-
The Game Continues
June 10, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Crunch Time in Paris
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
The Lone Musketeer
June 5, 2013 | 346 comments
-
Swiss Cheese
June 4, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Caballeros
June 3, 2013 | 1 comment
Another Perspective
War Over, Our Boys Did It Again!
It may well be that the moment has come for us to bid all these people in the Hindu Kush a fond farewell.
Someone famously suggested to Richard Nixon early in his first term (it was George Aiken of Vermont — I had to look it up) that he should declare victory in Vietnam and get out. This was sound advice. Followed, it might have saved Mr. Nixon’s presidency — and South Vietnam and Cambodia.
Indeed, it is evident even to the layman that the field of military history — I admit I know next to nothing about it — is strewn with the wreckage of armies that went too far, or stayed too long, or tried for too much. Why did Lord Cornwallis — reputed to be a fine soldier — overextend his forces and try for a flanking campaign in the south when he could fight a war of attrition from a safe base in New York? Robert E. Lee, surely one of our greatest and most humane strategists, knew the war was lost when fought to a stalemate at Gettysburg and he could not follow up with the march on Washington that he had hoped would bring a settlement; yet the Confederacy fought on and in consequence the South was ruined.
Bad and evil men are prone to hubris, and pay for it. Bonaparte, Hitler wildly over-reached after early victories that might have been accepted by their enemies. The Japanese militarists were mad to attack us on our home ground. Everyone has his examples. German and Italian armies were destroyed in North Africa — in Libya — setting up the liberation of the European continent.
The good guys are far less prone to these kinds of errors, because they are good guys, less inclined to shed their sons’ blood and punish adversaries mercilessly. Free men remember they have families and work, want to get the job done and return home. But for all kinds of reasons, we can still get tangled up in our priorities. With the easy advantage of hindsight, it does indeed seem President Nixon could have saved everything by applying the strategy in 1969-70 — airpower and logistical support — that proved its efficacy in 1972, when it was already too late due to the larger strategic picture, which by then included the opposition party’s noxious mix of defeatism and blind hatred of Nixon.
But hindsight is not history. You have to consider how it was when it was. In ‘68, ‘70, perhaps we did not have the conditions that made that strategy possible — our forces still fighting Northern regulars in the Delta, the South’s army still insufficiently trained, the Chinese and Russians not yet diverted from their original aims by Kissinger’s flanking diplomacy. Who knows? Still, hindsight of this kind at least serves the purpose of forcing us to remember an adage that the military commands in free societies — those, again — are more able to make use of than those functioning under mad dictators, namely: follow the plan, yes, but reconsider the options. Debate never hurts, and the game is always changing.
The game continues. This is, remember, the Hindu Kush, the vast wild frontiers of a Raj otherwise at peace due to the benevolent power of the British Empire. Scheming Russians, marauding Tadziks, Uzbeks, Chechens, crafty Persians and more saw to it the place remained a cauldron of violence and brutish short lives. We must not forget the projection of our power and the humane decent efforts of our diplomacy are amongst our finest traditions and even when there seems to be no final bell, we maintain the peace wherein civilization has a chance to flourish.
And yet — this round, we won. It is a great success. We got the enemy who attacked us. We have shown the world, for ten hard years, that it does not pay to attack the United States, and with the culminating blow of the men and women involved in the raid on Abbottabad, we have underscored the price is steep indeed.
The teams involved in this raid were fairly restricted: intelligence agents on the ground to pick up the enemy’s trail and confirm his location; the decision-makers at the highest level weighing the different options for seizing the opportunity presented; and of course the commandos who have written a chapter in our national story that every schoolchild will learn for generations to come.
It scarcely needs saying, however, that this brilliant operation was made possible by the decision of the president, on the advice of his generals, to “surge” in Afghanistan. The men and women who have given so much in that bitter land are the ones who pushed the Taliban and their Pak enablers into the corner that, in turn, brought the latter — or factions within factions in that nest of scorpions — to see that the al Qaeda leader was not only expendable, he might be a liability. Maybe some treacherous Pashtun police official looked at the odds and decided this was a good time to send a signal to his American contact. Sources indicate the original hint of the terrorist lair came from an Afghan spy — whether or not a Pashtun is not clear — while other sources credit an American-Pak team for identifying a key al Qaeda courier and following him for months through an extraordinary combination of high-tech and old-fashioned shoe leather.
