America’s Dumbest War, Ever
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
26 September 2012
Afghan Police in Zhari District, 2011.
Yesterday a concerned father forwarded to me a letter from his son in Afghanistan. I confirmed authenticity, and republish with permission:
Dad,
I am fed up. I cannot believe the lack of attention the recent changes in this war is receiving by the media or the country. I think I saw one thing on CNN about the following subject, but I had to dig extensively to find it. The purpose of this letter is to let you know of the garbage that our soldiers are going through right now. With this knowledge, I hope that you take action by writing your congressmen.
First, because of the recent green on blue incidents or "insider threats" as the new buzz phrase dictates, all coalition forces in Afghanistan have completely stopped partnering with the ANA, AUP, and ALP in order to prevent the death of anymore CF casualties by ANSF or Taliban disguised as them. This is also greatly spurred by President Karzi's indifferent attitude and lack of action to take measures to prevent further insider attacks.
Second, because of this massive change in policy (and complete change in mission) all U.S. forces are forbidden to actively patrol their AO and are to remain on their respective COPs/FOBs. There are only a few exceptions to this rule and they all pertain to "hardening" highway 1 in our AO. We have received orders that clearly state that all CF will no longer be allowed to drop air to ground munitions within the country of Afghanistan. This preempts Karzi's announcement that will be made shortly that states the above mentioned order, making it a tactical directive that he is ordering.
To the first point: Our mission in Afghanistan is to partner with the ANSF on all levels. Now the policy makers are telling us that we are not allowed to do that and further more we are to take immediate measures to secure ourselves from the ANSF that are co-located with us. So the question now becomes, what is our mission? Furthermore, the implication is that we have absolutely no reason to still be in this country if we are not partnering with the ANSF. So why are we here?
To the second point: I don't think that the American citizens would be happy if they knew that their soldiers were being prohibited from defending themselves in any way because of politically driven orders, but that is precisely what is happening in this war right now even as I write this letter. The soldiers of the U.S. never engage the enemy unless we know that we have will always have the tactical advantage in defending ourselves, that advantage is the use of close air support and air weapons team. To take those weapons away from us is to level the playing field for the enemy and thus exposing our soldiers to more danger. In the school house they teach us that the minimum ratio that we are to engage the enemy with, is a 3:1 ratio. In other words, we have the highest probability of winning because we don’t fight fair. The sound tactical principles behind this teaching have saved lives. The very presence of aircraft over our foot patrols has also saved lives and now our chain of command is being told by our political leadership that this is now not allowed. If we are not partnering with the ANSF and we are not actively patrolling to prevent our enemies from massing their attacks on our COP and we can’t drop a bomb on the enemy that we have positively identified, than what the hell are we doing here?
Give us a mission or send us home. I honestly have no preference on what the politicians decide, as long as they just make a decision. Of course this will be a terrible inconvenience on the current elections so I am sure we will be forgotten, which really does not seem to be too different for how things have been going for the last eleven years.
Policeman's foot, Zhari District, Kandahar Province 2011.
Do not buy into what the some media outlets have already said about this. Casually saying that this is a frequent occurrence is false, and is an attempt to downplay the major ramifications for these decisions. We have never been so restricted in defending ourselves as we have now. This is not just a stand down. The other implication of this decision is that we will perhaps never regain our relationship with the ANA after we have executed these measures to protect ourselves from them. Essentially, we have left them to die as we watch from our high-tech cameras and UAVs. They will not forget this and I fear the relationship will never be the same.
I love you very much Dad and I don’t want you to worry about me any more than you already are, but I also know that this has to be brought up, someone has to say something about this. It is wrong to keep this hidden away while American soldiers are under constant threat of death and dying. I don’t care if you send this letter directly, this needs to be known.
Your son,
[In Afghanistan]
Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated. Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.
To send a check or money order:
Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553
I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told. Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing. Cash is essential .
Thank you!
Michael
Comments
Lewis Sorley argues convincingly in "Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam" that the opposite is true. He writes that the Army was given a free hand WITHIN SOUTH VIETNAM and the Joint Chiefs rubberstamped anything Westmoreland wanted to do.
Unfortunately, what he wanted to do is ignore COIN and re-fight WWII in Southeast Asia. We all know how that turned out.
Frankly, there is nothing in Afghanistan for us. We have achieved our objective and it's time for us to go home. The secondary objective of trying to bring democracy to a country still wrapped in the turmoil of tribal loyalties and theocratic regimes is not possible. The people of Afghanistan need to change if they want to a better life.
Democracy is a dish best earned, not served.
So for the Afghan people,
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,Nothing is going to get better. It's not."
-Dr Seuss
Your last 2 posts are amongst the best you have ever made.
However, obviously America and Britain are now deeply caught up in this war. We will pay a terrible price if we are seen to be defeated. Countries do not emerge stronger from defeats. China and others will be emboldened by our defeat.
It must be possible for a rich nation of 350 million to subdue just one part of a dirt-poor nation of around 30 million.
Wars do not always have clear ends. In Northern Ireland we fought a grinding war of attrition for 30 years. We could never stop all IRA attacks, merely minimise their capability until they gave up and chose exclusively political means.
Please tell us how you think we can win Michael.
(A) If we leave Afghanistan and things get better for Afghans, the world will truly see that as a defeat for America.
(B) But if we leave Afghanistan and the place goes to hell under the warlords and Taliban, the world will see that NOT as an American defeat, but as a lost opportunity for Afghanistan.
I expect (B) to happen.
I think that any perception that America (and Britain) have been forced out or are giving up will be seen by radical Islamists and other enemies as evidence of weakness and defeat.
It was previous Western retreats (such as after the Beirut barracks bombing) that encouraged people like Bin Laden to keep attacking America.
Southern Vietnam pretty much went to hell after the Northern takeover, but I don't think that changed anyone's perception that it was an American defeat (and a completely needless one a that).
I am very tired of hearing this simplistic view that withdrawal is some sort of cost-free option. It certainly isn't. You might well end up losing more lives in future than you are now.
It should be easily possible for the West to maintain - indefinitely - a presence which makes any Taliban claim to victory impossible.
Whatever, we prefer to call them, these conflicts, along with the Gulf War, are all still undecided, so there comes a time when you must just leave a nation/colony to their own devices and accept the outcome.
I agree that the likely outcome in Afghanistan is (B), but I have no doubt that if that came about, the next US President and UK Prime Minister would get their heads together to form a coalition force to go back in and sort it out, with a similar stand off subsequently occurring!
I just feel that if it wasn't for the potential political gains of many individuals, we would never have got ourselves into such a mess in the first place!
A: Defeat the Taliban GOVERNMENT
B: Eliminate the safe haven for organization like Al-Queda found here in Afghanistan
C:Help establish a stable government.
The only reason C will fail is because the people here don't want it. Not out in the remote regions anyway. In Kabul, Jalalabad, etc, government will work. But not out in the Kunar, or in the Tangi Valley. Government has existed as the most base level there for thousands of years and it will not change.
So yes, we did defeat Afghanistan as a nation when we entered it. But we did not come here to conquer it, as did the Greeks, Russians, and British. Big difference.
We have learned who the Taliban really are, not the CNN or Fox new version but the real breathing humans.
Item A has the USA becoming the evil empire because until we talk with the Pashtu Taliban, item C will never happen.
The smart US Marine officer has read the writings of Alex Strick van Linschoten at AfghanWire.com. Or Ahmed Rashid's the Taliban. How frustrating! We act like mule headed fools. Its a weak link to 911 and the opium crop has ballooned.
Some have grained a great deal of money on this venture, yet still never do we mention the country of origin of the majority of hijackers on 911, SA.
Yet all I hear is that we will be attacking Iran soon. WTF!
Bring our guys and gals home ASAP!
Our pathetic, politicized, craven military leadership genuflects and obeys. Regardless of the fact that it is wrong on so many levels. They already dropped the ball pushing the formation of Afghan forces faster than was wise or practical. Now they freeze in place. Jackasses.
Our politicians do not deserve the Army that they have. Our generals have long lost all moral authority. As long as they can pay the tuition for their kids in elite schools, as long as they can pay the mortgages on their summer cottages, as long as they can afford their little sailboats at Annapolis, their world will continue to turn. Just wait until they can claim their directorships on the boards of American corporations. Slimeballs.
