Losing Afghanistan

Rod:
And so again your weathervane now blows a new direction. Let me get this straight. You view is influenced by a French diplomat's transmission of a British ambassadors take on the situation? No doubt the French have that keen foreign relations acumen which has served them so well over the years. Asking a Frenchman's take on foreign affairs is like asking a democrat what to do about a budget crisis; invariably, their answer will always be to raise taxes just as a Frenchman's answer will always be that the situation is un-winnable and we must retreat. How about asking an American foreign service, military leader, or veteran who has been there, their take on the situation? Were you for a pull-out in Iraq before the surge?

Your phrase "acceptable dictator" is untenable for at least two reasons:

1. On paper, Saddam Hussein was an acceptable dictator: he governed in secular (Baathist) style, persecuted Islamists, fought with Iran, and protected the Christian minority (even having Christians in key positions in his regime). Syria has an acceptable dictatorship for similar reasons: Hafez al-Assad killed 25,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as challenges to his regime. But we didn't consider either dictator acceptable, because in our heart of hearts we don't consider dictatorship acceptable.

2. Acceptable to whom? To us? This implies that we can and should decide who governs foreign nations. Most Americans - yourself included - believe this. But Ron Paul and I do not, and we would argue that our habit of trying to decide on "acceptable" governments is at the root of our foreign policy problems (exhibit a: the Shah of Iran).

What Franklin said. Bush will go down in history as the only President to lose two wars. He has, however, kicked the can far enough down the road that Republicans will undoubtedly claim the losses are Obama's fault.

Karth, as usual you make excellent points, but I must quibble with them a bit.

If any military force could "conquer" (we need to be sure we are each using that word the same way) Afghanistan, it's the US. While I wouldn't go so far as to use "doomed to failure", the principle is well taken: our military command knew and knows what it takes to accomplish such a mission, and they also know that political expediency is what will stop them.

In my well-read but still layman's opinion, the political climate in late 2001 was as ideal as it could get: an act of war on US soil, a clear causal trail to al Qaeda and the Taliban regime, and a military with the highest possible morale going into such a mission. We could have done anything short of full-scale invasion of Pakistan (the concept of "hot pursuit" being applicable, methinks) and still had the international community behind us. My supply-line rebuttal only seems glib: supply lines don't matter much when the mission has an excellent chance of being completed in six to nine months.

I imagine, knowing I have no way to show evidence of it, that Bush's military advisers laid that out for him, and he chose to stop short of taking full advantage of the political capital available to him.

Just heard on the radio that more troops were killed in Afghanistan last month than in Iraq, first time that that's happened in years. Also, after the Taliban was ousted the Afghanis returned to their traditional ways of growing opium poppies, and now over 90% of the world's opium crop is from Afghanistan. To make matters worse, US forces are forbidden to interfere in the growing, trading or processing of opium! The money made from growing the opium is then used to fund the Afghan resistance. Makes sense to me.

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.