Hydra-headed.
Speaking re the mire of Afghanistan Michael Vlahos, John Hopkins, John Loftus, John Loftus Radio Show, Bill Roggio, Long War Journal, and the news will not be cheerful. Above video underlines the rude formula that incomplete July is the worst KIA month of the eight year war. Worse, there is no metric to show progress, advancement, mission accomplished, or even a timetable. Afghanistan is the forever war that the Bush critics claimed of Iraq. POTUS spoke of Afghanistan as the real war during the campaign. It is neither forever or real. It is a civil war of independent factions. The Taliban is hydra-headed. Kabul is a sewer. The Afghans will live on foreign aid as along as we push it into the country. There is no normal after thirty years of killing and depredations by the Russians, the Taliban, the Europeans and Americans. Why are we in Afghanistan? No one has a certain answer.
POTUS Wants a Grand Bargain.
Best signals source tells me that in Riyadh in June, POTUS asked Saudi intelligence to buy the Taliban leaders and end the war so that the US can bug out. Prince Moqrin, head of Saudi Intelligence, is now negotiating with several senior warlords. Will he be successful? Doubtful. The Taliban can try a ceasefire long enough to give the Americans and exit. The aim is to transfer Afghanistan under the control of the Pakistani secret police and other jihadist bullies. I mention this plan not because it is credible to me, but because it is an ongoing delusion of the Obama administration that it can disengage from Afghanistan. Part of the grand bargain with the usurper Ahmadinejad.
I have a bad feeling about this. Given what we have seen of Obama's policies to date, his use of the military anywhere on the planet seems ominous. The aim does not appear to be winning. The aim is to disengage. Obama's challenge is to find someone - anyone – who will fill the vacuum. Obama has already demonstrated that he has no sense of the jihadist threat. He will attempt to dialogue with anyone who claims power. He will try to convince them that the full faith and credit of the (new) U.S. will back whoever dares to declare himself top dog. The manner of government does not concern him.
Why even bother with the fig leaf of forcing a resolution in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever? Why not just pull out and declare an end to Bush’s ‘failed policies’ and publicly put the previous administration on trail for war crimes? No doubt, this has crossed Obama’s mind. However, this might be regarded as over-reaching, especially by the military establishment. Besides, by engaging the military one more time, without clear mandate and coupled with severe operational restrictions, would plunge the forces into certain confusion and ultimate humiliating defeat.
By engaging the military anywhere, Obama’s aim, first and foremost, will be to discredit it; to cast the men and women who serve as inept or even criminal. In the meantime, he will have built his own ‘civilian (political) national security force’ of brown shirts (which, according to his own words, will be as well, or even better funded than the military) - presumably to take care of trouble at home.
It is clear that Obama expects trouble on the home front at some point. …and he aims to be ready for when it happens. In his view, the military services, as presently configured, are not to be trusted.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
Beats the heck out of me. It is said we have to be there to prevent its collapse and the resulting disastrous destabilization of Pakistan. But Pakistan has been destabilizing and falling apart for well over a decade. And as with Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq, we refuse to fight like the goal is important. We fight like it is a symbolic gesture, just enough to get Americans killed but not enough to achieve our stated goals. If it is as important as we say it is, then let's get in there to do what it takes to achieve our stated goals; if it is of as little importance as our staffing and tactics imply, then we should stop killing Americans, Brits, Canadians, and Afghans and get the hell out. JB's reported private remarks are certainly consistent with the Democrats' inability to fight successfully any war since 1945. The Congress might have talked a good game during the Bush administration about fighting a war, but those of us with long experience inside the beltway understand that the Democrats' tolerance for war-fighting is like the serving of jam in Alice in Wonderland: "we supported a war in the past, and we will support a war in the future, but we won't support this war now." Their ultimate aim is for the US never to fight another war in our national interest, period. Peace-keeping and humanitarian missions at the behest of NGOs, yes. Wars of national self-interest, never.
