally attributed to Alexander Tytler in the 18th century (though their true provenance remains a mystery). Here's the quote:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
IMHO, we are at the "dependence" stage.
I hope I'm wrong, but so far, I'm not impressed with the 112th congress.
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 10:12AM
Tina, as Grzmlyk implies, Christian eschatological hope is not incompatible with the decadence of the United States or of the West more generally, or with predictions of the eventual collapse or destruction of the same. More than one of the civilizational contexts in which Christianity was born and nutured has since passed away.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 10:41AM
Thanks, Paul:
Yes, the Old Testament is full of God smiting those societies that have turned their backs on him and wallowed in their own filth.
I'm not expert on the Bible, but I believe neither Sodom nor Gomorah has anything on us.
So while I respect Tina's point, I'm not in any hurry to immanentize the eschaton. Because a lot of very bad things will happen before the plug is pulled.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.17.11 @ 10:48AM
Grz,
Paul,
Tina,
In my very best estimation, the USA has THREE essential "alternative futures".
www.texassaidno.com is part one of the larger story encapsulated in the forthcoming novel, "America Alone Said NO!"
The story is not intended to be a "prophecy", but rather ONE of those alternative futures.
Sometimes.....in my darker moments...I sense a different "future". Then I bounce back and see an "event" that changes everything...thus waking up the rest of America.
As one of our posters signs off: "Stand tall 'till freedom dawns."
Bob| 1.17.11 @ 11:38AM
What a stupid question. The GOP has no cards left to play in Iraq and Afghanistan. A GOP President named W. Bush sent the troops in but did not pull them out leaving Obama and the rest of us holding the bag. The so-called surge of 2007 was a farce and now the real surge has taken shape in Tunisia, Muslims of the world UNITE!
Wayne | 1.17.11 @ 12:08PM
Obama has embraced holding that bag.
W| 1.17.11 @ 12:02PM
Declare victory and withdraw immediately. use our resources
Declare victory and withdraw immediately. Do not sacrifice one more American for the reputations of the politicians of both parties. Deploy enough troops on the Mexican border to secure it.
Wayne | 1.17.11 @ 12:05PM
I am expecting this to become an issue in the GOP primary debates. We will see candidates critical of Afghanistan get some traction. Don't forget the Tea Party is not vested in that war which never ends. In the 2008 campaign only Ron Paul came out against it, and the other candidates jumped all over him. Now we will see others come forth (such as a Trump) and some others luke warm. I think the American People are simply trying to figure out what the heck is the goal. Are we really that fond of creating Viet Nams?
These wars are the main reason I don't support Palin. I am looking for a conservative ready to shed the Bush legacy.
Howard Lohmuller| 1.17.11 @ 12:45PM
Regardless of the strategy employed in Afghanistan, there is a growing war weariness in the U.S. and strong suspicion that Obama and the Democrats will sell out our military in the end. Just as happened in Viet Nam in 1973 when we took a complete surrender from the Communists in the North, A Democrat Congress refused then to resupply South Viet Nam as set down in the Paris Peace Treaty. The South surrendered 3 years later. We turned a complete victory into total defeat.
We should not ask our troops to endure this possibility again. That does not mean we should walk out on Afghanistan, Rather we should leave a cadre of 5 to 10 thousand advisers to train the Afghan Army and police and conduct reconnaisnance and intelligence operations with back up from drones, missiles and aircraft.
In tandem with this offensive posture, we should disallow flights and shipments from countries unfriendly to us to the same degree as was done in WWII.
The war in Pakistan should continue with drones, missiles and special forces.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 1:06PM
Howard, I respect your perspective.
But I do not think Afghanistan will ever be able to support a non-corrupt military or anything approaching a cohesive police force.
Isn't Afghanistan - whose agrarian-bound, medieval economy is conducive only to the heroin trade - an amalgamation of disparate, isolated rural tribal entities that have never been more than pawns in various warlords' power games from time immemorial?
I know Afghanistan is putatively the respository a great supply of natural resources, such as lithium; but without a stable socioeconomic substructure, they'll never advance to the 21st century to the point where they can exploit those resources.
