The 5 Biggest Insults to American Manhood by the Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
4. It Doesn’t Inflict Justice on the Guilty
In The Wrong War, West uses a history of modern guerrilla warfare and counter-insurgency to point out that the United States is trying to do something that has never been done before anywhere in how it is trying to bring civilization to Afghanistan, rather than merely punishing the enemy:
Following the First World War, Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for the colonies, approved of summary executions of Irish insurgents in retaliation for the deaths of British soldiers occupying southern Ireland. The foremost scholar on counterinsurgency, David Galula, described his experience as a French officer in the Algerian War in the 1950s in these terms: “We searched the suspect’s house thoroughly and found the missing shotgun. I phoned my battalion commander and asked him if he agreed that the man should be shot on the spot. He did. The harkis executed him.” On another occasion, Galula threatened to bake a man in an oven. The man co-operated.
During the Second World War — the “good war”— the esteemed journalist Eric Sevareid stood by as U.S. soldiers shot German troops and Italian civilians. “As the weeks went by and this experience was repeated many times,” Sevareid wrote, “I ceased even to be surprised.” In his book Citizen Soldiers, the historian Stephen Ambrose devoted a chapter to prisoners of war, citing numerous instances when American soldiers shot prisoners. The press never reported one instance.
In The Village, a chronicle of my Combined Action Platoon in Vietnam, I wrote, “The Marines watched as Thanh beat his prisoners. When one woman refused to talk, he rubbed a wet cloth with lye soap and pressed it against her face. The woman struggled to breathe and sucked into her throat the stinging lye.”
Such stories had no effect at the time they were written; in 2011, they would all be sensations to the press. Today, the U.S. Congress would not tolerate deportation, sanction a $500-million bribe, approve of retaliatory executions, or ration food. Galula would be portrayed as a war criminal. Sevareid, the face of CBS, would be excoriated for not reporting the killings of prisoners, as would I for complicity in waterboarding.
Afghanistan was singularly different from any prior insurgency. Far from employing sticks of coercion of any sort, the Western coalition offered only aid and sympathy to hostile villagers. The United States possessed precision firepower, with sensors that tracked any individual out of doors. Yet in 2010, less than 5% of aircraft sorties dropped a single bomb, despite over 100 reports of troops in contact daily. This forbearance was without historical precedent. The coalition imposed upon itself the strictest rules in the history of insurgent warfare.
Forget the hoary clichés about the British and the Russians failing to rule Afghanistan. Afghanis (whatever they are) have never ruled the region named Afghanistan — basically a border drawn around the leftovers as the British Empire contracted.
I read an article about some whining by Army brass, in a _Foreign Policy_ article, about how our killing by drone campaign in AfPak could not, by itself, produce victory in a “counterinsurgency campaign”. These guys are unhappy that war is about politics, and in particular that the US government responds to presssure from the American people to keep foreigners from killing us at home. 9/11 didn’t happen for them.
Sure it would be nice if President Obama and the Democrats would educate the public, and whining Army brass, about broader things than whack-a-jihadii. But we’re stuck with whack-a-jihadi while the ****ers keep coming after us.
The Army brass will be even more upset when the American people go full Jacksonian and give the Army’s budget to the Air Force for a more thorough and final solution to the jihadii question.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Just consider the best-seller “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. We in the United States are in the process of re-inventing the human being. We just neglected to send the Muslim World the memo!
(I almost said “We in the West”, but then I remembered France’s recent operations in Mali. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had some “Eric Sevareid” moments there too.
I’ve often wondered; what if Bush had gone Full-Postal at Tora Bora in December 2001 and used hundreds of Daisy-Cutters and earth penetrators?
“I’ve often wondered; what if Bush had gone Full-Postal at Tora Bora in December 2001 and used hundreds of Daisy-Cutters and earth penetrators?”
Got ol’ Bin Laden and a bunch of assorted Taliban and Al Qaeda nasties right then and there? Resounding victory, followed by only a nagging insurgency (banditry) most Afghans would find an annoyance? Nothing like decisive military action.
“…we will be gone and they will be on their ow.”
Definitely on their ow.
Afcrapistan is far more an insult to intelligence than to manhood.
A number of my high school teachers were Vietnam veterans (one special forces), or had served in other screw ups like Lebanon. They all said the same thing: the Rules of Engagement got in their way, cost lives and contributed to losing the engagements. The rules, they said, were written by generals concerned about their promotions and post-military careers, especially if they had political ambitions.
Today it is even worse. I’ve read that the Pentagon has some 20,000 lawyers who must approve of each little mission let alone broader policy. Practically every raid involving our troops has to have a lawyer to at the planning stage to make sure all manner of laws, particularly international laws, are followed to a T. I’m not saying that every patrol by troops in country is planned that way but you can bet that before they were sent forward every detail and every rule was sniffed by at least one lawyer.
During the build up to the Iraq invasion, a lot of folks I knew, particularly the military ones, were excited. I would tell them I thought it was a mistake because we didn’t have the ruthlessness to secure the peace once we beat Saddam. The enemy there quickly figured out our rules of engagement and how to use the press as a weapon. They have played us like a fiddle since. It was the same in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it’s time to send the lawyers overseas, attach them to infantry squads and make them walk point. After 6 months of doing that – if they survive – then they can write the rules of engagement.
I had always thought along the lines of the Soviet penal battalions. Putting them on point would expose real soldiers to danger. Putting the lawyers and others in their own units with security detachments and now drones watching to make sure they did their job would be safer. But then, dropping them deep in enemy territory by themselves with bounties on their heads would be safer still.
It’s another Alinsky principle kicking us in the ass. He said something like “Force your opponent to play by his own rules.” We think of ourselves as the “good guys.” The left has us convinced that “good guys” never do anything “bad” – like hurting the enemy. Never mind Afghanistan, they have all but convinced us that fighting WWII was wrong. So we’re paranoid, paralyzed by self-doubt and second-guessing.
GREAT IDEA! It worked so well for the Russians and for the British during the Second Afghan War…I’m amazed we haven’t chosen your BRILLIANT strategy, Commander Keyboard. LOL!
Ah yes, the British and Russians cliche trying to pass itself off as hiatorical analysis. Try to keep up Mittens the collumn is AGAINST occupying ala those 2 colonialpowers.
A major factor in America’s : Afghan Experience, is that when the loony wimp promoters hear the term : “High Noon”:, they think about global warming. If you want the hearts and minds of those who would kill you, double tap and then gut them.