John Harris and Jim Vandehei ask in a Politico article whether Obama really wants the US to win in Afghanistan. The Politico says that when Obama realizes what a military victory in Southwest Asia would really entail, he may get cold feet. Faced with such a commitment they suggest Obama will backpedal on his promises and let things simmer along.
Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties. In any event, the country and its unruly neighbor, Pakistan, will quite likely dominate Obama’s attention much more than Iraq.
Joe Biden’s first trip abroad as vice President-elect included a stop in Afghanistan. When he returned home, he told Obama: “The truth is that things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they’re going to get better.” If that’s true, Obama may in the end find muddle-through more attractive than victory.
Win decisively or muddle through? Whatever he does, argues the Captain’s Journal, he shouldn’t follow the advice of Karzai. Herschel Smith writes: “Hamid Karzai wants … operational and strategic control over U.S. forces. … Given the state of affairs in Afghanistan, to give operational, strategic and tactical control of U.S. troops over to a foreign president would not only work contrary to the unity of command sought by placing U.S. troops back under CENTCOM with Petraeus in charge. More to the point, it would have disastrous consequences for the campaign.”
The draft technical agreement would put into place rules of conduct for NATO-led troops in Afghanistan and the number of additional NATO troops and their location would have to be approved by the Afghan government. The agreement — an attempt by Afghanistan to gain more control over international military operations — would also prohibit NATO troops from conducting any searches of Afghan homes, according to a copy of the draft obtained by The Associated Press.
Lurking within the content of these two articles is a larger potential problem. The hidden danger in the Afghan campaign is its potential for expansion. In fact it is less and less a conflict within Afghanistan as much as it is about a series of interrelated problems in Southwest Asia. Afghanistan can’t be ‘won’ in isolation. The problem is that to broaden the solution context potentially means broadening the war.
Obama is now in the position that Lyndon Johnson was in 1965, at the period when American advisers in Vietnam were deemed insufficient to handle the challenge. Johnson made the fatal mistake of committing decisively large forces without decisive intent. If Obama expands the effort in Southwest Asia and he wishes to avoid LBJ’s fate, he must do it with the view of winning a quick and decisive victory — what the Politico called a “decisive win”. Otherwise he will find himself in the military nightmare of the Two Front War — he’ll have to abandon the Middle East for Southwest Asia if it sucks in more resources because there aren’t enough to keep two long term conflicts going simultaneously. Two Front Wars are infamous for destroying those who get caught up in them by attrition.
Herschel Smith’s warning is also reminiscent of Johnson’s problems with the Saigon politicians. The chronic need to pander to local politicians hobbled the military effort by imposing on it the requirement to do things in half-measures.
The normal procedure for fighting multiple challenges is to decisively win one front before transferring forces to the other, thereby engaging the enemy serially rather than in parallel. Until then, the lesser threat should be contained by a holding action. For a long time now, the “War in Afghanistan” has been treated as if it were a separate thing from the “War in Iraq”. Both are part of the same War on Terror. BHO now stands at a strategic crossroads. The problem is that in order to satisfy the many competing political demands of his constituents he may follow Yogi Berra’s advice: ‘when you come to a fork in the road, take it.’
Keeping things at a low boil in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran, rather than making the necessary commitment to make real progress towards victory (yes, “victory” is hard to define, but is definitely not remaining “as is”), is going to eventually result in another significant attack on U.S. soil/against U.S. interests. Obama and team know that, and know that if he doesn’t make the above commitment they will be blamed for that attack, particularly after their promises in the campaign about the “real war.” And they don’t want to risk that. (Note that they will have some grace period, probably 6 -12 months, where they will still be able to get away with blaming it on Pres Bush. But after awhile even the American public will catch on.)
The recent agreements securing supply routes through areas other than Afghanistan was a major achievement by Pres Bush, which hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves (bigsurprise there!). This will give Petraeus (and thus Obama) much more flexibility, particularly in regards to getting support from Pakistan. Makes it a lot easier for cross-border operations.
A two front war?
Big deal. It took six months to stop the Japs at Midway (?) and less than a year to mount our first amphibious assault against the Axis powers in North Africa.
You can’t get much farther apart than that.
Two big differences.
1.) FDR, unlike Bush, put the US on a proper war footing and called for sacrifice from the American people.
2.) The Left kept its subversion and its big damn mouth to a minimum because we were fighting the enemy of their spiritual homeland, Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Bush fought a two front war: one front in Iraq, the other in the United States. He won the first, and lost the second.
Now that Obama is reaping the benefits of both outcomes, I expect him to consolidate his gains before reaching for more. But this is based on very little data, since it’s not clear what he really thinks about Afghanistan, other than it was not what Bush was doing (his core strategy for winning on the second front).
The lack of firm data with which to predict Obama’s actions reminds me of an old joke:
L3
We’ve been fighting the Left’s mates in the communist movement, their limp dick left intellectual(aka slaves to Chatter Mind)mates in Europe and now Islamic fundamentalism ever since.
No wonder we (Americans with traditional views who understand the founding principles of this great experiment) are the Great Satan and receive such mad opprobrium by foreign and domestic totalitarians.
And I guess lots of the bright people here see the obvious parallels between the limp dicks’ attitudes towards the Black Panthers back in the 60s and Islamic fascism now.
So what’s new, other than the fact that our leftie universities have had several more generations to subvert in the meantime.
Dead right, L3.
The thing that pissed me off most about Vietnam and Iraq is that each time the greatest power in the world got bogged down in a 12th rate country to the detriment of the rest of the world.
L3: You know, Obama reminds me of another joke:
Q: What is the difference between a Accountant and a Statistician?
A: Statistician does not have enough personality to be an Accountant.
How does anyone know what Obama thinks? Is his deluge of Clinton people as appointments smart or safe?
US on a proper war footing and called for sacrifice from the American people.
This obsessive nostalgia by some people for the days of mass conscript armies is tiresome. Pray tell, what would “a proper war footing” in the 21st Century look like when a few thousand casualties spread across half a decade is considered an unacceptably high price?
The dems have been for five years talking about how Afghanistan was the right war and how Iraq was the wrong war. Obama also made some aggressive remarks about Pakistan during the election. One way or t’other he’s going to have to do something there if only to prove that he’s better and smarter than GWB.
Give up on the Two-Front-War-Is-Bad: it only made sense in terms of Germany being overmatched by taking on the Soviet Union AND the Western Allies simultaneously.