Perhaps we will never know. But we do know that these faraway places are not trustworthy. Until these clannish and devious societies free themselves and develop at least a modicum of the kinds of institutions of governance that give people a stake in the way their countries are run, we will never know for sure whose side anyone is on.
We are in no position to change these societies. We can give them a huge boost, as we have been doing, by defeating the mischief-makers, the killers, the nihilists. We cannot build nations for them. Even the advice we give them will be discarded as soon as we turn our backs; you may change deeply rooted bad habits when a healthy and big and wealthy coach is standing right next to you, but when he leaves, forget it.
So in fact, it may well be that the moment has come for us to bid all these people a fond farewell. S’long, folks, it was nice to know you. But you are on your own now. You have seen the alternatives, it is up to you to choose.
TO BE SURE, our role is not over. It never is. We are the top country, and that is what we do, have a never-ending role. I am no expert, but, to revert again to President Nixon’s tragedy, it may be possible to devise a strategy of supply-and-interdict, though God knows it will not be easy and we may be forgiven for saying it is not our problem and it is not worth our men’s lives. I am sure that in the inner corridors of the defense establishment, our experts are thinking of ways of giving Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, a fighting chance — patrol their borders, kill invaders, confound the wicked men in Pakistan and Iran plotting death and trouble.
A fitting symbol of our intent might be to put the American embassy in Baghdad, and the corresponding compounds in Kabul, up for sale. Offer Donald Trump, for example, a mission to go over there and make deals to convert those places into co-ops — mixed income housing would be excellent. Put your houses in order, we could say, and here, to show you we are nice guys, do what you want with these. (Though you may have to pay rent to The Donald.) And for the rest, to the black hats who might interfere with the rebuilding of your neighborhoods and sending your kids to school —
Over there, over there, send the word over there
That the Yanks are comin’
Say a prayer ‘cause we’re comin’
We’ll be comin’, goin’ over,
An’ we won’t come back
‘till it’s over over there!
About the Author
Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Kaplan
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/05/war-over-our-boys-did-it-again
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Richard Baker| 5.5.11 @ 7:51AM
Agreed. Time to let these goat herd societies alone and bring our folks home. Know young guys who have had 3-5 tours in SW Asia and enough is enough.
SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 12:49PM
Forget not - Pakistan is a nuke nation that could, surely would, go the other way without our "friendship".
We dish out support in many ways to them and they do not want to lose the gift bags from the good ole USA.
Why else would the nation allow us to cruise into their country and take out an obvious military styled compound and accept the lashings from our nation political and via the media if they werenot concerned about losing their welfare from Uncle Sam.
Food for thought.
Quartermaster| 5.5.11 @ 8:39PM
We can still build nukes, and if they explode one on us, somehow, we pave their country with radioactive glass and turn Mecca and Medina into smoking radioactive heffalump pits.
All we lack is someone in the district of corruption with will and courage. Obama certainly doesn't have it, and Bush didn't either.
bluecollarbytes| 5.5.11 @ 8:05AM
In light of so much, including the fact that bin Laden was living in the heart of Pakistan for years, it certainly calls for a 'resetting' of policies and relationships in Pakistan & Afghanistan.
Pak and Afg have both made a peace of sorts with Islamist terrorist elements, elements supported by vast numbers of their citizens. Yes they go after those that threaten their own existence, but our enemies less so, by far.
We are in both countries under the guise of diplomatic lies. We are there for our own interests, but must present a charade that we 'are allies' in the same cause.
We're in both countries because pres. Bush forced our way in after 9/11. We went in because no developing country was going to be allowed to harbor and train terrorists who had us in their sights. If it was just these two Bush had to contend with, things might have gone better, or sooner, but Bush was confronted with a world-wide movement of unknown proportions carrying unknown risks to the U.S. As big as we are, we had to try to cover all the bases with what are in the end, limited resources and forces.
Bush had one overriding goal- protecting us from further attacks- killing or capturing the enemy. What it did to his poll numbers seems to have had no effect on his actions. His duty and responsibility kept him steady in the fight.
I never ever heard of Bush fretting over the 'risks to his presidency' when making the hard decisions.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 5.5.11 @ 8:05AM
Roger: You hit the nail on the head here!! Declare Victory today, pull stakes, and bring the boys back home now!!
We cannot save these Countries from themselves, we cannot turn them into nice neighbors (like Canada), and we never will be able too, no matter how many of the bad guys we take out. As soon as we kill one of their leaders, the next one steps into his place, because they've got nothing to lose in life. The choices in life for them are very limited, and being a Terrorist is a pretty good job to come by over there. We can never change them, until they want to change their own Country, and since it appears that they're still living in the seventh Century still, we just don't have the time or money, to let them grow out of this phase (and maybe they don't want too).
We've lost enough lives already, we've had enough Soldiers permanently injured, we've spent enough money that we don't have anymore, we've killed enough of the bad guys in their leadership, so let's call it a day, and come back home, we've done our jobs well.
Bin Laden's dead, we won!!
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:09AM
The only question I have is, do we leave the areas a desert and declare peace? I gotta say, Nation Building with scum doesn't work well. But we may need to play whack a mole a while longer for our own safety. This is not an easy call.
SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 12:53PM
Yea! Someone is looking at the big picture.
Take out a map, review the region and consider who the locals and the neighbors are to these countries.
Building a decent government for people that mostly want nothing to do with a 'political' system is not as easy as many believe.
This is a dangerous place with many dangerous people and the methods to wreak havoc on their enemies - be they local or global.
Long term diplomacy is very important here. A military base would be nice, troops in the 'field' not required I would hope.
Nunya| 5.5.11 @ 2:00PM
I agree, declare victory and start the withdrawl. However, let it be known that any new attack on the US will lead to carpet bombing and killing the leaders of the attack. Use the old mafia standard: you kill one, we kill 10, you kill 10, we kill 100, etc. At some point they'll find additional recruits to be hard to find...
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:42PM
Thank you, Spiral.
Now, in other crappy news, guess what the most popular newborn name is in Britain?
Here's the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....arry.html.
Shermans riding again!| 5.5.11 @ 2:45PM
x2! Totally agree. Let them smoke their drugs in peace. Bring out boys home.
Hamilton Lucas| 5.5.11 @ 6:19PM
Sure doesn't feel like "winning" to me.
Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 8:05AM
We should get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan and Libya, and stay out of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. We should greatly increase military aid to Israel, and shut off all aid to the "Palestinians".
Congress should ban immigration from the entire Middle East, excluding Israel of course. And also ban immigration by any Muslim, from any country. This of course presumes that we have control over our own border with Mexico, which we don't. So that would have to be fixed.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:04AM
ID,
simply beautiful. Thank you, sir.
daddio| 5.5.11 @ 11:47AM
Of course with so many troops home from the Middle East and with nothing else to do, a nice big training ground on the Mexican border might be a good idea [wink, wink]
Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 1:16PM
We should have about 25,000 troops along the border with Mexico. This would shut down infiltration by illegals of all sorts, which includes drug gangs and Muslim terrorists. Of the millions of illegals who are already here, a few hundred (a very small percentage of the total) are certain to be Muslim terrorists who are planning more attacks on U.S. citizens.
Shermans riding again!| 5.5.11 @ 2:46PM
ID are you running for pres? You have my vote.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 3:03PM
You know, everyone mentions posse commitatus as a reason we can't do that with our troops. But, if I'm not mistaken (RCV, please correct), the posse commitatus law is not a Constitutional mandate but a law found to be constitutional. In other words, modifying it to account for this situation could be done.
RCV, corrections, please. I always learn from you on this stuff.
RCV| 5.5.11 @ 4:36PM
It's simply a Congressional statute, passed at the end of Reconsturction by those interested in keeping federal troops from protecting the newly-to-be-reenslaved-blacks from Southern oppression. It can be amended any time Congress wants to. It was dramatically amended in 2006 after Hurrican Katrina ("The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."), but that change was repealed in 2008.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 6:39PM
Thank you, RCV. I appreciate the info.
Old Soldier| 5.5.11 @ 8:06AM
I would refer you to "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam" by Lewis Sorely.
Under Creighton Abrams, Vietnam was pretty well won in 1970. But... Nixon's and Congress' rush to withdraw and willingness to negotiate - despite the North's obvious bad faith - always managed to keep the North Vietnamese in the fight.
If an American Division had been included in Operation Lam Son 719, the war would have legitimately ended then.
In Vietnam, he had reasons to stay despite the cries from our domestic communists. If given a decade or more of peace, the Republic of Vietnam could have grown into a South Korea-like powerhouse. (Why the North would never allow it by choice).
Pakistan, Afghanistan? Nope. (Iran, probably yes). Time to pack up and head home. If they want to plan more attacks, we will send over drones and more SF Teams. An outside force will never make them into more than the medieval savages they are.
Intelligent Design| 5.5.11 @ 8:46AM
A good book to read is "No More Vietnams" by Richard M. Nixon. It was a just and noble cause, but Congress cut off funding to support the South after the treaty was signed.
Bill| 5.5.11 @ 9:26AM
What American Division? Do you mean the Americal Division? The Americal Division had widespread and well-earned reputation for being worthless. There was a reason why up-and-coming company-grade officers like Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf were assigned to the Americal during the Vietnam War: the U.S. Army has a tendency to send its best officers demanding challenges in order to test them.
Old Soldier| 5.5.11 @ 12:57PM
Any decent American Division. The First or Third Marine Division or the 101st Airborne would have done very nicely when the NK's counterattacked.
Teflon93| 5.5.11 @ 8:19AM
To declare victory, one must first have clearly-articulated goals for victory.
Bush's fuzzy nation-building didn't help here.
How about:
1. Removing the Taliban from power;
2. Establishing a non-Taliban government;
3. Eliminating Al Qaeda's leadership in the region.
These are limited objectives which have largely been obtained---a push for Zawahiri and Mullah Omar would push them all to completion and is probably attainable with far fewer troops on the ground.
Of course, clearly articulating objectives requires thought and leadership. What are the odds we'll get either from Obama?
Publius| 5.5.11 @ 11:27AM
That's confusing, Teflon93. The three goals you list have been accomplished.
1. The Taliban has absolutely was removed from power. It's possible that the sovereign government has allowed certain individuals to return but the Taliban was removed.
2. Ditto.
3. AQ influence in the area is as low as it has been in many, many years, probably since since the Soviet invasion.
I suspect you mean:
1/2. Eliminate the Taliban entirely.
3. Eliminate AQ entirely.
The articulated goals have been accomplished. The (possibly) intended goals are unlikely ever to be accomplished.
Shermans riding again!| 5.5.11 @ 2:48PM
none, zero.
JimH| 5.5.11 @ 8:22AM
I will quote Jerry Pournelle: 'You may recall that I proposed building monuments in town where they celebrated 9/11. The monument would consist of 4 square blocks of rubble, to be kept as rubble. No invasion. I was also in favor of the special operations in Afghanistan. After that, we develop domestic energy sources. For less than we spent on the wars, we could have what amounts to energy independence, and tell the Middle East to drink its oil, we are not buying. We did not go that route.'
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:06AM
Yes. It would have meant continuous bombing, but it would have been fun. Or, see Tom Kratman's Caliphate for an alternative (Tom should be required reading for anti-jihadists.).
Old Soldier| 5.5.11 @ 12:58PM
Great book.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:43PM
I knew I liked you, Old Soldier. By the way, Tom is a wonderful gentleman and scholar.
Erling| 5.5.11 @ 9:11AM
Well said! U.S. Armed Forces are stationed at more than 820 installations in 135 countries. Our allies must defend themselves, not rely on us as their first and last line of defense. I recommend we bring home 100,000 troops and contractors from Iraq; 53,000 from Germany; 35,000 from Japan; 28,000 from Republic of Korea; 9,000 from Italy; 9,000 from the United Kingdom; 140 from the former Soviet Union; 3,000 from North Africa; and 1,300 from sub-Saharan Africa. Neither our economy nor the Founding Fathers' principles support this Pax Americana of hundreds of thousands of Americans deployed around the world. During his American University commencement address in 1963, JFK spoke of a peace, "not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war." Our dire challenges of living beyond our means, loss of manufacturing industry, illegal immigration- and more, demand we stop dithering abroad and return to the first principles of our founding with an emphasis on limited government within the Constitution's framework.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 11:07AM
I see no reason to defend Europe from anything. They have lost the will to live.
Alky| 5.5.11 @ 2:33PM
All troops from around the world would be put to better use lined up along the southern border. Europe and Asia need to sink or swim on their own.
Sheila| 5.5.11 @ 10:27AM
Bush's "invade the world, invite the world" policy was disastrous from the get-go. The "world's policeman" needs R&R, and those who believe that democracy means the same thing to all people of all races and cultures need to read up on HBD.
Publius| 5.5.11 @ 11:29AM
I love the world's policeman argument. Who wants to live in a neighborhood, let alone a world, without a police force? Has no one read J. S. Mill?
cicero| 5.5.11 @ 11:33AM
I recommend Rudyard Kipling, particularly the Three Soldiers" series of short stories, as well as a daily reading of "White Man's Burden". The mpre things change, the more they stay the same. Except, in that region of the world Pakistan, Afganistan, and all the other ...stans, nothing ever changes.
SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 1:01PM
Somewhat ignorant point of view. Thier mindset may not change much but their means of destruction chamge.... Pakistan has not always been a nuclear nation, no?
Mimi| 5.5.11 @ 11:53AM
We have fought the good fight....given our lives and our fortune , for this "WAR ON TERROR "
I read recently that we have endured 43,000 injured troops in this fight....many whose lives will be afflicted until they die and paid a severe price in service to their country....My own GRANDSON included in that number.
The time has come folks and I say this as a Patriot...We leave the ARAB & Muslims to solve their own problems. The savage barbarians.... who would slice off heads are unciviliized and the HORRORS we put our young, beautiful children must end.....AFTER 10 years ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The powers that be currently tie their hands behind their backs. The time has come to bring our KIDS HOME!!
The military- industrial Complex.....needs to take a look at our own BORDER with Mexico....plenty to keep them busy there. BIN- LADIN'S demise has changed the world.....We have no idea yet what a BLESSING this is.
Shermans riding again!| 5.5.11 @ 2:50PM
Well said Mimi.
davelnaf| 5.5.11 @ 12:11PM
It’s clear to any reasonably intelligent American who has been in Afghanistan for a fair amount of time that that country will never amount to much. Its people are too backward and, as the author says, they will revert the moment we leave. For Afghans employed on US bases this will mean finding other ways to supplement their already meager means of making a living—inflation, as you might expect, is rampant near US bases. This is not to say the average Afghan doesn’t deserve a chance. I’m saying we can’t afford to give it to them, given that it means staying in that country for a very long time to nation-build and pacify. This strategy won’t work and we have to settle for less. The best less we can get might be to fortify the big bases, Bagram and Kandahar, and let the FOBs go. There will be consequences Americans won’t like, but at least Al Qaeda will never get the chance to reconstitute in that country and isn’t that part of the reason why we went there in the first place? We accomplished the other part a few days ago.
OLDRAY| 5.5.11 @ 12:32PM
Time to leave . The Afghans must sink or swim on there own. Our giant Peace Core is hurting our military . Retain one secure airbase with defensive and Special Forces Strike capability. One in Afghanistan and one in Iraq's Kurdish area. Build up our Navy, refurbish our Army, develope new weapons, treat and pay our forces well and above all keep this country the strongest and most flexible force in the world. Bye the way, set Islam back into the desert where it belongs ,or it will gredually take over the worl.
SpiralArchitect| 5.5.11 @ 1:03PM
I concur.
While your at it, you might as well ask for a pony :'(
Wayne | 5.5.11 @ 1:14PM
I am sorry, but as a vietnam vet and draftee, I have trouble with the faux patriotism: "Our boys did it again."
simon templar| 5.5.11 @ 2:31PM
Nice catch. Wayne ..please explain your position on this subject..it would be very interesting given your life experience.
Drunken Sailor| 5.5.11 @ 1:23PM
Pull out. Last person out, please turn off the lights. Let the cockroaches eat each other.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.5.11 @ 1:27PM
This article is utter gibberish.
The death of OBL, while welcome news, does not change the realities on the ground and therefore doesn't change the rationale of whether to stay in Afghanistan or withdraw from there.
If the Afghan war of nationbuilding is a lousy idea (which I believe it is), then withdrawal should've begun a longtime ago. If one believes it's a good idea, it should be continued.
simon templar| 5.5.11 @ 2:28PM
Please do not confuse them with logic.
simon templar| 5.5.11 @ 2:27PM
This article including the title is idiotic and ridiculous. This war is far from over. Yes, perhaps it is certainly time to make plans to exit these expensive occupations and shift strategy and our tactics. Yes, it is time to evaluate our foreign policy regarding nation building and many of our involvements all over the world. Particularly, for example, our troops in Europe. Why are we paying for this? But the war is over? What utter nonsense and what an irresponsible thing to say! Does this site have an editorial staff?
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:48PM
Dear Simon,
I hope, unlike your namesake, that you are not a Brit. If you are, this is unfortunate news: (Mohammed (in various spellings, most popular baby name in UK 2010. ))
Now, an experiment in demographics, for readers a little slow to grasp this concept (not you, Simon--- you are fantastic)---in 2023, what will be the most popular name among young males old enough to start sexual criminal behavior in the UK?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....Harry.html
simon templar| 5.5.11 @ 3:14PM
Thank you..read the article and was stunned. Further proof that this war has just begun and we must be even more diligent and informed. Many people believe that this "war' is being fought only by terrorist acts and on the battle field. The real war and the one that is so insidious is the invasion and enculturation of Europe by the Islamic Muslim. Lebanon was a westernized christian nation 6o years ago. Beruit was called the Paris of the Mideast. Within two generations they took power. It was calculated, organized, and planned. Ask any christian Lebanese that lived through it...