I fear that there is simply no way to get from here to there with Afghanistan, which is why I think we are trying to build a nation on a foundation of sand.
I think that's the crux of the problem - there's no "there" there.
Who Knows?| 1.17.11 @ 1:25PM
Grzmlyk----
The USA did NOT lose the war in Vietnam, fool.
You need to study some true history, and wake up.
When America left that country, the war was in a stalemate.
After Watergate, when the Dems cut off aid to the South, they were unable to keep an invading North from winning.
So, the defeatist Democrats "lost" that war, if we can get to the real cause.
I think the South could have held on, if we'd have supplied them, and the situation would have resembled what's happened in Korea.
Also, hindsight is 20-20, so in 2011 some can say, with a straight face, that the Vietnamese War was not existential. Wrong!
That “war” was just taking place in the then-current land where the struggle to the death between the evil empire in the USSR and America was being fought. Everybody recognized that it was just the next “domino” that had to be kept from falling, because there is no doubt that the commies wanted to knock over Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines, etc, and march on to take over the whole world.
Ironically, because America stood and fought and paid dearly in blood and treasure for so many years in Vietnam, when the commies took over and did their nasty “cleansing” deeds, and Cambodia descended into madness, still-free peoples in that area of the world woke up, and made sure they weren’t the next domino.
Essentially, then, because the USA fought the commies to a tie, holding the line so to speak, for a while, even though the South was overrun, we WON the war on a global scale, despite abominations such as what’s been perpetrated by the criminals in Burma.
As far as what Jed Babbin has to write about Afghanistan, I’m with him AND Michael Ledeen, about going after the STATE sponsors of this existential war, using terrorism as a tactic. We should be doing much more to assist the people in Iran, first off.
However, I think if America can just “stay the course”, and not “wobble”, by remaining in Afghanistan for longer and longer time, before too long the enemies will be so strung out, and the West’s overpowering advantage in technology will force a better situation to come about.
Also, I’m nowhere as pessimistic about Iraq as Babbin. If open elections can continue to take place, my bet is that whatever bumps along the political road they have, that a friendly Iraq will emerge, which would be a 180-degree change for the better.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 1:42PM
Hey, A-hole -
Why do you barge into a civil discussion throwing feces around? Think that makes you intelligent?
I know my history. Like it or not, the war was lost, and America was on the losing side. Or am I imagining what happened subsequent to 1973?
I'm fully aware of what happened, moron. As for the rest of your post, I didn't bother to read it.
Wayne | 1.17.11 @ 2:55PM
And that war was lost by LBJ. It consumed him, because he knew it was a helpless cause and he had no way out.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 3:22PM
Absolutely, Wayne.
I actually think that, after we prevailed in the Tet Offensive, we might have pulled out a victory; but the political costs - not to mention the continued costs in blood and treasure - were estimated to be too high.
Once Conkite declared it was a lost cause, it became a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The money quote, from Cronkite's February 27, 1968 broadcast, is this:
". . . it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."
As quoted in an article in American Thinker (July 18, 2009) by Lee Cary (a Viet Nam vet, by the way): "When President Johnson heard of Cronkite’s comments, he was quoted as saying, “That’s it. If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
Cary goes on to say this:
"The Vietnam War did not end in a stalemate, particularly for those S. Vietnamese who, at risk and often loss of life, loyally supported the U.S. Armed Forces (not all did, but very many did). We left them in a lurch, cut off their military aid, and watched while they suffered the consequences when the North Vietnamese blatantly ignored the negotiated resolution (they never intended to honor) that Cronkite advocated."
". . . A compelling case can be made that we should never have sent troops to Vietnam in the first place. But we did. And then, after nearly 60,000 U.S. deaths and countless Vietnamese casualties, we bugged out. There’s no way to put an honorable face on that unavoidable truth."
Now Maybe "Who Knows" above wants badly to believe that we COULD have won. Well, I don't dispute that. Maye "Who Knows" thinks we SHOULD have won. I'm with him there. Maybe "Who Knows" wants to believe that what the Democrats did to gut our funding of the war does not reflect on all of America.
But it does.
