George Will Won't
Posted on 09/07/2009 11:54:33 PM PDT by neverdem
George Will has thrown down the gauntlet. While a few conservatives have always been reluctant about our efforts in Afghanistan, Will’s September 1, column advocating withdrawal has opened a rift on the American right with conservatives taking sides. George Will says it’s time to quit Afghanistan. As a soldier who was in Afghanistan for most of 2008 I say unequivocally George Will is wrong; Afghanistan matters.
Will has surprising allies including former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy here. They say we can’t win, though we’ve managed to achieve success in Iraq. They claim that our struggle is against al-Qaeda not the Taliban. This is akin to saying our fight was against the Japanese and giving Hitler a pass. They say Pakistan is more important, but they don’t say how losing our base in Afghanistan will solve that nation’s problems.
The debate is set against the background of an expected decision by President Obama on whether to heed his generals, who are calling for an Iraq like Surge, or to find a quicker way out. Obama may have campaigned on the premise of supporting the “right war” in Afghanistan, but liberals, including most of the Democratic congress oppose any expansion of US forces abroad. The left is now getting help from Will and McCarthy on the right. The stakes in Afghanistan are high. The Taliban, our enemy, are resurgent, enabled by NATO’s inability to fight a consistent counter-insurgency campaign, and the porous border with Pakistan.
Pakistan, aye there is the rub. That nation has descended into its own chaos. The region along Pakistan’s Afghan border, known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), is a Pashtun-Taliban enclave, inaccessible to any forces friendly to the US. The Pakistani military, a nuclear armed force of over a million men including reserves, cannot even access, much less control its own border.
The mountainous region, including the FATA, straddling the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is at times referred to as Pashtun-istan. The Pashtuns, a 42 million strong ethnic group, are minority populations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pashtuns have always been the core strength of the Taliban. Not all Pashtuns are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtuns. Tribal ties, tradition, and ethnic politics lead most Pashtuns to support the Taliban.
Afghanistan continues to be a failed state, Pakistan is failing. We have the opportunity to continue to influence events in the region due to our presence in Afghanistan. Should the US withdraw entirely from Afghanistan certain events are highly likely to unfold. The first would be a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. The Taliban might not see the complete victory they achieved in 1996. They would at least end up seizing and dominating several provinces. These provinces would certainly include several, North and East, which dominate the landlocked nation’s rudimentary road net. The Taliban would gain a stranglehold on the Afghan economy.
They would also rule the Pashtun speaking border region. The resulting consequences of this outcome are impossible to predict. However a larger autonomous Taliban dominated zone would surely threaten the weak Pakistani government. The unspoken, nightmare outcome, we all seek to avoid, is the takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. Yet in spite of this modern achievement, it is a failing nation. Assassination and civil violence have dominated recent politics. The populace is fragmented ethnically and politically. The urban elites live western lives with modern hopes. Most others live poor desperate lives. Islam is the single greatest unifying factor. Pakistanis of various ethnicities have shown a consistent predilection for anti-American, anti-western, pro-Taliban politics.
Two or even three Talibanized nations in place of today’s Afghanistan and Pakistan are in no one’s interest, especially if one of them is nuclear armed. Remember, Afghanistan’s western neighbor is the WMD seeking state of Iran. That nation has infiltrated arms and personnel into the western Farsi speaking provinces of Afghanistan to pressure the US and Afghan governments, and to create its own sphere of influence
George Will’s imagined scenario of special-forces and airpower serving in place of boots on the ground in Afghanistan surely sounds good to deskbound policy wonks. But they would do well to remember that policy failed us through the Clinton era. At that time Pakistan was under the more stable hand of Musharraf.
If we abandon our foothold in Afghanistan, we abandon our contacts on the ground. In order for predators, cruise missiles, and SF operators to succeed repeatedly against al-Qaeda, or any other enemies, our forces need human intelligence. This is why al-Qaeda and the Taliban high command retreated to and continue to hide in the inaccessible reaches of Pakistan. It’s why al-Qaeda chose the then closed state of Afghanistan as a base in the first place.
A premature withdrawal from Afghanistan will also present a tremendous propaganda victory to the Taliban. This would be a truly strategic weapon for all of our Islamist enemies in the current struggle. George Will has stepped up his campaign, and now wants to quit Iraq early as well. He cites the ties that Shiite Iran has established with Shiite Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki as a reason to end our commitment there.
If we were to follow Mr. Will’s prescription, by 2011 we could be facing a hostile band of powers stretching from the India-Pakistan border through Syria, to the Mediterranean. This would be the worst middle-eastern scenario the US ever faced, as bad as the Soviet dominated region envisioned by Carter and Reagan circa 1980. We could face two Islamic, hostile, nuclear powers. Such an outcome would represent the beginning of the end for Israel. It would signify the end of American hegemony, and the start of a truly new world order; one that would be highly unfavorable to our interests.
These are just the consequences for us. Mr. Will would also abandon the Afghans, the Iraqis and others to the Taliban to the likeminded Shia of Iran, and to al-Qaeda. He and his applause section remind us that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that extremism pervades the region, and that generally we have no business there anymore.
While I do not subscribe to the left’s drivel that poverty and frustration are the root of terrorism, I think that a poorer more Islamic mid-east will be more miserable for the Afghans and Iraqis, and the Pakistanis and Iranians. Having spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have seen that most people there want peace and prosperity. They want to end the violence and raise their children more comfortably than poverty and war has thus far allowed.
