Ritter on McxChrystal and Afghanistan and Me on War
November 2, 2009, 7:18PM
During the Bush administration I sometimes wondered if they were following a brilliant plan to kill any investigation of scandal or any chance that public opinion would turn into outrage at a particular crime or stupidity by simply committing another outrageous act and diverting attention. No outrage stayed up front long enough to gain traction.
Most of the worst such actions, in my opinion, had to do with waging wrongful war and then with the war crimes committed within those wars. These wars are not just wrong in a moral sense, they are pragmatically stupid.
If the cost of operating our huge military does not financially break our country it will at the very least cost us dearly in lost opportunities to better the situation for our own citizens and for others of the world. Health care comes to mind. Our inclination towards a kick-ass military solution to every international problem must change but if it doesn't I believe it will not be too long before military intervention is required within our own country to maintain order and to "keep the trains running on time".
The following link goes to an essay by Scott Ritter. It will no doubt pop up many places except anywhere in the "mainstream Media". I got it from Information Clearing House.com.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23868.htm
Sorry "bout the double post. I forgot to put in a title.
November 2, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can delete the untitled post from your blog.
Goto Blog Now! --> manage --> entries
check the untitled post, and then press the delete button.
it's easy
November 2, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gracias
November 2, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ritter:
McChrystal operates under the illusion that American military power can provide a shield from behind which Afghanistan can remake itself into a viable modern society. He has deluded himself and others into believing that the people of Afghanistan want to be part of such a grand social experiment, and furthermore that they will tolerate the United States being in charge. The reality of Afghan history, culture and society argue otherwise.
November 2, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately there are a vast number of defense lobbyists who are working very hard that this message doesn't gain traction. Thanks for the link to Ritter's essay Lulu.
November 2, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the figure to support the troop levels in Afghanistan IF Obama were to send another 20,000 would be 60 Billion per month. We do always find that money, don't we?
PRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNT ANOTHER ONE....just like the other one....
Bill Moyers' special comment this week was: It's time to re-instate the draft. (You will already know what his thinking was.)
November 3, 2009 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no need for a draft, we just need to increase the troop levels authorized. For decades our policy was to be able to fight 2 major wars in separate theaters, like WWII. Now we can't fight a low level conflict in 2 closeby areas ? Pathetic.
November 3, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need no stinkin' draft, no honest commitment by the people of our country to support the war policies of our government, just a new authorization. The recruiters would then quit getting chased down the street by young would-be warriors dying metaphorically for the chance to actually die while protecting a group of people they know little about, care less about, but who would in many cases, if they were able to actually get into the war, have experiences that would make them come to hate those people enough that they would cheer and holler when they shot one of them or when they saw a bomb drop on one of their villages.
Yes, change the troop numbers authorized and keep the economy in the crapper and the troops will then just magically appear and no worry about the cost, whether that cost be in lives or dollars. And, if it turns out that the "enemy", those people living and fighting in their own land, continue to fight doggedly, and just as bravely and just as savagely as our own soldiers, well then just send some more troops. If outnumbering them five to one doesn't work then outnumber them ten to one. It is hard to imagine a battle lost that couldn't have been won if only more cannon fodder had been available, isn't it?
Since the economy turned so bad, and especially for those young men just entering it,the various services have started reaching their enlistment goals. I don't know whether or not they were able to raise the intelligence, educational, and character standards required of recruits back to where they were before 9/11, but I doubt it.
So, we had a "policy" of being able to fight two major wars on two fronts and you seem to think we could just revert to that policy and reality would then just change to suit that policy. Pathetic thinking, Dumbdog.
Ritter gives good solid reasons why we can expect our war in Afghanistan to go no better that that of any of the other countries which have tried to occupy and dominate that country.
So far the war mongers have used fear mongering to promote wars for many reasons which are not realistically aligned with the fears they promote and the brave American people, unwilling to realistically accept any threat at all in a dangerous and complicated world have bought into those fears and become, or remained, willing to send thousands of our own to kill millions of theirs if only it will make us one tiny bit safer, all the while ignoring the common sense and historical evidence that it will only increase the threats that we face. Pathetic.
November 3, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I kind of like the idea of the neo-cons having some skin in the game. Reinstate the draft if we are to continue down this militaristic course, Then, get rid of the corrupt contractors and mercenaries and replace THEM with drafted troops. And then, put Kagan and Kristol and Bolton and the Cheney's at the top of the list to be drafted and let's see just how tough these guys are talking when it's THEIR ass on the line.
Gawd, I grow so tired of chickenhawks who continually break the bank in their adventures at killing other people's children.
November 3, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM has recently seen as many as 20 separate posts on Afghanistan, with mostly the same arguments, fought on the basis of ideology rather than evidence. Since I've already described my reasons elsewhere why I see premature disengagement from Afghanistan as a profoundly dangerous blunder, I won't repeat them here. I will repeat a point that bears repeating because it seems so often overlooked. Despite the claims that foreign interventions in Afghanistan are always destined to fail, we need only look back 8 years to recall a quick, easy, and decisive victory by American forces, with the help of the Northern Alliance, in which we routed the Taliban from their domination of that country. The claim of inevitable failure is refuted by recent history.
Unfortunately, the subsequent eight years of neglect, as we blundered through the Iraq war, means that a decisive victory is no longer possible - a reality well recognized by President Obama, General McChrystal, and others. However, it remains possible, and is in fact likely in my view, that U.S./NATO forces can prevent a Taliban takeover while helping indigenous forces grow to the point that they can replace us. The widespread hatred and fear that most Afghans feel toward the Taliban will make this mission, while not an easy one, at least easier than an attempt to contain an insurgency that has widespread popular support.
As the President, who is now reviewing his options, is aware, this is likely to require a mixture of counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism military efforts in combination with a civilian program that involves not only the untrustworthy Karzai government but also leaders of various factions with whom we can collaborate. The result won't be a democracy or even a completely stable society, but it will be one less dangerous to the stability of neighboring Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons coveted by the terrorists.
Not being a military expert, I have no idea how many more troops will be needed, but I will not be surprised if the President, who is not an ideologue, will consider all the evidence and choose to send additional troops based on what he considers the number appropriate for the combination strategy we will undertake.
November 3, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will choose to ignore your discounting of anyone who disagrees with you to be "ideologues" instead of supposed pragmatic geniuses like one Fred Moolten.
But how's this for the "evidence" that you so admire?:
The "quick, easy, and decisive victory by American forces" you reference was about as substantial as the Iraq Victory claimed in the "Mission Accomplished" photo op presented by Airman Last Class Geo. Bush.
Looking for evidence for that? Ask yourself how much stability has the nation of Afghanistan known since our incursion? Why do you suppose Karzai has derisively been called the "President of Kabul?" Could it be because even at present there is no federal government of Afghanistan that holds sway over anything more than its own corrupt household in the Capitol? Where is the "evidence" of any kind of victory in Afghanistan after 8 long years and an untold measure of American blood and treasure to achieve such victory?
It's pretty difficult to look at "the evidence" and arrive at a conclusion that we ever acquired anything resembling victory in Afghanistan such as you claim.
Furthermore, a look at the way in which our "intervention" here sent Al Qaeda (remember them?) scurrying across the border into Pakistan might show that our efforts in Afghanistan can list as its primary accomplishment the increased instability of Pakistan.
But then again, the "evidence" is offered by myself, whom I might proudly call a "pragmatic ideologue." The apparent alternative, after all, is to be just like Fred and expound on the benefits of sinking deeper into a quagmire we can neither afford nor justify in accord with the initial objective (Get Al Qaeda. Remember them?), and to do so as an arrogant, pompous know-it-all who tries to substantiate his own weak arguments by impugning the intent or integrity of those who simply ain't buying his nonsense.
Sorry, Fred, but your arrogance far exceeds your grasp of the issue here. And herein lies only some of the evidence to prove it.
November 3, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
SJ - It seems to me you ignored my initial point - we scored a decisive victory over the Taliban in 2001-2002, without getting bogged down in a "quagmire", and then squandered it in Iraq. It's hard for me to look at the history and reach any other conclusion, but others can judge for themselves.
The problem now is to prevent a complete Taliban takeover, and I expect we will succeed, although that is not guaranteed. It will require persistence on the military and civilian front, as well as expedited training of indigenous forces.
There are many voices expressing opinions on this topic, and no single voice deserves total credence. However, one of the most expert is that of Ahmed Rashid. He is a native of the region (he is Pakistani), has visited Pakistan and Afghanistan frequently and spent considerable time there during the past thirty years, is intimately familiar with the Taliban, having written several books on them and lived among them, and understands the complex relationship between events in both nations. A recent article of interest, detailing his perceptions about the demands we must meet within Afghanistan in the near future can be found at
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22320
He has also spoken at length on NPR, and one of the important points he made, based on his personal experiences in Afghanistan, is not only that the Taliban are generally feared and despised, but that most Afghans have considerable ambivalence about our own presence. They fear the danger to themselves from our engagement in conflict with the Taliban, but at the same time would welcome our continued presence if we offered genuine security. Their fear is that we will offer civilian help to a region, incur the enmity of the Taliban, and then depart, leaving the locals to suffer from Taliban retribution. This is why it will be critical for U.S./NATO efforts to transition into local security efforts in order for either to succeed. The Afghans don't want us to stay forever, and they don't want us to leave too soon. It's a challenge that can only be met by objective assesment of events rather than an overarching philosophy concerning our role in that nation.
