-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 18 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
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Afghan Lessons
Why are we still there?
In 1841 just before Christmas Sir William Hay Macnaghten, Her Majesty’s Envoy and Minister of the Government of India, was shot and knifed to death while seeking to negotiate with the son of the Afghan leader, Dost Mohammed. The British envoy’s remains were paraded about Kabul’s bazaar — in parts. In 1997 Taliban fighters seized the former Soviet-backed leader Najibullah. As happened to Macnaghten, Najibullah’s body was cut into many pieces that were then displayed on poles in the bazaar. That was only fifteen years ago. Not much changes in Afghanistan.
In 1979 terrorists kidnapped American Ambassador Adolph Dubs. He was killed in an unsuccessful Russian-led rescue attempt specifically objected to by the American authorities. At least his body wasn’t mutilated. It is estimated that from 1979-‘89 close to one million Afghan civilians were killed in the war with the Soviets. Is there any sign that President Barack Obama or the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has any awareness of these historic moments and that which has occurred in between? It might be easy to ignore the dusty history of William Macnaghten’s death, but 1997 is not that long ago nor are the numerous public assassinations (such as Hamid Karzai’s half-brother, Wali Karzai, and the key U.S. contact, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani) that have followed in retribution for the death of Osama bin Laden since May 2011.
And this is aside from the current calculation of 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan. Should these not be a bit fresher in the minds of those who ultimately command or seek to command the 80,000 American military personnel still in Afghanistan? Nothing at all regarding American involvement in Afghanistan is part of the discussion during the current election campaign.
How exactly does Washington’s leadership expect to extract our forces from a country that shows little sign of basically altering a tribally-dominated governmental structure? Waiting until 2014 was simply a political timetable constructed by President Obama to create a justification for his final “surge” of men and materiel that supposedly was deemed adequate to suppress the Taliban enemy forces while building up a new Afghan Army. In the Obama strategy these new Afghan troops would be loyal to some imagined democratic process introduced by that great democrat, President Hamid Karzai. What part of a near totally corrupt Afghan government and governmental system does Washington — both Democrat and Republican — not understand?
America’s part-time allies, Pakistan, told us back in 2004 that military victory, as the United States usually envisioned it — was just not possible. They said then what they had said before — that a partial and temporary political victory might be possible, but no “European” force could dominate the tribes of Afghanistan for anything more than a short while. The bearer of the historically proven advice was their then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the American-trained and highly respected Chief of Army Staff today.
As the military brass and their political bosses like to say, the United States has the greatest fighting force in the world today. All that is true, but it is also true that the men and women who make up that force hate to lose. America is a highly competitive nation. Our volunteer military goes anywhere in the world and fights to keep enemies away from our shores. These warriors need to know they are doing a job that will help their country. That knowledge is being lost in Afghanistan.
The politicians are unable to figure a way to get out. The foreign terrorists, al Qaeda, have been driven out, but the indigenous Islamic radicals, the Taliban, who protected them, remain. In Washington each succeeding civilian leadership is afraid they will be blamed for pulling out of a commitment. The result is that they have continued to send troops into battle to beat the enemy, the Taliban, and the troops succeed. The trouble is that the war the American troops are fighting is not the war the enemy is fighting. The U.S. forces win the battles and yet the war is never won. Nor can it be without occupying the entire country and building a new nation — which in reality is not our business. It is the responsibility of America’s civilian leadership to recognize this and withdraw our military from such situations.
The reason for going into Afghanistan was to destroy the support base for the organization that was responsible for the attack on 9/11 and planned similar destruction against Western civilization wherever it could. What’s happened is that the physical side of that war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan has succeeded. Unfortunately the various sites for strategic development of jihad have grown elsewhere. The war has shifted locations and character of personnel.
As in Vietnam where U.S. troops won the battles but Washington lost the war because it never really understood the scope of the North Vietnamese Communist commitment, Afghanistan’s tribal culture and in-bred ability to absorb the punishment of war survives all battles. Our intelligence analysts have been saying this all along. Wars of choice (such as Afghanistan) are won if the political goals are attainable. The battles of these wars must be fought and won with concomitant political results. When it becomes apparent that the battle victories are not aiding in gaining the desired political result, it is time to withdraw from the field. This is the case now in Afghanistan.
There is no need to hold to the 2014 timetable unless there is an intent to maintain a heavy troop presence to provide a secure forward base in western Afghanistan in expectation of assisting an Israeli attack on Iran. Is this what is really behind the Obama strategy?
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 (36) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/31/afghan-lessons
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Consternated Conferences
- Self-Righteous Republic
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
c. j. acworth| 8.31.12 @ 6:44AM
We have acomplished all that we could reasonably expect in Afganistan. We kicked out the Taliban, and eventually got bin Laden. We made our point long ago, which is, give aid and sanctuary to those who perpetrate 9/11-like atrocities against us and we will flatten you. Forget about nation-building or estblishing democratic forms of government in places it has never existed. The job of the U.S. military is to break things and kill people, and it is past time we stopped wasting it trying to convert the heathen.
Jack in Wi| 8.31.12 @ 7:11AM
Romney had a chance last night to put Afganistan to bed. He could have announced that he will pull out all our troops as soon as he gets in office. It would of had a tremendous and positive effect for him. Instead he said nothing and will do nothing. Well what can you expect with the Neocons he has running his foreign policy? He will make Obama look like the peace candidate again.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.31.12 @ 5:26PM
Afghanistan was a failure-- the biggest failure of the Bush administration (and btw, I don't dislike Bush personally; however he represented the very dynasticism you disliked when JFK was president-- as when he appointed Bobby AG).
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.31.12 @ 5:27PM
not you Jack: these dynasticist Repuglicans and their cohorts.
Bob K| 9.1.12 @ 9:01PM
Jack,
He could have announced lots of things! Thank God he had the brains not to conduct foreign policy during a campaign speech! What if he wins the election? What would he have left to deal with? His cards would be on the table. No telling how those lunatic Afghanis would respond would respond between now and November!
You don't conduct foreign policy while giving campaign speeches. Get real!
DVG93| 9.3.12 @ 9:48AM
Bob K...Exactly. I guess the leftys would call me a neocon, but it's been time to go for a while. You do not endanger the troops by giving a speech. Romney is in no position to effect policy.....yet.
The sad part is, the taliban will regain control when we leave. New probelms demand new strategies. My strategy is we decapitate political leadership when no other option is viable.
Dai Alanye | 9.3.12 @ 12:27PM
Bob K is absolutely correct. The specifics of foreign policy should not be discussed by the challenger during his campaign.
btims86| 8.31.12 @ 6:53AM
Liberalism is a mental disorder.......that's the way we fight wars now, liberalism.
After 9/11 we started out right, go after AQ & Taliban and punish them for 9/11, destroy all AQ bases. Get bin Laden.
But that turned into nation building. A mistake nearly everywhere but espcecially in the Moooooslim world. It is better to let Mooooslims live in grass huts; don't try to help them. Also don't allow them to immigrate there and spread Islam and Sharia Law.
Thom| 8.31.12 @ 3:52PM
btims86,
If we hadn't "nation built" Germany and Japan do you think they would be the peaceful nations they are today? The war in Europe was the last battle of WWI. Korea is what happens when you don't "nation build" or resolve the matter at hand. Having to go back every generation or so and fight the same people has proven to be a bit more costly than "nation building" when done correctly. We aren't actually "nation building" in AF btw. We are spending a lot of money on logistics to be there but I don't think anyone can say with clarity what exactly we are doing there other than spending money to be there.
Consider carefully where we would be today if W had pulled out of AF in 2002 when the military mission there was essentially ended? The bulk of the money we spend there goes to prop up a country with an annual per capita income level around 800 USD. The stated goal is to build an AF armed forces of 220,000. The Taliban never got beyond 45,000. Where is the money going to come from to pay that size "army"?
I know many want simplistic solutions to complex problems that fit in a 2 inch text box but what is the point of invading a country if you don't solve the problem? Answers are cheap; Solutions tend to be real expensive. At this point it won't matter much when we pull out. It may matter to the next group of even less numerous American Gis sent into this hell hole on short notice however.
