A Really, Really Cheesy Mousetrap

There has never been any secret about the distaste held by "progressive" members of the Democratic Party for either the war in Iraq--or the so-called "good war," the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. Similarly there is no secret that these same "progressives" have piled up the federal deficit to numbers with which only astronomers--and "progressives" are comfortable.

Also not to be found in the Secret category is the oft-repeated pledge of then campaigner Obama to the effect that there would be no "middle class tax increase" on his watch.

Now in one of the most sleazy efforts to mousetrap a president that the Geek has either witnessed directly or studied as history, the leaders of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives are talking tax increase on the middle class if President Obama makes the toughest (and least incorrect) choice to deploy additional US troops to the war he described a few months back as being of "necessity." House Ways and Means chairman Rangel has been making the noises to this effect.

Rangel, compared to whom Hugo Chavez is a near-conservative, is being backed in this ploy by the new head of the Democratic Party caucus, John Larson, (who is almost to the left of Daniel Ortega.) Both are described as being close political associates of Lady Botox, House Speaker Pelosi.

The notion is being touted as a "pay as you fight" method to assure that the increased costs attendant upon the deployment of more troops would not add to the federal deficit. Suddenly, miraculously, congressional worthies such as Mr Obey and Mr Frank care, they who have been utterly silent as the tsunami of red flooded from the stimulus package, the bailout measures and--soon to come--the Great New Health Care Millennium. The billions and billions just added up during the silence of Messrs Rangel, Larson, Obey, and Frank until now.

There couldn't possibly be a linkage in timing, could there? No. These public spirited representatives of the vox populi (according to their ears at least) have just now noted that wars cost money--and, golly, we just don't want the war to be a burden on our grandchildren.

They have put a potent political gun to the head of their fellow Democrat and fellow "progressive," the President. Send more troops and we will violate your pledge to the American people.

This sort of ideological games playing has no place in a matter as serious as the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. While the war was fought as wrong as a mountain lion chirping for the totality of the Bush/Cheney years, the US has finally made at least some of the right moves in the past six months. These moves, if continued and reinforced, can assure that the US and its allies can achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing."

The reason for needing to attain this minimum goal is simple. So simple that even the mentioned Congress-wallahs can understand it. We need to inflict an obvious military defeat upon Taliban and al-Qaeda so that these as well as Islamist jihadists generally conclude that attacks on the US or its allies constitute a very poor option.

If the Islamist jihadists of whatsoever stripe or whatever name come to a different conclusion, their attacks will come again at some future date. The attacks might well be on a larger, more destructive, more lethal scale than those of 9/11.

Or, in the alternative, the US and the rest of the West might simply accommodate themselves to a new global reality. That reality would feature an American, a Western, retreat from those areas of the world of greatest centrality to the Islamist jihadists. It might also mean adjusting long standing Western and American political, social, cultural values, and customs so as not to offend the most touchy of Muslims lest they call on their stalwart advocates--the suicide bombers, the middle of the night assassins, the wielders of knives, guns, bombs, and, at some future date, nuclear or radiological equivalents.

To "progressives" such as those mentioned, these sorts of dystopian futures have no relevance. Driven by the seductive appeals of ideology, of elitist certainty as to the correctness, the efficacy, the brilliance of their vision of tomorrow, these individuals are willing to impose great risks on their country's future, their fellow citizens' lives.

In terms of ethics, the middle-class-tax-increase ploy against the war is even more reprehensible, more underhanded, more duplicitous than was the "date certain" approach taken by an earlier generation of Democratic Party "progressives" to end the US involvement in the Wars of the Vietnamese. At least that bunch had the decency to wait until the grunts had come back to the world, the famed "decent interval."

Yes, the Democrats then stood by with stony faces and folded arms to watch the defeat of the South Vietnamese Army we had trained, equipped, and promised to support and supply when the final North Vietnamese push came. The ideologically driven indifference of the Democratic "progressives" did assure that the South was defeated even though that was not objectively necessary. These past congressional figures created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, Rangel, Frank, and the rest want to force the President not to do the right, least incorrect thing. They want to force him to choose between his own falling political stock and the war. Choose between his future in office and the future safety of the nation.

