-
The Chinese Waltz
May 24, 2013 | 2 comments
-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
At Large
Beginning of the End
Like the the British and Soviet empires, the U.S. has learned there’s only one way out of Afghanistan — and that’s to get out.
It was not an auspicious beginning in November-December 2001 as Osama bin Laden was pursued from Jalalabad to the White Mountains and on to the caves of Tora Bora by a small force of CIA Special Activities Division paramilitary personnel, U.S. Army Special Forces, and even a contingent of the British Special Boat Service. Recently recruited Pushtun tribal fighters were supposed to provide the local knowledge that would allow OBL to be captured, killed, or driven toward the waiting Pakistan army at the Afghan border. It didn’t happen.
The Afghans drifted away just when it looked like the al Qaeda group would be cornered. Urgent calls for the injection of U.S. Army Rangers to block the al Qaeda retreat were denied. On the Pakistani side the well-positioned units of their army became functionally blind and Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda protective force slipped through. The principal leaders of the Taliban with key fighters also infiltrated uninhibited across the border into Pakistan and the scene was now set for what would become the longest war in American history.
The entire tactical plan of the United States and its NATO allies was predicated on being able to count on friendly elements in the Pushtun areas to ferret out the pro-Taliban elements and for the Pakistanis to hold firm on their side of the border as a blocking force. The strategy was not illogical; it was just not realistic in terms of the kaleidoscope of ever-changing Afghan — and Pakistani — local and national politics.
Washington persisted in the belief there were good Afghans (those who supported the national government of Hamid Karzai) and bad Afghans (the Taliban who had gone to ground in the tribal sanctuaries of the east and south and others hiding in Pakistan.) They continue to think that way today. The problem is that it is just not true. Neither is the parallel concept that the political problems of Afghanistan are primarily the result of the eco/socio disadvantages from which the country suffers. The root of the Afghan conflict in the past, the present, and will be in the future is the deeply embedded structure of tribal life and pervasive xenophobia. This situation can not be solved by massive aid programs and the superimposition of western democratic tenets.
Having finally admitted that “nation-building” was not a viable commitment for the U.S. and NATO in the year 2012, and that the Taliban insurgency should be left to the Afghan National Army to contain, the current White House has decided to withdraw all Western combat forces by 2014, with a major draw-down during 2013. In the end only a relatively small collection of Special Forces and a training cadre will remain behind. The magic of the next two years is supposed to be the growth of the Afghan Army. This is plain and simple wishful thinking. There is no evidence that the current Afghan military force will be able to contain a reformed and reenergized Taliban in two years.
Afghanistan is not divided into pro-Taliban and anti-Taliban. It is divided into families, clans, tribes, and subdivisions of each that have, in varying degrees, ties to several political military elements, Taliban and others, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some of these relations are close and supportive and others quite distant and barely connected. But for most in Pushtun-dominated areas these relations have been consistent over the years. What is it that is going to change in two years — or ever?
The answer is that little will change other than to give some combat experience to the Afghan troops and their units mentored by U.S. and NATO forces. Also, the American military may have a chance to withdraw with honor from a field on which it has battled for over a decade. This is an ancient tradition and one that the Afghans know only too well. Whether the Taliban will allow such an honorable ending, however, before they return to their own struggle for dominance is up to question. Something that isn’t open for question is the expectation of Iran and Pakistan moving to influence Afghanistan’s future. Of course, the interests of India, Russia, and China also can be expected to rise to the surface.
Pakistan will have a major investment in the future of whatever government that comes to power in Kabul. That is a given and both a short and long-range target for Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI. It seems that unless Afghan territory becomes once again an international terrorist training ground, it will be the United States that has the least political military interest in this country on which it has expended so much in human and financial terms.
Not unlike Vietnam, where even far greater blood and treasure was spent by the United States, Afghanistan will become a slice of history close to American hearts for a generation — but that’s all. The world’s Islamic terrorists have many other places in which to train and other more convenient sites as springboards for their terror. So-called al Qaeda franchises already have evolved around the globe along with other variously named jihadist terror groups.
What will remain the same is the historic route of the drug trade through the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan. From this some Afghan farmers will benefit and local tribal leaders as always will become rich. The Taliban will be divided as it was before over the degree they should accept the advantages of this unholy trade. The result will alternate between cooperation and condemnation.