The other relevant voices, of course, are those advising President Obama regarding his upcoming decision on troop additions. It's notable, however, that the boundaries of the debate among them do not go below maintaining troop levels at current strength (Biden) vs increasing troop levels by as many as 80,000. If the President decides simply to maintain current troop levels, I will conclude that he has made a sober judgment that this approach is optimal, but I will be surprised if his decision is that limited, given the consequences. My own guess is that he will opt for a modest troop increase, with further increases contingent on the behavior of the Karzai government, which has promised to reform, but may need some pressure to force it to keep its promises.
November 3, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Fred, I have presented my ideas in the past also, but every now and then I feel like screaming them again.
Here is one of my ideas. Every God damned time [I think the expletive is completely appropriate in this case] we or any other country gets into a war the idiots and ideologs whose ideology believed war was the "right" answer, or the ideologs who believed war was the best method towards "good" ends, or the apologists who supported the war before thought or experience showed them wrong, or any number of other misguided victims of propaganda or do-goodism, and followers of whatever leader happens to represent their tribe, a great pecentage of these people treat the war like a game and advocate that we should, or should have in the past, played the game with a Martingale system. Just keep doubling the bet and you only have to win once in a while to come out ahead. As you no doubt know, a Martingale system requires infinite resources. Since infinite resources are not available in any of the categories of need, the system is bound absolutely to produce a loser in the end which loses all. It only requires a little bit of sense to see that we do not have infinite resources of soldiers, or money, or knowledge, or will. Or wisdom.
It seems to be the common belief of many now that we finally won in Iraq and could do so in Afghanistan if only we send enough troops and if we finally identify and enact the right strategy. I consider that to be a blatantly stupid conclusion. Who could make the case that what we accomplished there was worth the price paid and/or the price extracted from the Iraqis and that any lasting good will come of our countries actions there?
Maybe you can. Until you or someone else does so, I remain unconvinced. You, like everyone else including, imho, the generals, are not an expert on war. At least you admit it before bowing to their supposed superior expertise and agreeing to supply them with whatever they ask for. The generals have to say they are experts and some of the faithful are bound to believe them and so buy into their plans and tactics. Rumsfeld was an expert who thought small, quick forces were the answer. The authors of blitzkreig had similar unbeatable strategies. The builders of the Mginot line must have been experts.
Since, our blitzkeig didn't work we now need enough forces to take and hold ground and protect the people on that ground. That will probaly work. I trust that it will. I heard it from an expert. If it doesn't we can just try something else.And don't worry about the cost, it will all work out. It always does, doesn't it?
November 3, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would seem as if sending half of what General McChrystal is requesting would be the worst option Obama could choose. The general, whom Obama placed in command of the region, has stated publicly that 40,000 troops are required to accomplish the mission as it is currently defined.
Perhaps the mission needs to change. That's a realistic possibility worthy of debate. But what does not make sense is for the president to preserve the current mission and only send half of what his top military commander says is necessary. Would that not be akin to rebuilding half of the breached levee system in New Orleans?
And there truly isn't a need to criticize McChrystal here. Ultimately, it's not his job to define the mission. His job is to merely use the resources available to carry out that mission. People criticize him for his large troop request but fail to realize that he's simply telling the president what is required to accomplish the goal.
November 3, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
McChrystal is not the only military expert proffering advice to the President, nor does he have as comprehensive a grasp of the non-military components that will help determine how many troops are needed. Despite media reports, he has actually, on the President's request, provided several different counterinsurgency scenarios designed to to cover larger or smaller regions within Afghanistan, and therefore requiring more or fewer troops.
I expect that President Obama will approve a troop increase, but it will be done on the basis of extensive analysis and consultation with multiple sources of expertise, and not on the basis of a publicized estimate from a single source.
November 3, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, it is no doubt obvious to any who have read my comments that I start out with a strong bias and a bad attitude towards the generals or anyone else or any entity which has a vested interest in war but whose leaders sit in a comfy place and think they are unlikely to suffer any bad consequences of that war, yet push for war incessantly in some or any form. My attitude extends to those who buy into that crap.
You say that McChrystal has offered different scenarios to cover different situations. I think a more plausible critique is that he has offered enough variation in his strategies and enough caveats to cover his ass.
November 3, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it's more specific than that. Different scenarios were presented to him in terms of defined areas that needed to be stabilized - Kandahar, Helmand Province, northern areas, etc., and he was asked what level of troop increase he believed would be needed to accomplish that mission from a military perspective. He was not asked how to address the political and societal components that would accompany any of these decisions, because that was analyzed by those familiar with those components.
One area of critical importance will be the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, because containing the insurgency on either side requires a presence to prevent insurgents from seeking easy sanctuary on the other.
To be candid, Lulu, I don't think you'll find anyone here who is in favor of war. You may find some with a sense of history that tells us that although all wars are undesirable, some are less undesirable than the choice to ignore the threats they would address, including in this case, a potential nuclear threat. No single philosophy covers all those situations, or at least, none should.
November 3, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a potential nuclear threat"
Yes, let's fight wars to end all potential threats.
Spoken like a true man of peace, there, fred.
November 3, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink