« Seven Tiny Miracles Leading to One Veteran | ~flowerchild~'s Blog | Grandpa's 8th Grade Education (Amended) »
Less? More? None? Some? Troop Levels in Afghanistan
The top military officials are first and foremost MILITARY. They're in the war business. It's what they do. So, of course they are asking for more troops in Afghanistan. It may seem, to some, that President Obama is hesitating in his decision about troop increase in Afghanistan, but if it was me making this decision, it wouldn't be hesitation holding things up; it would be the waiting for better Intel.
I would not think it wise to depend wholly upon my war advisers because their view is limited by their profession. It's no fun being a general in peace time....there's nothing to do. Well, at least there is nothing to do that involves blowing shit up, which is what military personnel are trained for. I mean, do they take boot camp classes on international diplomacy, finance, and cultural differences or do they learn how to shoot a gun? But, in wartime the top brass keep busy being busy; they have purpose.
So, there is no surprise, at least not to me, that McChrystal wants more troops for Afghanistan, because if he tries really, really hard, he just knows he can win, plus he actually gets out from behind a desk. I mean, really. When is the last time any wartime general in mid-campaign said, "This is useless. I'm done. Let's go home."?
But, Karzai's government is corrupt. Everybody knows it's corrupt. I held out a little bit of hope that Abdullah Abdullah could become a player, but that hope was dashed when he dropped out of the election. Probably to save his own hide.....and I ain't blaming anybody for not wanting to get killed before their time.
So, why should we be there to help a corrupt government hold onto power? I can't think of a reason. And I hope President Obama has this question in mind while he is deliberating. I also hope Secretary of State Clinton is wisely using her skills in deciphering intent of Karzai's government.
Our military is stretched awful thin right now, but our saber still rattles the loudest. How long will that last if we keep sending troops into war? We are not a bottomless pit of eligible soldier material. I think we should begin withdrawing. Start sending our equipment home and start removing troops. Our military's basic function is, after all, to be used as a defense.......not as an offense. They exist for our well-being. Not the Afghans or the Iraqis well-being. Yes, I know I'm being simplistic and we have bases all over the world 'protecting our interests' and blah, blah, blah.
If the Afghan people want a transparent, central government, let them make one. If it is what they want, they have to call upon their own will and power to build it, like we empowered ourselves to build our own government in our colonial times.
If what they want is what they had, a loose collection of tribal governments, let them go back to it unimpeded. I know 'tribal government' sounds scary to most of us. It sounds wild and unpredictable and you just don't want to be anywhere around a tribal government because you might get your throat slit at any moment or they will eat your liver raw or something like that. But, that is not how tribal government works. It's an effective government form that functioned well enough for centuries in Afghanistan and since it is their territory, it should be their choice. If they choose to take control of their future by building a central government of their own devise, and find they need our help, and ask for it, then we can go back and help, whether it is with our military aid or our financial aid.
We can leave.
We can return. If invited.
Otherwise. We can leave.
I would not think it wise to depend wholly upon my war advisers because their view is limited by their profession. It's no fun being a general in peace time....there's nothing to do. Well, at least there is nothing to do that involves blowing shit up, which is what military personnel are trained for. I mean, do they take boot camp classes on international diplomacy, finance, and cultural differences or do they learn how to shoot a gun? But, in wartime the top brass keep busy being busy; they have purpose.
So, there is no surprise, at least not to me, that McChrystal wants more troops for Afghanistan, because if he tries really, really hard, he just knows he can win, plus he actually gets out from behind a desk. I mean, really. When is the last time any wartime general in mid-campaign said, "This is useless. I'm done. Let's go home."?
But, Karzai's government is corrupt. Everybody knows it's corrupt. I held out a little bit of hope that Abdullah Abdullah could become a player, but that hope was dashed when he dropped out of the election. Probably to save his own hide.....and I ain't blaming anybody for not wanting to get killed before their time.
So, why should we be there to help a corrupt government hold onto power? I can't think of a reason. And I hope President Obama has this question in mind while he is deliberating. I also hope Secretary of State Clinton is wisely using her skills in deciphering intent of Karzai's government.
Our military is stretched awful thin right now, but our saber still rattles the loudest. How long will that last if we keep sending troops into war? We are not a bottomless pit of eligible soldier material. I think we should begin withdrawing. Start sending our equipment home and start removing troops. Our military's basic function is, after all, to be used as a defense.......not as an offense. They exist for our well-being. Not the Afghans or the Iraqis well-being. Yes, I know I'm being simplistic and we have bases all over the world 'protecting our interests' and blah, blah, blah.