In WWI Wilhelmine Germany came very close to winning its “Two Front” War, having knocked Russia out and coming close to winning the Second Battle of the Marne. If Ludendorff had transferred enough cavalry from the Eastern Front to give him an arm of exploitation, he probably would have won it but, as John Terraine wrote in How Haig Saved Lenin, Ludendorff the politician defeated Ludendorff the general.
In both World Wars, the Allies won fighting multi-front wars. Japan lost fighting a sort-of single front war. It is not the number of fronts that counts, it is relative resources and the effectiveness of their application.
Handing over control of US troops to Afghanistan…. would that not make them mercenaries?
How would disciplinary issues be handled? Would the troops be subject to Afghani law?
I can’t see how this coud ever work. Even trying would cause a huge exodus from the (currently voluntary) armed forces. Karzai must know that’s something the US could never agree to, so this request is obviously just for domestic political consumption.
It’s War on the Muslim Middle East. It will never be won in the conventional sense. Victory will be keeping the conflict confined to the MME. This means that as long as the Muslims want conflict, we should give it to them in their back yard. It is never necessary to give them peace as long as we have it at home.
This war could be fought much more inexpensively than it is and we should be pressing the military to do so. The expense of using cold war weapons to fight tribesmen is ludicrous.
Karzai is a weak central leader of a country without a core who is successfully co-opting foreigners to secure his government at a very low cost to himself. Afghanistan is useless and worthless. It’s primary value historically has been producing warriors. But like 16th century Welshmen, they ain’t what they used to be.
We should let this war go on in the MME until they tire of it as they will within a decade.
Bonzo,
Here is perhaps a better question:
“How does Obama know what Obama thinks?”
Is Afghanistan really a sovereign Westphalian nation-state?
No, not really. It may become one some day, but the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is really four protectorates: Regional Command South, RC East, RC North and RC West. There is nobody in the ANA capable of exercising operational, strategic or tactical control of any force larger than three kandaks.
Karzai needs to go. We made him. We need to break him. We need to get colonial enough to ram some solutions down some uncooperative throats, or back way up into our super FOB’s at Bagram and Kandahar and maintain these two lilypads as force projection platforms for bringing hell fire and scunnion down on anybody who allows territory they claim sovereignty over to be used in launching attacks on us.
Meanwhile, coming to a halfway house near you, Khalid Shaik Mohammed. If Obama’s first act is to undermine what passed for tough mindedness in the GWOT; thinking he’ll aggressively pursue victory anywhere is highly unlikely.
I’ve been bothered by Whiskey’s Doomsday Scenario where NYC is vaporized, but who knows?
Obama may even turn loose from Gitmo the cat who marches up Broadway with a suitcase nuke hidden in his faux Rolex cart.
What’s the over and under on when Johnnie Jihad gets pardoned and amnesty is extended to Adam Gadahn?
This is not the Obama that Obama knew, is it?
As most things that our new President said in the campaign before the election (as opposed to the campaign going on now), was just so much eyewash, as his statements had no consequences then. He may now be finding out that just by saying something, there is a consequence, even without following actions in the Real World.
I think that what happens in Afghanistan is very important. If the US dallies or withdraws, the Karzai government falls, the brutal Taliban is resurgent, and their guests, al Qaeda, get a new place to re-group. India will be the first to feel the consequences of this action. Hamid Gul and friends of the ISI envisioned this in the ’80′s when the CIA funneled money and arms through the ISI into Afghanistan to fight the Soviets; Gul and the others saw the ability to form a clandestine fighting force to be used against the Hindus, not based in Pakistan. Unless you believe the utter revisionism of “Charlie Wilson’s War”.
So the first main consequence of US withdrawal from Afghanistan may be a fracturing of relations between the US and India (the Indians aren’t that dumb), and the beginning of a wider Terror War against India. Think Mumbai raised to some greater factor and frequency. The result could then be genocide against Muslims in India (numbering in the tens of millions) and a much wider war between militant Islam and the rest of the world, at least in Southwest Asia. Osama bin Laden was always trying to raise the Umma, and this “Victory” over the “Great Satan” in Afghanistan would give him more tangible power and influence to do just that (or whoever succeeds him in al Qaeda).
Obama and his cabinet have no doubt that they are smarter by far than the departing Bush Administration. But I detect no depth to their strategic thinking, based on what little has been said at this point. I hope I am wrong.
As most things that our new President said in the campaign before the election (as opposed to the campaign going on now), was just so much eyewash, as his statements had no consequences then.
Well then: was he lying then, or is he lying now?
The trick to winning a multitheater conflict is to win and stabilize one side and then transfer the forces to the other theater. For example, during World War 2, the ETO had priority over the Pacific. When Germany surrendered, they were in the process of transferring forces to the Pacific.
Obama has an opportunity in that GWB left him Iraq nearly, but not completely won. If they are going heave into the SWA then the trick will be to drawdown in the ME without losing the gains, otherwise it will be like pulling your finger out of one leaky hole in the dike to plug another with the same finger. Seal one then move the finger.
But this requires a strategic vision. At the minimum, it means thinking of the GWOT as one conflict with several theaters. The perverse notion that the “War in Afghanistan” was somehow different from the “War in Iraq” was used to undermine the ME theater. But now that BHO is President the same realities will constrain him. Still unclear in all of this is what BHO thinks the strategic center of gravity is. There’s a case to be made that it is still the Middle East. That’s where the money comes from; that’s where the ideology comes from. That’s where the Ruhr is; that’s where the Nazi Party headquarters is. SWA can be liked to the Eastern front, or the Western Europe or North Africa. But at the end of the day the road had to lead to Berlin. Nobody has said where our “Berlin” is.
Is ramping up in Afghanistan/Pakistan good or bad? It depends on whether it serves the larger strategic goal. My own guess is that the solutions to both the SWA and ME theater will take years. It’s a generational conflict, as GWB once said. We’ll have occasion to remember that in the future. Any winning strategy, like the Cold War strategy will have to be bipartisan in nature.
We’ll see whether BHO continues, though he may deny it, GWB’s policy. Or whether he will create a new policy and expect his successors (he’ll have successors, won’ he?) to continue them. But there ought to be some shared consensus of where the ship of state is going, otherwise it will zigzag across the iceberg studded ocean.
It’s their country. Let them bear some responsibility for who gets killed.
We need ANA witnesses embedded with our units. Put Afghan aircrew in some of these CAS birds. They’d be passengers, but also the military representatives of the GoIRoA. Fire some of these Excalibur rounds out of ANA tubes.
We need more trigger pullers in Afghanistan, nearly all of whom should be Afghans. The Afghan Surge needs to be trainers, mentors liaison teams, engineers, civil affairs, and military information support teams, not MRAP-mounted motorized infantry.
“Who Dares Wins”
The Three Conjectures contain a simple irony, which seems to be how history often works — “Bush’s War On Terror”, the GWOT, oddly, gives Muslims their best chance for survival, a way to avoid the megadeath (?hecatomb?) alternative of Conjecture Two. I’m not sure conjecture two is the likeliest result of an erosion of conjecture three, but it certainly becomes more likely.
Remind me again why it’s imperative that we stay in AFghanistan and expend resources there when there’s a much juicier target next door in Pakistan?
Actually, remind me again why America needs to stay in that part of the world at all — other than it would be nice to have the body of bin Laden once and for all. Can’t we just leave and let India and Russia divide it up between the two of them? What has Afghanistan ever done for us in the six years we’ve been there?
(Didn’t Malaki [and Kofi Annan] make a play to get control of America’s military forces, too? It must be a weak leader’s wet dream to have all that power at his beck and call. Silly boys.)
I think there is a more than sufficient history extant regarding Obama’s statements made in public and before private groups over a range of issues, and then him changing his tune later on depending on the constituency he’s appealing to, that a rational person could draw the proper conclusion: you just don’t know what he’s going to do. Hell, you don’t even know what he’s gonna say from one day to the next.
I just hope the nation can survive the next four years intact. I see many signs that Western Civilization is in decline and finis. Honestly, I’m not very optimistic about much these days, which is why I am hunkering down and taking comfort in new hobbies like woodworking. For those of us who are conservative, we have our work cut out for us in the years ahead, but it would behoove us to preserve our sanity by finding enjoyable things to distract us.
The problem, Wretchard, is not Afghanistan per se. The problem is that soon-to-be-failed state called Pakistan. Which, in turn, is simply part of a broader problem, whcih might be better thought of as a clash of civilizations between the West and militant Islam. As we have seen most recently with the Islamic reaction to Gaza, Islam is in a state of war with all non-Islamic civilizations. How else do you account for Muslims from Paris to New York protesting defensive reactions to terrorism?
The solution? Well, GWB thought he could bring the battle to Islam, create democratic socities that would act as counter-examples to the notion of a worldwide Jihad with a worldwide Caliphate as its end state. That strategy, whateve its merits, has now been abandoned. I think the remaining choices are a slow surrender (Obama’s preferred option, IMHO) or total war.
Our “Berlin” is where our “Fuerherbunker” is, ja? Nein. Their C2 is dispersed and distributed.
We have many “Berlins.” Tehran. Damascus. Beirut. Riyadh. Dubai. Sana’a. Rawalpindi. London. Turtle Bay.
The solution? Well, GWB thought he could bring the battle to Islam, create democratic socities that would act as counter-examples to the notion of a worldwide Jihad with a worldwide Caliphate as its end state. That strategy, whateve its merits, has now been abandoned. I think the remaining choices are a slow surrender (Obama’s preferred option, IMHO) or total war.
GWB’s strategy was a political war with military trappings. It depended crucially on showing certain countries that democratic society was the way to go. Unfortunately, opposition to GWB undermined the political message to the point where while the military war may have gone well, the political claim has been ceded to the enemy.
Now Obama is facing the strategic consequences of the Left’s efforts. By undermining the political effort, he’s now facing an emboldened enemy and must as you say choose between appeasement or an increased confrontation. My guess is that he’ll choose both and get the worst of everything. That’s really what the Politico article was talking about, albeit in muddled terms. But that’s just my guess. We’ll have to see what he actually does. All one can fairly observe is that he is threading the strait between Scylla and Charybdis. And I think that’s a fair enough observation.
Moscow
No one thinks he’ll pull back behind America’s moat of oceans and let the rest of the world go to hell on their own efforts without any help or interference from us?
We always used to say that would never happen because of the interconnectivity of the world’s economy, but if that economy has now gone bust and EVERYone is broke and scrambling, then why do we need to stay out there spending American tax dollars on ungrateful thugs and heathens?
And really, pulling back into Fortress America is the absolute closest reaction he can come to his favorite stance of voting “present” and not committing one way or the other.
And if he is going to be President “Present” with no vision for foreign policy who will end up directing the war? Pelosi maybe?
Leo Linbeck III said:
“Bush fought a two front war: one front in Iraq, the other in the United States. He won the first, and lost the second.”
Bush forfeited popularity at home to achieve victory in the Middle East. Obama is too much of a demagogue to expend popularity for the sake of national security. However Obama might try to repackage the GWoT such that he can maintain his popularity. However I find it hard to believe that the moonbats would buy into this. We’ll have to wait and see if Obama values his good relationship with the moonbats more than national security.
Mrs. Davis said:
“It’s War on the Muslim Middle East. It will never be won in the conventional sense. Victory will be keeping the conflict confined to the MME. This means that as long as the Muslims want conflict, we should give it to them in their back yard.”
This is why the War in Iraq was an act of strategic genius. To have remained only in Afghanistan would have invited a Vietnam War situation with the Islamic Fascists using Pakistan as a safe haven just as the Vietcong used Cambodia. Osama bin Laden wanted us to attack Saudi Arabia when he planned 9/11. However attacking the nation controlling Mecca and Medina would have triggered a world-wide religious war. We very clearly rejected the bait when we pulled our remaining troops out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Invading Iraq was the near optimal response. We had troops in the Islamic heartland without compromising the Sunni sacred cities. We took down a secular dictator who had previously attacked his neighbors and threatened the world’s petroleum supply. The WMD issue was ambiguous because Saddam had removed or destroyed most of his WMDs in Iraq. However his relationship with the Syrians over their plutonium production reactor is unclear (Saddam might have been colaborating with the North Koreans and Syrians concerning their reactor). The United States knew about the Syrian reactor prior to initiating the Iraq War so it might have been a factor in selecting Iraq for invasion. Attacking Iraq and then permitting the Israelis to destroy the Syrian reactor certainly sent a message to the rest of the Middle East concerning our position on Islamic WMDs.
trangbang68 said:
“Obama may even turn loose from Gitmo the cat who marches up Broadway with a suitcase nuke hidden in his faux Rolex cart.”
