I’m not a counterinsurgency expert and I disagreed with Obama’s decision to escalate our commitment to Afghanistan. But if you asked me how to defeat the Taliban, I’d probably come up with a plan that is nearly identical to the one currently being pursued in Helmand Province. In fact, the plan there is very similar to what I had hoped we would do back in 2001 when we first invaded the country.
Gen. McChrystal is making a major effort to avoid the loss of civilian life (including taking the counterintuitive decision to announce the invasion well in advance); he’s letting the Afghan Army take the lead; he’s putting the focus on winning over the local population; he’s recruited a pre-fab Afghan government to take over on short notice; and he’s got development projects lined up to begin immediately after the area is cleared.
I have been skeptical that we can succeed in even limited goals in Afghanistan because the Karzai government is epically corrupt, because the Afghans have been fighting each other for so long, and because we are terrible at operating as a benevolent occupying army. We’ve spent nine years in Afghanistan and we have not succeeded on almost any level at achieving our own goals or goals that the Afghans might set for themselves. But I will say that we have a strategy now that makes sense, that has its priorities right, and that ought to work if there is anything that can work.
The administration has crafted a plan that I would have been cautiously willing to support in 2001. In 2010, the best I can say is that I wish them well. If we’re going to continue our effort, this is the way to do it. But I wish I could say that intelligence experts think this will work. I think people with access to the analysis give it a 50% chance of meeting our minimum desires. At least, that’s my sense of it.
a better Afghanistan Strategy would be to pack up, get out, pass out weapons to the groups that the officers in the field are worried about, but pack up and get out.
If you can give me one single example of “intelligence experts think this will work.” That did indeed work out,
I will shut up.
If you can give a single example in the entire history of the world that was “won” after 8 years of stalemate, I will drop my calls for McCrystal to be tried for treason and hanged in Afghanistan. Wrong man, wrong place, wrong war, and wrong President.
Thank yuo!
Ooops – I got so excited I couldn’t even spell you.
Not “intelligence experts”, but this is the intelligent strategy, and it does work:
Sorry, but this is just typical U.S. military propaganda Iraq-invasion-style. First, Al Qa`eda never had a significant presence in Iraq, despite the U.S. propagandists’ love for labeling any opposition to the occupation as “Al Qa`eda”. Second, the people of Al Anbar never turned against so-called “Al Qa`eda” because they were always opposed to extremist elements trying to force them to conform with their un-Islamic ideas, and once the extremists were empowered by the chaos of the invasion and occupation, the people of Al Anbar expended a good deal of resources battling them.
In fact, starting in 2004 or even before that American military propagandists were crowing about how the tide was turning pointing to the fact that “the Soooneeees” were fighting against “Al Kayda”, as if somehow that constituted “the Sooneees” suddenly being on the side of the occupying power, and and vindicated the entire invasion and occupation, when it constituted nothing of the kind.
In reality, starting in 2004 the tribal leaders in Al Anbar and elsewhere repeatedly approached the Americans to ask for cooperation to get rid of the religious extremists who, empowered by the occupation, were trying to impose their fanaticism on them. The Americans rebuffed them every time. It was only after the brilliant self-promoter Petraeus decided to capitalize on the idea and pretend it was his own that the military decided to work with the Iraqis, and so started arming them and paying them off, and claiming they had “turned against Al Kayda” and were now allies of their conquerors, the United States.
“Gen. McChrystal is making a major effort to avoid the loss of civilian life (including taking the counterintuitive decision to announce the invasion well in advance)“
Oh, puleeeeeze! Name me one military commander who has not claimed to be making a major effort to avoid the loss of civilian life, no matter how many civilian lives they end up snuffing out in the end.
As for the supposedly “counterintuitive” decision to announce the invasion well in advance, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is standard operating procedure. The Americans announced both Falluja massacres well in advance, and then made it rather difficult for civilians to get out alive, slaughtering hundreds of them as they attempted to evacuate, and massacring those who remained either because they were forced as they tried to leave, or because they had nowhere to go, so had to stay in their homes. There are documented cases of the Americans killing Fallujan families and individuals as they tried desperately to evacuate the city by crossing the river when all other avenues of escape were closed to them. In Lebanon in 2006, the Israelis issued orders to civilians to evacuate their villages, and then fired on the columns of men, women, and children as they attempted to comply. In Gaza, 2008-9 the Israelis issued “warnings” to civilians to evacuate knowing that with the borders closed there was nowhere they could go.
Please don’t parrot the military’s bullshit propaganda about trying to avoid harming civilians and expect us to believe it.
Oh, yes, and by the way, the Taliban just happen to be Afghans, and whether Obama, his government or his military like it or not, they have more right to be there than the American troops do.