A transformational leader may come along, after Mullah Omar and Hamid Karzai, to guide Afghanistan into a more modern society — but that is doubtful. Afghanistan will remain at the crossroads of conflict in its region as it has done for ages. That is its history and its future. The American presence will disintegrate the same as the mud-walled forts of the outposts of the British Empire and the abandoned, rusted residue of the more recent short-lived Russian occupation.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/30/beginning-of-the-end
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 7:20AM
First we kill a good chunk of their jihadists, and those that sympathize therewith, and only after we cross over in strength into the tribal areas in Pakistan and kill a good chunk of our enemies there, only after that, do we leave.
But it's time to draw to a conclusion our attempts to drag people from the seventh century into the twenty-first.
We make the metric for our war effort once more whether we've killed vast numbers of our enemies and smashed and destroyed the areas where they and their supporters live.
Jack in Wi.| 3.30.12 @ 7:50AM
Get the hell out now and stay out. The soldiers in the Afgan Army hate us as much or more then the rest of the population. We have been sticking our noses in Afganistan for 50 years and Iran for over 60. We don't need any more stinking wars. Get out of the Middle East, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Europe, Japan, Korea and dozens of other country's. Think Switzerland, strong national defense, and we mind our own business and let the world run itself. We have enough trouble right here.
WRTolkas| 3.30.12 @ 9:12AM
Amen to you Brother. I come from a family history of Military Service back too far to recollect. I'll be the last. Afghanistan: the graveyard of empires.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 4:53PM
A "graveyard of empires" only because those empires allowed the dirtballs in the Pakistani tribal areas to provide rest areas, reorganization opportunities, retraining of combatants and replenishing of spent munitions.
NO counter-insurgency has ever prevailed when it allowed the insurgents sanctuary in neighboring states.
NONE.
So long as we allowed Pakistani to both claim no control over their tribal areas while secretly using those tribal areas as a sanctuary area for enemies of the United States, so long as we allowed that to happen we were ALWAYS going to taste of defeat.
If you're serious, then you have to pay a visit to Pakistani tribal areas.
Something none of us should flinch at.
Pakistan trembled after 9/11 because they knew they overstepped the mark.
Why then has a government that trembled in fear after 9/11 been allowed to find the nerve to trifle with the United States?
What's different?
What have we done as a country that provided comfort for our enemies, and given them reason to question our manhood and resolve?
diogenes| 3.31.12 @ 8:46AM
Kindly cite for us some examples where "counterinsurgency" worked.
sirbourbon| 4.2.12 @ 12:26AM
Quit dreaming about fighting a war to win; the US commanders MUST Operate within the rules of engagement of UN resolutions. That's the way it was in Korea and in Vietnam - the US was handicapped in those wars by UN regulations. That's the price you pay for surrendering part of your sovereignty. The US military is really the UN's miltary.
Dixie Pixie| 3.30.12 @ 9:51AM
I don't agree with you on much Jack, but I do agree with you on your main point.
Unfortunately in current politics there is a belief in the honor and glory of doing missionary work among the “Downtrodden”.
So instead of staying home and husbanding our resources, the compulsion to do missionary work sends us all over the world to enlighten the savages for our own spiritual nourishment.
Since the spiritual nourishment is believed to be proportional to the resources cast away, the USA ends up broke, disillusioned, frustrated, befuddled and mocked for our efforts.
Until the American Public understands why we feel compelled to “Change The World”, the politicians will continue to send the military abroad to do missionary work with bombs, bullets and ballots.
The complete stupidity of our foreign policies will remain hidden until the public wishes to see the real reasons why we do the things we do.
That will not happen as long as the MSM tells us lies in place of truth.
REM| 3.30.12 @ 11:32AM
Dixie P., we are not so much compelled to "change the world" as forced to do so.
It is really not an option. Isn't now. Never again will be a non option.
It is what we MUST DO.
Sure, we'd like to help establish free, constitutional societies around the globe --- because those countries that have same don't make troubles. They might go bankrupt like Greece, but they don't export war and WMDs.
Free societies get all caught up in the social welfare state and mismanaged, bureaucratic government and terribly liberal academic nonsense, but they don't tend -- in the last 65 years -- to make war or export terror.
You know this all too well.
Yet you say that this is folly. But from WW II to the present, every place the U.S. military goes typically turns out better for it. (A notable exception is Somalia, but there we never really got underway.) Isn't even Panama better (marginally but better) since the ouster of Noriega? These places "better for it" then are not the eternal thorns in side, troublemakers like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, and now Venezuela.