I’m conflicted about capital punishment (I don’t like the notion of giving the power of life and death to politicians). However most of the terrorists in Gitmo are rabid animals and should have been destroyed. Bush was probably too public in how he handled Gitmo. The Gitmo terrorists should have immediately faced secret military tribunals. After formally establishing their guilt, the terrorists should have been disposed of after all useful military information was extracted. As it stands, the moonbats will let the terrorists loose. It will be like opening a Pandora’s Box.
I figure there is a high likelyhood that the war in iraq is won. The elections coming up in 10 days will be a significant test of that premise. Even if I am right, BHO will still fail in Afghanistan if he escalates. It is not his nature to tough it out to win militarily in Afghanistan, like Bush did in Iraq.
Look at Obama’s stimulus plan closely. It is only a ‘framework”, not even a plan at all. He purposely left out the gritty details, because at his core, he has no idea at all what to do.
If he can fail to put forth a real plan on one of his two great challenges, the economy, why would one expect a real strategy for Afghanistan or his second great challenge, the GWOT. His earlier statements on Pakistan were just eyewash reworking of the Dem talking points and not something to be taken seriously. Remember in the campaign he effortlessly radically changed positions on a whole host of issues without even a hiccup from the media.
Expect him to announce some scheme that sounds high minded and thoughtful, but at its center is empty and unworkable and in the end a complete disaster.
I wouldn’t want to be one of our men and women fighting in Afghanistan over the next few years. They will just some political tool to be thrown under the bus in a PR sleight of hand by our Dear Leader.
I agree that Obama does not appear to have the fortitude to fight it out in Afghanistan. It will be a ‘Long War’. One of the most obvious clues to appear is the replacement of Gates within the year and replacement of Petraeus at Centcom concurrently or soon after. Gates goes first, then Petraeus, IMHO. It will be all-telling who will follow Gates as SecDef. Dennis Kucinich?
Then we suffer a war of a thousand cuts, with no strategic direction, in Afghanistan. And the political pressure builds rapidly for an expedient total withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I agree that Afghanistan can be seem as a long term festering wound, with ‘sanctuaries’ in Pakistan; a frustrating ‘no win’ conflict for the US military. It can also be seen as a flanking action on that dangerous entity called ‘Pakistan’, with America (and not much of NATO) nation-building on the north of Pakistan, and the Hindus of India holding down the eastern flank. Either Pakistan controls itself, or descends into Civil War. Control (or revolution with militant Islam winning) would at least clarify our situation. Civil War would allow us (and India) to intervene in the chaos and resolve our respective problems.
And also not to mention we are on Iran’s eastern flank in Afghanistan, while on their western flank in Iraq. Viewed this way, it starts to look more like Cold War containment.
And that, in my opinion, is where the Obama Administration either has no strategic vision or recoils from the diffulties ahead, and seeks something more appealing to his ‘audience’, but possibly with worse outcomes.
In my opinion a military victory in Afghanistan is not possible without a political victory in Pakistan.
Bin Laden is supposed to have issued a 2007 fatwa calling for the elimination of democratic reform in Pakistan, so possibly the Islamists see it that way too.
In any event we would do well to support the current Pakistan government in whatever way possible (preferably in country with U.S.military and intellgence assets) in exchange for a public alliance against the Islamists that includes reformation of the ISI and Pakistan Army.
Of course that would constitute a surge of a whole ‘nother sort.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Lebanon, Korea, Russia and perhaps even China. These areas will, hopefully, exert pressure on the Democrats for the next 4 years.
BHO, Pelosi, Reid et al, would dearly love to be out of all “foreign entanglements”. Then they would have the leisure to develop their domestic policies without distractions.
This unholy trinity and their acolytes, if left undistracted, will socialize your country dealing it a blow from which it will never recover.
These present fiscal trials will be, compared to those brought by socialization, picayune. Your economy could rebuild itself by itself. Tax cuts would help the recovery along but the “stimulus” of government spending will not.
Quig, Harding had it right.
Hoover, FDR, not so much….
Nothing would more rapidly stimulate the productive American engine than tax cuts, permanent ones.
Next, a hefty reduction in Federal spending….
Fat chance.
I’m not actually convinced that the US needs the surge to win the Afghan war. All that needs to happen is for the US to keep doing in Afghanistan what its been doing for the last year. The bad guys are being taken down in detail. Anyhow that’s the story that I’ve been reading from the front along the afghan border with pakistan for the last several months.
oh and one other thing. the flow of international oil dollars into the bad guy’s coffers has been significantly diminished.
the reason Bush could not speak very well was because he is bilingual. the mexican border ran right right between his ears. vincente fox did not have kind words for bush in his memoirs.
Canoneer No. 4 – I think you are saying that we can’t really draw a direct parallel to WWII, which I would agree with. This is pretty much uncharted territory – the world, to use a timeworn cliche, is a smaller place. Communications have revolutionised warfare both tactically and strategically, enabling the enemy to operate in a distributed fashion, including behind our “lines”.
So while we can draw on past conflicts for inspiration to a degree – we need to invent a lot of stuff as we go along. The surge in Iraq (a melange of new tactics, and the ripening fruit of some hard graft in the diplomatic and intelligence spheres) is one example of successful adaptation. Some but not all of the themes from that success may be usable in Afghanistan and further afield.
But I think a lot of us agree that subdividing the conflict into different “wars” is not wise. This is one conflict with multiple fronts, and a practical Obama will now need to shelve the campaign rhetoric that declared one war good, other war bad.
“Nobody has said where our ‘Berlin’ is.”
Cannoneer No. 4: Regarding your list, don’t be deceived by superficial similarities. It’s actually the Kabbah.
@Wretchard #18: Barack Obama considers the
center of gravity to be Barack Obama. Make that the center of the universe(s).
His actions shall be geared to making him
THE ONE who so masterfully provided the inspired and peaceful solution to a millennias-old conflcit.
If he is half as smart as he thinks he is, he will be genius enough to stick to actions and endeavors that can actually be accomplished.
If he manages to fall short of the genius level, we got troubles.
@Eggplant #30: Outstanding presentation on why Iraq was the proper place to invade.
Location, location, and location.
Bart Hall in Kansas: If reading still, please check out #100 on the invisible man thread and reply if you will be so good. Thanks.
Alrighty… meaty subject!
