At the National Review Online, there is a debate today over columnist George Will’s nonsensical (my word) strategy for dealing with Afghanistan:
[I]nstead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
George Will is apparently totally ignorant of our military capabilities and he has never looked at a map. Afghanistan is landlocked, the size of Texas, and bordered by Iran on the west, Pakistan on the south and east, and three Stans on the north, and none of those nations would be willing to let us conduct the kind of operations Will has in mind from within their borders.
Any experienced soldier knows you need “eyes on the target” to be effective, else we go back to President Clinton’s failed “strategy” of firing “2 million dollar missile[s] at a 10 dollar tent just to hit a camel in the butt.” While we’ve killed some of al Qaeda’s and the Taliban’s leadership in Pakistan, senior U.S. intelligence officials have told Bill Roggio that more than 100,000 Taliban and 8,000 plus “foreign fighters” are under arms and operating from that sanctuary; we would barely diminish those numbers even if all the Predators in our inventory worked day and night in that shooting gallery. Will’s suggestion that we concentrate “on the porous 1500-mile border with Pakistan” is ludicrous on it face, i.e. 1500-miles, mostly mountainous, and no U.S. bases in Pakistan. Will’s way is ill-informed terrorist management, John Kerry-lite.
Mark Steyn posed a smart question, “What are the goals here? Maybe the president could tell us. Or are we just going to (to cite the definitive film on the subject) Carry On Up the Khyber?” Frederick Kagan was a little more pointed (towards Will) with, “neither waving the bloody shirt nor rudely disparaging the efforts of allies who have shed their own blood alongside our troops is appropriate to this discussion. But doing both in the same column is simply reprehensible.” Pete Wehner hit him the hardest:
Here is a disturbing fact to ponder: If George Will were commander in chief, we would, under his leadership, have begun and lost two wars of enormous consequence. The damage to America — militarily, geopolitically, and morally — would be staggering. The boon to militant Islam — militarily, geopolitically, and in terms of morale — would be incalculable. Yet nowhere in his most recent column does Will even begin to grapple with what surrender in Afghanistan would mean — to that country, to Pakistan, to jihadists around the world, to confidence in America’s word and will, and to our national-security interests. And while Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a very difficult undertaking, declaring defeat at this stage is unwarranted and terribly unwise. If General David Petraeus thinks the task is hopeless, then I will take a hard second look at the war. But if George Will declares it hopeless, I will simply take a hard second look at his record.
Rich Lowry wrote about the importance of Pakistan and it would be wise to remember a large force of Taliban came within 60 miles of that countries nuclear weapons just a few months ago, before Pakistan’s army pushed them back. In addition, we recently learned that three terrorist attacks on those facilities have been mounted and fought off.
Mark Levin asked the best questions:
After we helped force the Soviets out of Afghanistan a few decades ago, we did indeed leave the country. I don’t need to relate what occurred thereafter, do I? The problem is that Obama is cutting the defense budget, he is undermining our intelligence system, and he is pulling troops from Iraq without reconsidering the pace of that action; and now some encourage him to pull out of Afghanistan because the administration lacks a policy there? Shouldn’t we be arguing against the defense cuts, against the assault on our intelligence apparatus, and for a more aggressive and effective use of economic and military resources in Afghanistan? I am unclear what prudential course Will and others would have us take. An Afghanistan left to its own devices clearly is a danger to our nation, as was demonstrated on 9/11. If we leave, then what?
Arguing about what we should have done from September 11 through yesterday is irrelevant; we need to decide based upon what the conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are today. Should we return Afghanistan as a sanctuary to an even more powerful enemy that is both hellbent on America’s destruction and seeking to overthrow Pakistan’s government and take charge of its nuclear weapons? I think not.
Our immediate needs are to define victory in Afghanistan and, as a nation, muster the will to win there.
.jpg)
I don’t know enough about warfare and tactics, but I do know that Will seems to be trying to gain affection from the lib media with his suggestion. Ever since Will hosted the ‘conservative’ Obama summit, I can’t trust him.
Will, often the brilliant conservative, a satirist extraordinaire and a formidable defender of conservative principles has done things like this before but time he really bombed out.
From a liberals perspective we should not have gone to war in the first place or we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and persisted with our presence since it represents the origin of the 911 attacks. The latter is the more ponderous view and many republicans took that position. From my perspective we should have been in both places and need to be prepared to go to even more. I despise war but despise even more the ostrich or Chamberlain mentality that lures us into false security while enemies of singular purpose grow ever stronger. The very strength of a powerful offensive war machine is what keeps us at peace and safe. It is always a standoff and wars develop when one side feels that the other is sufficiently weak and they are sufficiently strong to risk a win for the power and the glory. How long would Israel survive based on the good intentions of its neighbors without her military? Why did Saddam march into Kuwait? Because Kuwait was small and weak and he misinterpreted the response the world returned. There is no substitute for power and strength and a reputation that you will not hesitate to do what is needed. When you are the most powerful nation in the world if you fall from first place it will be quickly noticed, especially since our former defense was based upon our geography and huge surrounding oceans that no longer apply in this age of international technology that places Islamabad as close as DC. Furthermore, today the real differences that threaten us are vast ideologic ones; religions that are cult like and philosophies that not only do not recognize the individal but also want to ram those beliefs down our throats or offer us death as a substitute.