And, they want to do that while the grunts are still grunting and fighting, bashing the mountain sides, going cross eyed looking for IEDs. Killing and dying.

The last time something equal to the action the "progressives" in the House want Mr Obama to take occurred it was on 31 March 68. That was the day Lyndon Johnson said he would not seek reelection. The day the Commander-in-Chief walked away from his troops in the field.

The record shows clearly that the prime effect was in Vietnam. On the guys on the ground. The record shows that in the wake of LBJs collapse of political will both morale and combat efficiency in country dropped fast and hard. Drug use went up. Contact with the enemy declined. The number of fragging incidents went up. Will to fight went the other way.

Sure, back then, in those bad old days, the Army was conscript. Now it is mercenary--whoops! Bad Geek! He meant to write "volunteer." But that difference is in no way directly related to the matters of morale, will to combat, a willingness to keep on going out, facing bad odds even with technology on your side, and taking lumps while hopefully giving more. Pushing on until someone, somewhere can say with honesty, "Mission accomplished. Well done to all hands."

Mr Obama may escape the baited trap. Saner heads in the Democratic Party may prevail. A more suitable target for deficit reduction may emerge. A more rational approach to revenue raising may be discovered.

Even if any or all of these were to happen, the ground truth remains: The "progressives" have shown themselves so ideologically blinded that they were ready, willing, and eager to place their country and all of us who live there at greater risk for decades to come--all for a little bit of belief.

Partners In Seeking Defeat--Levin And bin Laden

The aging but quite powerful Democratic Senator from Michigan is now linked in his (indirect) call for an American defeat in Afghanistan with the direct call from the reclusive but still influential icon of Islamist jihad, Osama bin Laden. While politics is well known for making strange bedfellows, this combination is rather unusual.

Levin, who for reasons which quite elude rational explanation, is considered a real heavyweight on military affairs in the Senate. His opposition to increased deployments of American trigger-pullers to Afghanistan represents a towering challenge to President Obama. Having successfully evaded any connection to the war in Vietnam either as a fighter or a politician, Levin demonstrated his anti-war propensities with a justifiable opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

While the senator might have been on the side of the angels in voting against the totally misguided Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld adventure in regime change in Iraq, he has abandoned the angels to join with Osama bin Ladin in his insistence that the Afghan national forces be increased and properly trained before any additional American combat troops be sent there.

The Senator has made his opposition to further combat troop deployment quite clear for some while now, so his sharp response to Admiral Mullen's testimony on the subject today comes as no shock. Levin has been joined in his (indirect) demand for American failure by such other luminaries in the area of military affairs as Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha.

Mr Murtha, who is best known for his capacity at earmarking money and adept procurement of pork, makes much of his tour in Vietnam. On the basis of that experience he has concluded that US troops will not make any difference in the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. This, of course, is the same argument advanced by Osama bin Ladin.

The reality which quite obviously eludes all these profound strategists--to say nothing of some media outlets such as the San Francisco Chronicle last week--is that Afghanistan and the war there is not analogous to Vietnam and the American war there. President Obama is correct in rejecting the comparison of Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The American goals and methods in both wars are dissimilar. The nature of the opponent is also quite different.

In the American war in Vietnam there was never a well defined goal. Neither was there a relevant definition of victory so that progress to or from the goal could be assessed. Further, the US theory of warfighting was not relevant to the realities on the ground. As if these features--any one of which on its own would have all but assured failure--were not sufficient, American political and military decision makers never understood the nature and character of the enemies (plural) in the war.

The US faced what might accurately be termed a "mixed-state" set of opponents in Vietnam. There were North Vietnamese regulars fighting a moderate intensity conventional war. There were the Main Force Viet Cong who were classic partisan fighters capable of both mid- and low-intensity operations. And, there were the local Viet Cong units which were of the pure insurgent variety waging unconventional war.

Further complicating matters for the US was the insistence from the senior levels of government that while fighting three types of war against three types of enemy the Americans also build a modern western-style nation-state in South Vietnam. Adding this final feature constituted what President Obama warned against as being "over reach."

The pressure placed upon both military and civilian commanders in South Vietnam coupled with the inherent inefficiency of the indigenous military and governmental entities to produce an American take-over of the war. This was, arguably, the single greatest mistake of the entire US effort in Vietnam.

When the Americans shoved the South Vietnamese forces aside and took over the main burden of the war, the US lost its ultimate leverage on the South Vietnamese government--a credible capacity to decommit. It is the believable capacity to leave which gives an interventionary force and the government behind it the real power to enforce necessary changes in the local structures of politics and social or economic organization. We tossed that lever aside with the result that highly beneficial and quite necessary reforms were not undertaken by the Saigon regimes.

At first sight it is tempting to say that Senator Levin and others of his ilk are seeking to protect the source of American leverage on Karzai and company by retaining a credible capacity to de-commit. The temptation can be overcome without effort as none of these Strategic Deep Thinkers has shown in the past the slightest understanding of what constitutes effective leverage on a series of self-organizing groups such as those which jointly constitute Afghanistan and its government.

A second reason for rejecting the kindest possible interpretation of Levin's stance is that the time for developing and demonstrating a credible capacity to de-commit has come and gone. Too much has been invested in Afghanistan for the US simply to up and leave without at the same time acknowledging that it has been defeated by the Islamist jihadists of Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The realities on the ground and in the human terrain which constitutes Afghanistan and its people has been recognized by General McChrystal. His emphasis upon protecting the uncommitted majority of the civilian population from harm at the hands of either the Islamist jihadists or the well-meaning forces of the US and its International Security Assistance Forces represents the sine qua non of successful counterinsurgency.

McChrystal's insistence on carrying the war up close and personal to the strongholds of Islamist jihadism is the second sine qua non of successful counterinsurgency. His approach shows that he understands that counterinsurgency rests on presence--being there, on the ground, up close and persona; persistence--being there over time; and patience--the willingness to accept that there are no easy or certain measurements of success. Clearly, General McChrystal knows and understands the historically valid precepts of successful counterinsurgency.

Since this knowledge and its application have come to the game only quite recently and only after years of improper approaches undertaken by undermanned and under supplied forces, it is to be expected that results will not come quickly, easily, nor cheaply. However, results will come more easily (if not cheaply) now with both a proper theory of war fighting in place and the defining of a clear goal by President Obama--the destruction of the Islamist jihadist groups in Afghanistan.

Provided that President Obama can do three things, there is every reason to conclude that the US will achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of not losing within the next eighteen to twenty-four months. The three requirements for Mr Obama are: Keep to the simple, achievable and relevant goal; drop all the "nation-building" projects and allow the self-organizing dynamic of the Afghan people free reign; keep the members of the Democratic Party like Senator Levin, Speaker Pelosi, and porkbarrel champ Murtha on your reservation.

If the President can accomplish these three objectives, then there is a good chance that the US will avoid the looming analogy between the war in Vietnam and the one in Afghanistan. For the one true analogy can yet come to pass as the congressional ship of fools is blown onto the reef of defeat by the fickle but strong winds of public opinion.

We the People finally turned against the war in Vietnam in the early Seventies. Eight years, a death toll approaching seventy thousand, and no victory in sight deflated support for the war with a sickening suddenness.

The same is happening now with respect to Afghanistan even though the death count to date is barely over one percent of that in Vietnam. We the People do not have the stomach for a seemingly endless war without any prospect of a victory parade in even distant sight. Our disenchantment is evident and rising almost by the week--and even though a successful approach to warfighting has just been put in place.

The fonctionaires in Congress--particularly those of the "Progressive Caucus" who desire to save money in a war so it can be applied to any number of well-intended exercises in expanding public space--will ride the changing winds of the Vox Populi right out of Afghanistan and into the future wars with the emboldened Islamist jihadists of the world. By so doing they will impose a defeat upon both the US and the non-Islamists of Afghanistan identical to that imposed upon the Americans and South Vietnamese thirty-five years ago.

Go to the historical videotape, bucko. When the Saigon regime finally awoke to the reality that the US was pulling out, its army and the government generally became efficient and dedicated to fighting the war effectively for the first time. The irony came in that the Americans had trained the South Vietnamese forces to fight an American style war. A war which was heavy in firepower, mobility, and logistics.

The Nixon administration had promised the South Vietnamese that should push come to shove, we would provide the requisite firepower, logistics, and mobility support. But, when push did come to shove it was Congress which precluded the honoring of the promise. When the North Vietnamese did invade openly as everyone knew they would, the South was left high and dry without the promised support.

When the South shot its last round (which did not take long considering that each artillery piece had only five rounds per gun), its forces broke and ran. The South fell in a matter of days, not because it lacked the will to fight or the support of its people as was alleged by so many members of Congress, but because it lacked the means to fight. The means which we had promised but failed to deliver due to the same Members of Congress.

At the end of the game it was Congress which forced defeat on the South Vietnamese. Now it is Congress--or at least the "Progressive Caucus" in Congress--which seems hell-bent on doing the same in and for Afghanistan. That is the analogy yet to happen. It is the analogy which Osama bin Ladin wishes to see occur.

It is the analogy which Senator Levin and others of his ideological ilk wish to see happen. Worse, it is the one which they, and they alone, can perpetrate.

They will say with the straightest of straight faces that they are only doing the Peoples' Will. That they are only recognizing the reality that the US was in a war which it could not win. That they are only cutting the losses in American lives. That they are only doing the right thing.

This will be base prevarication. The real deal is that Senator Levin and his ideological soulmates are inflicting a defeat on the US, casting the bodies of the Americans who died in Afghanistan on the same garbage heap as those of the Vietnam War, consigning the Afghans to the less than tender mercies of the Taliban. And, far worse, letting loose the dogs of Islamist jihadism on the world for decades to come.

We could afford to lose in Vietnam. The real stakes were not that high. We cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan. The stakes there are higher than most of us suppose.

Sen Reid, Speaker Pelosi--Listen Up and Listen Tight!

The Iraq war is unpopular with most Americans. At least one of you thinks the war has already been lost.

The Geek has two comments: So what? and You're wrong.

Perhaps the two of you and many of your fellow members of the House and Senate should have paid some attention back when you took an American History course. (And, if you didn't, you are pathetically under qualified for your current job.)

The following wars were unpopular with many or most Americans for most of their duration.
The War For Independence
Mr Madison's War
Mr Polk's War
Mr Lincoln's War
The Splendid Little War
Truman's Police Action
The Vietnam War
The Iraq War.

The wars supported by the overwhelming majority of the country's population make a much shorter list.
World War I
World War II
Even though supported by the majority, World War II was not seen as a grand crusade, but rather as a tough, nasty job forced upon us to be ended as quickly as possible at the lowest cost in American lives.

If war fighting had been governed by public opinion polls, all of our wars with two exceptions would have been ended prematurely and at a definite loss to the United States.

Time to get a grip.

Mr Madison's War (The War of 1812) was so wildly unpopular in at least one area of the US, New England, that the region seethed with secessionist talk and schemes. The Federalist Party almost plotted at an American defeat. The outcome of the war was not an American victory, but we didn't lose and did obtain a better state of peace. To be blunt, if we hadn't "not lost," we would have been the low hanging apple plucked back into the imperial bag.

(It is always necessary to remember that there are three alternatives for ending a war: winning, losing and not losing. The third option is often the only realistic one.)

Mr Polk's War or for the historically challenged, The Mexican War, was also widely unpopular, particularly in the increasingly abolitionist oriented areas of New England and the upper Midwest. The war with Mexico was seen as an imperialistic venture by the Southern slavocracy, which it wasn't. The war was actually about who would control the Pacific coast south of the Oregon Territory including the enormous natural harbor at San Francisco--the US or Great Britain. Mexico was realistically seen as too weak to do the job. At the end of the short period of killing and dying, the US did achieve better state of peace for itself, and, arguably, the Mexicans.

In one of life's delightful ironies, a young Congressman from Illinois came to national prominence with his denunciation of Mr Polk's War. In barely more than a decade, Abraham Lincoln would have a war named after him by the many who thought it better to let the Confederacy go its own way, slaves and all.