Obama has now publicly and categorically stated that victory is NOT the aim of our military involvement in Afghanistan. In his inimitable way, he mocks what he does not understand, caricaturing victory as "you know, when we had Emperor Hirohito come down out of the hills and sign a formal surrender," presumably a reference to the ceremony on the USS Missouri. Hirohito never signed anything on the Missouri, of course, but Benito Hoover Obama's grasp of history has never been his strong suit. Anyway, his point is that, since we cannot expect Taliban leaders to "come down out of the hills" and sign a formal surrender, victory is not possible. Incredible! This arrogant ignoramus can't distinguish between winning on the ground and signing some damn paper! Even worse, having pooh-poohed the very concept of victory in Afghanistan, Obama says not a word about what his policy objectives really are there. Which sets the stage for what Democrats always claim they fear and oppose -- "another Vietnam," and one dangling at the end of very long supply lines liable to interdiction by tumoil in Pakistan or Russian whim. If victory is not in the Afghan cards as a matter of realism, then let's pull the troops out now before any more of them die for nothing.
I know, I know!!!
Because the Clinton Administration failed to protect American interests around the globe and allowed a petty clandestine organization plan, coordinate, and implement acts of war from a support base within the borders of and with the collaboration of an Afghan regime that helped puree a policy of antagonizing the US and it's allies, with every conceivable tactic, in order to undermine and minimize the Western influence in the region as a whole.
Also, we appreciate our friends, too.
Forgive my stream of thought ranting.
I am a recently retired military officer; I have served in both OIF and OEF.
Perhaps the best action to take in Afghanistan would be for the US (and our NATO and other allies) to withdraw from Afghanistan but then you must ask yourself who would fill the vacuum?
In Viet Nam it was the communist North. In Korea we drew a line and are still in the South so that there is not a vacuum (just tortured North Koreans). In the Balkans we sit forgotten, placidly waiting for the two sides to finish their 800 year war between the Christians and the Saracens.
If you feel that none would now fill this void, not the Russians, the Iranians nor the Chinese when we leave, then how about the Pakistanis or the Indians? The drug trade is very lucrative and it goes directly to Europe so someone will want to try and get a part of this trade. Someone will be unable to resist. However, I suppose that most Americans right now can not see why any of these nation-states becoming re-involved might be a problem for the US down the road and would prefer, even if this is a problem to deal with in "down the road".
As for whether the President's strategy is one that will "win" the war?
We must consider these things:
1. Does the President have a strategy?
To me it doesn't seem so, since what the military has suggested to him has not been followed (There would be more people and equipment there).
2. Is winning--that is, is stopping the fighting and building something that works for the conglomerate that is Afghanistan possible?
Answers vary--most say no. I am ambivalent; it will not be won quickly (30 years might not be long enough, for instance).
3. Is winning what we should be doing or should we be finding Al Qui'da (if it still exists) and destroying its ability to influence anyone anymore?
Again answers vary but I believe that most Americans think this should be the strategy and is what they would consider a win.
However, we (the US) have been distracted in all this; first by the Taliban, who let's face it, win this century's award for most backward looking and least productive group of young men ( believe that although their influence is less they are more deadly to the human spirit than the Nazis but I am too young to be able to make anything other than a history junkie's comparison).
The second distraction for the US has been "nation-building". What has been wrong with the US since the end of the WWII is our believe we can "build nations". The only people who can actually build a nation are those who live in that nation.
In Iraq too many people care about nation building and agreement on what the "new Iraq" should look like is a discussion for the Iraqis--which hopefully they will continue in their wonderfully middle east way to work on....that is, with an imperfect knowledge on what is real democracy but a great energy to find it.
In Afghanistan--there never was a nation; and unless tribes and tribal heads (I dislike the "warlord" label the media uses) can get past the idea that ONLY tribal elders know best for everyone it will never be a nation. In which case it will be very hard to keep the drugs or the violence contained because tribalism can not match organized and funded criminal activity.
Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration had/have any real understanding of Afghanistan sitting in the WH everyday to give perspective. However, the military does have those people--unfortunately this shouldn't be something for the military to solve.
We have a fatuous State Dept, an overtasked and tired Defense Department, a naive (at best) or disingenous (at worst) White House and a public that has lost interest (with help from the media to manipulate what is heard)--to me this is a receipt for a total repeat of Viet Nam--different country, different circumstances, but same old dumb Americans, who refuse to use anthropology, history or cultural understanding as tools in approaching those most in need of help to fend off the worst of modernism and adopt the best of it.
Anon - Just a minor point: Americans, in general, are not dumb. Asleep - maybe. Comatose - perhaps. But not dumb. Once they get up to speed, I can guarantee you will see miracles happen.
Thanks Peter but at the moment I am unsure whether being asleep or comatose is better than being too narcissistic....or just plan dumb. Will we "get up to speed"? Or just roll over and continue to snooze? Anon.