If the Afghan people want a transparent, central government, let them make one. If it is what they want, they have to call upon their own will and power to build it, like we empowered ourselves to build our own government in our colonial times.
If what they want is what they had, a loose collection of tribal governments, let them go back to it unimpeded. I know 'tribal government' sounds scary to most of us. It sounds wild and unpredictable and you just don't want to be anywhere around a tribal government because you might get your throat slit at any moment or they will eat your liver raw or something like that. But, that is not how tribal government works. It's an effective government form that functioned well enough for centuries in Afghanistan and since it is their territory, it should be their choice. If they choose to take control of their future by building a central government of their own devise, and find they need our help, and ask for it, then we can go back and help, whether it is with our military aid or our financial aid.
We can leave.
We can return. If invited.
Otherwise. We can leave.
Advertisement
Flower - I posted a longer version of this as a comment in Missy's blog last night. They are from a Vietnam-era reporter whose contributions to a mailing list I receive.
We are not going to do much other than throw the lives of more willing young Americans on the scrapheap if we persist in Afghanistan. All the firepower we can bring to bear will not change the Afghan people other than to harden their resolve - see "Britain, Battle of" as a useful historical reference.
It's a large, empty, mountainous, thinly-peopled space, well removed from anything, in which we will never "blend", never belong, and never effect change.
Yes, the Taliban are horrid, retrograde human rights abusers. What are we able to do to change that?
Karzai, aka The Mayor of Kabul, would not last three months without us, meaning only that if we commit to him, we are stuck there. We, and he, cannot "win", as there is no victory to be had in any meaningful sense. All we can do is prolong the status quo - quite an undesirable state of affairs if you ask me.
And I am tired enough of American kids coming home in boxes, or minus limbs or eyes, for no good reason, to say with clarity that what we need to do is begin a carefully-managed withdrawal with the primary emphasis being force protection.
Sooner rather than later is good.
November 12, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3JjlkfX5Gk
There was a decorated general with
a heart of gold, that likened him to
all the stories he told
of past battles, won and lost, and
legends of old a seasoned veteran in
his own time
On the battlefield, he gained
respectful fame with many metals
of bravery and stripes to his name
he grew a beard as soon as he could
to cover the scars on his face
and always urged his men on
But on the eve of a great battle
with the infantry in dream
the old general tossed in his sleep
and wrestled with its meaning
he awoke from the night
just to tell what he had seen
and walked slowly out of his tent
All the men held tall with their
chests in the air, with courage in
their blood and a fire in their stare
it was a gray morning and they all
wondered how they would fare
till the old general told them to go home
He Said:
I have seen the others
and I have discovered
that this fight is not worth fighting
I have seen their mothers
and I will no other
to follow me where I'm going
Take a shower, shine your shoes
you got no time to lose
you are young men you must be living
go now you are forgiven-
But the men stood fast with their
guns on their shoulders not knowing
what to do with the contradicting orders
the general said he would do his own
duty bout would not extend it not further
the men could go as they pleased
Not a man moved, their eyes glazed
straight ahead till one by one they
stepped back and not a word was said
and the old general was left with his
own words echoing in his head
he then prepared to fight
He Said:
I have seen the others
and I have discovered
that this fight is not worth fighting
I have seen their mothers
and I will no other
to follow me where I'm going
Take a shower, shine your shoes
you got no time to lose
you are young men you must be living
go now you are forgiven-
go now you are forgiven
(Dispatch - The General)
November 12, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet. The military/industrial complex is alive and well and fighting for all the frickin bucks they can get.
November 12, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2001, after 9/11, we undertook a military campaign in Afghanistan. We were immediately warned about its futility. No foreign force ever succeeds in Afghanistan. The Afghans would die first, and the foreigners inevitably find themselves mired in a hopeless death trap until they slink home, decimated and defeated.
We ignored the advice.
The result, after we pursued our campaign helped by some strategic alliances (particularly with the Northern Alliance) is that we routed the Taliban in a quick, easy, almost cost-free and decisive victory. The enemy were killed, captured, ran away, or returned to their villages to resume farming.