Bob K| 9.1.12 @ 9:19PM
Nation building at the end of WWII was determined at Yalta and Potsdam at the end of WWII. Korea was determined to be what it is today. Unresolved, if you will. The same thing took place for Germany and Japan and nation building worked in West Germany (East too, from Russia's perspective) and all of Japan. Roosevelt and Truman and Churchill and Stalin made the agreements. To over simplify, North Korea violated the agreement and we responded and drove them back. China entered and drove us back. Result: Status Quo Ante as it remains today. We never considered nation building there. Probably should have but nobody is perfect.
Thom| 9.3.12 @ 10:57AM
Bob,
I’m not sure it was ever our strategy to win in Korea (MacArthur wanted to win naturally). The Chinese settled for the status quo because we put just enough effort into Korea to make it real expensive to go beyond that but we threw out any chance to win in military terms in early 1951. Can’t nation build if you don’t win the war.
China sees Korea the same way it sees Taiwan. People talk about North Korea like their bigger brother doesn’t exist. North Korea exists because China wants it to exist. If war does come to the peninsula China will do exactly what it did 60+ years ago if things go badly for the North. There are a lot of contemporary lessons in Korea for people who think the other side doesn’t get a vote in such matters.
Bob K| 9.3.12 @ 1:57PM
I agree with you about China's strategy and also your conclusion. I don't think that China is interested in going further than the 38th parallel for various reasons.
Korea is much different linguistically and culturally and South Korea has become a bastion of Capitalism in South East Asia and has turned into a trading partner of China. People in China's Yanbian province north of Korea also speak Korean and North Korea is a good buffer zone and, for what it is worth, an example to them on how much worse things could get. At the moment China seems to prefer things that way and Japan feels more comfortable. So does the USA.
Also, Taiwan has been speaking Mandarin as it's dominant language for a long time.
PCPSmokerII| 9.1.12 @ 10:46PM
Your reading of history is correct, but you are missing the biggest factor of them all: There is no cohesive Aghan republic because the Afghans are not civilized people.
Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, Greece, and Italy showed improvement because of the Marshall Plan, but also because those were and are civilized societies. Afghanistan hasn't changed much between the time of British invasion and now. I recommend you view the documentary called "Restrepo." You tell me if the hill "people" has any resemblance to the civilization you know.
Bob K| 9.2.12 @ 1:18AM
I have no argument with that except for the idea that they aren't civilized. Afghanistan is made up of tribal cultures separated by ethnic and language barriers: Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and others.
Afghanistan is a place on the world's map. It is a nation in name only. Nationalism along with common language and culture is the glue that keeps western nations together. This is not at work in Afghanistan. It never was.
Dai Alanye | 9.3.12 @ 12:40PM
The big question is why our military strategy hasn't reverted to what worked in the first place.
Rumsfeld freed Afghanistan on a shoestring by using the anti-Taliban warlords. The attempt to set up a centralized government in a place that has never had one was a mistake. Now that its failure has been demonstrated, time to go back to the warlords, take advantage of the tribal structure of Afghanistan, and let Karzai and his cabal fend for themselves.
Get out of Afghanistan? No, because the earlier problem -- the place becoming a refuge for Muslim terrorists -- might well crop up again. Simply fight the war in the cheapest and most effective way, recognizing that "democracy" is no panacea in a deeply divided state.
Bob K| 9.3.12 @ 2:07PM
I think we should also realize that because we also have a divided democracy here on this issue it is one of the reasons we have not been able to define a coherent foreign policy to use in Afghanistan-or Syria, for that matter.
PCC| 8.31.12 @ 8:55AM
We should have exited the AfPak toilet the day Bin Laden was killed. Politically, whichever presidential candidate calls for an immediate and complete withdrawal of our brave troops would reap a huge electoral advantage. Enough already!
Derek Leaberry| 8.31.12 @ 10:11AM
The junior officers and sergeants should arrest the colonels and generals, hog tie them, load up the transport planes, junk the weaponry, and fly home. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush should be given rifles and be parachuted back so that they can finish the job, whatever that might be.
btims86| 8.31.12 @ 2:29PM
What a ass....let me guess, you're either 15 years old or a Paulbot or a limp-wristed libtard?
