Afghanistan Options: Leave, Increase, Stand Pat, or Cut Back?
Afghanistan Options: Leave, Increase, Stand Pat, or Cut Back? By Bing West – Hoover Institution
After 17 years on a treadmill, obviously no good option exists. But to pull out our troops would be to repeat Saigon in 1975. The consequences to America’s credibility would be crushing. Unlike in the Vietnam case, no domestic political movement is dedicated to insuring a total, humiliating withdrawal. Conversely, no American power center, bureaucratic or political, is lobbying to increase our force numbers.
Similarly, no influential groups are lobbying to cut back at this time in our domestic electoral cycle. Our casualties are low, few American journalists remain in Afghanistan, and our expenditures there are small in comparison to our gargantuan appetite to spend money our children will have to repay.
So, at least until the next American presidential election, we will stand pat in Afghanistan. A stalemate is likely to continue for the next several years. Our electronic and overhead intelligence, coupled with our air and artillery, will attrite the Taliban whenever they mass. The Taliban are mostly Pashto, and the Afghan National Army is mostly non-Pashto. ANA soldiers lack the spirit and incentive to patrol in small numbers in the rural areas. So we are deploying advisers to patrol with the ANA soldiers. This will insure a modest improvement. In the net, the Taliban are too weak to seize the cities and too tenacious to be driven from the countryside along the Pakistan border…
From our article above:
BEGIN QUOTE
America simply cannot uproot the three main causes of the never-ending war. The first cause is the tribal competition inflamed by the Taliban’s rabid Islamist religiosity. … The second cause is Pakistan’s support of the Taliban. … The third cause is the economics of opium.
END QUOTE
Have you ever noticed that — here as in many/most of our articles — the U.S./the West — and what we are actually doing in the world — that these two such items do not seem to exist.
And, indeed, if our existence — and/or what we are actually doing in the world — if these are actually acknowledged — in some minor way — then these such matters are NEVER suggested as, for example, (a) one of (or indeed THE) “main causes of the never-ending wars” and, thus, (b) one of (or indeed THE) ways that we can go about trying to “fix” things.
Un-Flipping-Believable.
Compare this to, for example, how “small wars” were viewed in C.E. Callwell’s time:
“Small wars are a heritage of extended empire, a certain epilogue to encroachments into lands beyond the confines of existing civilization and this has been so from the early ages to the present time. … The great nation which seeks expansion in remote quarters of the globe must accept the consequences. Small wars dog the footsteps of the “pioneers of civilization” in the regions afar off.”
(The quotes around the “pioneers of civilization” are mine.)
So, in an effort to rectify this matter, let me first (a) paraphrase Bing West above and, via this approach, (b) attempt to find an answer to our “what to do” questions:
PARAPHRASING BING WEST:
America CAN uproot the main cause of these never-ending wars. This such main cause is the U.S/the West’s post-Cold War attempts to transform (more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines) and incorporate (more into the U.S./Western sphere of power, influence and control) the outlying states and societies of the world.
END PARAPHRASE
So:
If we address the “main cause of these never-ending wars” — as C.E. Callwell does more generally in his “Small Wars” — and as I do more specifically in my paraphrase of Bing West above —
Then is there, indeed, something that we might do; this, in an effort to facilitate the end to these such (otherwise) never-ending wars?
“The Millennial Generation, those roughly 87 million men and women born between 1980 and 1997, now represent one-quarter of the U.S. population. With those on the leading edge of Millennials now hitting their mid-thirties, this cohort is becoming increasingly influential.”Millennials in U.S. Foreign Policy
Posted by Cameo Cheung. I found this quote when I was looking for back ground on Colonel Goepner, a man I do not agree with but probably states the millennial point of view on the Endless War.
First we should acknowledge that it was not a peace movement that brought the US military to a halt in Vietnam, it was the draft resistance movement, and like fathers and sons mothers and daughters and all the other hypothesized sexes. An antipathy for the military was handed down. Explaining in part, why there have been no organized or even unorganized anti-war protests.
What may be the most discouraging aspect of the long war is that it has involved the least casualties of any war let alone the longest, not to belittle our dead and wounded service and sacrifice. Goepner estimates the war has cost 1.8 to 4 trillion. President Obama increased the deficit 9 trillion. Mostly to fund social programs.
My point is, that at this moment the longest war is the least impacting on American life.
But lets look at that figure of 87 million, According to new data released only 71% of them are even fit for military duty. A failed education system, Drugs, gang tattoos, a plethora of ailments like asthma, ADHD, etc. Obesity, criminal records. The Winter Olympics was possibly one of the most disappointing in my life time public school athletic programs are in part blamed for the poor showing.
And we still hear congressional reps complain the only reason people select military service in time of war is for the money?
If 71% of our millennial population can not serve what is the effect on their sense of supporting American military institutions? What is their stake in it, they become apathetic even hostile to the idea that any money is being spent to upgrade or maintain a defense that precludes the possibility of another 9-11. You don’t get that assurance by retreating from the world and ignoring the Taliban an Islamic extremist group that practices crimes against humanity as religious acts. We can note the Taliban is mostly Pashto the Afghan Army not and the world might be a different place if the British had not divided the Pashtos by an international border. What does that even mean? In terms of a war that began because the Taliban ran Afghanistan.