The problem is not the myth of military futility, but that we failed to finish the campaign, consolidate the victory with a restoration of civilian infrastructure and dependable governance, and worst of all, shifted our resources to a blundering mission in Iraq, thereby allowing the Taliban to regain the initiative to a point where they now pose a severe threat to the entire Pakistan/Afghanistan region, where instability in Afghanistan exacerbates the problem of defeating insurgents in Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons coveted by terrorists.
President Obama understands that it is no longer possible to rout the Taliban; they have become too entrenched. Howeer, he also understands the enormous dangers of ceding to them the complete domination of Afghanistan. All his other advisors, from hawks to doves, and from military to civilian, agree that we must remain engaged in Afghanistan, and disagree on the best strategy, the best combination of military and sociopolitical effort, and the level of troop strength needed.
As a consequence, there will be no serious consideration of near term preparations to withdraw. The boundaries of the debate have shifted, however, with the recent revelation that former commander Eikenberry has recommended withholding any further troop increases until the Karzai government demonstrates its own commitment to reform. He, like the others, advocates continued engagement in Afghanistan, but is emphasizing the civilian side and the need to train indigenous security forces. He sees additional troops as an option to be exercised only if we see some reciprocation of effort by Karzai.
My own speculation is that President Obama will probably agree that a very large increase in troop numbers should be contingent on some changes in the Karzai government. I doubt that he will go as far as to refrain from any additional troop commitments at this point, although he may. I doubt, however, that any additional troops he announces will reach the level requested by General McChrystal. That might happen eventually, but only after we see some results on the political front in Afghanistan.
November 12, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush blew it, or if it was always hopeless, it is certainly hopeless now. Why should one more life be sacrificed to this pathetic charade?
Our soldiers need to come home; we need to spend our money on our own infrastructure and health care (has anyone noticed that Iraqis have universal health care?)
Barack Obama seems to have an actual respect for the ultimate price that so many have paid. Let's listen to him
November 12, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama seems to have an actual respect for the ultimate price that so many have paid. Let's listen to him
In turn, I have enormous respect for the President, and for the time he is taking to review all the options on Afghanistan before deciding whether to send additional troops, and if so, how many.
In light of your comment, CVille, can we both agree to respect what he ultimately announces, which will probably happen within a few weeks?
November 12, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. Got all the way to the Kremlin, set themselves up there all royal, and ordered out for caviar and champagne.
After a while, the Little Corsican realized that he could take Moscow and even live in the Kremlin but he could not hold it. Voluntarily left in a few months, and were savagely attacked most of the way back to France. Of the 10,000 troops in the Grande Armee that set out from Paris for this fiasco, 400 returned intact.
November 13, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate this, Flower. Very well done!
November 13, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link to an informative NYT piece describing the boundaries of the current debate within the Administration and its advisors as to the best Afghanistan strategy -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/world/asia/13eikenberry.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
There is little diagreement about beginning and end. In the end, we want to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. In the beginning - i.e., now - we must remain engaged. The disagreements revolve around how to engage most effectively in terms of counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, civilian infrastructure, alliances with various factions, co-option of non-fanatical elements within the Taliban, and pressure on the Karzai government to reform. I expect the President's strategy to incorporate elements of all the above.
Regarding our earlier military success despite predictions of doom, many factors played a role. To a small extent, it included our superior military technology, and to a larger extent probably, our ability to form alliances. However, none of this success would have been possible if our campaign had been analogous to many efforts in history to engage in fighting on foreign soil - an earlier example cited involved Napoleon in Russia.
Efforts to battle an insurgency are probably doomed to defeat almost inevitably when the insurgents enjoy widespread support among the native population. That is exactly what does not apply here. The Taliban are hated and feared in large stretches of Afghanistan, and in many areas where they receive some support from civilians, the support is coerced and would evaporate quickly if the civilians could be assured of protection.
It's for this reason that our impending efforts, which will necessarily continue to include a substantial military component, have a reasonable chance of success, where success is not defined as eradication of the enemy, but rather the achievement of enough stability to prevent the insurgents from gaining total dominance.
There are still opportunities to fail, but with reasonable wisdom and some luck, we won't. I think President Obama has the wisdom, and his history suggests that he also has a way of being lucky.
November 13, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afghanistan war: Brown's call signals NATO ready to boost forces
Personally I don't think anyone should pin their hopes on Obama seriously considering getting out, I think what's taking time on the decision is the "how." He's unhappy with the strategies offered and has demanded more options on that front, that's all.
November 13, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just ran across this. Strange situation if what he says is true and not bluster.
November 13, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink