[Swiftwater Gazette] President Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan

[Brad Haslett]

Rik,

You don't need to be a military genius or a history scholar to figure
out why this plan won't work.  Wars are either won or lost, period.
The era of set-piece wars where one large army faces off against
another is from a previous century. Even after bombing Germany and
Japan into submission, we're still present in both countries after
decades of rebuilding.  Tommy Franks argues in his book that the
absence of the 4th ID in Iraq (denied access via Turkey) didn't have a
material affect on the fall of Baghdad. That much is true.  What
Franks missed (as well as the Bush administration) was securing the
peace in the immediate aftermath of the first great battle.  What
eventually worked in Iraq was "the surge", in other words, a
commitment convincing enough to the general population that the US was
committed to stay.  As Michael Yon observed, the insurgents raped one
too many 13 year olds. A combination of US troops, Sunni cooperation,
and a population that chose sides changed the outcome.

Afghanistan is a tribal, lawless land with each valley led by a
different warlord.  There is no effective central government. Each
warlord will form an alliance with whoever they think is the long-term
player. By announcing our withdrawal in advance we've doomed any
chances for long term progress. What little economy there is in
Afghanistan is based on the poppy (heroin) trade. Either address that
issue or concede defeat and territory.

Fighting a political war from the confines of the White House will
yield about as much success as LBJ picking targets in Vietnam. If you
don't have the population behind your efforts, they'll pick sides
every time with who they think will be the long term force. It
happened in Vietnam, it happened in Afghanistan with the Russians, and
it is happening again as we speak.  We'll lose good men and women to
low risk (to the insurgents) roadside bomb attacks, strategic attacks
from safe and almost impenetrable terrain, and after declaring victory
will concede the country back to the terrorists.

I'd be reluctant to criticize the POTUS in whatever policy he or she
chose in Afghanistan, with nuclear Pakistan and soon to be nuclear
Iran on the borders - there are no easy solutions.  In the present
case, it is quite clear the only "victory" being sought is re-election
in 2012.  God be with our troops.