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:35PM
Indeed. I worked with a Lebanese Christian doc once. Fine gentleman.
Taking our boys and going home isn't going to save us. Redistributing them to save people who have a chance of fighting and surviving, say, India and Israel and Ozzie, that might be useful. Japan is in a demographic death spiral. Fortunately, so is China. But that still leaves us fighting aggressive youth with a declining population base.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 10:36PM
By the way, did I mention what a pleasure you are to read, Simon?
Margie| 5.5.11 @ 2:33PM
"The death of OBL, while welcome news, does not change the realities on the ground and therefore doesn't change the rationale of whether to stay in Afghanistan or withdraw from there."
I think you are right, sir.
Let us pray to the LORD and ask that His Spirit guide the hearts and minds of the men in our government to do His will, and that they are guided by His Wisdom.
What else can we do? We need Him.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:59PM
Margie, I cannot help but agree. But then, we always Need Him. It's just sometimes we are too overcome by hubris to realize it.
Beautiful work, as always. G-d Bless.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:56PM
Sorry. Please note that I don't think anyone posting on this page as of this time is "too slow." If anyone knows me well, you should know that I don't hide my insults. You guys are fine.
However, if you have noted my previous comments on the subject, you would note that I have the unpleasant change in Britain occurring in 2020-2030. I'm not guessing as to why; I know why. I don't wildly extrapolate; I'm a former prison shrink.
My instructions to my wife as to our investment plans are for her to assume the following: assume that the world in 2020-2030 will be a more violent, less well educated, hungrier and more energy starved world, with Europe's economies imploding. Invest accordingly.
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 2:58PM
Sorry. My overall point is that whether or not we "won" in Af-Pak is immaterial. The next battle is coming up within the next ten years; it will accelerate during the next Presidential administration. It is the battle for Western Europe's existence and whether it can be saved from becoming Eurabia. I don't think it can.
Old Soldier| 5.5.11 @ 3:37PM
Well, the Europeans have proven to be effecient at dramaticly changing their demographics in the past - we'll see if they still have a knack for it...
Occam's Tool| 5.5.11 @ 6:46PM
That is Ralph Peter's take on things, Old Soldier. Kratman doesn't agree, stating the death wish of modern Europe. Civilizations that want to survive have children.
This is, incidentally, why I say foreign policy will be THE most important issue between 2012-2016. Note that I am not saying that it will be the issue most on American minds. My point is that the implosion of European economies and their replacement by Sharia states is THE most important demographic event to come of our Century. At this time it is being ignored for the most part.
This summer, I plan to enjoy US Prime steaks cooked on my outdoor grill. I have a feeling the lights are going to dim soon.
TruthSayer| 5.5.11 @ 4:42PM
This 'war on terror' is no war at all but a game of pattycake. YOU WANT WAR!!!?!? Get the fvcking nukes out and lay waste to that sh!thole.
GET OUT NOW!! Bring every precious American son and daughter back home. Make it clear to every sandmonkey barbarian in Afganistan and Iraq that if they allow any terrorist to set up show that we'll be back. Oh YEAH, WE'LL BE BACK! This time with true hellfire and armageddon.
This whole 'war' is a bunch of crap. The Romans knew how to do war. What we do, that's a joke.
berin rassoud| 5.5.11 @ 5:20PM
Rudyard Kipling, many years ago, wrote his poem viz. The White Man's Burden in which he said exactly that. It is futile to attempt to impose Western World values upon 3rd worlders. They will reject same as soon as the warden leaves. How true.