First, Wretchard is correct… sort of. Actually, it’s a two-campaign war. There were at least two campaigns going on simultaneously in the ETO in WW-II (Italy and France were concurrent.) It is one theater. Also, I would like to point out that comparing the counterinsurgencies of the GWOT to the conventional WW-II is an inherently flawed analogy. This is a war unlike any other we have been in before, in that our enemy is entirely a non-state actor. While Afghanistan (NOT Iraq) is remarkably similar to Viet Nam in many respects, there was North Viet Nam as a hostile state actor to the north.
Canoneer makes an excellent point about the need for more advisors and mentors. There is hope. The window is still open… but it is closing. We are not losing; but we are not winning. It’s not quite status quo. At this point the insurgency is gaining strength and legitimacy. There are a number of indicators of this, the most disturbing of which is that the “shadow government” is beginning to provide services to the population. The most telling of these services are courts. The Taliban are adjudicating land disputes and crimes. This is not a good sign.
The insurgency tells the good COIN operator how to defeat it. Listen to their message, learn from it where they plan to beat you with your own weakness, fix the weakness and subvert the insurgent message; take it away from him and make it your own. Pakistan does not need to be resolved in order to gain success in Afghanistan. It would be nice, but the last time I held my breath waiting for it to happen, I passed out. Pakistan remained a problem. Pakistan, however, could be helped by successes on the Afghan side of the border. How do we do that? See the above. Make the insurgent less relevant. I keep saying over and over again that the worst thing that we could do to bin Laden is not kill him, but leave him an irrelevant old man ranting at a small circle of true believers in a cave, giving orders that there is no one to complete.
That’s what happened to Hitler.
The way that we did that to Hitler won’t work against bin Laden. This is not a “send fleets of bombers to flatten his cities” type of war. But using the proper strategy against the insurgency (that would be… ummm… let me guess… COIN?) will bring the same results.
The Army is very slowly catching on. They are stressing COIN now in Captains’ Career Courses. They are not teaching it in NCOES, and until they start teaching FM 3-24 in the Warrior Leader Course and fundamentals in BCT, the Army will not culturally “get” COIN. Can’t have a strategic Corporal when he doesn’t know the strategy. Voices like COL Gentile provide a rallying point for those who disdain this decidedly unsexy doctrine. A quick read of this month’s Armed Forces Journal will find an article written by an Air Force Major General with a built-in excuse for losing in Afghanistan; that losing Viet Nam did not lose the Cold War and did not result in the destruction of our nation. He wants us to forget the lessons of the past few years and prepare for WW-III.
What the hell, over? This is a VERY bad sign. Hitler would have shot the man. We are a much kinder, gentler nation. We publish his seminal excuse in the nation’s premier publication for field and flag grade officers. You can’t make this shit up. And I thought I saw some wacky shit in Afghanistan.
In any case, I submit (here it comes NahnCee,) that this is a flawed analogy as well. Viet Nam never had “death to America” anywhere in their mission statement. They simply wanted to conquer their own country, not the world. Now, you may (and probably will) argue that the Taliban are only thinking of conquering Afghanistan, their original conquest of which we so rudely interrupted in 2001. Ah. Yes. So simple. Well, that’s that then, eh?
Not so. AQ and related entities were recruiting foreign fighters, predominantly but by no means exclusively Pakistani, to fight in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance. There are published interviews with these fighters as prisoners of the Northern Alliance well before 2001. Some of them had been captured in 1996. Among them were two Muslim Chinese nationals. The name of the game was to establish a homeland for the global Jihad. Lashkar e Taiba was one of the groups providing recruiting and training. Where have I heard that name? Oh, yeah… connected to Mumbai. Go figure.
Just as thinking of this war in terms of WW-II tactically and strategically is completely flawed, so is thinking of it politically and geographically in similar terms. Throw that book out. You can’t find this chapter in that book. Listen to your insurgent enemy; what does AQ say? They have largely ceded Iraq and focused on winning in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are in the FATA. They are still pumping money, arms, recruits, training and expertise into the Taliban insurgency. Their ties were always more inter-related than was publicly admitted. The Taliban regime said he was a guest. That was a lie. He was a benefactor and beneficiary of the Taliban. The Jihad needs a “Wild West” homeland. Woe be to us when/if they get it.
You think that if we walk away from Afghanistan that we won’t see something significant? Do you really view 9/11 as a stand-alone event? Who here anticipated 9/11? Who here correctly anticipated Mumbai? Do you think that they will do the same thing twice? When had anyone flown an airliner into a building as a giant cruise missile before that day? There is no way that anyone will hijack a plane going forward; the passengers would kill them before they got to accomplish anything. Want to commit suicide? Get on a plane, let it get to altitude, stand up and announce that you are taking over the plane in the name of Jihad. You will most likely die. AQ knows that. It was a one trick pony. Go ahead, give them a homeland; see what they can come up with next when they don’t have to sneak around the FATA dodging Predators while they cook up a scheme. Just like 9/11 and Mumbai, you probably can’t figure out where they will go with it.
Oh, and when we go back, the Afghans will already be sick of us.
If you think that the GWOT is a sideshow, listen to our enemies. They pledge a war to the death, and they do get a vote. Even if we quit, they won’t. Is failure an option? I don’t think so.
As far as Obama goes, he pledged to win the “good war.” He’s got the right General. Hopefully GEN Petraeus doesn’t really try to exactly replicate Iraq in Afghanistan. They are vastly different countries, societies and insurgencies. If you think of Maoist insurgency as a method and not something tied to communist ideology, Afghanistan is much more of a classic Maoist insurgency than Iraq ever was. The methods of FM 3-24 will work effectively there if consistently and properly applied. I would argue to the detractors of the doctrine that it has not been thoroughly applied there at all. The Army is still practicing enemy-centric war there instead of population-centric counterinsurgency, no matter what they are telling you.
The one plus to the change of administration is that they appear to be ready to listen to the idea that it is time to revamp our strategy in Afghanistan.
DON’T ARM THE TRIBAL MILITIAS. The Japanese spent millions to disarm them, and that’s a good thing. Listen to the Afghans who are screaming against it, fearful of the resurgence of warlordism. They know of which they speak. The ANP have not been nearly fully developed. You can’t call them a failure; but you can call our efforts with them a failure to this point. 3000 mentors and SECFOR can make a HUGE difference in the ANP. The success of the ANA can be replicated with a little effort. That effort has been half-assed at best.
GET OUT OF THE FOBS. Can’t secure the population from inside Hesco bastions. The safer you try to make yourself, the less secure you are. Simple. True. ‘Nuff said.
