Losing Afghanistan

You last two assume that more forces were scheduled to go to Afghanistan but were instead to diverted to Iraq. Can you prove this? Remember at the time of the invasion of Iraq, and for quite some time thereafter, things in Afghanistan were going relatively well, and so there was not a perceived need to send more forces that might have been available if not for Iraq. The problems in Afghanistan have far more to do with factors peculiar to Afghanistan than lack of resources due to Iraq, chief among them safe havens and popular support in Western Pakistan, and traditional Afghan attitudes toward foreign occupiers.

"If you can't finish a job you started, you shouldn't start a new job."

Any more fortune cookie wisdom for us?

Why does everyone knock France, automatically? We'd probably not be where we are today, quite, without them. They democratically chose not to support us in Iraq. A) It was decided democratically, and B) their position was supportable, whether or not you agreed with it. Did it escape your notice that they lost TEN of their soldiers in one complex attack at a remote outpost in Afghanistan? Give them their due. They are pulling their fair share, and more than most of our continental NATO partners (I have to give credit to the Dutch and Danish here too.)

Also, plenty of diplomats, American and otherwise, know about military conflict. There's always been a small tradition of diplomats who'd done their share of soldiering when young. Who better to understand the merits of peace than a soldier, who's stared the inhumanity of war in its face? Peace is preferable in most cases to war. When war does become necessary, you go all in. If you can't commit to that, then perhaps you lack the resolve or resources, or justification. (That being said, once you're in it, you're in it, and honor dictates your actions from there on out.)

Afghanistan. Yes, we've not kept our eye on this ball. We've lost more guys there than here in Iraq, and there's plenty of guys here in Iraq who are ready to go in to Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, in response.

Iraq has decades of infrastructure, a semi-coherent nationalism, and a somewhat shorter history of decently-educated general populace, by regional standards. Time was when every other university student in Iraq was a woman, and in the cities, the recent mass donning of the veil is a novelty. This infrastructure has fallen into disrepair, and education taken a hit as well, in the decades since Saddam came to power, and the war with Iran. But it has a good baseline to start with. We are REBUILDING in Iraq, trying to get Iraqis to regain what was lost.

Afghanistan never had much to begin with. Barely any passable roads, no national level infrastructure of electricity to start with. Tribal loyalty trumps any sense of "Afghan-ness." Very low levels of education, medical expertise, or producing anything but opium at above-sustenance standards. High levels of child marriage, and death in childbirth. The list of "issues" there is long. Coupled with the fact that the at least one of the nearest functioning states, by unified intent or not, is sponsoring the forces of instability, and we have ourselves quite a challenge, to put it diplomatically.

Once we've freed up a few Brigades from Iraq, we'll be able to make some progress in Afghanistan. We need boots on the ground. Air strikes are only turning the populace against us. (The fact that suicide bombers, which similarly kill civilians do not turn them TOWARDS us is just one of the many (many) injustices of war.)

I have every confidence that GEN Petraeus will have a few good ideas. If they are carried out, and resourced properly, they stand a fair chance of working. But of course, it is up to the civilian leadership to make the final call. Compromise will be required. We will have to actually sit down at the table with Iran and discuss things. This will require at least token concessions on our part. Somewhat unpleasant, but unavoidable if you actually want to succeed. Similarly, we will have to get unified intent out of Pakistan. Somehow.

We aren't out to conquer the place. Just the Taliban. There's a difference. This will require equal parts bloody fighting, playing nice by securing growing pockets of the civilian populace, and carving away every faction possible from the Taliban base of support. Simultaneously. In Afghanistan, more than in Iraq, we are going to have to settle for a semi-functioning government and a lack of chaos and terrorism.

And there always remains the hard truth, that the suicide bombings at least, would only drop off if we left the region. Whether this is acceptable, given that A) Al Qaeda would possibly keep targeting Westerners anyway, and B) Afghanistan's women and children would be re-plunged into the Dark Ages, is not my decision. Wa Hamd'Allah.

Of course, we have to count the cost. Active duty line Army units, and the Marine Corps as well, will spend 50% of their time in country, for the foreseeable future. Reservists will continue to be called up far more than they are supposed to be. I think this unsustainable, in the long run. Mid-level officers and NCOs who would normally stick it out for a full twenty years pension so long as they pass the ten year mark, may start singing a different tune when they have spent FIVE YEARS cumulatively, in Iraq or Afghanistan. We are quickly approaching that point.

Also, since we are only drawing down troops in Iraq to ship them to Afghanistan, we need to face the fact that we have practically no strategic reserve to deal with anything else that might happen. We need to grow our forces size, if we really mean to do this.

Don't worry about soldiers and Marines. We are resolved. We will keep at it until the task is done, or you pull us out protesting. Long post, but I think all of it bears mentioning.