The lesson of WW II is that through much sweat and mostly peacetime tears, since 1945 the entire swath of Europe has seen war no more.
Now since December 1989, well, things have been more peaceable in Europe EVER! Ever in the history of that huge part of humanity and the world.
We show up in the Balkans in Bosnia, a few parts of Croatia, a few construction jobs in Macedonia, then peacekeeping ops in Kosovo, and, well, slowly but surely former Yugoslavia even transitions from its powderkeg of improperly juxtaposed peoples into bits of harmony.
One still hears burps and starts from Belgrade in the direction of Kosovo but overall they are diminishing. One hears of practically no animosity toward the former sectors that are now independent little social-democratic NATIONS called Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-H., Macedonia.
Yes, the $4 trillion question is:
The Big nagging questions: Can the same be done in the cultures of the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. How about Asia where Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are still dicey? Will places like Malaysia and Indonesia be internally troublesome but externally harmless to others?
Many share the belief that when the world gathers for these "big global parties" like the IOC's Summer Olympics, Soccer World Cups, huge international basketball tournaments, and now the new crazes like the Euovision Song Contest, well, the "outsider" nations like Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Burma, Belarus, etc. look on and their people (in the age of the global internet) look on and say, "Why are we also not part of the party?" "Why can't we also participate?"
You are really being to harsh when you say "stupidity."
Any person can get on a plane this very instant and through several connections be almost anywhere in the world in 24 hours. One can fly over two continents and land in a third in just 16-17 hours. This used to be impossible. Or, when it became possible, it was only possible for the rich and very privileged.
No more.
Haven't you seen the deadbeat, downtrodden, disheveled human cargo that now joins you in coach as you board that international flight bound for our west or east coast?
I always think how much the airline tickets are costing me. For them? I dunno. But today the Third World is on board and flying the Friendly Skies. Almost no destination is out of bounds.
Terrorists trained and financed by Saudi Arabia, coming from the UAE, having trained in Pakistan, and with origins in Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, Tunesia, and Syria are already here -- just waiting.
Their cells are right here.
Waiting on more instructions, waiting on monetary and other resources, waiting on equipment, waiting on, most importantly, final directives or signals.
Why do we need to try to find ways to change the world? Because the world can come to your doorstep and bring you to doomsday in the space of just a few days or hours.
It can be the most normal of spring or early summer days ....until that bomb in the bus, subway, at the terminal, at the expo, at the stadium changes your life or the lives or those you love forever.
We have to change the world because WMDs are real, dirty bombs are easy, bio weapons are nearly child's play. And yes they'll fit in the backpack a teen has slung over his shoulder.
We've not seen a "fundamental" transformation of our globe in the last 20 years with the exception of the great leaps forward by China. We have not seen a new nation enter the nuclear bomb club - yet.
But it is not far away until this club is larger.
We have to change the world because those pushing now for nukes are not the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, or New Zealand. We have to change the world so that, one, North Korea and Iran never get this capability, or, two, if they do (or if they buy them from the Russians, Ukrainians or the mafia) they are so isolated, so periphery, so ignored, so abhorred, that they would stand almost no gain to lord this capability over others.
We have to change the world so that the cells already here and in Canada and in very major metropolis in Europe NEVER get any more resources, bank funding, new phone cards, new software, and....never get those "activate" instructions/directives.
As you see, I could go on. C'mon, man. You're a thinking fellow. This ideas that the world is still big and that oceans protect us or that we can knock down an incoming missile or spot a nuke in a suitcase are poppycock. We cannot monitor what comes into our four dozen largest harbors in those thousands of massive containers every day.
Nobody wants to spend the time changing the world. Most just want to change the TV set to put it on the MLB, NHL, MLS, PGA or NBA game of choice. But if you want to sit back in your cushy Lazy Boy and just fiddle with your remote, well the world will come and change you.
Change you, change your world.
As islam is aiming to do -- every moment of every waking day.
And the Chinese too.
George True| 3.30.12 @ 4:34PM
Well said, REM. I think our military interventions should be few and far between, with as small a footprint as possible, and with a mind to avoiding mission creep. But you are correct, the realities of this world dictate that from time to time, we will have to militarily defend out legitimate interests as a sovereign nation.
