-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
According to defense officials, military charges will be filed today against Staff Sergeant Robert Bales. Bales will be charged with leaving his base near Kandahar in the dead of the night, and massacring sixteen Afghani inhabitants of two nearby villages before putting several bodies to the torch. Among the casualties of Bales’ alleged shooting spree were three women and nine children.
The motive is unclear, although the most popular theory suggests that Bales is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder — plagued by a head injury he sustained while serving in Iraq. He was currently deployed on his fourth tour of duty, and reportedly struggling from financial strains at home and the emotional tax of 37-odd months away from his wife and children. At any rate, it doesn’t take a psychiatrist to guess why he may have snapped.
That doesn’t excuse the crime, nor change the fact that this somber tale might have been avoided, but for the eleventh hour of America’s reconstruction of the world’s oldest societal insurgency. Quite the contrary. It should give pause to question the costs and benefits of this decade long engagement.
Since Alexander marched his hoplites past the ancient satraps of the Achaemenid Empire — noting, at the time, that Afghanistan was “easy to march into but hard to march out of” — distant empires have become stuck in the muck of this troublesome, tribal country. History has shown that the Afghans will spend the years absent foreign occupiers battling homegrown dynstastic hopefuls. It’s an endless cycle and continuous reminder that the popular cliché christening this “graveyard of empires” holds true —this is no place to wage “nation-building” against an ever-inhospitable host.
In his piece for the main site, posted Monday, Jed Babbin recognizes the facts: we haven’t delivered the goods we were selling, and our co-pilot on this flight of democratic fancy remains Hamid Karzai — the illiberal and utterly corruptible Mayor of Kabul.
I’d be interested to hear from readership if anyone can explain to me why we’re still in Afghanistan? If victory implies a stable, liberal democracy that’s consistently pro-American, then we’re out of luck. Jed points to the failure of our counter-insurgency strategy. He’s absolutely correct. You can’t win that fight with drone attacks and dubious partnerships with local warlords, who are equally impatient for us to head for the exit. Such are the inconvenient details of a war gone on too long.
Short an obscene ratio of counterinsurgents to civilians (one we weren’t ready to commit on 9/12/01, let alone a decade hence) American servicemen and women are easily vilified as heavily armed occupiers, from an unpopular culture, who spend the majority of their time behind fortified walls. Their time “in public” is spent patrolling the streets, forced to depend upon translators to corral the locals — always with best intentions — but operating in a country where the enemy hides in plain sight. If we chose to stay on, how can we expect these brave young soldiers and Marines to win a war when their presence is the glue that binds the insurgency together?
Enough already. For years, neoconservative agitators and liberal imperialists have shouted down anyone who won’t ignore ridiculous constitutional imperatives placed on distant cultures they themselves don’t understand — all the while, foisting myths of foreign allegiance to puppet regimes bought and paid for with American tax dollars.
Last week, the foreign policy chatter on this blog was firmly fixed on Iran’s rationality. Jim suggested, most helpfully, that we should expect our leaders to be the rational actors. I would ask that we demand the same of them when it comes to Afghanistan.
Each new incident involving American soldiers and the civilian population triggers very real, very public outrage. Our troops are in an impossible position — and I’m not talking about supply line headaches or the tempo of combat. Public unrest should be anticipated as the logical byproduct of a ten year mission to root out an un-uniformed foe from a civilian population. The war, in essence, is a Pashtun insurgency drawing hardened fighters from a pool of 15 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and 25 million more in Pakistan. Good luck winning those hearts and minds after beating them bloody for the past decade.
Considering the conditions facing our servicemen and women, I’m astounded more tragic incidents have not occurred. Yet thanks to their efforts, al Qaeda is largely dismantled and what remains of its human infrastructure has quit the field. At this point, I’d prefer we concentrate on tracking them down, wherever they may hide, to “terminate with extreme prejudice” whatever remains of their hobbled organization. Concentrated raids against al Qaeda operatives have proved far more effective and far less costly when tallying up the blood and treasure spent nation-building.
As such, I encourage President Obama to do what’s right: recognize the reality of Robert Bales. We have pushed our fighting men and women to the brink — and absent an attainable victory scenario, they’ve more than earned the right to come home to their families. They’ve done all we’ve asked of them and more. The president should recognize this most recent tragedy for what it is, salvage self-awareness, and take the opportunity to announce an accelerated drawdown of American forces.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/21/recognize-robert-bales-and-the
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
WJ| 3.21.12 @ 9:30AM
Hamid Karzai is calling American troops "demons".
A conspiratorial minded person might think the military industrial complex is calling the shots and keeping us in that pointless, hopeless war.
PCC| 3.21.12 @ 12:51PM
Whatever possible reason for our brave soldiers to be fighting and dying in the AfPak toilet ended the day Osama bin Laden was killed.
Why the GOP presidential candidates and our so-called national leaders of both parties don't realize this is a mystery, especially as it would redound to their electoral prospects.
Drek| 3.21.12 @ 9:39AM
We need to kill a whole mess more prior to leaving.
And we need to thoroughly pound targets throughout the tribal areas in Pakistan.
Then we leave, but only after sending a very clear signal and making a very clear statement, that none can dispute, that if we get trouble from them again, they'll reap a whirlwind.