Derek Leaberry| 8.31.12 @ 2:44PM
I supported Bush's initial invasion of Afghanistan because the Taliban government harbored Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda and had to be destroyed. Both were badly mauled and sent running. The Afghanistan mission was finished by 2002. The troops should have been withdrawn from Afghanistan by Christmas, 2002. The lives of the American soldiery have been wasted ever since in a futile attempt to create a stable government in a land where centrifugal forces reign. Nation-building in a land that has never been a true nation is not worth the life of one private.
TLP| 8.31.12 @ 11:19AM
The William Tecumseh Sherman way, is the only way.
These Animals should have been Bombed even further in to the Stone Age with B52s, until we ran out of Bombs.
No more Boots on the Ground.
EVER!
From now on, We Bring The Rain.
And, we bring it til the Job's Done.
PCPSmokerII| 9.1.12 @ 10:39PM
To quote the USAF mission statement during the mid 1960's: (in loud capital letters) THE MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE IS TO FLY AND FIGHT. DON'T YOU EVER FORGET IT."
Dai Alanye | 9.3.12 @ 12:50PM
Speaking as someone with an ancestor who marched with Sherman, let me remind you that "boots on the ground" was the way he did it. "Raining down destruction," while occasionally useful for limited objectives, is both simplistic and liable to failure.
Besides,without at least a few boots on the ground, how do we rescue the aircrew who don't make it home?
Houdini| 8.31.12 @ 11:34AM
The Afgans have never really had what would pass muster as a government. Karzai is doing nothing more than lining his pockets with our money and trying to make nice with those that are killing our troops. Since Obozo announced that we would withdraw....why wait, tell the Afgan *ssholes to shove it and leave. Just before we go however, we should level one of the Taliban strongholds (with what we used to call Arc-Light raids) as a reminder of what will happen should we discover that they have decided to go back into the terror export business. This of course will p*ss off the "cultured class", but who cares, they don't like us anyway.
cicero| 8.31.12 @ 12:18PM
This is the price we pay for our leaders' total ignorance of History. A readding of Kipling, alone, would have told them that nothing has changed in Afghanistan in over a thousand years. If these people want a different culture, it is up to them of change it.
We should have gone into both Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of punitive expeditions. Throw out those responsible for the damage to the U. S., and do enough damage to convince them to thing twice about it the next time. Nation building should be reserved for our own nation. We have enough work here to accomplish.
Romney should announce to the folks that he will declare that our mission has been acomplished, turn the defense of Afghanistan over to their army (such as it is), and leave with all of our people and stuff. Then, if the Afghan soldiers want to turn their guns on themselves, so be it.
CJW| 8.31.12 @ 1:22PM
We should leave today. Obama has announced a withdrawal which is the same as surrender with no hope of victory. Our troops are getting killed by our Afghan "allies." There is no plan for victory. If Bush was president, the MSM would highlight the casualties every day, now with Obama the war is forgotten.
Thom| 8.31.12 @ 3:50PM
If your enemy doesn't fear you no amount of spending on defense is going to matter if you can't or won't bring all tools to bear. We "lost" Afghanistan in 2001 with the Recon in Force strategy we adopted. We drove the Taliban out like Roaches from a specific piece of restate but lost the opportunity to surround, cut off and destroy the "nest" and thus buy a significant amount of time for the people of AF to sort things out.
The Russians killed a lot of Afghans indiscriminately and made enemies of people that would otherwise not have taken up arms against them. We haven't killed enough Taliban over a decade to matter. Our timidly is a recruiting poster for the Taliban.
Why we went into Afghanistan the way we did and simply chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan is an open question. I don't think the answer has anything to do with politics per say. The ill-conceived current endeavor reflects a great deal of politics but also in part the difficulty of operations in AF for foreign forces and the logistical nightmare the place presents to any non-border state trying to operate there.