“because they were forced as they tried to leave“
That should be “forced back into the city as they tried to leave”. In other words, the American military would not let them out, even after warning them of the impending attack.
“the Karzai government is epically corrupt…“
Karzai was the American choice. He is in power because the Americans made sure that he would be. So, don’t complain about him now. He may be a corrupt bastard, but he’s your corrupt bastard.
…and because we are terrible at operating as a benevolent occupying army.“
Oh, come on! You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that there is any such thing as a benevolent occupying army. Armies are by definition the opposite of benevolent, and armies that violently invade and occupy foreign countries are doubly so. Military occupations are oppressive, and always violent. No occupying army is benevolent.
“We’ve spent nine years in Afghanistan and we have not succeeded on almost any level at achieving our own goals…” Spoken like an imperialist.
Hurria: I appreciate your passionate criticism and I think you make many good points in your comments above. But one thing I would like to know from your point of view as someone who is so obviously engaged with scrutinizing this and other U.S. occupations in the region is what you think would have happened in Afghanistan if Obama had simply pulled out beginning in the fall of 2009?
My preference was of course that we pull out. But I think there is just too much that even an avid international media consumer cannot know about the complications involved. Obama was handed a situation that had only bad options, and I respect his judgement enough to think that he would not have gone down this road without, in his mind, very good reasons. Do I think it is going to “succeed” in any sense of the word? Not likely. Is is worth trying? I don’t know. When the decision was made to stay I felt it was all about Pakistan and regional considerations.
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful comment, and sorry for not responding sooner. Your questions deserve more than a snappy sound byte, and I haven’t had a lot of time lately. I am afraid they will not get a whole lot more at this point.
My immediate response to your first question is that whatever would have happened in Afghanistan had Obama pulled out a year ago, it would not be worse than what is happening as a result of his decision to escalate the violence (I am always amused at the astonished way Americans react when they discover that when they escalate their own violence, the violence increases – that was the big story in the early weeks of this version of The Surge (TM)). The difference is that what would happen in Afghanistan if Obama pulled out would be about Afghans dealing, well or badly, or somewhere in between, with their own situation and not with a situation imposed on them by the United States.
Will it “succeed”? No, certainly not. Is it worth trying? It depends on what your goal is. Based on my standards, no, it is not because all it is likely to achieve in the end is something the propagandists can spin to convince the domestic US audience that it was a great idea. At this stage it is largely about domestic P.R., and in the mean time, Afghans continue to pay with their lives for the U.S. folly.
There is a big reason for this. The US Army and Marines are not structured to be benevolent occupying armies. The clearest expression of this was the enlisted man in Iraq, who interviewed on NPR shortly after the fall of Saddam said, “I just know how to kill people; I’ve not been trained to be a policeman.” Occupation functions are squirreled off into MP units and Civil Affairs units, small specialized units who are supposed to be the second phase of operations after the enemy has been cleared. Well, the viciousness of the first phase operations by the shock troops ensures that the enemy is welcomed back as a counterbalance to occupation.
I don’t think McChrystal has changed this. If he lucks out and actually succeeds in restoring stability to Helmand, maybe we will be out of Afghanistan quicker. Being able to declare victory and leave.
The Taliban counterstrategy is to hold the citizen of Marja hostage to maximize the incidence of civilian deaths. The public announcement of the campaign gave them the time to shut down emigration for Marja. McChrystal as a consequence is going to wind up apologizing frequently to Harmid Karzai for civilian deaths.
The NATO troops have a significant numerical and mobility advantage. The chances of success depends on how quickly they can carry out the clear and hold strategy.
Based on previous US experience in counterinsurgency, I think McChrystal is chasing a pipe dream. He can clear but the US military mission is not set up to hold.
The . . . Marines are not structured to be benevolent occupying armies.
See above comment re: CAP in Afghanistan, and here on CAP in Iraq.
Gee, thanks for crashing my browser with that link.
My point remains. McChrystal has shifted away from the village campaign described in his massive attack on Marja. Without the translation resources and cultural understanding, it is difficult for units to adjust in the field to a new way of thinking. The Marines still are not structured in training, number of forces, structure of forces, or mission to carry out a village strategy. And it is not clear that the village strategy is what could be characterized as a “benevolent occupying army”.
“it is not clear that the village strategy is what could be characterized as a “benevolent occupying army”.“
Trust me, it is not.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BENEVOLENT MILITARY OCCUPATION.
I’m not sure that’s the issue. There can be a respectable argument made that the occupations of Japan and West Berlin, for example, were as benevolent, or at least enlightened, as could be expected given the provocations. They were, at least, as benevolent as war can be.
