In her gentle and succinct manner, Cheryl took me to task for my last post. To quote, “Who are you and what have you done with Crawford.”
I did respond in the comment area but felt the need to explain more fully. Her objection didn’t specify one aspect, so I intend to address each of the matters in its own, separate post.
There were four points: Afghanistan, healthcare reform, the economy and a strategy to get from the present sorry state to solving these problems. First, let’s explain the problem of Afghanistan.
Just what outcome do we want in Afghanistan? No. Be realistic. There is a better chance of Michelle Bachmann making a rational statement than of establishing a functioning, stable, Western-style democracy in that relic of the 14th Century.
However much we are disgusted by the inhumane tenets and actions of the Taliban, they didn’t attack the Twin Towers. True, they cheered those who did it but they never attacked anyone outside of their own territory, at least until we drove them into Pakistan. We may want to eliminate such barbarians but that is neither our prerogative nor our responsibility.
The justification for our attacking Afghanistan was to strike back at al-Qaeda and deny them a base of operations. They now have bases in Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and a few other places where they don’t have to compete with Club Med. We need to change the definition of success.
I subscribe to the tenets of the Powell Doctrine as I understand it. We should commit our troops only when our vital interests are at stake. We should have clearly defined and limited objectives. We should employ overwhelming force. We should have an exit strategy. None of those criteria were met when we militarily engaged in Afghanistan.
According to the Army’s own book, the metrics for fighting an asymmetrical war in that country require a force of at least 500,000. That would call for a major, politically and economically unattainable increase in the size of our army.
So, with 68,000 troops in country, how did our military leadership come up with the stated need for 40,000 additional troops? First, they wrote off about half the country. It would not be defended. Also, certain necessary, according to the book, operations would be eliminated. That helped get the required number down to 200,000. That still leaves a slight, unaccounted discrepancy.
That means we don’t have and never will have the force required to permit the government of Afghanistan to establish viability. And just what is needed from that government?
They need a stable government. They need the support of the people. They need stable conditions; reasonable safety for their citizens, infrastructure and economy. They need to substantially eliminate corruption. They need well-trained and reliable military and police forces. That’s what is needed. What do they have?
The brother of the President is a, if not the, major drug trafficker in the country. The “government” is an unruly conglomeration of tribal warlords. The President should more accurately be called the Mayor of Kabul. He retained that lofty position by a universally acknowledged corruption of the electoral process. There is no reliable or well-trained military or police presence. Whatever support the government has depends on continuing the rental payments. None of that bodes well for a viable national government.
In the previous post I gave the possible length of time our services would be needed as 400 or, possibly, 700 years. That obviously was said with less than full seriousness. When juxtaposing the present state of affairs against the stated requirements demanded by the Army’s own policies, it appears that the actual time would be somewhat in excess of infinity.
Now, taking all of that into consideration, how many troops should we commit and for how long? If there is no expectation of success, the killing of more of our young people is unconscionable.
Employment of military force is supposed to be the last, unavoidable option; not the first. Military leaders are imbued with the desire to win. That is what we expect and desire. Once we are involved in a conflict, military leaders generally are the last ones wanting to stop short of victory. If victory is definitely not in the cards, our need for their advice is limited to how to accomplish an orderly disengagement. They are not the ones to determine national policy.
National policy is the purview of our political leadership. We have many important, indeed vital, interests as a nation. Afghanistan is not one of them. It detracts from more important issues. It diverts resources from those other interests.
Will a decision to do what needs to be done represent a political liability? Yes, but it is unavoidable, except at great and unnecessary costs to our military, both institutionally and individually to many young fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and other kith and kin.
As a personal aside on a lighter note, the graphic of a spanking brought to mind my days at a military prep school. The football coach also had to teach a few classes. He was known as Man Mountain. He had been a star lineman at the local college, back when you played both offense and defense. He sat on the bench of the New York Giants for two years. He was far ahead of his time in size.
One time he caught two brothers and their cousin cheating. He made each stand to one side of his cleared desk resting on their elbows. Each malefactor received one blow from his paddle. He used only wrist action. The result in each case was a cadet sprawled on the floor on the other side of his desk. Oh, those wonderful memories of childhood.
{ 6 comments }
We undoubtedly must think far more in that area to see things i can do about this.
I liked it. So much useful material. I read with great interest.
We had better results when we just put in the dictator of our choosing in these third world countries. Iran was no problem under the Shah. Cuba was no problem under Fulgencio Batista. This is the best plan for Afghanistan. Withdraw our troops and covertly put in a dictator who will do our bidding.
That is right, as far as it goes. The real problem is that we can’t sustain these guys forever and their corruption, ineptitude and groveling to a foreign power bring more than a simple regime change. They are replaced with an overwhelming hatred for the puppet master – us.
Well, imagine my surprise as I began to read this post. You know, when I was pregnant with my first child there were many hopes and dreams for how my life would change. I looked forward to holding him in my arms. I wanted to protect him from the big bad world! I wanted to give him the very best of everything! But alas, I first had so much preparation to do before his actual birth. There was so much happening on the inside that others couldn’t see. In fact, my son couldn’t see it, either. But it was so very necessary. Timing is sometimes everything. Nine months is very important in the birth process. I had so much change going on inside of me that only I could even tell was happening. To the outsider I just kept getting bigger and bigger. Let me tell you, I learned so much about parenting in those nine months. Can you imagine how many mistakes I might have made if I didn’t take the full time it actually takes to do it right? Thankfully for my son, I learned and studied and grew to love the process. Then and only then, was I fit to truly be his mother. Thank God I didn’t have the whole world watching and judging me! Only my mother and mother-in-law. That was difficult enough. Thanks for the great explanation, Crawford. I really do appreciate it. I also appreciate that President Obama takes his time to make good and healthy decisions. My son’s life depends on it.
Thank you.
I’ll defer to you on the matter of childbirth. I have, however, held similar concerns for my children.
I know that a couple of congressional offices track my posts but I have no illusion that they make it to the Oval Office. And, those congressmen have no more influence at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue than do I.
Therefore, the recent news proves that Obama is listening to others with a take similar to mine. Hey, I’m not really a lone wolf. I just travel with a very small pack.
Colin Powell has advised Obama to take all the time he needs to feel comfortable with his final decision. Powell is far more credible than a commander on the scene. No active commander is going to tell the CIC he can’t get the job done.
Our ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, got two warnings to Obama not to increase the number of troops in time for the last big meeting held on the subject.
He has enraged many in the Pentagon but he is a retired 3-star general who was the top commander in Afghanistan. He should be listened to. He has the military credentials and is on the ground at this moment.
I picked up a new history of Scotland on my recent trip. It is large enough that it almost qualifies as excess baggage. I have been reading about the Roman attempts to conquer that country.
One mission involved 40,000 troops against a far smaller population in a much smaller geographic area. It failed.
Rome tried and failed for over 300 years. They only quit trying when it was necessary to bring the troops home to defend a dying empire.
It would not be right to draw too many parallels but it would also be wrong to ignore those that are pertinent.
I would bet that before he was born you thought you would be acting like a parent for only 18 years. Everyone does but we were all wrong. It never ends.
Comments on this entry are closed.