QUIT TRYING TO MAKE GERMANS FIGHT. Some of our NATO partners have national caveats. Find another use for them. Don’t give them battlespace; they are hogtied and it does no good. Pressure them instead to send governmental mentors to assist in reducing corruption. Huge impact to be made there. HUGE.
PRESS FOR THE ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS. Afghans who are familiar with Western democracy know that we elect Dog Catchers. Provincial Governors and District Sub-Governors need to be elected by the populace, being accountable to the same, not to Karzai. If you wind up with a Taliban sub-governor or two, so be it; hold them accountable to the Constitution of the IRoA, they do have one. They will be engaged instead of skulking around trying to subvert their own rule. Provide governmental mentors down to the district level. There are 364 districts in Afghanistan. How many troops do the Germans have in Afghanistan? Replace them with the same number of governmental mentors and you will make a much bigger difference than the FOB-bound trigger-tied Germans can make by far. Right now the Germans call in for permission to put a magazine in their weapons. That doesn’t mean locking and loading, just putting a magazine in the well. No shit.
GET OVER THE WAR YOU WANT AND COMMIT TO THE WAR THAT YOU ARE IN. Don’t tolerate excuses made by Major Generals. The day that you hear a couple of E-6′s arguing over who can win the trust of a village quicker will be a day that victory is in sight in Afghanistan. The very culture of the Army needs to get its head wrapped around COIN and get rid of the “we don’t want to fight this war… it wouldn’t kill us to lose, you know,” mentality. Our only peers on land are the Chinese, and that’s because there are so damned many of them. The Chinese are not bankrolling us today so that they can steamroll us tomorrow.
GET HELP FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO RUN EFFECTIVE ISLAMIC COURTS. The Afghan courts are broken. The Taliban are using this oh-so-effectively to gain sway with a population that would really rather see the government win, but they will take what they can get. We have got to listen to our enemies and get on the stick with this. We don’t know how to run Islamic law courts. Find someone who does and engage them. If that means Iran, so be it. At least they will be behaving like responsbible global citizens. Hey, Obama said he wanted to talk to them, this will give them something to talk about and the Iranians would be so pleased with someone asking them for help that they would probably shit a plutonium brick. Just sayin…
GET RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PEOPLE. Quit screwing around wasting money. The Army isn’t the only entity that needs to get off the FOBs. State needs to get off the FOB, too. Money intended to rebuild Afghanistan needs to actually make it to the projects at the local level. You can’t build stuff from inside the FOB, guys… get out there. You think you’re too good to risk your ass? (The answer is “yes.”) Supervise, damnit! You’re making some people rich and the rest of the populace knows it. They’re getting pissed. Quit being pansies and get to work. Can’t say it much more plainly than that.
The short story is it’s a campaign, and we can do it. The “surge” will only work if it does the right things, and that doesn’t mean a carbon copy of Iraq. Pakistan is an excuse; don’t use it. Get your head wrapped around the concept that failure is not an option; don’t tolerate leaders who think that it is. COIN; it’s the doctrine for the war that we’re in. We don’t get to choose our wars. Russia is NOT going to attack us next week. China isn’t either. North Korea is going to collapse under its own weight someday and the South Koreans are meaner than hell. We will need COIN when N Korea collapses. Get over the nextwaritis and get on with winning this one. It’s our JOB; get off the FOB. Help fix the government of Afghanistan. They have no institutional memory of successfully running a country. Courts that work; it’s not just for tennis anymore. Get results to the people; roads are good, electricity is great. Screw Karzai. He’s just trying to win the next election.
Oh… one other thing; the searching houses thing is nothing new. Afghan law when I was there in ’07-’08 was that only Afghans could search houses and ANP had to be present, preferably doing the searching. I did see that law broken, but not often. Only once by Americans. They were untrained in COIN, but they could spell it.
OB #45:
Great post.
Old Blue,
We did (sorta) fight a war like this for most of the 19th century (with varying results, bad to worse) against the aboriginal Americans (various Indian tribes). A Long Counterinsurgency War. Decades.
There should be someone within the Army that recognizes this. And you’re right. We don’t get to choose which wars we fight or sometimes how we fight them.
In my veiw the GWOT is more like an aggressive prosecution against organized crime, such as occurred in Sicily in the 80s. Mind you, not the Bubba-style “law-enforcement model” that sits on it’s haunches waiting for something to happen, but a relentless attack that hits the enemey from every angle and at all levels. You attack his foot soldiers in the field (constantly looking for ones you can turn), you attack his resources where you find them, you attack his management at every turn, you take over his cash-flow and always try to decapitate the beast. You never let him rest. You make sure that he has to have guards on his guards by breeding paranoia via bribes to underlings. You kill as many as you can get your hands on.
There is no front, just points of contact. You constantly force them to move so that they show their network, then you use this to make them abandon their friends.
I saw a photo from the Hubble Telescope of two galaxies colliding it seemed to capture the conflict pefectly; two totally different worlds crashing together and at each point of contact terrific destruction while the rest serenely moved along. It made me think of Marines fighting through Fallujah while Yuppies sipped lattes abck home.
In Search of the Afghan Maliki
Obama’s stated plan to withdraw from Iraq but increase American military presence in Afghanistan might not reflect the real interests of the United States.
AMIR TAHERI
JAMES ROBBINS RESPONDS
I’m old, cranky, and didn’t sleep well last night. As a result, I’m not interested in calculating the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. Nor am I interested in “winning hearts and minds.” When all is said and done, I know that what worked for the Roman legions, W.T. Sherman, and the Allies over Dresden will still work today. “Rubble don’t make trouble.” – John Derbyshire.
YMMV, of course.
Approaching the Tipping Point by the Belmont Club’s man in Afghanistan, Tim Lynch.
OB, YGBSM about asking the Iranians for help in establishing shariah in Sunni Pashtunistan.
They know how to set up Islamic Courts and sentence women to be shot on the soccer field or hung from a crane.
They don’t need ANP to bring miscreants to that kind of justice, they need Talib.
Instead of Islamic Courts, Kabul needs to empower and recognize jirgas to perform their traditional maintenance of social order role, in areas where jirgas still function. In areas where they don’t, the GoIRoA needs to establish courts and appoint judges, in accordance with their Constitution. USDOJ might want to provide some Justice Mentor Teams, if the new AG can quit worrying about my guns and join the war effort.
THE TRIBAL MILITIAS ALREADY HAVE ARMS.
Who do we want those arms pointed at?