Thom| 8.31.12 @ 3:50PM
I've asked this question before of those that worship War College theories, "when does the force pool size and makeup become the determining factor in our strategies?" I think we know the answer. Defensive wars and government stimulus programs have similar outcomes. They spend a lot of money and don't deliver on what was promised by their worshipers time and time again. Military capability without the capacity to employ it effectively is like Joe Biden hoping he could win an election for President.
PCPSmokerII| 9.1.12 @ 10:36PM
Must agree, and one must agree that Bush was an idiot, as liberals were telling us, as well as a scum bucket. Fight the war, make it intense and horrible for the other side, then pull out, after minor repairs, and go home. Instead under Bush the Idiot, we had very tight engagement rules, including drones that could not attack Taliban fighters involved in burial ceremonies (NY Post, 2004), building cellphone towers, winning the "hearts and minds" of savages (literally, see the documentary Restrepo), and the usual hand the key to the US Treasure to dictator Karzai.
Enough. Let's leave that rat hole, reject the asshole Bush, and close the book on the Afghan war. After all, we did expell Al Quida out of that country, errh...shithole.
DarkMan| 9.3.12 @ 9:36AM
Clearly, a product of the inner city education system - and votes for the zero.
Thom| 9.3.12 @ 11:38AM
PCPSmokerII ,
For all the reasons and more you sited above, AF is not suited for “nation building” as we understand it but that also makes it ideal as a terrorist training camp which it was and will revert to once we leave. Our special capabilities in very limited numbers added to the 15,000 Northern Alliance pushed the 45,000 Taliban out of most of the country but that is the best outcome possible with the forces we employed in 2001/2002 time frame. Whatever policies Bush employed after the initial assault may not have added to the outcome we wished for but the initial policy and strategy employed was decisive in not resolving the matter when it was the cheapest to do so. I’ve tried for a decade to get those involved in the planning to explain the decisions made but thus far no one will even comment on it. There is a lot more than politics involved in that initial decision and that should concern any thinking rational person. I don’t think Bush can be blamed for the last Clinton budget through the end of Sept 2001 and the resultant military force and readiness that results from 8 years of downsizing and maintenance level funding. On 9/11 it was difficult to find ready aircraft and weapons to intercept those airliners. When we invaded AF we used a fraction of our specialized Airborne trained forces. Do you know why?
sommers| 9.2.12 @ 11:17AM
These posts assume the PTB want to win the AF war and come home. I'm inclined to believe they want perpetual war so that the industry of planes and bombs is a constant.
We are trained and built to fight a different type of war than chasing folks thru' towns and caves. If the Taliban regrouped and built any substantial infrastucture and fighting force. We can deal with that easily.
Bring em' home.
Thom| 9.3.12 @ 11:51AM
“I'm inclined to believe they want perpetual war so that the industry of planes and bombs is a constant.” Don’t know much about combat in AF do you? Those planes are $16,000,000 model planes and the number of bombs and Hellfires being employed from less than 100 model airplanes wouldn’t keep a single Wal_Mart open. The bulk of the cost of AF goes to prop up the government there and the second largest cost goes to logistics like shipping and then trucking in $4.00 a gallon fuel and 3x times as expensive ammo as you can buy a Wal_Mart. With the Air Force buying $59.00 a gallon green fuel and the Navy buying $27.00 a gallon green fuel perhaps one should question the people who make such decisions about why they do such things. The answer might surprise you.
Bob K| 9.3.12 @ 1:25PM
Exactly. And the work generated in building those model planes and bombs and Hellfires, not to mention helicopters, keeps plants open and operating here that pay wages much higher than one can earn at Wal_Mart.
murphy| 9.2.12 @ 9:04PM
The most morally articulate article I have read in way too long. It is a defective political compass which refuses to even approach a debate concerning this lost war. Where is Obama or Rommney on this issue? They are afraid of appearing weak while our soldiers are being fragged in the back by our "allies". Somebody needs to be decisive!
Burlington| 9.3.12 @ 12:04AM
Give them all an AK 47 and 200 rnds. then vamoose! No more cash either. There has to be some good guys. The bad guys can't still be using purloined Soviet explosives and ammo. If our intelligence can't figure out who is supplying them and rub them out, they never will. The police and army good guys who signed on with us are nearing retirement!