Because of an appalling inability to communicate on the part of the right, most Americans today believe the lie that the original intervention in Kuwait was a war for oil. What that war was really about was not allowing any nation (Iraq) to hold hostage a free market in oil. That was a legitimate self-interest on our part. What you mentioned about not allowing Islamic Caliphates to get their hands on nukes would would be an even more compelling interest that we have every right to pursue.
I only wish our so-called leaders would choose our battles more wisely. Since 1979, Iran has always been behind 90% of the terrorism around the world. We had a perfect opportunity to topple that bent-on-evil regime in 2009 during the massive pro-democracy demonstrations in Iran. A small amount of help from the US would have toppled the mullacracy, and ushered in a pro-Western secular government. But of course, our Marxist administration instead made common cause with the mullahs.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 4:58PM
George, George,
you must make your enemies fear trifling with you.
We've allowed Pakistan to think that their bleeding of our forces in Afghanistan would be without cost.
Bush allowed them to get away providing legal protection for AQ Khan and sanctuary for bin laden, all the while lying to us about the activities of both men.
Pakistan must pay.
There isn't going to be any peace in the region or beyond without Pakistan paying dearly for their casual indulgence of terror and mayhem.
Whether we wish it or not, whether we desire such conflict or no, we've got to go in there and pound them.
And only then can we withdraw.
But for the United States after the provocation of 9/11 to be further humiliated is only to whet the appetite, the insane appetites of our enemies.
We're not calming things by withdrawing but only enticing them to come after us anew!
The enemy must be killed.
REM| 3.31.12 @ 3:11PM
Mr. True, I cannot agree with you more about our failures to rid the world of the Iran mullahs in charge.
So many Iranians have fled Iran since 1979.
They are scattered all over the world, their children are well educated. They have adapted to their new homes abroad, but there are still the tugs inside them for their Iranian homeland.
And they hate the ayatollahs with a visible passion.
They want to showcase Iran as the most literate, culturally advanced, education-focused, independent and self-sufficient, civilized nation in the entire region.
Why we do not capitalize on the Iranian expatriates who are in the 10's of thousands in Europe and North America is beyond me.
They would be front line soldiers (in all sorts of useful capacities) in the immediate overthrow of the evil Tehran totalitarians.
The summer of 2009 would have been an ideal time to finally launch this multi-front effort to remove forever the bearded pervs that presently dominate. But this can be done at any time. Any time. The people are ripe and primed for it.
Believe me, 85% of the people of Iran (still living and imprisoned in Iran) do not want the dictatorship that they have.
Alan Brooks| 4.1.12 @ 1:25AM
"And they hate the ayatollahs with a visible passion."
But do not project Western values on to the late Shah; it is American unwillingness to admit we used Iran as a pawn. True, the Soviet Union had to be brought down by hook or by crook, but Iran was nothing but a patsy for both sides. No one wants to a puppet even if it is for their own good.
Alan Brooks| 4.1.12 @ 1:18AM
Let's admit it:
those such as Jack in Wi. were right;
while we were wrong.
We Don't Get Fooled Again
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 7:22AM
It's important that we launch a massive and serious punitive operation against the jihadists and tribal lunatics in Pakistan before we leave.
Pakistan can't be allowed to escape American retribution!
Old Soldier| 3.30.12 @ 8:12AM
So the solution to this ridiculous war is - another war! This time with a nuclear-armed nation of 190 million people.
Brilliant.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 4:40PM
And you think you're being serious by letting third rate powers trifle with the United States?
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 5:02PM
Withdraw without punitive operations as a prerequisite insures only an enemy enticed, ENTICED to come after us anew.
You have a wolf by the ears, if you let him go he isn't likely to retreat, but seek to close with you.
Strike the enemy down!
Stop deluding yourself that your actions provoked the enemy. The enemy has their history, their narrative, their themes, their prophet that they follow, their god, and their god is a very demanding one.
There isn't any place you can go to ultimately get away from your enemy. He isn't interested in letting you live in peace.
Dixie Pixie| 3.30.12 @ 8:17AM
That is just Drek.
Have you forgotten Pakistan is a nuclear power with a long history of really stupid and homicidal military adventures like the Mumbai Raid?
A punitive strike against Pakistan might be emotionally satisfying but would certainly cause what the US would like to avoid.
Nock| 3.30.12 @ 11:03AM
I vote Drek for Secretary of State. One giant nuclear war is the only way to completely eradicate ignoramuses like Drek.
Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 4:35PM
Pakistan may be nuclear, but they are not a power. We should assist the Indians in taking out their nuclear facilites than let India over run them and put an end to the _hithole we know as Pakistan.
There will always be war. I know thats not what anyone wants to hear, but its the truth, and we'd better infleunce any major action anywhere to our advantage. We have no choice, being the apple of the owrlds eye many hate and despise us. They would do anything to hurt us or just enjoy being a thorn in our side. Chine will soon take some of this burden from us. Then the world will see who the better superpower really is. The country that comes and goes, or the one that will stay, like China.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 4:47PM
So you think Pakistan is willing to go to the mattresses against the United States over their tribal areas, ----- areas by the way that they constantly say they themselves have no control over!
Instead of a knee-jerk reaction born from a faulty understanding of the motivations of those involved, --- maybe you should think of the reactions of our enemies to an ignominious American withdraw, defeat, and public acknowledgement of the same.
Significant numbers of the enemy need to be killed.
If anything we've learned after the killing of bin laden, and the actions of the Pakistani leadership is, that they're not our friends, not interested in establishing a rough conformity of behavior amongst the community of nations, and only interested in establishing a terror network in Afghanistan and India!
If you're content to allow Pakistan to prevail against the United States, -------- come out and say as much!
Old Soldier| 3.30.12 @ 5:01PM
I'm content to leave them be. Pakistan would no more let us occupy their tribal areas than we would allow Mexico to occupy Arizona.
In case you haven't noticed, our logistics run right through Pakistan. Any war against Pakistan start with an occupation of the ports.
You are an idiot crying for war against a far more populous and powerful country than we have taken on since WWII.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 5:09PM
I'm content to see them killed!
I'm not interested in their ports, nor am I interested in continuing a logistic train into an Afghanistan I've already written off!
You don't know spit about military matters, but you do know a good deal about spouting off in some emotion sense without any clear understanding of the results throughout the region of an ignominious American defeat.
You're talking about accepting an American defeat.
That's what it is.
There's no getting away from that.
I'm for getting out of Afghanistan too, but I'm for making sure that after we leave nobody throughout the area will be able to delude themselves that they were able to take on the United States.
My proposal calms the region by reminding them of the vast difference in real power between us and them.
Your proposal allows dirtballs to delude themselves that they can indulge their jihadist fantasies without cost!
There aren't any good options here, because of the combined idiocy of the Bush and obama foreign policy team!
We have to make the best we can out of this, and the only way out is by killing our way out.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 5:12PM
And who said anything at all about "occupying tribal areas!"
What the hell reason would I have to occupy tribal areas after I've proposed withdrawing from Afghanistan!
I'm suggested PUNITIVE OPERATIONS, PUNITIVE EXPEDITIONS, PUNITIVE AIRSTRIKES!
Not occupations!
After I got done with Pakistan there would be a howling within that failed country against a leadership that led them into direct conflict with the United States.
And as for their nuclear capacities, ----- in what ways are they capable of striking us by the way?
They've no air force that can reach us, no navy that could make the journey to strike range of our shores, they've no army that can deal with our men who are fully combat seasoned.
So in what way are they an issue to us?
Anthony M| 3.30.12 @ 11:16PM
Pakistan wouldnt "let" us occupy their land? We could, if we wanted, march through Pakistan, crush it, convert its people and turn it into the 51st state. We own Afghanistan, the taliban is reduced to suicide bombings and staging the murders of civillians and we could stay there and do whatever we wanted. However, for better or worse, we're America and we don't do that anymore. We play nice and fight with one hand and one leg tied behind our backs. We'd still be bowing down to King George and wearing those silly white wigs if we used to be that way.
Drek| 3.30.12 @ 4:44PM
It hasn't anything to do with emotions, but a cold calculation of the likely aftermath of an American withdrawal.
When Clinton ignominiously withdrew from Somolia, what was bin laden's response, and what was the message he spread across the region, and which gained traction?
When we allowed dirtballs to hit our embassies without response, again, because we were being sober and measured in our response, what was the response of our enemies to our passivity?
Pakistan is a mad dog run amok, and must be brought to heel, and they cannot be allowed to continue to think that their continued lawlessness will be accepted.
One more thing, perhaps you should ask yourselves what was COLIN POWELL'S message to Pakistan immediately after 9/11?
Colin Powell threatened to utterly annihilate Pakistan via nuclear strikes!
