American Elephants

Most of the Pessimism About Afghanistan is Only Half-Truth. by The Elephant's Child
November 14, 2009, 12:29 am
Filed under: Middle East, Military, Terrorism | Tags: , ,

President Obama is apparently going to throw out whatever was undecided after all his meetings with everyone concerned, and unconcerned, with Afghanistan except General McChrystal.

Mr. Obama is trapped between a rock and several hard places, with his supporters on the hard left urging him to abandon the whole thing on one side; the General who is the world-renowned expert in counterinsurgency and the other Generals who have been fighting this war on the other side, and everything in between.

The President would like to find a nice middle road that will please everybody and reflect well on him — and that undoubtedly doesn’t exist.  The choices are all crappy.  Unfortunately, making hard choices  is the job of the President.

President Obama seems to want a clear “exit strategy.”  He wants to know when the Afghan army and police will be up to the challenge, so he can make a promise to his very, very angry left about how soon we will leave.

The far left wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, as far as I can tell, because they hate George W. Bush, and they want to repudiate his wars to prove how much they hate him.  Bush Derangement Syndrome is still very much alive, particularly in the White House.

There are all sorts of spurious arguments about why we should abandon Afghanistan immediately.  The length of the war is usually mentioned, as if all wars were expected to last 5 years and not a moment longer.  Doesn’t work like that. Historically we have a range from the Hundred Years War, to the Six Day War.  Wars begin when someone is attacked and end when someone surrenders.  Endings (“exit strategies”) cannot be planned in advance, war is an uncertain activity.

There is the “graveyard of empires” argument, the we can’t do “nation-building” argument (counterinsurgency is not “nation-building).” You can’t create a democracy in the Middle East argument. (We did. You may not have noticed, but we won in Iraq.  General Petraeus says it’s more like “Iraqracy,” a form of their own.   They are increasingly having their fights and arguments in their Parliament rather than shooting each other).  That’s what we wanted.

What is important about Afghanistan are the consequences.  And the consequences should not arise from domestic popularity polls.  There are consequences that arise from an undefeated al Qaeda, there are consequences that arise from either al Qaeda or the Taliban undefeated and becoming bigger and stronger because they drove the Great Satan out. We have already experienced the consequences of a strong and resurgent al Qaeda.

David Kilcullen, one of the world’s leading authorities on counterinsurgency and a key adviser to NATO as well as the British Government and the U.S. State Department said that Obama’s delay in reaching a decision over extra troops has been “messy,” and creates uncertainty the Taliban could exploit. He said:

Obama, in a speech to troops in Jacksonville , Florida, a fortnight ago, had said he would never lightly put them in harm’s way.

That’s not the situation we are in.  As an analogy, you have a building on fire, and it’s got a bunch of firemen inside.  There are not enough firemen to put it out.  You have to send in more or you have to leave.  It is not appropriate to stand outside pontificating about not taking lightly the responsibility of sending firemen into harm’s way.  Either put in enough firemen to put the fire out or get out of the house.

Before his Fort Hood trip this week, Obama said the visit “absolutely has an impact because it reminds me that these aren’t abstractions.”  He needs reminding?

If the American people are opposed to sending more troops, or to our being in Afghanistan, a good part of the opposition is directly due to the indecision and lack of leadership from the White House. The more Obama dithers, the more the public doubts that he will give our troops wholehearted support, and those doubts are also consequences.


2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Quote, ” Wars begin when someone is attacked and end when someone surrenders.”

Double-check you history there friend… most recorded wars, and indeed most recorded martial conflicts, have ended by mutual agreement, not by the ‘surrender’ of either party. Hence, this point of yours is actually spurious. Just FYI 🙂


Comment by Bob Smith

I assume you are considering “surrender” as signing a formal instrument of surrender. I’m considering it as when one side is defeated, and/or unwilling to continue. I would hardly call that “mutual agreement”. Which wars were ended by mutual agreement?


Comment by The Elephant's Child

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: