Rethinking War and Security

The governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia have given the US an excellent opportunity and an even better impetus to rethink just what our national security interests are as well as just what and who threatens them. Undoubtedly Maliki, Karzai and Putin did not intend to provoke any wholesale reorientation of US policy, but that is the nature of unintended consequences.

In a widely reported statement, al-Maliki has made it clear that all US forces, not simply combat troops, must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. There should be no problem with beating that date. The approach followed by the US in the past year reached the cross-over point some months ago. We can no longer militarily lose in Iraq. That means we have met the minimal policy goal.

The US can no longer lose the war. True "not-losing" is not the same as "winning." That was true in Korea as well. The US achieved the third option of war: not losing. That was good enough.

It is good enough in Iraq as well. We should be grateful that it took only four thousand plus lives and gigabucks almost beyond counting to achieve the minimum in an unnecessary and unjustifiable war.

Now it is up to the Iraqis to "win" or "lose" the process of re-inventing Iraq following years of bloodshed and destruction and decades of totalitarian rule. It's their country. Their future.

There is now no real need for the US to maintain a military presence in Iraq. Or, to err on the side of prudent caution, there is no foreseeable need to maintain forces, either combat or support in that country past mid-2010. All indicators hint a point of diminishing returns bordering on the counterproductive arriving within two years. It's necessary to go with the flow and not seek to swim against it.

In Afghanistan the US has not reached the cross-over point. We not only can lose that war--we are doing so at the present.

"Wait one!" you object. "What about the battlefield exchange rate? Whaddabout the number of Afghans who are micturated off by Taliban suicide bombings on soft civilian targets? Whaddabout the troops in the pipeline? We're going to have a lot more boots on the ground."

All true, the Geek cheerfully admits. The exchange rate is favorable, very favorable. And, every time a Taliban/al-Qaeda martyrdom seeker blows up a passel of women, children and old men, the irritation level rises in the affected village. No doubt, there are numerous reports, some of which might be true, that more US and NATO personnel are on route to Afghan Land.

It may not matter.

There are several reasons why all the factors mentioned may not matter in the slightest. One is quite evident: Pakistan is energetically disassembling. Another is equally obvious: The vast rugged Pashtun speaking area of the FATA is controlled by the hostiles. The third reason has been commented upon for months: The black turbans have an unlimited cash cow in the opium trade.

Now, a fourth reason has raised its ugly head. Karzai's minority government is bowing to the Islamists. Quite unsurprisingly Karzai's regime seeks to keep itself, if not in power, at least alive when the shooting is over. This reality is evident in the hysterical behavior of Karzai and others with their allegations to the effect that US airstrikes killed (take your pick) seventy-six civilians or ninety civilians, most of them children and women caught at prayers in a building near where a handful of enemy combatants were napping or shooting or something.

Having been nearly greased a couple of times by zoomies who were a little be "incontinent" in their delivery of external stores, the Geek is aware that collateral damage can occur with airstrikes, but the claims by Karzai and company are over the edge. Undoubtedly, some civilians were killed. That's what happens when the shooters lager up in the midst of civilians. At worst it is an expectable "tough shit" sort of event.

Karzai's reaction indicates strongly that his regime has decided that the weather has turned against the outsiders and in favor of the Taliban and their associates. You may not have to be an Afghan to be attuned to the nuances of political currents in that long, deeply fractionated area--but it helps. And, when the Afghans start acting as though the political currents have shifted, you darn well better pay attention.

The real job in Afghanistan when the shooting started nearly seven years ago was the killing of al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders and as many shooters as possible. The neocon ninnies following the dictates of a rigid ideology perverted that task into a labor which could never be completed. At least never completed in this world--creating a secular multi-party democracy with free market leanings.

By this mission "creep" we created today's political currents, currents that run against us. The task and challenge now is to get out. No, not a cut and run. Rather a return to the original genuine national security goal. Kill as many al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders and shooters as possible in as short a time as possible and get the hell out of the mountains.

True it will be harder, a lot harder, today than it would have been seven years ago. Nonetheless, it has to be done if the US is going to accomplish the minimum policy goal of not losing. There is utterly no need to "win" in the sense of leaving behind us a democratic, free market, secular nation state called Afghanistan.

"Saving" Afghanistan is up to the people who live there as it always has been. Our national interest, our national security, requires only that we pile up al-Qaeda and Taliban bodies in sufficient number to inhibit any future Afghan or Pakistani government from providing aid and comfort to those who seek to harm us.

Short and sour, that is the reality of the situation. Yes, the Geek realises that those who are agenda driven, those who are High Minded, those who believe in Just War Doctrine uber alles as well as European elitists will howl, scream and wring their hands.

So what? They are not responsible for our national security. We are. Our government is. The time is long past for USG to get off the stick and do so.

Now there is Russia. Russia is back and it's bad. Fifteen years ago, in the sunny days following the collapse of the Soviet Union when the "end of history" was declared and celebrated by the Geek's co-workers in academia, he had occasion to speak to an audience at the National War College. In answer to a question the Geek predicted that the Soviet Union would be back.

No, it wouldn't be Marxist-Leninist and it wouldn't be called the Soviet Union. Rather it would be a form of corporate state fueled by nationalism, powered by oil and other natural resource money and it would be eager to flex its capacity as a Great Power.

When asked how long this process would take, the Geek opined, "not more than fifteen years."

History shows that the Russians can't be kept down for long. The combination of resources and long standing, deeply rooted sense of cultural inferiority would assure a Russian resurgence. The current administration did everything possible to make sure that when Russia reemerged from temporary eclipse, it would come out fighting.

So it has.

We cannot pretend that Russia has many national interests which coincide with ours. We cannot pretend or hope that Russia will adjust itself gracefully to second class power status and allow the US (or the PRC) to run the world for its convenience.

The next administration is going to have some tough choices. We the People are going to face some difficult times. Far from being over as the academics of a decade back thought, history is alive and demanding. We have to recognise what our national interests are, what constitutes true national security and how our instruments of national power both hard and soft can be applied most effectively.

There is a guiding principle. A principle that the High Minded, the Globalists, the Seekers After Profound Change won't like.

The nation-state works.