Jack in Wi.| 5.5.11 @ 6:57PM
Let the world run itself. Our whole foreign policy since 1917 has been a disaster. We got into WW1 for no sane reason and have been involved in things not our own business since then. The cold war ended over 20 years ago yetwe are still involved in NATO. Get rid of foreign aid. All it does is subsize kleptocracies like Pakistan, Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Yeman. We are broke being the world's policeman. The world wasn't any worse off when we minded our own business and followed the farewell words of George Washington.
believer| 5.5.11 @ 7:18PM
If America would have stayed neutral in the middle east and just out bid other countries for their oil we would not have been forced into these no win military campaigns, had we not refused to come up with another fuel sourse, these Opec nations would be trading oil for grain.Just remember Bin Laden was once an ally, during Reagans era we thought it was so important to win the cold war, so we caused the evil empire to fall. fast forward to the present and our ally ( Bin Laden) then became our enemy now and we became embroiled in a trillion dollar war we cant win. Because of liberal immigration policies Western nations are being flooded with muslims who think our Christian heritage is their enemy, we have long since passed the point of being able to fix the problem,and being the baddest military on the planet wont help us when we fall into Bankruptcy. We cant bring the boys home now as there are no jobs to come home to.
PCP Smoker| 5.5.11 @ 8:25PM
That's Ron Paul garbage. Get off the marijuana
GENE HAUBER| 5.5.11 @ 7:31PM
MOST EXCELLENT ADVISE MR. KAPLAN
Richard Baker| 5.5.11 @ 7:56PM
TruthSayer:
Maybe if we covered the country in pig guts and did it regularly then we could keep these barbarians in check. Airdrop!
chris haynes| 5.5.11 @ 8:00PM
Afghanistan. Theyre too stupid. Dumbest allies we ever had.
Talk slow learners, we've been ten years training these guys. Not rocket science, but infantry tactics! And 10 years of infantry training, theyre still not ready.
This Petraeus, he better speed this up. Another ten years and he says "Let's go. Youre ready", Go fight" and guess what. They say "No, Sir, We're out, Sir, General Petraeus, Sir. 20 years, Sir, time for our pensions, Sir.
WAKE UP| 5.5.11 @ 8:18PM
* Bring the boys home.
* Deploy them to seal the Arizona border.
* Rewrite our insane immigration policies to exclude those who clearly have no love for America, and deport those similar who are already here. (We know the names).
* Leave the UN, and boot the UN out of New York. (Let 'em try being based in Darfur or Zimbabwe - then we'll see who wants to play games).
--------------------------
THEN watch attitudes towards us change elsewhere in the world. Simple, really. If we had the right President.
WAKE UP| 5.5.11 @ 10:54PM
* We should also stop squandering billions on aid to countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and become energy independent.
PCP Smoker| 5.5.11 @ 8:24PM
saw the documentary Restrepo. Outpost in some shithole in Afghanistan and named for Doc Restrepo who was killed by the Taliban.
To think our boys are negotiating over a dead cow with the whining, inbred, red bearded Afghanis, all so we can win the "hearts and minds" of those shits, makes me ill. Time to pack it. Those inbreds can keep their shithole. I want the boys in a place where they are not dying.
Don't dismiss me as a dove, my idea of war is not that of the DOD (i.e., I would not release those Talibans who were seen planting ieds, because there is no evidence to hold them.). Find them, kill them. Win and get out.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.6.11 @ 1:24AM
"Indeed, it is evident even to the layman that the field of military history -- I admit I know next to nothing about it . . ." It is obvious from this article.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 1:59AM
One should not comment on a military expedition from a position of ignorance. Nice comment, Michael.
Arizona Bob| 5.6.11 @ 6:50AM
Just a footnote really, but comments like these last two annoy, simply by showing that some refuse to read the words that are placed before them. Obviously the piece raises a number of highly debatable issues, but the author himself says it is not about military affairs as such, so why belabor this? Because reading is too difficult?
What's at issue here is the kind of foreign policy we want, or can afford, as Americans. That is what the author is asking us to think about, deferring to others more knowledgeable in the traditions of our military just what we should do, or can do, to succeed in these bitter, distant engagements. He certainly doesn't want to close a debate, but rather open it: should we be limiting ourselves to patrolling, or as they say, interdicting, those wild and dangerous frontiers? Or should we, as we have been, trying to "build nations" out of unruly and ungrateful peoples? Even as we speak, reports come in that in Pakistan people are burning American flags and the government, since they are said to have a government, is warning us not to raid their territory again. Can you stomach that? These savages who receive billions in aid from us are telling us what to do or not do? It is like the Mexican government, in 1910 or so, telling us not to go after Pancho Villa, leaving our farmers and ranchers in Texas and Arizona exposed to that bandit's depredations.
Of course, some people will argue that this is precisely why we need to engage in "nation building" in a place like Pakistan. Any non-nation so screwed up that they blame us for going after their pirates, whom indeed some of their own officials, if that's the word, were harboring, needs building. But is it our job? That's the question, or one of the questions, this piece raises, not the history and details, which are fascinating but are a different matter, of military expeditions.