Dai Alanye | 3.21.12 @ 5:52PM
I can't decide who is more stupid -- Reid, who marshalls a dozen discredited arguments out of fear that the draft might some day be reinstituted while he's still young enough to be eligible, or Drek, who thinks the random destruction of pawns is a winning strategy.
Reid Smith| 3.21.12 @ 6:15PM
Okay, you've piqued my curiosity...what tired arguments am I trotting out in contrast to the stunning successes I'm obviously missing in Afghanistan?
martin j smith| 3.21.12 @ 9:52AM
Our attempts to make friends and work with countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan were based on G-D knows what. However it is clear that the leaders of both of these countries were not on "our page" concerning terrorism because those governments have uses for terrorists. Our aim probably should have been attack the enemy,wipe them out badly leave and say--try more crap and we will be back in spades. Good by.
martin j smith| 3.21.12 @ 9:53AM
Oh I forgot one thingy--Tell those leaders if they want our help they have to show cooperation with us or you are on your own.
Dora Smith| 3.21.12 @ 9:54AM
I don't know what's a mystery to you; that anyone would condemn the coward who slaughtered sleeping men, women, and children in the dead of night? I've totally had enough of people suffering from that mystery. As to why we're in Afghanistan, it's called stopping those Taliban extremists from creating such instability with their particularly severe brand of extremism that it keeps blowing back on the western world. But for sure you're incapable of caring about that.
Bob| 3.21.12 @ 10:10AM
Obama's mishandling of the war has pushed our troops to the brink, stretching them thin with diminishing resources. They don't even have enough resources for psychiatric assistance anymore. All the gains made during the Bush Surge have been utterly destroyed, with the last hopes of victory going up in smoke the night Bales decided to go outside. Obama lost his chance to do what's right, now he must admit his own defeat (although he will undoubtedly blame it on Bush) and get our troops out of there.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.21.12 @ 10:45AM
Reid,
you asked a question above.
Answer: 1. Ship the afghans a LOT of (inedible) grain seed. 2. burn their poppy fields...with fire or persistent poppy killer weed-killers.
See, our grain seed is maximized with stuff that makes it inedible. Conversely, the following crops are very edible....the Afghans can't eat their "seed corn."
Swiching them from a poppy economy to a healthy grain producing economy could be our greatest contribution to "nation building" and long term good will.
A hundred thousand troops (with aircraft), could burn a LOT of poppies and catapult them out of the drug trade.
BURN THE POPPIES BEFORE WE LEAVE!
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.21.12 @ 10:49AM
ps:
I can't believe I am the ony one who understands the underlying problem.
The individual Afghanis could DOUBLE their standard of living growing grain instead of poison.
DRed| 3.21.12 @ 11:06AM
We're in Afghanistan because Obama is worried that pulling out in an election year will lead to all of you yelling about how he lost the war and made us look weak.
Skippy| 3.21.12 @ 11:58AM
He did.
David James Hanson| 3.21.12 @ 1:29PM
Mr. Smith asks: "I'd be interested to hear from readership if anyone can explain to me why we're still in Afghanistan? If victory implies a stable, liberal democracy that's consistently pro-American, then we're out of luck. "
Agreed. But--cynical me--I can say with certainty why we remain in central Asia. American soldiers and sailors remain deployed to Europe, Africa, East Asia, Central America, and Cuba (where I happen to serve a year tour right now), because at one point a National government saw fit to deploy us there. Upon any military deployment budgets get written, contracts get signed, money gets appropriated and spent, people make commitments, and habits get formed. Money = power, both for bureaucrats and for those they hire.
Three Laws of human action apply to any military effort:
1) "An object in motion tends to stay in motion." --Newton
2) "The closest thing on earth to eternal life is a government program." --Reagan
3) "Ask 'who benefits?' and then always follow the money." --Anonymous. But I teach this point to my college students...
These points do not mean that the administrators and recipients are venal. But it's just *easier to keep going* on the original course, or to drift a bit over the years (i.e., mission creep), than to radically change or to stop acting/spending.
C Bowen | 3.21.12 @ 8:18PM
Reid;
We are in Afghanistan to secure a pipeline as Paul Sperry (once a top conservative journalist up-and-comer until he reported as much), make money off the poppy crop as Fox News/Geraldo reported, or allow girls to go to school--the neocon alliance with Hillary.
Or realist--India is allied with Iran on their own pipeline which could actually normalize relationships with Pakistan and India--the US doesn't want to leave because they will never be allowed back as India-Pakistan-Iran becomes its own block to deal with.
Pick one and dissect some deep state already.
Reid Smith| 3.21.12 @ 9:24PM
Mine was more of a rhetorical question, but I absolutely appreciate where you're coming from. My guess is more of "bureaucratization" of social imperative/David James Hanlon critique, but the fact remains, we're not there for the right and it's time to leave.
C Bowen| 3.22.12 @ 10:52AM
Ah, I was less then perceptive last evening.
I certainly agree that it is time to go, but nevertheless, it's helpful to speculate on why the obvious is not done. It may be as simple as election cycles, but I also think it would be popular to leave so I am not sure that explains everything.