May God bless our soldiers. They are hamstrung with a bureaucratized and parochial command authority that does not prioritize their welfare. What is important is image, and headlines, and the election.
At what point, does their leadership become so self-focused that they can be described as traitors?
May God save the Republic.
Yesterday.
How does a "soldier" know the origin of his orders. How does a soldier know what is policy driven? Why does he use the word "political"? This letter may have elements of fact in it, but otherwise his analysis is crap and above his pay grade.
Judging by an absence of news, you have to wonder if the war has stopped. We know we are no longer training these jerks. It is dangerous to stop unilateral paroling around our bases. Have we done that?
I believe that this "letter" is a thinly veiled political ploy by someone who is not privy to the motivation behind ISAF orders or their "political" origins. When you figure out how a soldier knows why a 4 star issues an order, let me know,
Second, policies were temporarily tweaked. Depending on the level of engagement (battalion, brigade, or company) partnering has only temporarily changed. We're not going to pull anchor and go solo. If you're not sure why, google "Obama says surge troops are gone." They can't do it alone, and we don't have the numbers here to do it solo anymore either. You hear that silence? That's the lack of AQ, HiG and TB being able to do much due to our security. Yes, there are more green on blue but any student of war history knows it comes with the territory. Every death is tragic but no reason to get into a panic. If anything, I'm glad our doctrine, tactics and rules of engagement aren't being yanked around like some previous battles (I'm staring at the guy in the corner, just waiting to scream, "VIETTNAAAAAMMM !!!!" Every time something goes wrong).
Finally, stating a 12 year war is dumb because of a policy change near the practical end is less than disingenuous.
I'd go into more detail to make my point but for OPSEC reasons I won't .
Prior to going to Vietnam, I received extensive training in the language and culture. Shortly after arrival, I was assigned as advisor to a gunboat out of Nam Can, a small riverine base on the Cua Lon river. I fully accepted the crew and they, me. The only problem I ever had was with the SNA Nam Can who did something unbelievably stupid. He had no understaning of the language and culture, lived in a separate compound from his counterpart, refused to eat any vietnamese food and was rude to his counterpart. I learned what worked as an advisor and what didn't.
Flash forward. After 11 years and a rise in green on blue iincidents, itappears that Gen. Dempsy gets it and is having a cultural standdown. Great but too little too late. I have seen a number of videos of so-called advisors interfacing with afghans. I was stunned by their arrogance and disdain for their trainees. No understanding of their language or culture. Simply an attitude of do it my way, you dumbass. I have heard that the Marines are better at doing this job. I believe that, were a study done, it would show that training I received is the way to go. I fear that this lesson learned will be again lost and we will repeat our failuresin the future.
I would be interested in hearing from John-Capt in ANG on this.
Back in 2010, I was at the HQ and IJC more often, so I was much more plugged in at the strategic levels. Nowadays, I'm very buried deep, 'in the weeds," so I'm not really at a point of view where I can objectively form an opinion of it, "Gen Dempsey gets it." There are things I've seen him, and his 3*, do that I agree and some I don't but these are very specific issues and I won't go into them here because a) they're trivial in a grand scheme b) opsec.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand, and are not in any shortage, any where. It's not just the US Marines, or the US Army, or the US, or North America exclusive. For conventional forces that stay behind the wire, don't partner, and have limited maturity, you will find higher levels GENERALLY than others here. I've met some very plugged in Marines to respond to the question about their mentoring.
Since it seems appropriate for the topic, I'd say mentoring and small force lay down is the SOF forte. Hence, as the Big Army and all its European friends pull out, the SOF (NATO SOF) architecture takes the forefront. Small teams, embedded with Afghans, and building those relationships are where we've ramped up, are today, and will build more in future. This is why I laughed when I read and wrote my original reply, because I literally had just worked out and talked with several Afghans. Heck one even corrected me when I mistakenly said Oakland was in LA (LA Raiders came to mind), which is funny given I am from/live in Souther Cali.