Facts are facts. A losing football team may complain that they could easily have won had they been coached better. That may be true, but all that matters is the score at the end of the game.
And the score at the end of Viet Nam is that "Saigon" got renamed "Ho Chi Minh City." That should be a clue to "Who Knows" as to who won that war.
Michael| 1.17.11 @ 2:04PM
"We seem to get a guilty feeling after busting things up. We start writing checks for the damage, fixing things and babysitting people without recognizing that the issue hasn’t been resolved. The Middle Eastern psyche has no soft-spot for such sentimentality."
Agree with Old Soldier. While I appreciate the nuanced existentialism debate, our choices in Afghanistan as elsewhere always seems to boil down to deciding if we follow the Powell doctrine or not. If we break it, do we own it? I don't think so. If War is hell then "Nation-building" makes hell look nearly appealing.
Intelligent Design| 1.17.11 @ 4:34PM
The U.S. should withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Continue to bomb terrorist camps wherever found in the world. Station about 25,000 U.S. soldiers along the border with Mexico. Bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and military installations. Stop giving $100's of millions to the so-called "Palestinians", and give Israel more military assistance. Be ready to put U.S. troops in Pakistan if necessary to prevent terrorists there from gaining access to nuclear weapons. Ban all Muslim immigration into the U.S., and identify Islam for what it is: subversive to our Constitution. Build 100 nuclear power plants with a sense of urgency on a par with the manufacture of weapons during WW II.
Dan| 1.17.11 @ 4:38PM
The United States is losing in Afghanistan and Pakistan because , both Democrats and Republicans, are satisfied to send our troops over to be killed because of the wrong strategy. For some reason we insist on nation building in the mid east and this included Iraq. We should pull our troops out of Afghanistan and Pakistan , but not before our airforce defoliates their poppy farms. Then we should have our B52's , which are sitting out the war , bomb into extinction the the northwest part of Pakistan and all those areas in Afghanistan that support our enemies. Next say we won. Pakistan, dispite having atomic weapons will do nothing and we will be no more hated than we already are. In fact we might even be repected for being strong.Our leaders are gutless and as long as their sons and daughters don't have to be in harms way they care little about our troops.
Grzmlyk| 1.17.11 @ 4:53PM
Are you advocating that we be mean to our enemies????
Hater! Hater!
No, according to the liberals' playbook, what we really ought to be doing is giving terrorists a great big hug to show them we mean them no harm.
And, if more Americans are killed on our own soil by Islamists, that just means we haven't apologized sufficiently for our existence.
A.C.Guard| 1.17.11 @ 4:45PM
Our returning troops could be used to guard our borders. .Not only to stop illegals from coming into the country, but also to stop mexican gangs and corrupt police from firing across the boarder at U.S. citizens. It won't happen our leaders, both Dem's and GOP rinos don't have the guts.
Mojo Risin| 1.17.11 @ 4:48PM
I've lived through a missile crisis, Berlin walls, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and never have I felt America is more threatened. Obonehead is not doing the job, he's incompetent and dangerous. Excuse the pun, but the guy is spooky!!!
OLDRAY| 1.17.11 @ 5:12PM
Mr Babbin's article is excellent. OLD SOLDIER has it exactly correct. As a VERY Old Soldier (1942 -43 Tunisia, 1943 -45 Italy.;a combat correspondent with IDF in Yom Kippur War; with South Lebanon forces in 1977-78, I have some experience on the subject.. Old Soldier sees the way forward, but I fear the administration ( and the politicos of both parties will not have the courage to admit a major change in policy and tactic is essential. Our soldiers and marines are terrific. We should not waste their yound lives to support corrupt regimes and unobtainable objectives.
Old Soldier| 1.17.11 @ 8:34PM
Wow - Thanks sir!
Paul| 1.17.11 @ 5:58PM
Oldray, I'll begin by thanking you for your service. None of America's wars in the last twenty years have seen blood and horror on the scale that you witnessed in Tunisia and Italy.
Still, I must ask: does not your own experience argue against large-scale strategic raids? Both Tunisia and Italy were conquered and ruled directly for substantial periods of time, and there are still American forces stationed at bases in Italy first seized by you and your comrades. Similarly, your experiences in Israel are not necessarily encouraging with regards to any of the broad courses of action that we've been discussing. The Israelis have tried devastating, preemptive, strategic and operational raids, but the Sinai War failed to preclude the Six-Day War, and the War of Attrition failed to deter the Yom Kippur War. In Ghazzah and the West Bank, Israel tried direct rule and pacification, with similarly unfelicitous results. In Lebanon, it tried installing and sponsoring non-hostile governments, particularly in the south; this eventually failed as well. If we consider the Second Lebanon War in 2006 as a type of large-scale raid against Hezboallah, this hardly recommends the practice. Nor will the Third Lebanon War, when it comes.
The question is, what do we do? Many of those posting above have implied or argued that we should withdraw our forces into our own territory and let the outside world fare as it may. This would require us to have a much higher threshhold for what we will tolerate abroad. The "international system" that emerges thereafter will conform far less closely to our preferences -- and for those of us who dislike that system, or claim to, we must remember that it is one that we ourselves imposed after victories the Second World War and the Cold War. Do we really believe that, in such a scenario, we will be left alone? Is that what history teaches us?
OLDRAY| 1.17.11 @ 6:51PM
Paul.Thank you for you thoughtful post. I still believe Old Soldier is right. Israel's strike at Iraq's nuclear site and more recently it's hit on Syria's nuclear facility proved worthwhile. Israel's support of the Leanese Christian Forces of Major Haddad (by the way ,those forces in South Lebanon were almost 50% Muslem) was correct by undermined by USA .The US saved the PLO in Lebanon, was responsible for the pro -Hizzborah United Nations force there. And Barak's paniked withdrawal from our solidly pro US forces of the SLA (deserted overnight) allowed Syria and Iraq tp build up the huge present threat on her Northern Border and the virtual end of an independent Lebanon. A real hard strike at Syria 's vitals would have put a stop to the build up of Hizbollah. Same in Gaza. The timid Israeli reacyion to the daily rocet attacks do nothing. Just take out a power station and see how quickly they cease the rockets. During my time in South Lebanon , I was in Bint Jebail with it's commaner Abu Emil and noted that in this flattened town, there was a fully operating gasoline station. I asked him how do you get the fuel trucks thru the PLO lines. He laughted, "their power station is within range or our tank guns and I have led them to understand that no gas trucks means Bye Bye Power stations. When UN (Nigerian soldiers) wolud not take responsibility for shooting one of his unarmed telephone linemen, he blew up their (UN) water tank and stuff at the main UN HQ and in moments his phone rang and the UN HQ made a prompt meeting and reparation. In the Middle East the "strong horse" gets things done. Bibi has not displayed enough backbone. The Israeli left is just as bad as our left. Same for their media. I note I said Iraq (above) ,I meant Iran..Iraq is another story . It is most likely to fall into the Iranian orbit with it's present leadership and with our weak Omaba leadership
Old Soldier| 1.17.11 @ 8:56PM
Back to objectives.
Eight years ago I thought we were in Afghanistan to kill /capture AQ and remove the Taliban who had sheltered them. Mission accomplished.
Unless I totally missed it (possible), we let the mission gradually scope creep into what it is now (propping up Kharzi, trying to secure every village in the country without hurting anyone).
It's the craziest mission ever. War is the Afghan national sport. The only thing more fun than killing each other is killing foriegners. Ask the Macedonians, Georgians, Brits, or the Russians.
C.K. Amos| 1.17.11 @ 9:47PM
When? I fear when it's too late. Further, I don't think the Republicans and conservatives have the stones to confront Obama on this.
BTW: I agree with what Old Soldier just posted. Thanks, OS.
Who Knows?| 1.18.11 @ 12:52PM
Grzmlyk---
The “team” the USA was backing, BADLY, due to the cut off of aid by the democratic jackasses in congress, definitely lost the war.
The SOUTH VIETNAMESE lost the war, a-hole!
It’s like Lou Holz, the famous old coach puts it, the PLAYERS win or lose the game.
By 1975, the Americans weren’t PLAYING = fighting in that war, so how could they lose?
Talk about a moron.
Bernie| 1.18.11 @ 3:35PM
I don't think we're in Afghanistan to construct a democratic society. I think we are there to cause the Iranian theocracy to collapse. If that's not the reason then I can't see why we should be there at all. Maybe Zbignew Brzezinski's idea to help Osama bin Laden kick out the Russians wasn't such a good idea after all.
Rocky| 1.18.11 @ 6:03PM
Iraq needs to be re-organized into a Constitutional Republic, and I would include an electoral college. That way a govenrment would have to be formed. Afghanistan needs to be something akin to a Feudal system. Let the local's elect a Lord, let the Lord's elect a President. throw in a House of commons for balance.
Alyce Bowers| 1.18.11 @ 8:23PM
Good Grief!! It is 2011 and not 1973 with helicopters leaving Saigon. Everyone has "won" in Vietnam. The country has been at peace for nearly 40 years. Vietnam is one of US's favorered trading partners. The people have universal health care, plenty of food, education and a thriving agriculture where there once were bombs falling and dixon poisoning the land.
Certainly we never should have gotten involved in their civil war. And we could have had the same result if Johnson had pulled out instead of Nixon killing another 25,000 soldiers and who know how many Vietnamese.
But lets all give thanks that we finally left so that everyone could win.
Let's do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who Knows?| 1.19.11 @ 11:43AM
Wow!
Eveyone has "won" in China, too, ever since the communists became dictators, eh?
What a useful idiot you are!
Gary| 1.20.11 @ 6:10PM
Jed, excellent post as usual, pal! Keep up the good fight. As I can see by reading some of these posts, you are successfully irritating the lefties!
Mr.Bones| 1.21.11 @ 11:12PM
Being the sleazy piece of trash kim il jungbama is.And knowing he dispises the military.He fires Mc Chrystal for quasi bogus reason to get to Petraeus.Knowing all along he's going to under cut him. And make him look like a failure.Thus the reason why kim il jungbama is a low life piece of human debris you would find in a cesspool.Semper Paratus.
Mr.Bones| 1.21.11 @ 11:13PM
Being the sleazy piece of trash kim il jungbama is.And knowing he dispises the military.He fires Mc Chrystal for quasi bogus reason to get to Petraeus.Knowing all along he's going to under cut him. And make him look like a failure.Thus the reason why kim il jungbama is a low life piece of human debris you would find in a cesspool.Semper Paratus.
Albert| 2.14.11 @ 10:52AM
While there is no dount the US is doing most of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, its allies, when you add them all up, have quite a number of troops there. Have they been consulted? Are they to be left high and dry? - to leave them withoutAmerican support would represent a diplomatic catastrophe for America. Yet it is starting to look like the sort of thing Obama would do.
Sobo| 2.18.11 @ 12:29AM
Jed,
I am stuck in an airport tonight which gave me a great reason to catch up on some of your articles, and I must say that late 2011 is looking like a strong year for you. I have been reading you for several years now, and I must say that the last few months of work look like some of your best. Keep up the great work!
Great posts by many, and I want to pull on one very cynical thread and see what unravels. Follow me here:
1. McCrystal is fired.
2. Patraeus is "surprised" by his appointment to take over in 'ghanistan.
3. All of the sudden the words coming from Washington are that we will be there through 2014.
4. I think the President and his handlers shrewdly took out a potential presidential oppenent by tying Patraeus to this no-win situation until well after the 2012 election. As of last summer many pundits and news outlets were whispering his name as a presidential contender. Now The General is tied to this miserable situation until 2014, or until the president can roll him under the bus and "declare" him a "failure."
I am not worried about the General, he will be fine. But my heart aches for the troops and their families as I watch this tragedy unfold.
We must fight the real problem or just pack up and go home. 'ghanistan is a waste of time, money, and the best warfighters the planet has ever seen. Unless we want to get serious about finally facing down Iran, and using 'ghanistan as a base for this effort, we are wasting our time.
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 5:33AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 2:33PM
I'm fully aware of what happened, moron. As for the rest of your post, I didn't bother to read it