Interestingly our military budget is the smallest it has ever been in relation to GDP and yet that spending equally gives all Americans more than a bang for their buck. It is what many believe extricated America from the Great Depression. It is constitutional, and yet it is being starved for the purpose of non-constitutional social redistribution that is a four to five times larger annual budget item. We don’t have a 35-55 trillion dollar unfunded liability in regards to future military costs.
If the world dislikes us because they are weak and we are strong I would prefer that to them being weak and we being dead or becoming slaves. I would rather be hated by everyone for doing what is right than loved by all and suffer the internal humiliation of sacrificing my values, principles and ethics by doing what I know is wrong. And the consequences would soon follow. We must win in Afghanistan, not only because we started there and owe our continued commitment to the people who depend upon us, but also because it really is strategically important in the war on terror and our departure will psychologically fuel our enemies which will transform intentions and threats into performance.
One problem I had with Ted Kennedy, who was as different from his brother John as Bill Bennett is different from his brother Bob, is that he directly caused us to depart S. Viet Nam, a country we had a treaty with, and the result became one of the greatest tragedies in the loss of human life the world has every experienced. There is no substitute for winning, not because 2nd place sucks but because the resulting mockery and perceived free reign will cause an explosion of international inhumanity that will make Vietnam seem like a peace march.
Obama knows he cannot afford a popularity dip based upon the loss of a war that the public perceives Bush would win. If he does he must first vanquish the ghost of Bush, who kept us safe for his tenure and clearly was victorious in Iraq despite the impediments cast in our way by domestic objectors. That is certain to be a popularity killer. From my perspective Will has already taken a double digit dip in the opinion I once had about him and I am not an easy person to turn around nor are other conservatives who view his understanding and rationale with lots of dismay and not a lot of forgiveness.
In regards to the critics of Milton Friedman who believe in a smaller military and more social redistribution for tax dollars I replied:
“Building important or necessary infrastructure that benefits all of us is what a government should do with tax dollars saved or debt earmarked to be paid off. It is not spending designed for the short term that could be done by the private sector or to benefit some at the expense of others. Otherwise we could just throw some parties and the economy would flash and then flicker & die leaving some very costly unpaid bills. This is not stimulus; it rewards patronage and solidifies votes to insure control. Most of all it wastes the financial resources that the private sector can’t wait to use for what it knows best will help itself. That is how profits are made and without profits you have nothing to tax.”
I think neo conservatives such as Levin, Limbaugh, and Hannity supporters, should be open to more traditional conservative viewpoints like those offered by George Will, Philip Giraldi, Michael Scheuer etc. Let’s at least be open to discuss some options here. The financial burden posed by endless wars that have no exit strategy or clear victory strategy will sooner or later cause our overextended American empire to crumble. Most everything VP Dick Cheney said in 1994 has come to pass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Maybe we should have listened to him then.
“Endless wars” are not our fiscal problem; it is endless government. (BTW, Michael Scheuer is a freakin numnuts nerd who knows only the filing system at the CIA. George Will must be wearing his bow ties too tight while he plays with plastic soldiers on a Risk game board. And who the heck is Philip Giraldi?)
The funny thing is, steve, that moderates like to echo liberal Democrats when talking about the financial strain of war. They have no problem growing the government to crush the economic boon that is the free market, but when the team is on the field, they would instead, send in the cheerleaders. Screw you Steve. Plus, you don’t get to use Dick Cheney as an excuse, you have twisted his words to fit your idiotic ideals.
In reality this will not be an endless war. But it will be a long war. If you want to know how long these things take learn a little from Obama et.al. This is a generational mind-set. That means that education of their youth regarding the importance of freedom is as important as educating our youth in accepting the concepts of tyranny. That is how the left has advanced as far as they have in our country.
When the British outlawed Thugs and the practice of their religion they did so because it threatened the British and the Indian citizenry. The Madrases that teach western and Israeli hatred are hotbeds of future terrorists. We never had these problems with Germany and Japan. Nor would we permit these mentalities to exist if we did. We must and will be in Afghanistan a long time. We do this not just for them but for us because otherwise they are a a breeding ground of future killers. This is not a court issue. This is a war issue and when you want to kill mosquitos your best bet is to drain the swamp. The world is too small to have a “live and let live” policy because many are not willing to let us live and may obtain the technology to fulfill much of their dreams. There are super horrors that await complacency. That is why we now have to nation build. And however long it takes is how long it takes.
BTW, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin are not neoconservatives. They are traditional conservatives.
Noticed that the allies occupied Germany post 1945 unlike after WWI. That is how they insured that there would not be a third WW. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/03/the_second_world_war_70_years_later_98148.html
The cost of freedom is not cheap but it is less costly than any other alternative. You have to do what you have to do because you don’t get a chance to redo anything after it is too late.
Excellent point, Task!