Can the war in Afghanistan be won? It depends on whom you ask.
The senior British commander in Afghanistan recently was quoted in The Times of London, "This war cannot be won." A French diplomatic dispatch reports that the British ambassador said the best solution would be to find an "acceptable dictator" to take over the troubled country.
But the British soldiers with whom I was recently embedded in Helmand Province had very high morale and felt optimistic about Afghanistan. And British and American officers whose judgment and honesty I trust share that optimism, even acknowledging the difficult challenges they face, and that this will take a decade (according to Brits) or decades (according to Americans).
Do these soldiers know something their leaders don't? Or is it just another Afghan paradox?
This is a land of paradox. The people here are friendly and hospitable, violent and suspicious. The war effort enjoys broad support, yet our alliance is unraveling. The Taliban are widely despised, and yet certain elements of it are integral parts of Afghan society. People want the national government to succeed, yet they have little or no faith in it. In many respects, while the country takes center stage in today's geopolitics, it is stuck in the Middle Ages.
I've driven over a thousand miles up and down Afghan roads during the past few weeks to find that many locals are thankful to the coalition of American, British and other NATO forces that are trying to bring peace and stability to the country. Others say they hate us.
It has become clear to me that we're losing this war. But losing doesn't mean lost.
When someone says they know what to do in Afghanistan, it's best to remain skeptical. Some folks are flat-out lying, like recent attempts to deny the existence of a secret report documenting how 10 French soldiers who were killed didn't have enough ammo or working radios. Others are telling us what we want to hear, like it will just take a few more troops and some border incursions into Pakistan to straighten out this mess.
There are a few honest players in Afghanistan, and I'm listening carefully to them. But please understand this much: In a land whose paradoxes can confuse and even crush powerful empires, any solutions - if they even exist - will not be simple or painless.
When I traveled extensively in Iraq, I spent a lot of time with combat units that were consistently winning against the enemy, both in kinetic operations and gaining the support of the people. All the while, we were losing certain aspects of that war, both in Iraq and back on the home front. It wasn't until our tactical superiority was supported by an effective strategy that we started turning things around. Iraq now has the chance to become a peaceful andprosperous country, and a good ally. I sense that the day will come when I will request a visa togo on vacation in Iraq.
Can the same thing happen in Afghanistan? I am less confident - for today, anyway.
Gen. David Petraeus, who recently assumed command of Centcom, responsible for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq (and many other countries), knows that these two countries present different challenges. The counterinsurgency manual he revised, and his own doctoral dissertation on the effects of Vietnam on the American military and foreign policy, show an intellect that is subtle enough to recognize a paradox and honest enough not to try and hide behind it. One of the paradoxes described in the counterinsurgency manual is: "Tactical success guarantees nothing."
If anyone can unravel Afghanistan, it's Petraeus. But that might be beyond even his talents.
Describing his successful partnership with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, Petraeus recently said: "There has to be absolute unity of purpose, unity of effort, even if there cannot be and will not be unity of command."
Right now, our enemies have unity of purpose: They want to kick us out of here. Meanwhile, we can't even agree about whether or not this war can be won.
#1
i don't think the US government thinks of this as a winnable situation like a normal one would. This has too do with keeping the radicals of the muslims in kind of a cetral place too fight instead of spread out all over the place. Also looks like another good place for pour jets too land just in case it ever does break loose with Iran
#6
We tried that in South and Central America and most became Democracies after the Cold War. Only a couple have reverted to questionable governments.
We tried that in South Korea and Taiwan and both became raging successes and transitioned over to Democratic governments once they were wealthy enough.
We tried that in Greece in the 70s and they also became a Democracy in time. A few still hate us today but nobody considers them an enemy of the USA.
We never tried that in Afghanistan, we walked away after the Soviets were defeated and we've been trying to help a fledgling Democracy run by Karzai.
#1
That's quite a list. I'm glad they are "saying it loud and saying it proud." It'll make for some great campaign ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Florida....
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
10/08/2008 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
Given the many flaws of the seemingly anointed Future Messiah-President, you'd think that John McCain would have at least a slim but solid lead by now. But the post-Sarah bounce - which did have the effect of pulling disaffected conservatives out of the hills and into the McCain camp, checkbooks in tow - has been entirely dissipated, and we're now back to Obama with the slim but apparently solid lead. Many of us (myself DEFINITELY included) believed that the old fighter jock had seriously cut inside Obama's OODA loop by picking Sarah, and indeed, Team Obama flailed about incoherently for a couple of weeks, staggering around and punching blindly like Apollo Creed in the 13th round.
But what did McCain do after that? Well, other than introducing Sarah to the general public, not a hell of a lot. With The One still staggering from Sarah's haymaker at the RNC, where was the followup barrage on TV and online media about the rogues' gallery of Communists, terrorists, insane racist preachers, crooks and fixers who have surrounded and mentored Obama his entire political career? Yeah, yeah, I know...Obama and his media sockpuppets whined about "McCarthyism" and "guilt by association", but they'd have done that or something similar no matter WHAT criticisms Team McCain came up with - witness the recent screechings about Sarah being a racist for daring to mention The One's associations with Jeremiah Wright. It's not an unreasonable assumption that more people know who knocked up Bristol Palin than know about Obama friends and mentors who tried to murder innocent people in the name of communist revolution. Ayers is bad enough - his appalling wife is IMHO even worse. If McCain were serious about winning, this charming Bernardine quip, supporting the Charles Manson "family", would have been engraved on the brain of every voter in America:
"Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!"
I think that the fact that Bill and Bernardine and the rest of that ghastly crew aren't securely pinned to Barack Obama's liver in the public's mind is proof that at some point, McCain wasn't truly in it to win it. What happened and why? One theory bouncing around inside my noodle is that J-Mac took a hard look at the clouds gathering around the economy, coupled with electoral math that indicated a possible veto-proof Quislingcrat Congress, and made the cold, hard decision that he didn't want to wind up as a failed President; that if he did win, the Quislingcrats would do everything they could to thwart him, the country be damned. He imagined an economy circling the drain, and the government powerless to do anything because of political paralysis, and decided that was something he couldn't be part of.
So what to do with the campaign still going on? Make a good fight of it...and give Sarah Palin plenty of national exposure and big-league campaign experience. Let's face it - whatever our problems with McCain (immigration was my biggest case of the ass with him), he's done our side one HELL of a big service. Before Sarah, the only future star most of us saw was Bobby Jindal. An exciting prospect, to be sure, but there's only one of him. With Sarah, McCain in a single stroke has deepened our bench, allowing the Republican Party to complement Jindal's raw intelligence and executive abilities with the charisma of a woman whose natural political talents have impressed even Bill Clinton. and no, I don't think it was just her legs, either. Although those didn't hurt. And you know damn well ol' Slick noticed 'em, too.
The prospect of Obama running amok with solid Bolshevik Democrat majorities in both houses is for sure a sobering one. But if my theory is true, McCain's betting that the harm that can be inflicted in two years before the '10 midterms is less than what would arise from a McCain Presidency frozen in carbonite for his entire tenure. At least in '10, the Pubbies might have a chance to pull a replay of 1994 and prevent Obama from carrying on further with what's certain to be a very radical agenda. McCain doesn't like it...he really, really wanted to be President at some point in this cycle...but I suspect that "Country First" is more than a slogan to him, and the best way for him to act on that is to set the table for Jindal/ Palin. Or would it be Palin / Jindal? At least there'll be a choice!
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/08/2008 12:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think McCain was blindsided by the economy tripping up all of a sudden and the Republicans getting blamed by a bunch of people covering their butts. I think he then waited until afterwards to go on the attack, losing momentum. Now he's got to try to regain is.
A mediocre showing at the debates and a lame plan to buyout failed mortgages is not the right way to do that, however.
#2
I think McCain needs to get a theme, and make it humorous when he goes after Obama. I think two. Something like "That's just not right" combined with "Rookie move".
Then have that tagged on the end of a bunch of ads showing the nation the Ayers, Bernardine, Wright. I'd also include one showing some of the more misogonyst things said by Obama or on his behalf, tag it with That's just not right" and show it everywhere Hillary voters are likely to dwell.
Don't get people chanting it in a rally, that's creepy, but get it in peoples minds so that whenever they hear this stuff that flashes into their mind reinforcing that Obama is a rookie who does questionable things.
