Posted on 10/02/2009 3:48:02 AM PDT by angkor
Deep down, national-security conservatives know President Obama will not wage a decisive war against America’s enemies in Afghanistan. They also know that the young men and women we already have there are sitting ducks. Ralph Peters notes that our commanders, obsessed with avoiding civilian casualties, have imposed mind-boggling rules of engagement (ROE) on our forces, compelling them to retreat from contact with the enemy and denying them resort to overwhelming force — including the denial of artillery and air cover when they are under siege. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York recently reported, even some Afghans are telling our commanders to “stop being so fussy . . . and kill the enemy.”
Yet the national-security Right is urging that we up the ante and put another 40,000 American lives at risk in this hostile theater, under this commander in chief and the same military leadership that dreamed up the ROE. Why? To attempt, under the rubric of “counterinsurgency,” the unlikeliest of social-engineering experiments: bringing big, modern, collectivist, secular government to a segmented, corrupt, tribal Islamic society — a society that has been at war with itself for three dozen years, which is to say, since the first futile effort to impose big, modern, collectivist, secular government ran smack into Afghanistan’s tribal Islamic ways.
Many on the right who urge the troop escalation want no part of the experiment. But they are hallucinating, too. They have convinced themselves that just because they would take the fight to our enemies, Barack Obama also is inclined to do so: the same Barack Obama who has decried American “militarism” since he was a Columbia undergrad, whose top foreign-policy priority has been to make nice with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who would have to overcome every fiber of his blame-America-first being to wage the war that needs to be waged. It is foolish to believe that, and it would be much worse than foolish to put American lives at risk based on that belief.
Obama plainly does not want to deploy more troops. He has boxed himself in, though, by following the Democratic practice of politicizing our national security. Though it is doubtful that Obama would see any military action in pursuit of American interests as righteous, his campaign hyped Afghanistan as the good war, the “war of necessity”— the better to denigrate Iraq as the bad war, the “war of choice.” He compounded the problem in March when, in the course of adding 21,000 troops to the Afghanistan mission, he couldn’t resist sniping at his predecessor, saying President Bush had turned a deaf ear to our commanders, who had been “clear about the resources they need.” So now Obama finds himself presiding over the good war of necessity with a commander — the commander he chose — who is quite clear that he needs 40,000 more troops.
That commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is a highly decorated veteran with impressive combat-command experience. He is also a progressive big-thinker on geopolitics, having been a military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard’s Kennedy School. One perceives more of the academic than the warrior in his startling white paper proposal for what is labeled a “counterinsurgency” campaign.
More at link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQ3Y2U2NjNlYTAyMjI3MTAxZjYyOWZhNTU0Mzg3MzQ=&w=MA==
>>> So many conservatives first reaction is- more troops, do what McChrystal wants- but we’re forgetting- at the same time- the CIC has tied the hands of the fighting man <<<<
Not only that, but McChrystal’s “plan” does not look very appealing from my quick read.
Maybe “fatuous” was the wrong word.
My point is that Muslims (by definition, e.g. “submission”) seem to pile multiple kooky restrictions on top of their “natural endowment” of freedom.
Ok, now we can have a discussion. You mean, the way Christians are supposed to submit everything to God? The bottom line is that there are widely different interpretations of what how the “state” and Islam coexist, and there are many Muslims who reject the notion of a theocratic state (probably more who do not). But part of showing people what those “rights” are is a process of democracy and education, and I think it’s clear from the trends in both Iraq and Afghanistan that they do NOT want a theocracy like Iran-—and good indications that Iran no longer does, either.
Well I care about improving the lives of Afghan pesants; just not with taxpayer dollars, and with our Military’s lives. Let it be through voluntary organizations, missionaries, aid agencies, NGOs, etc.
“rights” are is a process of democracy and education,
the point is that we as a nation gain little, and should not be trying to “democritize” the Islamic world, let them figure it out on their own (or embrace Christianity, and become ready for representative republic)!