I'm not suggesting anything at all which former statesmen of this country haven't actually threatened the enemy with!
Dr. X| 3.30.12 @ 8:37AM
Well, there's another solution: use a half-dozen 20 megaton nukes to turn the place into a parking lot for Disneyland Kabul and then let the Afghans get jobs donning Mickey Mouse ears for the American tourists. The Afghan women can put on Sleeping Beauty costumes instead of burkas.
But obviously this country doesn't have the balls to do that kind of thing anymore... if it did, we'd have done it 10 years ago instead of being where we're at now, in our 11th year of still dicking around with these people.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.30.12 @ 11:02AM
The French and the English could have put an end to Hitler, before he even got started.
They didn't have the will.
I think we all know how that turned out.
Jack in Wi.| 3.30.12 @ 11:44AM
The French British and Americans could not stop Communism when it was in it's cradle in 1918 and 1919 even though they had a lot of White Russian allies. What makes you think they would have done any better in the 30's with Germany which was a lot tougher? Hitler, Mussolini and their fascist systems were admired by a lot of of Americans and Europeans because they seemed an answer to Communism taking over Europe. You forget how broken the whole world's economy was in those years. No-one wanted a another war. Read Herbert Hoover's great book ' Freedom Betrayed ' on what the real solution to Hitler and Stalin was.
JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:50PM
The French had 3 armored corps, the Germans had 7 weak infantry divisions, 1 Cavalry Division, no artillery, no tanks, no heavy motars, no air force. After the war, General von Braunstich (OKH Chief of Staff 1938-41) said if the French mobilized in 1936 Hitler was finished. The German Army would have forced him out through a coup.
Occam's Tool| 3.30.12 @ 11:20AM
Dr. X: I think what a lot of the knee jerk reflexists here forget is what it took to defeat Germany and Japan. Those two countries together had populations of less than 200 million.
Why do we think that an expansionist ideology with 1400 years of conquest, that destroyed the longest lasting empire to date (the Byzantine empire lasted over a thousand years) is going to be defeated by turtleshelling a la Switzerland (Switzerland used the US to keep itself secure), or without killing a lot of the enemy?
Personally, Kabul, which is a fecal content in the air place (literally; a high school friend was at State there), could be wiped off the map with hardly a thought---but serve as an excellent encouragement to the others. "They have made a desert and call it peace" worked for the Romans, and could work for us.
Jack in Wi.| 3.30.12 @ 11:34AM
Occam: Why would you want to live surrounded over a billion Muslims, in your homeland Israel? It seems to me to be insanity for someone to want to live in walled ghetto hated rightfully by all your neighbors. If you want to live in such disgusting place it is fine with me as long as you keep your bribing hands out of the pockets of the American taxpayer. If you want to keep stealing from and killing Muslims do it with your own blood and treasure, not ours.
2Anglico| 3.30.12 @ 11:49AM
Jackoff in Wi, "rightfully hated by all your neighbors", are you talking about yourself?
JP| 3.30.12 @ 3:53PM
The Catholics did it in Lebanon. Until the late 70s, they were the majority. Ditto for Iraq. As a matter of fact, when Lawrence of Arabia entered Bagdahd in 1918, 35% of the population was Jewish, and 30% Catholic
RCV| 3.30.12 @ 7:51PM
Unfortunately, the Maronites lost their majority in population well before the 1970s, which was why Lebanon stopped taking a national census, so the loss wouldn't be confirmed. Maronite control was doomed once Reagan yanked US forces out in response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. The country has spiraled downward ever since.
Dixie Pixie| 3.30.12 @ 8:45AM
The fundamental problem with the Afghan and Iraq Wars was a military and political stupidity of such size, length and breadth as to leave generations of military scholars agog at how stupid we were.
The US won both wars in under 60 days then preceded to make every blunder in the book and do so for over ten years.
Dmac | 3.30.12 @ 4:39PM
Because we try to nation build with tribes is the cause of the failure. We should have kicked their arses and left. Let them rebuild themselves.
Mike Daly | 3.30.12 @ 11:54PM
Actually the problem was and is the refusal to stick it out and see to finishing the mission. The US has in fact had the momentum in Afghanistan of recent and Iraq is far more stable than its neighbors since the 2007 surge. The "stupidity" argument is rather laughable.
Bob K.| 3.30.12 @ 9:39AM
Mr. Wittman,
You write about this like you knew it was inevitable. Was it worth one American soldier's life?