Dee See| 5.6.11 @ 9:54AM
----Great piece.
MEANWHILE, as 'EUGENICS friendly' world
corporate media decisively buries ALLLLL
reporting on the world's greatest nuclear disaster
(Fukishima) ----a news item from Alan Watt.
Seems a retired nuclear official in Kent England
has taken off the chart radiation readings in
his backyard garden ---and has the burns on his
hands and arms tro prove it. TRUE
Remember kids, England's more than twice as far
from the source than we are.
Remember also, this is set to continue spewing
for the next 10 months -----AT LEAST.
NO JOKING
SEE Alan Watt 'Humiliation of Information' part 2 on Youtube for FULL DETAILS.
REALLLLLLLLY
Radioman777| 5.6.11 @ 10:06AM
Mr. Kaplan's lack of knowledge and strategic thinking is shocking, to say the least. Here are the facts, in case you're not familiar with them.
1. If we had kept bombing up for another two or three weeks during Linebacker 2, while simultaneously demanding unconditional surrender of all North Vietnamese forces, including irregulars, they would have capitulated. They had no SAMs left, no MiG's to challenge us, and were down to the last few rounds of AAA. That would've been the end of supplies to their regular and VC forces, and thus the end of their ability to wage war effectively.
2. The enemy we face today won't quit just because we do. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs an appointment to see if they're suffering from some sort of delusional syndrome. Moreover, while this may be a difficult concept for the non-militarily trained to grasp, it's better to fight the enemy where they are, rather than where we are. This is called forward defense, something we've practiced effectively for several decades.
3. In order to win any war, you have to go on offense; defense doesn't win wars, just like it doesn't really win championships in sports. Having a good defense helps and ultimately enables offensives to succeed, but doesn't do much by itself. In the type of war we're in now, defense in the traditional sense is useless, since we can't trade space for time, with the ultimate objective of going on the offensive to drive the enemy back.
4. You can hide from your enemies, but eventually they'll find you. Then, you have to fight, usually not on your terms, which brings up my last point.
5. You can only win by engaging the enemy on your terms, not on theirs. By disengaging now, we give them the opportunity to rebuild, reassess, rearm, and ultimately go on the offensive again.
This war will be a long one for the reason that we're fighting an ideologically driven enemy that sees victory as inevitably theirs. It requires a rethinking of how we view conflict. Clauswitz stated that war was politics by other means, but the converse is never true, regardless of what some among us would like to believe.
Arizona Bob| 5.6.11 @ 10:53AM
Good points, but keep in mind that while it surely would have been better to hit the North harder and longer, the defeat of the South was not foreordained by the curtailing of that campaign but by the unconscionable decision by the U.S. Congress to cut off the logistics and air power that helped the Southern army withstand the Northern invasion.
For sure the anti-terror war will go on, that is why the author remarks that the game isn't over. Whether you can pursue and crush, maybe. Clausewitz (with an e) noted that victory occurs when you destroy the enemy's capacity to continue. But in this situation, we may have to settle for a kind of containment. Excellent authors to read on this are Harry G. Summers, Jr., Robert Thompson, Bing West (the last specifically on the current situation), surely many others.
Jones | 5.7.11 @ 10:08PM
We should leave Afghanistan. It is a miserable pile of rocks peopled by illiterate goatherds. If it was ever going to be something more civilized, it would have been so by now. It never will.
Bin Laden sleeps with the fishes. Let us finally quit Afghanistan, with a warning: the fire next time.
Occam's Tool| 5.7.11 @ 11:49PM
Speaking of ignorance, I have been slammed on the subject of Israeli company provided "African" mercenaries in Libya by "you know who."
Turns out the Liberal blog site Fire Dog Lake is complaining about this because the Obama administration NOT ONLY KNOW ABOUT THEM, they are fighting in the UN for amnesty for their actions. Hmmm...in short, this is more complex than it first appears, which is what I've stated.
Handbags | 5.9.11 @ 9:00PM
Thanks a lot for your sharing! What you said is right, I agree with your point of view.Your article is well written,A good blog!
sex toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:19AM
ObaMa . stop war.!!!!!
weddingdress | 7.5.11 @ 4:25AM
Good points, but keep in mind that while it surely would have been better to hit the North harder and longer, the defeat of the South was not foreordained by the curtailing of that campaign but by the unconscionable decision by the U.S. Congress to cut off the logistics and air power that helped the Southern army withstand the Northern invasion.