So to your overarching, I believe, point, "are we learning lessons?" Yes and no. One of the tools I work with is a USMC lessons learned tool which has great information on local, regional, cultural and other background topics, so you understand your Afghan counterpart. Just like an operator, you're only as good as your understanding of your tools and discipline. Some who never goes to the range will usually suck as a shooter. Most NATO people (Turks, Belgians, Italians, US, Brits, etc) are hooked in, engaged, and positive/respec tful/profession al. On the "No" side, you only occasional run into the idiot, and sometimes receive negative effects of their stupidity (e.g. Florida preacher burns Koran and I can't fly commercial into theater from riots, idiot makes YouTube video and now equally-ignoran t Afghans think all US think this way).
Will this end in failure? I can only say this: If you don't try, you will certainly fail.
So, why do I mention this? I've reading a "J7" Lessons Learned on this very topic of Green on Blue, but since it's marked classified overall, but no paragraph references, I can't/won't be able to support, defend or even play devils advocate and provide points of view that call my own judgements into question (and then allow you to form your own, informed opinion).
Since Taliban sends Michael emails, "Hello! Khubus Ti! And, be seeing you soon ;) " (joking).
Since ISAF J2 has Michael's sites on their list of sites to keep an eye on (at least back in 2010), "Hello! Bon Jour! Please start marking your paragraphs that are unclass. Thanks!"
The "Temporary," is because they are concerned but there's no knee jerking going on. There's always armed overwatch, and troops are going to get additional training. It's like everything else, when something pops up, you slow down, figure out what the intel is telling you, and adjust fire. This is nothing new. Actually, if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, the G on B incidents are down. It's just A) there are more ANA, AUP, ALP, etc so the overall number looks bigger B) media is playing the TB/AQ propaganda game. They'll get distracted by pretty numbers again in no time and you'll get to read about Linsay Lohan drinking and driving again in no time.
Michael, are you really so gullible that you did not see that this is a partisan political effort. You may have established its authenticity, by as an ex-SF Sergeant, you should know that a soldier cannot know what motivates a 4 star to issue an order, temporary or not. I have always assumed that you are non-partisan, but not blind.
The war is dumb and should have stopped after Tora Bora. You cannot transplant democracy - certainly not into a barely Medieval land. With resistance from the military hierarchy,we continue to pull out. You want someone to blame for this mess? Blame the previous NCA and the current generals. The President listened to the generals for too long.
I think this letter is an excellent way to start/continue a discussion about the war, but don't see any good to come from wide dissemination.
However,Hillary decided to not give bullets to those inside the compound in Libya. So if this is what is going on I would not be surprise. It's not like our troops hands haven't been tied before.
I'm not saying Nae or yea but just cautious.
There were no Marines assigned to the embassy in Tripoli, Libya or the mission in Benghazi. That sounds stupid to me, but it's a State Department matter.
This is all available in the online version of numerous newspapers including some good articles in British papers.
We have heard a lot about how we are bound to lose in Afghanistan.
Can you give us any idea of how you think we ought to be doing things in Afghanistan? In order to win that is.
Define "Win"
It holds some clues to how we might win in Afghanistan.
In Northern Ireland the British were never able to totally suppress the IRA. They could only smother it in a thick blanket of observation posts, spies, surveillance, special forces and a huge military and police presence. The British were able to force the war to a stalemate after about 30 years, although it is not fully over even now.
The British were also never able to improve relations with Catholic enclaves in Northern Ireland. Hearts and minds in places like Londonderry or Crossmaglen were hopeless. Relations probably ended worse than at the beginning of the war.
But the British were simply not prepared to accept Northern Irish republicans pursuing both the ballot box and the armed struggle. Now, nearly all Irish Replicans have chosen only the ballot box.
If we really want to win in Afghanistan this is what we may face. A long grinding low level war.
The question is, does America really want to win any more?
Firstly, you have extremely hostile local populations. And those that aren't hostile are being intimidated into helping the insurgents.
Secondly, it is politically impossible to totally suppress the enemy using military force because of the risk of collateral damage.
Thirdly, as you should know, the size of the whole of Afghanistan is not relevant as the main fighting is taking place only in a small part of Afghanistan. The river valley around places like Sangin is pretty small.