LIBERALPARASITES| 3.30.12 @ 10:13AM
The Russians did not have the -?- to use tactical nuclear weapons, so why should we be successful in this -Hell- hole?
johnd2| 3.30.12 @ 10:35AM
Once we leave some other power will probably step in. Let them waste people and treasure.
Vern Crisler| 3.30.12 @ 11:42AM
The main problem is trying to build a democratic nation out of a radical Muslim population. Such Muslims prefer backwardness and slavery, so they will even side with the oppressive Taliban rather than takes sides with the great Satan U.S.A. They are born anarcho-Paulistas.
aware| 3.31.12 @ 7:57AM
And you are born to be either propaganda minister or concentration camp apparatchik, Statist.
cicero| 3.30.12 @ 12:15PM
We were able to help Europe rebuild after WWII because the were Western countries. We were able to help Japan because we took over that country, and installed an American dictator. We have neither factor going for us in Iraq or Afghanistan. We won both of those wars, and achieved our goals within weeks. What ever made anyone think we could turn either into a Jeffersonian democracy is beyound me.
Just once, I would like to see the United States act in the interest of its own people in foreign policy. We do not need Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any of the Musilm countries. They need us. Last time I looked into the matter, I was unable to find any cookbooks with recipes for oil. The Muslim countries that have oil have to sell it, or they go back to milking goats and camels. The only thing that Afghanistan exports, besides terror, is heroin. If we want to test weapons, perhaps we could demonstrate the latest in hign speed crop dusting with Agent Orange, or its mondern equivalent. We should kill every poppy field we can find, and thereby encourage the friendly Afghan farmers to try planting rice, wheat, corn, beans . . . As for Pakistan, we should cut off all aid. If they have the ability to make nuclear bombs, maybe they should use their technology to make and grow things that will support their people. Last time I saw a report, the majority of their citizens were well below anybody's poverty line.
Finally, in that we know where all the terrorists come from, it should be a simply matter for us to start acting like mature adults and just deny them entry into our country, and passage on our transportation system. No more Muslims allowed. If they want to change such a policy, they can stop supporting, encouraging, and practicing jihad. Again, they need us, while we don't need them. I don't particularly think is is a good idea for the lambs to try to reform the wolves by trying to teach them to play nice, by example.
Sarbo| 3.30.12 @ 1:30PM
It is often quite perplexing that no western journalist will bother to consult Indian opinion before they write such vague articles.
It would shock westerners that Indians, not just the pols but also the populace, quite love the Pashtuns. They don't much like the Uzbeks and the Taziks, even tho they supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.
The Pashtuns are warm heated people, friend of you for life if you treated them right.
Right now, it is Pakistan which is the problem, not the Taliban, tho that too is considerable. Pakistan considers Afghanistan as 'stateic depth'. Not to hide its tank battalions, but to place its nukes.
You see, the problem is real for Pakistan. It's a narrow north-south land. No part of Pakistan is more than 10 minutes for an Indian anti-nuke supersonic missile. Nukes have a terrible vulnerabilty at launch. They are slow to rise and they emit huge heat signatures. So, Pakistan must go further westward. It's not a difficult round hole to square.
Like the Laden man said, America may have the clocks, the Taliban has the time. We in India know that a certain colonel in the ISI is to be credited for that analogy.
John786| 3.30.12 @ 2:40PM
An intelligent article regarding the reality in Afghanistan. The US should have left 10 years ago. to improves its reputation at no cost the US should remove all military bases from ME. And start supporting the Palestinian refugees: escort them home. And of course goats will fly.
H. Abdullah Shabazz| 3.30.12 @ 4:22PM
The Army War College.
West Point
Our Miliitary Elite.
After this fiasco, isnt it about time to close them down, get some fresh blood? Sir, some warm blood and a brain wave would be an improvment, sir.
Losing a war, not good. But really, the United States of America, losing to Afgahistan? How bad do you have to screw up, before you say its not working? The Army motto: F^%k up and move up.
diogenes| 3.31.12 @ 8:42AM
Does "Not unlike Vietnam" mean the same as "Like Vietnam"? Or "a little like Vietnam"?
I ask because to me this kind of weasel wording is intended to ameliorate a stark fact: in every material way, it Afghanistan was EXACTLY like Vietnam.