Brad




On 12/3/09, Rik Sandberg <sanderico1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad, Ed,
>
> I think it's been well proven in Iraq that 18 months isn't long enough to do
> squat. If this is the plan then we might as well bring the troops home now.
>
> What we need to do is either go for it with a real force that means real
> business, or get out of there and let it be what it is. Pissing around with
> half a surge is not going to do anything but get a lot of good young people
> killed .... for nothing. Hell, by the time most of them get there, it'll be
> time for them to pull out.
>
> But hey, this appears to be politics as usual for Owannabe.
>
> Rik
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> There are no good solutions for Afghanistan. I applaud Obama's efforts
>> to secure the country and not allow it to become a safe-haven for
>> terrorists (again), but he telegraphed his intentions (pull out in 18
>> months, just in time for re-election) and the bad guys aren't that
>> stupid.  They've proven to be pretty patient (1993 to 9/11/01 for the
>> WTC for example).  There is no military solution there, ask the
>> Russians.  If it were me, I'd think outside the box.  We pay farmers
>> in Iowa to grow corn for ethanol we don't need (there's a huge
>> oversupply right now).  We don't need to borrow any more money, so
>> let's quit subsidizing corn and subsidize farmers in Afghanistan not
>> to grow poppys.  That country will never be anything but a corrupt and
>> ungovernable cesspool until the drug trade is halted.  Can you sell
>> that plan in Iowa in the Spring before a Presidential election?  Hell
>> no, that is why it will never be tried despite its cost effectiveness
>> and simplicity.
>>
>> We know where the bad guys are, they're hiding behind women and
>> children and in Mosques in Pakistan (my sim partner is over there now
>> as we speak).  The ROEs (rules of engagement) that Obama laid out in
>> Afghanistan has all but neutered our troops in that country, and they
>> sure as hell can't take the fight where it needs to go.
>>
>> What a mess.  I wish the President well on this one, but it doesn't look
>> good.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> On 12/2/09, Ed Kroposki <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This I Believe
>> >
>> > By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>> >
>> > Published: December 1, 2009
>> >
>> > Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I
>> can't
>> > agree with President Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I'd
>> prefer
>> > a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to
>> > overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place. Given our need for
>> > nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less
>> > security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan.
>> >
>> > I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side. At a
>> > lunch on Tuesday for opinion writers, the president lucidly argued that
>> > opting for a surge now to help Afghans rebuild their army and state into
>> > something decent - to win the allegiance of the Afghan people - offered
>> the
>> > only hope of creating an "inflection point," a game changer, to bring
>> > long-term stability to that region. May it be so. What makes me wary
>> about
>> > this plan is how many moving parts there are - Afghans, Pakistanis and
>> NATO
>> > allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work.
>> >
>> > But here is the broader context in which I assess all this: My own
>> foreign
>> > policy thinking since 9/11 has been based on four pillars:
>> >
>> > 1. The Warren Buffett principle: Everything I've ever gotten in life is
>> > largely due to the fact that I was born in this country, America, at
>> > this
>> > time with these opportunities for its citizens. It is the primary
>> obligation
>> > of our generation to turn over a similar America to our kids.
>> >
>> > 2. Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a
>> > lot
>> of
>> > big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and
>> > debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic
>> > stabilizing role in the world. If you didn't like a world of
>> > too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-America
>> -
>> > where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules.
>> >
>> > 3. The context within which people live their lives shapes everything -
>> from
>> > their political outlook to their religious one. The reason there are so
>> many
>> > frustrated and angry people in the Arab-Muslim world, lashing out first
>> at
>> > their own governments and secondarily at us - and volunteering for
>> > "martyrdom" - is because of the context within which they live their
>> lives.
>> > That was best summarized by the U.N.'s Arab Human Development reports as
>> a
>> > context dominated by three deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of
>> > education and a deficit of women's empowerment. The reason India, with
>> the
>> > world's second-largest population of Muslims, has a thriving Muslim
>> minority
>> > (albeit with grievances but with no prisoners in Guantánamo Bay) is
>> because
>> > of the context of pluralism and democracy it has built at home.
>> >
>> > 4. One of the main reasons the Arab-Muslim world has been so resistant
>> > to
>> > internally driven political reform is because vast oil reserves allow
>> > its
>> > regimes to become permanently ensconced in power, by just capturing the
>> oil
>> > tap, and then using the money to fund vast security and intelligence
>> > networks that quash any popular movement. Look at Iran.
>> >
>> > Hence, post-9/11 I advocated that our politicians find sufficient
>> > courage
>> to
>> > hike gasoline taxes and seriously commit ourselves to developing
>> > alternatives to oil. Economists agree that this would ultimately bring
>> down
>> > the global price, and slowly deprive these regimes of the sole funding
>> > source that allows them to maintain their authoritarian societies.
>> > People
>> do
>> > not change when we tell them they should; they change when their context
>> > tells them they must.
>> >
>> > To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
>> > was
>> to
>> > see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build something that
>> does
>> > not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a context, where the
>> > constituent communities - Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - write their own
>> social
>> > contract for how to live together without an iron fist from above. Iraq
>> has
>> > proved staggeringly expensive and hugely painful. The mistakes we made
>> > should humble anyone about nation-building in Afghanistan. It does me.
>> >
>> > Still, the Iraq war may give birth to something important - if Iraqis
>> > can
>> > find that self-sustaining formula to live together. Alas, that is still
>> in
>> > doubt. If they can, the model would have a huge impact on the Arab
>> > world.
>> > Baghdad is a great Arab capital. If Iraqis fail, it's religious strife,
>> > economic decline and authoritarianism as far as the eye can see - the
>> > witch's brew that spawns terrorists.
>> >
>> > Iraq was about "the war on terrorism." The Afghanistan invasion, for me,
>> was
>> > about the "war on terrorists." To me, it was about getting bin Laden and
>> > depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary - period. I never thought we could
>> > make
>> > Afghanistan into Norway - and even if we did, it would not resonate
>> beyond
>> > its borders the way Iraq might.
>> >
>> > To now make Afghanistan part of the "war on terrorism" - i.e., another
>> > nation-building project - is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when
>> > balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we
>> will
>> > have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to
>> keep
>> > our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I believe. That is why
>> I
>> > believe it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > submitted by EK
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SwiftwaterGazette mailing list
>> SwiftwaterGazette at mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com
>>
>> http://mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/swiftwatergazette
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Many colleges claim that they develop "leaders." All too often, that means
> turning out graduates who cannot feel fulfilled unless they are telling
> other people what to do. There are already too many people like that, and
> they are a menace to everyone else's freedom. ...Thomas Sowell
>