I am not sure what to make of your comment about Ireland belonging to the British crown. The Republic of Ireland was long since independent of the UK when the latest troubles began in 1969. So the IRA had a safe haven in the South.
The nation of the Republic of Ireland does not supply, train, and equip guerrillas to fight in NI. The border between the Republic and NI is not a bunch of mountain passes and the SBS and the SAS have lain in wait along that border and killed or captured infiltrators with increasing efficiency over the years. The British troops speak the same language (almost) as the population. There is really only one government and one Army in NI. The intelligence work to include assassination has been extensive and effective. Many in the IRA lived in fear of informers inside their organixation. The local population has not been the source of the military troops; rather they come from the parent government and they do not have to do nation building in any way except to keep the piece and kill the IRA. The IRA executed some significant ambushes, by rarely showed-up in any one place in great numbers. A great deal of the conflict was in urban areas. Helicopter-born e raids to kill or capture individuals in rural areas is one si,ilarity. Otherwise, there are no parallels.
The presence of a strong government with its own army and judiciary is enough of a major distinction. Add to that the IRA hid in largely Catholic areas and could not train openly in the Reoublic of Irekand and you have enough to tip the scales in Britain's favor. The military wing of the IRA were dealt with as terrorists and not as a guerrilla army. BTW, no airstrikes or artillery were required in NI.
I never said that Northern Ireland and Afghanistan were the same.
All I said was that Northern Ireland may provide clues on to how to 'win' in Afghanistan. That's all.
So, again, how did the British 'win' in Northern Ireland?
They first accepted that a clean 100% end to IRA violence / IRA surrender was never going to happen and it hasn't.
They also accepted that in places like Crossmaglen, British troops or police would never be safe or welcomed.
Thirdly they committed to a war of attrition - slowly suffocating over 30 years the IRA insurgency with spies, surveillance, special forces and lots of police and army.
Winning has been defined as forcing the bulk of the IRA to commit to the political process rather than both politics and the gun. This has been achieved.
Don't you think I realise many of the differences that you mention???
Although we should have stopped after Tora Bora, the years following were wasted by sending untrained troops into a hopeless situation. If this were a business, we would look at what we have done in Afghanistan as "sunk costs." Read and respect what some who have been there are saying here. Even with language and cultural training, the structural problems still exist - a lousy government and a porous border with Pakistan.
Since you are smart; why not read the new book "Little America." That would help anyone understand how we have NEVER understood Afghanistan and have never succeeded in nation-building .
You see, you leave the necessity for nation-building out of your NI analysis. NI did not require nation-building ! We do the killing part very well; but that does not win this kind of "war."
We made two strategic mistakes: remaining in Afghanistan and going into Iraq. Some idiots thought that the mission was the same in both countries - transplant democracy. This nation's politicians made the strategic mistake of picking the wrong places to fight wars. This insanity began with Vietnam. South Vietnam presented the exact same obstacles that Afghanistan does; except the Vietnamese were literate, revered education, and had rich land which they farmed. Still, a lousty government, a porous border, and an external hostile nation made success impossible there too. The biggest difference is that we wasted 60,000 lives there. We almost lost that many killed in the Battle of the Bulge, but those lives were not wasted - they preserved our way of life.
American can 'win'. But it might take 30 years. The West has been there 11 years already. There's no law that says we couldn't stay another 20 if necessary.
I remember hearing about Giap being asked about whether North Vietnam would win. He banged his fist on the table and loudly stated 'We WILL win'. Total commitment and determination. America certainly used to have that determination.
And you ask me to respect the views of those that have been there - that is exactly why I asked Michael for his views on how we could win.
And I did not say that 'winning' has to include nation building. Winning might only involve, say, grinding the insurgency down to 10% of its current level. Or winning might simply involve staying until radical Islam is no longer a major threat in the world. In the 1980s it seemed unthinkable that the IRA would abandon the armed struggle. There seemed to be an endless supply of young IRA recruits, weapons, hate and anger. But give it up they (largely) did.