Before everyone succumbs to a terminal case of inevitabilititis, it's worth remembering we've been here before. In the last months of the primary campaign, the press kept assuring Hillary fans that Obama's victory was inevitable and the shriller the media Obamaboppers got, the more bluecollar Dems sat on their hands. In the end all the King's horses and all the King's men had to drag the guy across the finish line. You couldn't replay his spectacular victory in slow-motion because it was already slower than any slo-mo technology ever invented.
So we already know there's a huge disconnect between the unstoppable Messianic force promoted by the media and the cooler appraisal by actual voters. What's happened since primary season? The Iraq surge (McCain's unique selling point) is a victim of its own success and has dwindled away to an irrelevant footnote, and the front pages are full of a supposed economic catastrophe which the crude rules of politics suggest any fool should be able to hang on the incumbent.
Yet Obama still can't open up a solid lead. After all, why would record numbers of viewers watch the vice-presidential debate if the election's already over?
Meanwhile, the supposedly damaged Republican brand is proving suprisingly resilient. I see one of the two New Hampshire seats that flipped blue in '06 may return to the red fold next month. Where's the blowout?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/08/2008 11:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You gotta love Mark for trying to rally the troops. but lets's face it - what might have been McCain's last chance to score some solid hits on Obama passed with only a few jabs being landed. Steyn himself says as much (hilariously, I might add) in the article:
"As everyone says, Obama wins by not losing. He looks more and more as if he's already the president, while McCain prowling the stage seeking to 'connect' looks more and more like Yosemite Sam after the dynamite failed to go off."
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/08/2008 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't go getting so negative about McCain and his chances. What every one of the "right" persuasion has to think is the following: Do I want to see a congress and presidency controlled by the most liberal, left-wing, possibly Marxist executive in the history of our nation? Do you? The market is reacting to Obama's standing in the polls not to the bail-out or foreign financial markets. Believe me if the market sees a strong movement of support and effort to push McCain over the finish line - it will go up by a 1K points.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/08/2008 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There are still many possible changes in the financial world before the election, and many more afterwards. al Qaeda is still plotting.
#4
Do I want to see a congress and presidency controlled by the most liberal, left-wing, possibly Marxist executive in the history of our nation? Do you?
You're preaching to the choir, Jack. I agree in full with your assessment of The One and his gang of thieves, terrorists and crooks...but the only reason you and I know about him is because we're political junkies who prowl the Burg and blogs of similar persuasion on a regular basis. But a lot of voters only start paying attention to the political news right about now - and they're getting their info from the MSM. Which is to say, from the Obama campaign itself.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/08/2008 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm with Steyn. For a variety of reasons, I do not accept that the election is a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think if it were then the media would not be reporting is as such -- Americans still love an underdog. I'm also very, very skeptical of published polls. The only thing that does keep me up nights is all the vote fraud Soros is paying for and ACORN is accomplishing, and the fact that we ran such a weak candidate.
Despite some evidence of a minimal policy response to the crisis generated by the latest spate of terrorist attacks across India -- in Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Delhi -- the reality remains that the reaction is still largely confined to shrill and partisan denunciation of largely symbolic policy proposals. What has been missed is a progressive marginalisation in our calculus of what Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI), the prime mover in all this, is trying to do. The overwhelming discourse has now focused on the supposed 'indigenisation' of so-called jihad, and on a range of measures, including harsher laws and the creation of new agencies for their implementation, which would be directed principally against our own citizens.
An incoherence of ideas continues to advance a false construct of 'Islamic' or 'Islamist' terrorism, while the reality is that, in both Afghanistan and India, what we are experiencing is, quite simply, ISI terrorism. This reality is, in no way, diluted by the fact that some of the perpetrators of terrorism are Indian citizens, with affiliation to extremist organisations created on Indian soil.
It is crucial that this reality be factored into our policy framework. While the improvement of security and intelligence on Indian soil is necessary, it is useful to recall the Irish Republican Army's admonition: "Remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." Unless the fountainhead of terror is capped, there will always be a module that gets lucky, especially when the targets they seek are the softest and most vulnerable.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
10/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