The Democratic Party gnashed its collective teeth, wailed and moaned about the unnecessary loss of life, the incompetence of Lincoln as a war leader, his wholesale violation of American civil rights and Constitutional liberties, his constant lying to Congress and public and finally nominated a spectacularly unsuccessful general as its 1864 presidential candidate, who ran on a "peace now," platform.

Does anybody seriously want to argue that the North should have walked away from the war, told the Confederacy, "We goofed. You guys are right. Go in peace, brother?" True enough, the country and the new freedmen had miles of bad road yet to travel in the years ahead, but keeping on keeping on brought a better state of peace.

We Americans are not comfortable with the idea of being an imperial power. That's too much like those icky-poo empires run by the Russians, the French, and the British. It's no wonder that many, even most, Americans didn't support the Spanish-American War (aka The Splendid Little War or the War that Made Teddy Roosevelt President.) The Geek can't say he thinks it was a good idea, but the realpolitiker in him says that over the long haul it made for a better state of peace in the Philippines (maybe) and a worse state of peace in Cuba.

The Korean War was supported by fewer Americans according to public opinion polls than the Vietnam War. Many, particularly Republicans, hyperventilated about Truman's "no-win" strategy. They overlooked the reality that the war was intentionally fought without enlisting the American public's crusading zeal because it was our first limited war in support of policy. It was a war we didn't lose and it did bring about a better state of peace in that Containment Policy was given a greater credibility as was the United Nations. It also set a critical precedent regarding collective action under the UN against unprovoked aggression.

Vietnam was an unnecessary war, an unjustifiable war, a war we didn't need to fight. Fortunately it was a war which we could afford to lose since that is exactly what we did. It is important to keep in mind that the North Vietnamese didn't defeat us. We did that job ourselves. The military used a soup sandwich wrong theory of victory. Politically, in the streets seemingly, on Capitol Hill certainly, we lost our will to continue. Congress wrote off sixty thousand American lives and voted for a worse state of peace.

Good precedent?

Now there is Iraq. The Geek is of the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified, and unsupportable. He is of the view that the civilian leadership--Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfewitz, Feith, et al were, if not criminals, at least world class blunderers in their planning and direction of this act of unprovoked aggression.

The Geek also believes that the senior military commanders should have had the intellectual and moral courage to resign their commissions rather than execute an operation which all credible intelligence showed would of necessity lead to the current armed political turmoil and massive Iraqi butcher's bill.

Now that we are there, we have to stay the course. We have to lose more American lives so that those already lost will not be casually and callously written off. We must stay on the ground until the Iraqis can finish the job of developing a legitimate government and a capable military force. But, what the hey, I've written all that before.

Believe me, the Geek is pained to be in agreement with George W. Bush, a man for whom he has nothing so gentle as contempt. Still, realpolitik and a decent regard for the future of this nation compels agreement--at least in principle.

The alternatives, the consequences of some sort of cut and run approach even one with a Vietnam style "decent interval," is simply a terrible state of peace from our perspective as well as that of the Iraqis and much of the world.

Get a grip on this.

If we leave before the Iraqi government and military are up to the task, Iraq will join the ranks of failed states. The multi-party war will invite regional intervention. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Syria will move in directly or through proxies.

The Islamists will be pumped up by orders of magnitude. Remember, Osama bin Ladin and many others think it was the Arab jihadists who not only expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan but caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as well.

They are as wrong as grilled watermelon in that belief, but that doesn't erase its subjective power. Previous weak US responses as in the case of the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole gave rise to the events of 9/11.

If you liked 9/11, you will love the violence which will lap across Europe and the US in the wake of a premature American withdrawal. If you are comfortable with living under more threat and in more of a security oriented garrison state, if you are pleased with a diminished stature and role for the US in the world, then you should join with Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and their public opinion driven view of responsible statesmanship.

The United States may not be the last, best hope of mankind, it may not be the shining city on the hill, but the Geek believes that it is, at the least, a flickering candle against the wind and the dark.