>>>> You mean, the way Christians are supposed to submit everything to God? <<<<
No, I mean the prescribed Islamic sequence of washing one’s hands and feet; the proper way of brushing one’s teeth; the manner in which women should deal with menstruation.
These are all within the purview of Islam.
They are not prescribed by any but the most whackadoodle and cultish of Christian sects, and in fact this level of detailed interference with daily life would be considered as nutjob cultism that really is beyond the scope of 99 percent of Western Christianity.
>>>> Well I care about improving the lives of Afghan pesants; <<<<
That’s good.
Many of us support other causes. I do.
In the first place, a Taliban-led Afghanistan IS a threat, so that’s not an option. We have to win. Part of that victory is just as Petraeus did in Fallujah and elsewhere: introduce (slowly) democratic principles. Even the Bible says, “How will they hear without a preacher?”
Ignore opium? NOT! A corrupt government will allow more ease for Taliban to overrun the government. Those opium may be sent to America to corrupt our people for demoralization as part of the strategy of Taliban. Remember the hippies full of illegal drugs? Don’t repeat it.
Believe me, I was shocked when I heard both Col. Peters and Col. Hunt say on FNC that they've never been that impressed with McChrystal's ability.
Sorry, LS we have wasted enough taxpayer money, and military might to NATION BUILD,
we might as well pull out, secondly since you to know this:
There is no way that the Afghan peole will turn aroudn without a change of heart; that can only come about because of the Gospel. No amount of bombs, mortors, or bullets will change that.
If they directly harbor Alqaeda: then go after those who do, but leave the rest alone militarily.
WE get nothing from DEMOCRATIZATION OR NATION Bldg.. (just a question: were you old enough to pay attention during Bill Clinton’s police/nation building efforts in Somalia, Hati, Yugoslavia?) I was (though I was in my teens) and I remember most conservatives opposed Nation building/police actions because OUR MILITARY IS NOT MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE!
Until Bush came and changed that (the notion that Conservatives have to be for nation building/police action).
Afghanistan has few products at this time that we need for trade, either.
>>> Until Bush came and changed that (the notion that Conservatives have to be for nation building/police action). <<<
George Bush campaigned in 2000 *against* nation-building exercises.
But he governed in favor of them! RINO Bush sigh..
>>>>> But he governed in favor of [nation-building]! RINO Bush sigh.. <<<<
I know, that’s why I mentioned it.
He campaigned against nation-building, and then launched two humongous nation-building exercises.
While it's kosher, and fun, to say that militaries are not made for "nation building," in point of fact most of them have in one way or another done so everywhere, from the Romans on. When not actively fighting the Army Corps of Engineers routinely "nation builds."
But here is what you better get clear: SOMEONE will "build" a nation there. If not us, al-Qaeda. Nature abhors a vacuum. McKinley knew it, TR knew it, RR knew it. The Marshall Plan was entirely about "nation building." If we pull out any time soon, we'll be right back there in 10 years, after a much bloodier strike than 9/11.
As I said, there WILL BE “nation building.” The only question is by whom: us, or al-Qaeda. It’s absolutely naive to think that if we leave without achieving stable democracies we can just come home and be safe. Nonsense. We’ll go back again in 10 years.
Well said. People love to argue that “its just not that simple”... Well it is that simple. Its not easy, but it is simple.
Don’t set up a sophmoric tautology. The founding fathers were building a nation on the sons and daughters of the European renn. and ref. The non-euros in 1776 were barely tolerated, or were enslaved.
The muslims they knew were Barbary pirates, and we battled them fiercely, with no THOUGHT of nation building, only punishment and instilling fear of our armaments and marines.
We can make it so NOTHING will grow on those opium fields, for decades. After some examples, farmers will decide it’s not a wise crop to grow (once).
The Afghans have NEVER had a nation, but only a loose collection of tribes that are usually warring with each other. Only a fool tries to “nation build” in that God-forsaken geographic region (not nation.)
What’s next for the US Army Missionary Corp? Somalia? Congo? Sudan?
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.