Both places had indifferent populations, corrupt central governments reliant for their very existence on the US, and a shadowy foe committed above all to driving the US out and willing to fight forever. Both wars found the US saturating the area with troops, bombs, equipment and money, stymied by under-equipped guerrilla indigenous warriors supported by foreign suppliers of men, materiel and sanctuary, and a plethora of politicos and generals telling us that victory was just around the corner. Aside from these things, the two wars weren't alike at all.
And our withdrawal from Afghanistan will be "not unlike" our withdrawal from Vietnam.
Mistral| 3.31.12 @ 10:41AM
What a scandalous waste of public money once again. Billions poured into futile occupational forces who prop up corrupt regimes not much better than their predecessors' and then leave behind yet another unfathomable mess. Only the military industrial complex has profited while the American economy has become even more cripplingly indebted. Who is Mr B Obama trying to fool: he willingly continued where Bush etc., left off and has compounded the entire extravagant stupidity of American global militarism. Nations never learn from history and America is certainly no exception to the rule. However, it will not stop there as there is worse to come.
Theo Prinse| 3.31.12 @ 12:53PM
Thanks George Wittman for the article !
"Afghanistan will remain at the crossroads of conflict in its region as it has done for ages. That is its history and its future. The American presence will disintegrate the same as the mud-walled forts of the outposts of the British Empire and the abandoned, rusted residue of the more recent short-lived Russian occupation."
I have little to add.
I think it will be as worse under psycho absent Romney as with the kenian clown currently in the White House.
The US as the strongest industrial, technological and scientifically base in the world is geo-politically wrestling with
1. the military need for a islam-oil dependency to meet the supply to withstand two substantial wars at the same time and
2. the US monetary addiction on the coupling between the USD and oil and
3. the US-China debt relation.
It is typical that China is not very supportive to the US in the Iran nuclear issue although China needs a free flow of Gulf oil as much as the rest of the world.
Again, I have grave doubt of (Mormon psycho shielded) Romney's capacity to stand up against the US mafia-oil-arms-military complex.
We should rather focus on what most presumably geo-politically will happen and focus on the domestic and international political players in it and adopt strategies along these lines .
Will Greece re-bargain EU lending conditions ? Will Marine Le Pen become Président de la France ? Will the Euro ultimately collapse ?
Will the Chinese real estate bubble burst and the Communist Party collapse ?
Will the US citizen finally understand that the marginal US economical growth is caused by the 1 trillion raised debt ceiling ? notwithstanding the oil-dollar coupling.
Is the US citizens aware that there will be a 2nd Arab Uprise in the Gulf ? That there is a growing fundamentalism in the countries of the first Arab Spring ?
That not only the Iraq war was lost but the Afghan war as well and what impact it will have on the US and the Free World internationally ?
Even if the US or any other nation takes out the Iran nuclear facilities .. or if they don't will do little to prevent the ongoing growing fundamentalism (hatred against the Free World).
Michele San Pietro| 4.1.12 @ 2:36PM
I think it's sacrilegious to compare the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which was simply an invasion, with that of the West, which went to that country just in order to defeat terrorism. And Western forces must remain there as long as the Taleban are wiped out, in my opinion.
Pat| 4.1.12 @ 7:31PM
NY Times: Today, May 19, 2017, President Hillary Clinton announced the last American soldier has left Afghanistan for re-deployment to France, where the Al Qaeda French Separatists have assumed military control of Paris and all outlying suburbs. Declaring Afghanistan a strategic victory in America’s war on terrorism, President Clinton expressed her regrets over the 3,800 American lives lost in bringing freedom to Afghanistan. The current Afghan leader, President Schnook Al-Crookiya, has assured the U. S. State Department that America’s efforts were not in vain and that free elections will be established once the country has stabilized. State Dept. spokespeople declined comment on when that might be.
Meanwhile, the democratic Arab state of Palestine, formerly known as Israel, announced their intent to send government troops into France if the French Resistance Movement doesn’t cease all hostilities immediately and submit to Sharia Law. France’s former president, Pierre de Gaulle, has requested American troops be provided to defend the port of Marseille until all non-Islamic French citizens can be evacuated to Corsica. United States Army and Marine Corps. personnel comprising 9,000 combat specialists will join the 40 peacekeeping troops provided by the United Nations in their attempt to safeguard French citizens of undetermined religions while the evacuation is carried out.
Kingofthenet| 4.2.12 @ 3:10AM
Yup, it's time to get some survival gear and a plan, you people scare the HELL out of me.