I think that Northern Ireland was just as difficult as Afghanistan in its own way. Yes, it was far more developed. But with that came lawyers, TV crews and American politicians. British troops were very restricted in what they could do. The IRA was almost certainly the best insurgent group in the last 100 years, apart from the Viet Cong.
By the way, the American involvement in Vietnam remains one of the noblest, bravest and correct things that America ever did. It was entirely right to try to prevent the North Vietnamese invading the South, which the people of the South most certainly did not want.
Is that still true? Doesn't look like it.
Stay safe warriors and TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS!
Another letter to my congressman is forthcoming...t he two senatoresses in this state are anti-military and obama fans and could care less!
Everytime we kill an Al-Qaeda member it's in Pakistan.
Bring the troops home!
Quoting Gerri:
July 4, 2006
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html
Time to get Hilary Clinton & Hussien Obama out of office this November.
I find this letter suspect. First, the writer states that there isn't enough media attention then he later blames the media for "casually saying that this is a frequent occurrence" and "is an attempt to downplay the major ramifications for these decisions (to stop training the Afghans due to Blue on Green incidents)." I say that is hogwash! The incidents started skyrocketing last year while I was there and our unit's mission was advising Afghan training at the Kabul Military Training Center. And these incidents have continued to climb through this year, surpassing last year's number of incidents already. Either this guy has no clue of the facts, is intentionally lying about the facts or it's a made-up piece of propaganda (hence the parts where the writer says, "because of politically driven orders" and "of course this will be a terrible inconvenience on the current elections").
On another note, when President Obama announced his "surge" speech at West Point in late 2009, I was waiting to hear that we were going to be more involved on the ground in Pakistan, namely Waziristan. But of course that wasn't the case. If we're not going to fully commit against the enemy in Pakistan, then nothing we do now and since that speech will make a difference for the withdrawal in 2014. I also understand how precarious doing such actions in Pakistan is surely to be, but Afghan figures have no interest in peace. They are only interested in who is the highest bidder.
Overt ground operations in Pakistan were never going to happen. It is my impression that there have been a very few such operations involving special units. In regard to Pakistan, we need to unass the area yesterday. Screw how it looks.
President Obama continued what President Bush began. Which is why Obama invited Bush to join him for the announcement of the successful operation by Navy SEALs. President Bush decline as he had decided to remain out of the spotlight as he has for the past 4 years.
President Obama's announcement is on YouTube. He recounts the events leading to killing UBL. He gives credit where credit is due. You won't see that, but he is outlining to an ignorant public what normally takes place in the steps leading to such an operation,
You want to know why military people hate politicians? It is because we think very simply. Most believe there is right and wrong, people say what they mean and mean what they say, people do what what they say they are going to do. we are outcomes focused/results oriented and we don't care about people's feelings to the detriment of the mission... because I'd rather hurt a whole lot of feelings if that = less dead Soldiers.
Give us the tools and show us the will to fight to win... or send us home. Everything else is just noise from dudes trying to get elected.
This was a strategic mistake just like Vietnam and Iraq. Please look just at the timeline for Vietnam and you will see a mirror image of what has and will take place in Afghanistan. We should have left Afghanistan after Tora Bora with the Northern Alliance holding Kabul and one end of the country. Let the Pashtuns be Pashtuns and if terrorists come back in that area, we will kill them. The Taliban will/have come back and I do not care. What we have achieved will be gone in 3 years except for the Northern Alliance which we should continue to support.
Therefore, getting out ASAP is the right thing to do. If you want to blame someone for staing too long, just look to the 4 stars. They are the ones who have led 2 Presidents around by the nose until the confrontation over the surge. You have to ask yourself why the top echelons of the military have wanted to remain in Afghanistan wasting lives and billions of dollars. Only part of the reason is because they are ignorant.
1. By Win, I would mean a government that rejects the Taliban and a Taliban that cannot return to power (ie no safe haven for terroist training). I could give a crap about bringing democracy and western values to these people. There is not one mm of daylight between the ideology of the Taliban and AlQaida and therefor the Taliban must be destroyed.
