The first to show a willingness to grapple with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect.
Posted on 09/09/2009 2:58:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
If the aphorism holds -- the guerrilla wins if he does not lose -- the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in Afghanistan.
Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And their tactics are more sophisticated.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation "serious." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it "serious" and "deteriorating."
President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.
Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?
Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?
Afghanistan is being called Obama's Vietnam.
It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam brought down Lyndon Johnson's. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.
The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year's end are an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.
If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.
Obama can still choose not to fight this war.
But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run, with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a "war of necessity," with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of America's best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.
And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in, knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten out and gone home.
Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would be a model for the Islamic world, where women's rights were protected.
After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed.
While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that withdrawal now -- which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and the Pashtun south and east -- would be a strategic debacle unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.
But what if Obama approves McChrystal's request and puts another 20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?
Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S. air support, ran them out of Kabul.
About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt.
Obama would divide his party and country. His support would steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a seemingly endless war.
Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any, one imagines.
What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.
Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a decision that could cost him his presidency.
In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.
Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second terms.
Hmm - little hope or defeat.
little hope or defeat.
little hope or defeat.
little hope or defeat.
little hope or defeat.
How about we try that little hope thing?
A bit of irony here. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his legions, it meant he wanted to overthrow the Senate and become dictator.
Why don’t we start by removing “Muslim may I” from the Rules of Engagement.
>>> The country rewarded both with second terms. <<<
Well, here is the reason the author wrote this story.
If we’re going to fight a war, let’s fight a war! War causes death. Let me repeat that - people die in a war.
We’re trying to do something over there, but death is anathema to us as a nation. We can’t allow soldiers to be wounded or killed. We can’t allow “innocent civilians” to be killed or wounded - and an “innocent civilian” is anyone in civilian clothes with no weapon in hand. The last I heard the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms.
The last major order to our troops was not to fire if civilians might be harmed. We will gain their support only if we don’t hurt any. Does this work? Our enemy doesn’t think so. They routinely use car and truck bombs and rockets that kill scores of civilians, and yet they seem to have the support of the people. It is a tribal culture and tribal cultures respect strength, not fear. We, as a nation (tribe) show that we fear death.
How long has it been since we actually won a real war - and I don’t count Panama and Grenada as “wars”. Thousands of Frenchmen died in the Normandy invasion and thousands more died in the drive to liberate France and drive to Germany, and yet the French supported us.
With our pseudo Muslim Commander in Chief insisting that we fight nice (like reading Miranda rights to captured Taliban) the US military is in a hopeless scenario. Bush and the military lawyers werent a lot different. Remember when several hundred Taliban leaders were at an Al Qaeda funeral and the lawyers said we couldnt hit them? We are fighting people who dont know the comfort of running water or toilet paper while we mind our table manners. Afghan is hopeless, the Muslims are hopeless, and with Obama leading the charge that is hopeless. Too bad for our brave military.
The whole “hearts and minds” thing got it completely backwards.
People respect power, they scoff at weakness. Which is why you first crush them, and then you win them over.
They will never come over unless you first crush them with overwhelming force.
We carpet bombed Dresden, and nuked 2 cities in Japan, and still won them over as allies.
Too bad for our brave military.
They are like targets in a shooting gallery.
Yep, but now we’re nice and gentle.
Personally I would start by bombing the poppy fields with napalm, instead of guarding them.
As long as the guerrilla has a secure place where he can go to rest, train, and resupply, he can keep at it for a long time.
The real war is not in Afghanistan. The real war is in Pakistan. Pakistan is where the radical madrassahs (Islamic schools) turn out endless streams of young jihadis. Pakistan is where the Taliban get their supplies and arms. Pakistan is where they get their funding (as a conduit from the wealthy money people in Saudi and elsewhere).
If we can't hit them in Pakistan, it's hard to think we can win.
LLS
The first to show a willingness to grapple with reality no matter how unpleasant the prospect.
Exactly.
We face a very serious threat that our leadership doesn't seem to comprehend. A global threat that aims to destroy us utterly and will not stop until it succeeds. There are only two outcomes when dealing with this kind of threat. Win or lose. Our grandparents understood this. If we are unwilling to win then all we can accomplish is prolonging our loss which is what we are doing. AlQueda realizes this, why don't we? I have posted before, all we need to do in the short term is keep them from grabbing hold of a nation from which they can extend sovereign powers. This is only a short term goal. If we were serious we would have some kind of long term vision. We don't.
If the Saudis (and others) were not funding radical madrassahs, then the people studying there would have to study something more useful instead. Instead poor Muslim parents have a place to put their excess kids, where the kids get free room and board, in exchange for the kid studying radical Islam. After graduating, they can become either jihadis, or be placed as the radical imam of some mosque (also subsidized by the Saudis and others). Take away the funding, and radical Islam dries up.
Wealthy muslims like the Saudis are required by Islam to fund jihad. It is a religious duty to pay zakat (Islamic tithe), and one class of recipients of zakat is the jihadis. If the Saudis had less wealth, there would be less funding for jihad.
I am not unmindful or indifferent to the consequences of undisguised defeat in Afghanistan. The question is not so much what is desirable but what is possible. If we get to the point where we conclude that it is possible to "win" in Afghanistan, we then have to decide whether the win is worth the cost.
That in turn means that we must be clear in our definition of what it means to "win." I've tried to articulate some of the problems with waging a war in which our war aims are not clearly understood much less achievable and cheap. You might recall I began my first post on this thread with my definition of what our war aim should be:What do we want to accomplish in Afghanistan? Obviously, we want to leave a country in place which does not support terrorism.
I asked whether that is possible without also "winning" in northwest Pakistan. In my judgment that is not possible. What must be done to win in northwest Pakistan? In my judgment it cannot be done with air power alone therefore requires boots on the ground. Can it be done without American boots on the ground? In my judgment it cannot and I believe I am supported by this by senior American military. Is there American support for putting American troops into Waziristan? Clearly not. In fact there is not support for keeping American troops in Afghanistan. Even if we put American troops into northwest Pakistan and "won" there how long would such a victory last? Until the last American is gone.
If we put troops into northwest Pakistan what does that do to our desire to keep nukes under control? I think it makes less likely and proliferation to Al Qaeda more likely-which is precisely the opposite reason why we got involved in Afghanistan in the first place!
So when we say, in effect, we should wage war to maintain our reputation perhaps we ought to think how many lives how much treasure is our reputation worth? We ought to ask how in the world would we enhance our reputation by getting sucked into the wilds of Waziristan?
I would wage war for oil in a heart beat but are you going to be the one to tell the American mothers that their sons must die for reputation? You might be able to persuade me that it is necessary to wage war for intimidation if that would bring the Muslim world over to our side and put a stop to terrorism but hardly would America consent to the sacrifice of its children for reputation.
I started off this reply talking about "undisguised" defeat in Afghanistan. It might well be that we have just sustained a rather well disguised defeat in Iraq according to Kevin McCarthy who thinks the victory goes to Iran. But respecting Afghanistan, there are many ways to define victory and many ways to extricate ourselves without the appearance of defeat. If the Pakistan problem means there is no prospect of victory, we might begin to examine those options.
Re post 12: you are correct, sir.
Poor ol’Pat.....still searching for relevance
He and Chrissy should start a club for Irrelevant Ol Boys
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.