The Geek was not able to use the student deferment ploy that kept you from the maw of the draft from 1963 to 1968 following which the Selective Service System classified you 4-F as a result of teenage asthma. As a result the Geek had to see war quite up close and in full living--and dying--color.
Like most of those who belong to the universal fraternity of Them Whats Been Shot At, the Geek abhors war in whatsoever form. As a student of military history specializing in interventionary operations, he has become overly well acquainted with the nature and character of this form of war. A form which is particularly difficult to wage successfully and in which, as shown by the US War in Vietnam, all too easily ended by a self-inflicted defeat.
Afghanistan is not a "good" war. Neither is it a "bad" one as was the invasion of Iraq. It is, however, a war which will be difficult for the US to "win" in any meaningful way. The mission leap of the previous administration, which caused the focus of our effort to shift from a simple, straightforward punitive expedition to one of chasing the chimera of "nation-building" assured that success would remain elusive.
The decision by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika to wage the Afghanistan operation on the cheap simply compounded the error. The "economy of force" (as Admiral Mike Mullen put it both delicately and erroneously) approach seemed almost carefully designed to assure that Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other Islamist jihadist groups in the country or right across the border in Pakistan's FATA would be back bigger, badder, and bolder than ever.
The US and its allies are at the point where push has come most definitely to shove. The choice is simply between utter, unmistakable defeat at the hands of the Islamist jihadists or "not-losing."
"Not-losing" in the context of Afghanistan means that the US and its allies are able to finally so squash the assorted Islamist jihadist groups that they present no threat to the civilized world. To "not-lose" does not require keeping the Karzai regime in power. It does not imply the need to turn Afghanistan into some sort of simulacrum of a modern Western nation-state.
It does require taking the war to the Islamist jihadists in the country (and adjacent border areas) so as to disrupt, demoralize, and so discourage the Islamist jihadists that they come in from the heat so to speak. It does require putting our and our allies' troops in harm's way so as to protect the uncommitted majority of the Afghani civilians from war's desolation.
The history of interventionary operations demonstrates that this approach is the one which works with lowest cost to bring the maximum feasible return. And, in an interventionary operation, the maximum feasible return is lowering the level of violence to the degree that the self-organizing capacities of the local population can come into effective play first to terminate hostilities and eventually to assure a degree of conflict resolution.
In short, the most the US and its allies can hope for is lowering the noise level sufficiently for local political and social dynamics to come into effective play. This does not mean all violence will end. It won't, at least for some time after the foreign forces have left.
What it does mean is that no Islamist jihadist group, now or into the future will be able to claim as have Osama bin Laden and others regarding the Soviet Union's ill-fated excursion into Afghanistan, that the forces of Islam defeated the infidel invader. It will mean as well that no future government in Kabul will emulate the actions of the Taliban in offering "Islamic" hospitality to a terror group.
You see, Mr Vice-President, the enemy is not simply al-Qaeda. Nor is it Taliban per se. The enemy is all the self-organizing groups of Islamist jihadists throughout the world. Should the US be seen as having tossed in the sponge in Afghanistan, these hostile entities will proliferate like desert flowers after the first rain. This is the point you obviously miss.
The Geek even more than you, Mr Biden, would like to see the war waged without any American losses. Without any Americans running the risks of combat. Without any Americans spending years wrestling with the consequences of wounds either physical or psychological.
If a few Special Forces A Teams on the ground, a handful or two of CIA pilot teams, and a bunch of Predators and Reapers in the sky over the FATA and Afghanistan would do the job, the Geek would be cheering you on. Wishing you all the success possible in the administration's debate over whither Afghanistan.
But the idea you have propounded with such passion is simply wrong. Wrong as a soup sandwich. It is an idea that assures ultimate defeat for the US. Ultimate victory for the Islamist jihadists.
Your idea means one other thing as well. Think back to Vietnam, when the Democrats in Congress who had endorsed the war with a whoop and a hollar a few years earlier turned against the war and forced withdrawal of our troops. Remember it? The Geek is sure you do. He does.
This action and the consequences which followed sent a message to America. The message was as simple as it was brutal. The act told America that the sixty thousand who were killed in country, the tens of thousands who bore the scars of war, the tens of thousands who would struggle with inner demons for decades, "Tough shit!"
Tossing Vietnam off like yesterday's bad news dishonored those who fought, were wounded, died. Defeats are like that. It's a big tough shit for the people who sweated, bled, and died.
Now, your proposal would do the same for the men and women who have done their country's duty, served our presumed national interest in Afghanistan. Defeats are like that. Tough shit.
Mr Biden, is that really, really what your viscera tell you is right?
No comments:
Post a Comment