Pashtun irregulars are the problem.
Friendly Pashtun irregulars should be part of the solution.
More Pashtun feet in boots (or sandals or barefoot, anything but Nikes) on the ground fighting miscreants instead of being miscreants is our ticket out of there.
Mr Fernandez said: “If Obama expands the effort in Southwest Asia and he wishes to avoid LBJ’s fate, he must do it with the view of winning a quick and decisive victory — what the Politico called a “decisive win”.”
Cross to E Nigma @ #33.
Im not at all sure that SWA is civilized enough to remain peaceful after any sort of victory short of annihilation. NW Pakistan and Afghanistan and the rest of the ‘stans have always been a place where Western dreams die.
I think Berlin is in Riyadh. Thats another mares nest.
The idea of what’s Berlin/Tokyo/Moscow and what to do about it is a topic for a long discussion.
Given that the Dems have always regarded the Global War On Terror as a misnomer for what they see as merely a criminal and legal issue, here is a contrarian prediction about the possible course of events under the One.
The One gives Karzai control of our military (remember Biden’s statement to the effect that ‘it isn’t going to be immediately apparent that we’re doing the right thing’). As a result we suffer large casualties (not a problem for the Dems who hate our military anyway). And as a result of that we “rethink our strategy”, declare one more failure of the Bush era, and rewithdraw after announcing that this is really just a matter for diplomacy and legal action. The majority of American citizens who voted for Hope and Change won’t have any problems with any of this since it all fits in with the world view handed to them by the Dems and the media. The evil United States and the even more evil US military will have gotten their comeuppance for their “aggression” and their “meddling in the affairs of others”. By bringing the United States down a notch this will set the proper humble tone for future diplomacy. The MSM will be sure to paint this in the proper way as another failure of Bush and as Obama dealing with the situation in a realistic and “Presidential” way.
For those of us who disagree, well, we lost the election didn’t we. “Time for the adults to take over.”
The majority who voted for the Dems and Obama have demonstrated their ignorance and stupidity. The politicians themselves live so far outside of reality that they don’t really think there can be any serious personal effects of their actions; they fear losing elections, the idea that a nuke might go off in New York or Washington is in their minds just a neocon fantasy.
The Left’s real focus will be here at home, bringing as much Change as possible to implement their views of how the country should be run as a progressive, socialist democracy.
As you can see, I’m with Fred on this. There doesn’t seem to be much hope that a major disaster can be averted. And even if such a disaster occurs, due to our enemies abroad, it’s unlikely that we would be given time to rally and recover, assuming that those of us who are left have the guts to try.
It’s amazing to me that so many seem to think, despite everything the Dems have said and done, that they will actually try to deal with our foreign problems in a realistic way.
# 45 Old Blue
That’s the best brief Afghanistan analysis I’ve read. Thanks.
I hope you don’t mind, but I re-posted most of it to The Right Reasons with credit to you and a link to this page. Please let me know if you don’t want it posted, and I’ll remove it.
http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?showtopic=12588
Cannoneer #4 makes a good observation that there are many Berlins in this campagin, since it is a global counterinsurgency with transnational actors. However, I have to disagree concerning the notion of a faux tribal awakening on the order of the Anbar campaign. It won’t happen. The people don’t trust tribal militias.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/01/20/the-likely-failure-of-tribal-militias-in-afghanistan/
This campaign will be different than in Iraq, but there is one common element that will obtain if we end up with anything like an acceptable outcome. Force projection.
We won’t have an acceptable outcome without troops and robust COIN practices among the entire population rather than simple SOF raids on high value targets and mid-level commanders who are replaced within days of their demise (which are nice for cloak and dagger reading and TV and spy thrillers, but bad for everything else). There is no magic. There is no replacement for counterinsurgency, and we will either practice it completely or we will fail completely.
Willie G: If Old Blues prescriptions are followed, we won’t need to go that far. But if the Democrats screw up the war, it may come to that. Let the necessity of it be on their consciences, not ours.
Arc Light has it’s limitations against a low-tech, distributed enemy, anyhow.
Canoneer: Target on the Jirgas, but the Jirgas are best as sort of “Mayor’s courts.” For the other stuff, they do need a court system. Using the Iranians is somewhat tongue in cheek… somewhat. The Afghan villagers are turning to Taliban courts because they offer something that Afghans value: Sharia justice swiftly applied.
We have got to relax on some things that are bugs up our own asses and let them be who they are. They’ll evolve; trust me… but that will take time and cultural influences will seep in gradually. For now, let them have what they are comfortable with, but make it fair (relative term) and applied evenly. The current MoJ is corrupt as can be, the people know it, and the Taliban are making hay. If they could use their own Jirgas for all of that stuff, they would resolve the problems themselves; but they are taking their harder cases to the only courts that they feel they can trust, and those courts don’t belong to the GIRoA.
That being said, the most peaceful district in Afghanistan that I ever saw was Koh Band in northern Kapisa. The ANP chief there attended all the Jirgas and many many things never made it into the unsure and corrupt court system. Formalizing acceptance of the local Jirgas goes along with electing officials to the district level; I left that part out of my scribbling, but thanks for bringing it up.
Finally, Iran isn’t the only choice. Turkey is a moderate Islamic country; perhaps they could help. It doesn’t matter who, it just needs to get done. The courts need to follow an Afghan model, but they have got to get rid of the corruption there and in MoI. If those two things are left undone, no surge will ever work. Pop-centric. The insurgent is telling us where we are weak. We need to listen. It’s too easy.
# 45 Old Blue
I second that with elfman and the others who gave you those kudos. I believe this is why USMC will be first to enter the Afghan Surge. I also believe Gen Petreaus understands the differences AND similarities with the Iraq theatre. I also understand what Rumsfeld meant when he said he wanted Army to be more like USMC (one of the brightest statements of his tenure).
Tactically Old Blue hit the 4GW mark and covered it very well. Those advocating Total War need to learn and understand the principals of COL. John Boyd on the aspects of the levels of war. Namely in ascending order from weakest to strongest: 1. Physical, 2. Mental, and 3. Moral.
Remember 4GW is total in a sense since it involves war by all means including military.
Sadly it seems the International Socialist Movement understands this better and may be on the verge of victory. Look at how the MSM was in the tank for Obama. Look at who leads/runs the MSM!
A lot hinges on our current POTUS. We can now only find out the hard way if he can deliver and who he really is. I try to be hopeful considering how he has already pissed off his Daily Kos/Moveon/Code Pink base.