While Islam may indeed lend itself to oppressive rule, so did Christianity, for nearly two millennia of Romans, feudalism, and absolutism. Today, millions of Iraqis and Afghans have shown an appreciation for democracy, and the idea of peaceful, lawful change of governments. Come to think of it, so have the much abused Lebanese. In Iran, millions voted, and when the mullahs executed a massive electoral fraud millions protested. In India millions of Muslims regularly live peaceful lives in a democracy.
It is true that democratizing the Islamic world is not, and should not be the primary prescriptive mission of the US military. However to cede the entire middle-east to the forces of extremism, to abandon our allies, to surrender our security, and make the world a much more dangerous place seems folly. And to do it so that we can say we are not nation building, so that our military is doing what a few purists claim is “its job” is beyond foolishness. My job as a soldier is to preserve the security of my nation by whatever means necessary. Right now I can’t think of a better way we can do that than holding the line against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
John Byrnes is a reservist. He spent 2008 in Kunduz, Afghanistan where he advised an Afghan National Police company on counter-insurgency. His email is jrb1013@aol.com.
Ever since he panned Palin, George Will has lost my respect.
I don’t know many Conservatives that take this man seriously, anymore, but Obama does have problems in Afghanistan that will probably never be solved because he lacks the will to win.
George Will Won't
Eric Clapton.
Sorry for the long post, but this does matter. I was in Afghanistan in 2002. It mattered then, it matters now, and it will matter in 2015. We cannot afford to cede Afghanistan and Pakistan to the jihadists. That the American public does not have an appetite for a protracted war in Afghanistan is the fault of the dimocrats and folks like George Will who simply do not understand that the enemy gets a vote. War is hard, tough, dirty business. The soldiers who are fighting think Afghanistan matters. Clausewitz talked about the three legs of national power: military, government and population. We now have one leg of national power serious about defeating the jihadists; while the jihadist are not encumbered with the will of government or population. As long as so-called respected voices like George Will call for us to cut and run, neither the government nor the population are going to support a long, drawn out war with the jihadists.
Understanding when to stay the course is more difficult than figuring out when to quit when you are ahead. Bismark in 1870 had achieved his strategic objectives of retaking Alsace and Lorraine. Had Bismark truly wanted to crush France as has been asserted, the Iron Chancellor would not have stopped at the gates of Paris. Therefore, there was not need to continue the war as he had defeated the French and achieved his objective. Will’s analogy is faulty as he is comparing a defeated enemy with one who is not defeated. A faulty analogy is a logical fallacy and produces faulty logic. Will is supposed to be an erudite scholar and should know better than to create a faulty analogy, but when creating spurious arguments, men are prone to logical fallacies.
If we abandon Afghanistan, you can expect to see the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan declare an independent Pashtunistan, incorporating the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This will become an even safer haven for the jihadists and further degrade our ability to attack the jihadists. The pressure on Pakistan by the jihadists will increase, more Saudi Wahabbist mullahs will go to Pahstunistan to preach death to America. Withdrawing from Afghanistan will be see across the Muslim world as a victory for the jihadists over America and will serve to increase jihadist activities against America. You have to remember that Islam has been at war with Christianity for some 1400 years.
I would like to taake this opportunity to thank George Will for writing his column. While he could more be more wrong (on any number of levels) if he tried, he has preformed a valuable service with his column...sparking a debate. That is what a good columnist is supposed to do. So thank you George
Unfortunately, the debate exists only on the right, IMHO.
A Dangerous Delusion - We go to war to defend our interests, not to encourage democracy.
Mark R. Levin: Not So Fast - A response to Andy McCarthy on the democracy project.
Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff
The Democrats re-fight an old battle
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
What does matter and is relevant is that 'we' have a (cough) Commander-In-Chief who says he 'doesn't like winning'. That 'wining' gives him icky feelings and scary images of the Japanese Empower being 'humiliated' when surrendering to Gen MacArthur(1)!
As such, all of Pakistan could have a mass conversion to Baptist, the tribal Pashtun and their 'war lords' could have an epiphany and become Jehovah's Witnesses and the Taliban could become born again Christians -- and it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference as the CIC doesn't like 'Winning'!
So if we're in Afghanistan 'not to win', then why are we there at all? And why did Obama appoint a Counterinsurgency Expert, Gen Stanley McChrystal, to be the commander on the ground? Was it to make him, a career Special Forces soldier/officer, look like a buffoon and the Special Forces inept? And then, what's the point of adding 30,000 more 'boots on the ground' if the goal is 'not to win'? Not to mention that 30,000 Infantrymen are the WRONG kind of troops we need there. We need SF (Green Berets), SEALS, Force Recon Marines and Rangers -- Special Operation Forces. Even 'regular' Marines the 82nd & 101st Airborne are the 'wrong kind' that we need.
And if Barry doesn't want to 'win', I wish he wouldn't be so overt in his attempt to 'lose'. We're sacrificing a group of very special people for nothing. But if I'm wrong, then dammit Barry, unleash Gen McChrystal and let him do his thing. And give him the 'right kind' of troops he needs to fight out there in Injun country..
(1) That never even happened. Obama's knowledge of US History matches his name: ZERO.
While Islam may indeed lend itself to oppressive rule, so did Christianity, for nearly two millennia of Romans, feudalism, and absolutism.
Embarrassing. Clueless about history. Judging by this clueless statement above I will take his editorial with a grain of salt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.