2. Unfortunately I will have to agree with you. To do so, we would have to prove to the people we are here to stay and prove we can improve their lives. We would also have to start at least some operations in Pakistan and do something really drastic to stop both Iran and Pakistan (esp the ISI) from supporting the Taliban. We could do it... though it may be painful. Which is why we choose not to... kinda like how we can't balance our budget (it's the spending stupid). I just have a sinking feeling that we will be back here before my lifetime ends...
Fight to Win or LEAVE NOW... everyone, everything, every dime of American money!
Obama (as all politicians usually do) wants it both ways (all good of both sides, none of the bad or, as a friend of mine used to say "He wants only the front end of the puppy"). Unfortunately for those of us here on the ground, we don't get that luxury.
What I disagree with on Brad's comments is the assumption that Obama is undercutting the mission for political gain. If it was all about re-election for the President, we would have left already. Nearly 60% of Americans were ready for immediate withdrawal and disapproved of furthering the war in Afghanistan at the time that Obama announced the Afghanistan surge at West Point. By April of this year, disapproval on Afghanistan and support for withdrawal was up to 80%. Obama has not been politically expedient on this issue. Don't let your hate get in the way of facts, Brad in A-stan.
I don't mind differences of opinions, I just mind stupid opinions --- General Petraeus is now the director of the CIA. Do you think for a second that the CIA is not part of the strategic involvement in Afghanistan? If Petraeus was removed for political reasons, then what's the conspiracy-theo ry dujour on how he was appointed by the same President to be the CIA Director?
Making him director of the CIA basically sidelined Petraeus for anything that would have been threatening politically. He promoted him to a position where he could not challenge him at all. No politicians asking him in public sessions of congress what his position is, no retirement where he can run for political office.
Petraeus was probably the one person who could have made a difference here... but I question if it would have been enough... because as Mr. Yon has said, fixing this place would have be a decades (pleural) long process.
Brad in A-stan, I'm here with you. I've been here since Jan of 10, with a short break in 11. Help me out. What's your current spot? Not specific, but are you at a FOB, J3, etc? I can give some high-level and low-level perspectives that might help. I've shaken Petraeus' hand (as ISAF 4*), and worked with QRFs at FOBs, so I've got perspectives that not everyone gets.
If you want some insight, read Bath Charles (above). I think he's got some good points. This war needs to transition. Conventional forces have done their job. The Taliban is no longer in power. It's now time for Afghans to self-govern. We can't force it but we can guide it. LEO is training their LEO. SOF is training their SOF. Governors are training their governors. As Charles rightly pointed out, the hot spots are very concentrated. I won't go into detail via unsecure means, but you're seeing the TB __HAS__ to change tactics and is. If you don't understand, look at the stats. How many ISAF are injured for every IED, versus, how many locals are killed? I can't quote them, but if you look, you'll see what I'm saying. So, you enable them with the tools required, and like good leaders, you get out of the way. Afghans need to police, enforce, govern, and patrol Afghans.
1. FOB and I travel.
2. which will fail... because centralized government has failed here every time it has been tried. People have owned it (Alexander the Great, Gengis Kahn, British) until they tried to actually settle down and govern it. They have zero sense of nationalism and no real respect for a central government.
I'm just fed up with this whole situation. We are damned if we do, damned if we don't. I am afraid that Taliban will regain power here and all we have fought for will be lost... but I also don't feel like we are accomplishing anything by being here. I am frustrated on so many levels. I have so many examples of why I think this is all bullcrap... but I'm not going to say them on here because I forget what I read where and I'm not sure the source/classifi caiton of things I have been told in conversations.
I hate to lose, but I don't really feel like we lost, but just that we kinda stumbled our way to where we are now... looked ahead and said "Wow, that looks hard. I'll pass".
did you forget? This is Obama's war, the good war, the just war, the moral war.
I think that somewhere between 1914 and 1975 the spirit of the British people was broken. They accepted decline and even began to believe that it was inevitable.
When I see many of the comments here I see the same thing happening to the American people. The assumption that victory is impossible. The lack of real determination to win. The lack of thought.
When I contrast these comments with the spirit and determination contained in a speech like the one given by Washington "these are the times that try mens souls", I feel afraid for America.
Half of the success of America is confidence and determination. When that goes, America really will be on the downward slope.
Charles you are 100% spot on. Let's hope there is a revival for America & Britain.
There is no win/lose in war, everyone loses. The only path to victory is love and respect for each and every human being.
ONE LOVE
We should drop you off in the middle of A-stan for a little treking. Let me know how that "love and respect" works out for you...
You live in the world we HAVE... not the world you WANT. In this world, it is better to be feared/respecte d than loved, the only way to not get in a fight is to be the biggest and baddest guy on the block, and people like you depend on people like me... so you can say stupid stuff like that.
2. If we give up on Afghanistan, the Terrorists WIN, re-establish their 'Training Camps' and Logistical Base, and the 'next round of bombings' will be more sophisticated and much worse than 911! After thousands of years, do you think your enemy is going to give up bombing us at home if we cut and run? Think again.
3. The issue is politically - motivated hand-wringing and gutlessness in leadership - at home and in the field. When our ARMED FORCES are committed, it's an indication that 'Soft Approaches' aren't enough. WE CAN 'walk and chew gum' at the same time: We can Walk Our Posts in a MILITARY manner, and still hand-out chewing gum , hersey bars, and show the WORLD we are a 'Ready FORCE for Peace' - NO one does a better job, under fire, building schools, roads, hospitals or setting up local Police or trains them BETTER than U.S. Army Engineers, NAVY SEA BEES, Air Force 'Rapid Deployment' /MASH units, The U.S. Special Forces or the United States MARINES.
4. Korea, that other 'forgotten war', was also [and in many ways still is ...] a BRUTAL conflict. Brrrrr. Soldiers froze to death, Thousands of 'Chinese Regulars' stormed into the conflicy - Mac Arthur threatened to nuke 'em - and the conflict is still ongoing with North Korea at the North's insistence - and yet WE prevailed, and no ally is more dedicated to America than South Korea. We have tens of thousands of soldiers still on post there, but South Korea is one of our greatest trading partners, and certainly one of our most loyal and strongest allies in the WORLD. Ask a MARINE.
5. What IS missing - and leads to this 'Soldiers Complaint' - is long range vision - othertwise known as 'Committment'. We have been committed in Afghanistan since 911 - we don't need to cut and run - and we shouldn't. What we SHOULD do is STAND BEHIND our friends, throughout the world, AND our lads and lasses who made THE committment when they put their hands up and Volunteered to do the work of BUILDING a safe and SECURE 'Post', in a 'military manner', as set forth in the General )rders of a Sentry since forever and ago - and make damned sure our POLITICIANS and POLITICS at home reflects our NATIONAL WILL - to preserve and protect our freedoms, and those of the tyrannized, at home - and ABROAD - with whatever it takes. Anything less is perilous for free peoples everywhere. If you need an example of what this kind of success is - what can come good of a 'forgotten, hellish war', ask a Marine - a KOREAN 'Marine'. Toughen up, America. Vote for Romney. Call Congress. Don't cut and run like the Russians OR any other 'Red Coats'. Buck up. Back our troops, and our friends . Vanquish the enemy with whatever it takes - because if WE don't, 'THEY' will see us dead in our own homes and here in our cities. Fool me once - ?
My unit advised an Afghan Army training unit, training new recruits. Their commander mocked my battalion commander and told him that his job was to get them whatever they wanted.
You can't work with these people!
These are exactly the people he was referring to, way back in the 60's. By the same token, you can't impose democracy on folks that's aggravated. Soemtimes it might be best if we just minded our own business. Just sayin...
There were many times wherein we were locked down on base for a week or more at a time. My last mission ended April 2012.
The Afghans made fun of us for our political cowardice. It was amazing that we were held back from doing our mission even when we knew the dangers weren't as great on the ground in our specific area.
The military command seems to want to treat all areas as the same. The dangers are different in each area. A bomb goes off in Kabul. That does not mean that a bomb is going to go off on every corner of the country. The command was and apparently still is paranoid.
Couple that with the political cowardice of Obama and you have a climate in Afghanistan that spells the end of progress. Not that there was any hope for progress from the beginning.
Our political and military leaders have lost in Afghanistan from the beginning.
RSS