Wretchard posted about the new political reality earlier this week and it seems to be a good analysis.
I just hope we don’t go completely from SNAFU to FUBAR and I am so tired of BOHICA!
Salaam eleikum Old Blue!
Marzouq the Redneck Mulim,
No one I know of or have heard is advancing the idea of “total war.” What has been done thus far is not COIN, it is counterterrorism against HVTs. What others (such as I) have advocated is COIN. Who do you know that is advancing any other ideas?
As for Boyd, I find his ideas far overblown. Much ado about very little, in my opinion.
“”"”"”"”8. Raoul Ortega:
US on a proper war footing and called for sacrifice from the American people.
This obsessive nostalgia by some people for the days of mass conscript armies is tiresome. Pray tell, what would “a proper war footing” in the 21st Century look like when a few thousand casualties spread across half a decade is considered an unacceptably high price?”"”"”"”"”
Amen.
“”"”"”"”Japan lost fighting a sort-of single front war.”"”"”"”
I would call it a two-front war. There was enough going on in SE Asia and China to occupy Japan considerably while they also fought a Pacific war.
So far, nobody has brought India’s potential role in all this. At the very least, India may be drawn in as a amjor player whether it likes it or not.
Herschel —
“We need something to fill the gap; there aren’t enough police and there aren’t enough troops,” said Mohammed Halim Fidai, Wardak’s governor. “Who is more motivated than someone guarding his home and family?”
“We are not talking here about creating tribal militias,” said Army Col. Gregory Julian, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization commanders instead liken the program to a “neighborhood watch” — albeit one more anxious about beheadings and school burnings than burglary.
Many of the plan’s Afghan backers say, however, that they expect the public guards to be modeled on traditional tribal groups called arbakais — in no small measure because in rural Afghanistan almost everything breaks down along tribal lines. — Disputes cloud Afghan ‘public guards’ plan
The people who don’t trust tribal Popular Forces are the people who aren’t members of the dominant tribe in the area. Tadjiks, Hazara and Uzbeks don’t trust Pashtun tribal Irregular Defense Groups. No particular reason they should. The fluent English speakers the NGO’s and academics listen to are doing their best to kill the idea.
I’m somewhat of a student of military history, but I haven’t come across many examples of successful counterinsurgencies that did not mobilize indigenous irregulars for local defense and as auxiliaries for Main Force elements.
There is a lot of graft and corruption riding on keeping the districts and provinces totally dependent on Kabul for security, which Kabul never has, cannot now, and likely won’t be able to provide any time soon at the rate the Districts are being Focused and Developed.
Rod, If I read Raoul correctly, I think he is referring to commitment, not conscription. I hope Viet Nam closed the book on drafts permanently. As a former USMC recruiter I saw no lack of willing quality volunteers. For all the talk (mostly misrepresentation or at least highly inflated) of stop-loss, the truth is most of the Marines I serve with want to stay in as long as there is action.
Excuse me, but I have a request. As a middle-aged 4F never-ever who at least has the sense to understand the value of a strong and competent military: Can I have the first use of your TLA spelled out? I figured out what COIN is, and everybody knows what FUBAR is (the White House, right?). But I missed a fair amount of Old Blue’s comments, which is bad because clearly his comments should be listened to. For all of you current and former military personnel, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I and mine live free because of you. For the rest of you strategerists, thank you. I wish more civilians thought about these things. For Wretchard, thank you for providing the platform! Without you and others, the rest of us who know MSM is full of it wouldn’t know why we know that.
Reference my 51, Tim Lynch is featured in the March 2009, Soldier of Fortune.
SOF printed out a hard copy of Shakedown.
So far, nobody has brought India’s potential role in all this. At the very least, India may be drawn in as a amjor player whether it likes it or not.
With respect, this has been brought up in previous threads. India’s potential role is one more reason to require the Pakistan government take control of and assume sovereignty in its own country. How that happens without outside help I don’t pretend to know.
Oh, bother:
ETO – European Theater of Operations
GWOT – Global War on Terror
NCOES – Noncomissioned Officer Education System
FM 3-24 – U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual
COL – Colonel
AQ – Al Qaeda
FATA – Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan
GEN – General
SECFOR – Security Forces
ANP – Afghan National Police
ANA – Afghan National Army
IRoA – Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
FOBS- Forward Operating Bases
They call ‘em grunts for a reason, oh, bother. But their more literate comrades love the crunchies. Somebody has to be a dismount. (grunts – infantry; crunchies – infantry, from the sound they make when run over by a tracked vehicle; dismount – anybody who actually gets out of the vehicle and walks.)
Thanks for reminding me that jargon instantly comprehended by members and former members of the guild is gibberish to most of our fellow citizens. That’s a niche milbloggers should be filling, translators and interpreters of MILSPEAK.
oh, bother — Google is also your friend.
In Afghanistan, Terrain Rivals Taliban as Enemy
In other parts of Afghanistan, the debate over whether to arm local tribal leaders has been largely settled. In southern Afghanistan and in provinces near the capital, Kabul, where the Taliban is strongest, the training and arming of local tribal militias will soon be underway.
Nevertheless, some Afghans have said they fear that arming local militias will lead to abuses and could reignite the same intertribal frictions that sparked a protracted and brutal civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Lt. Col. Patrick Daniel Jr., commander of the U.S. battalion based in Nangahar province, said many American officers in the field support the idea of allowing responsible Afghan tribal elders to arm themselves. But such an approach carries risks and might not work in every province, Daniel said.
“For a lot of us out here, we recognize that it’s much like how we feel about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the States,” Daniel said. “But we already have tribal disputes that are resolved by violence, and when you give them more weapons, that could mean those disputes could get resolved with those weapons. So it’s a roll of the dice. Still, you can’t rule it out . . . because people here need to protect themselves.”
Teensiest of little niggles:
“There is no way that anyone will hijack a plane going forward; the passengers would kill them before they got to accomplish anything. Want to commit suicide? Get on a plane, let it get to altitude, stand up and announce that you are taking over the plane in the name of Jihad. You will most likely die. AQ knows that. It was a one trick pony.”
You need to add another clause to that statement; namely, “in America”. In America passengers will kill a hijacker. Any where else on earth, hijacking is still fair game and will likely get you to where you want to go. I’m not sure whether or not this means that American civilians are meaner than other civilians, but there have been several successful hijacks elsewhere since 9/11 and the passengers on those planes were quietly placid little sheep people.