The problem with Afghanistan is that that country did not go to war with us or anybody else. Anything a foreign military does there, with the inevitable killing of civilians and destruction of the social fabric, comes extremely close to collective punishment of a population for the acts of a small minority. Which is, I think, considered a war crime.
It might not be your issue, but for some people, including me, it is at least one of the issues. As for the occupations of Japan and Germany, I can grant that under the circumstances they were necessary at least up to a point, but benevolent? Hardly. Enlightened? I guess that depends on what you consider enlightened, but by my standards no, it was not enlightened. It was not conducted in the interest of the occupied countries, but as are all occupations, purely in the interest of the occupiers. To the extent that the interests of the occupiers may have coincided with those of the occupied population, that was lucky happenstance, not enlightenment. To the extent that the interests differed, well, too damned bad for the occupied.
As for your second paragraph, we are not far apart. 9/11 was a crime by non-state actors, and by definition was not an act of war. Afghanistan may have “hosted” the group that was responsible, but did not attack the United States. Those Americans who insist that hosting Bin Laden and his gang of weirdos is in itself a casus belli should check out their own back yard before they speak lest they open up their own country to attack on the same basis. And yes, among other things, there is the issue of collective punishment of an entire population, not for the acts of a small minority of that population, but of a tiny group of foreigners who just happened to have set up shop there.
And by the way, it is quite fascinating the way the propagandists and their assistants in the media have gotten popular buy-in on their conflation of the Taliban with Al Qa`eda, and “the terrorists”. They have become virtually synonymous in the minds of most Americans.
You may be tactically right, but in the context of atrocities like the killer drones, there is just no way the occupiers will be seen as anything but demonic. As with the Nazis, the drive for “efficiency” infinitely multiplies the perception of evil.
My argument is that what McChrystal is doing is tactically stupid but that if he wins his gamble it might be possible for Karzai to tell us to get the hell out of his country.
The drones are just a more refined version of what Clinton was trying to do with his cruise missile attack on bin Laden’s training camp after the bombing of the Nairobi and Das es Salaam embassies.
The problem with the drones is that targeting requires intelligence of where al Qaeda leaders actually are. The problem with that is that it is open to exploitation by double agents intentionally giving locations of civilian targets. With cruise missiles your errors were in the interpretation of satellite reconnaissance photos that were not current enough to allow targeting.
And the problem with all of it is that an international law enforcement strategy has been shown to be the best method even in failed states.
What I don`t get is why is Mccrystal meth apologizing to Karzai, the lamb-fetus hat wearing puppet. As a commander, he should resign in shame immediately & beg forgiveness from the any remaining family of those so callously killed.
I say callous because he apologized to someone who could care less about the peasants so far away from Kabul where he has no influence whatsoever.
This whole project was a fiasco from the start & is now making 10/15,000 troops look like total fucking idiots for being so cleverly played by 400/1000 “insurgents”, Taliban, or what ever boogey boogey you want to call them.
The military are even now crying foul because the enemy doesn`t want to stand up & fight.
When you step into the ring, you don`t ever have the advantage of telling your opponent how to fight.
Any such mention, makes you a loser.
I would ask a fundamental question…..in two parts.
Part 1 Why did we go into Afghanistan in the first place?
Part 2 Why are we still there?
Anyone can answer but I would hope either booman or Steven would also weigh in.
We went to Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda was operating militant training camps used to send soldiers into Kashmir, Chechnya, and other hot spots, but also to train/radicalize the people who attacked us on 9/11. The 9/11 plotters who had been in the camps had gone there in the hope of fighting in Chechnya but were “re-tasked” for the planes operation.
While the United States tolerated these camps while they were being used to harass India, China, and Russia, we no longer we willing to tolerate them after 9/11.
The reason we are still there is because we haven’t been able to create an indigenous government capable of preventing a reprise of the conditions prevailing pre-9/11. And now the region has taken on extra importance as Pakistan has become internally unstable, Iran continues to pursue uranium enrichment, and China and Russia are resurgent.
It has nothing to do with gas pipelines, but it does have some geopolitical elements with business consequences. But, mainly, it’s a legitimate (if ill-advised) exercise of self-defense. That’s why my critiques focus not on a moral dimension but on likelihood of success and return on investment. My treatment of Iraq has been completely different.
Whether or not attacking Afghanistan was a legitimate reaction is highly debatable. Whether it is legitimate to violently invade any country and continue for years to commit violence there, because you can’t manage to create an “indigenous” government that suits your purposes is even more debatable.
Really? Nothing ever changes in Afghanistan. Its liked fighting a phantom menace