Last year 60,000 Americans died from heroin abuse 90% of the heroin in the world is grown in Afghanistan. The Soviets had a similar problem with heroin deaths after its Army left Afghanistan.
Yet it is not the explosion in poppy production in Afghanistan that is the main reason people are dying en masse from opiade use, it is the addition of fentanyl added to cocaine and heroin. Despite the most abundant production of heroin in Afghanistan, the bulk of American’s heroin comes from Guatemala, Mexico and he fentanyl from China.
It is a peculiar circumstance America is best placed to police the poppy trade afflicting the worlds heroin addicts from Afghanistan perhaps because it does not pose the same threat to America in terms of exports even though the Taliban is doubling its crops and funding the war with poppy penny’s. Mexico continues to pour heroin across our border and despite the recent scandal San Francisco had revealing about 20 miles of streets that will cost 30 million dollars to sanitize of human feces and dirty needles it remains a sanctuary city and advocates continue to push an open border policy despite the opiate death crisis and the openly decadent life styles that pose a health crisis.
I would like to see America rise and stand tall again.
I would like to believe that we could have an Olympics where the featured stories aren’t the Gold medals not won and the Olympians who turn down invitations to be honored by the White House. But I am afraid our under educated over weight drug addicted millennials can’t rise from their couches.
How are such people ever going to have an interest in much of anything let alone a strong military that they probably feel inadequate maybe even humiliated by the fact they may never serve. But they can throw on Call of Duty and maybe one day they will begin issuing DD-214s to the best of the competitors.
Sorry Mr. West having one of those days, love your books. Thank you for your service.
C.E. Callwell, in his “Small Wars: Their Principles and Practices,” seems to tell us that “small wars” — essentially — are simply the the cost of doing the empire’s business in the various regions of the non-civilized/less-civilized world. And that, accordingly, the local populations, the various segments thereof and/or the local governments/governors; none of these, in truth, are to be blamed for these such conflicts.
Emile Simpson, seeming to embrace this “small wars are simply the cost of doing the empire’s business” framework; this, in her recent “There is No War in Afghanistan” article in Foreign Affairs, seems to suggest that these — not wars but, properly understood, “imperial policing”(?) missions — that these such missions are often of long and, indeed, indefinite duration. (Herein, Simpson citing, as an example, the near-100 period of time that the British conducted such operations in the AfPak region back-in-the-day.)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/29/there-is-no-war-in-afghanistan/
If these folks are correct, and if this is indeed the case (to wit: terrorism, for example, is simply “the cost of doing the empire’s business;” this, in various regions of the non-civilized/less-civilized world yesterday as today) — if these folks are correct in this regard,
Then should we, accordingly, forego notions of, shall we say, either (a) “achieving victory” and/or (b) “going home?”
(This, given that “victory”/”going home” — it would seem — would require that the outlying states and societies of the world — sometime in the far off future — would somehow become “civilized;” that is, become adequately organized, ordered, oriented more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines?)
Warlock wrote,
‘They attacked us because we continued to maintain forces in Saudi Arabia, pursuing a containment (not transformation) strategy in the aftermath of Desert Storm, and because UBL was also hoping this would destabilize the Saudi government. Read his writings instead of Huntington.’
Back in the day, when there were only dozens on the ground fighting the Fruitcake, I accepted how difficult it was for folks to understand this simple fact regards the UBL circus. But now, after all that has happened since 9/11, it is depressing to note how rarely this simple but fundamental observation is heard or read. UBL had a painfully obvious Messiah Complex that made him a laughing stock to all who weren’t part of his paid-up entourage/circus.
Like many very rich non-Royals in the Gulf he wanted to be the King, and the Jihadi angle was a clumsy and painfully obvious mask he deployed to cloak his delusionary sense of his own political/spiritual magnificence.
I disagree with West’s take on Vietnam but I do agree we must stay the course in Afghanistan (for completely different reasons to West I hasten to add). Tactical nukes being manufactured just over the way -by the world’s biggest heroin dealers being first and foremost – by-the-by.
In Vietnam we attempted to counter a Revolutionary political movement as if it were a UW campaign waged by the Chinese (Domino Theory) in the first instance and then as a COIN when the natives didn’t seem as pro-Chinese as we’d initially convinced ourselves to be the case.
In Afghanistan (having learnt our Vietnam lesson) we refuse to accept outside forces are subjecting ourselves and our friends to UW and attempt to prosecute COIN against their proxies and wonder why it’s not working.
We’ve all got one,
RC
From our article above:
BEGIN QUOTE
America simply cannot uproot the three main causes of the never-ending war. The first cause is the tribal competition inflamed by the Taliban’s rabid Islamist religiosity. … The second cause is Pakistan’s support of the Taliban. … The third cause is the economics of opium.
END QUOTE
As to COL (ret.) West’s such “main cause” suggestions above, both myself — and indeed Warlock/RantCorp below — have made (singular rather than multiple like COL West) “main cause” alternative suggestions; these, to explain our never-ending war in Afghanistan (and elsewhere?). These such “main cause” alternative suggestions being:
a. Bill C: U.S./Western (imperial-like?) efforts to transform (more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines) and to incorporate (more into the U.S./Western sphere of power, influence and control) the outlying states and societies of the world. And:
b. Warlock/RantCorp: “They attacked us because we continued to maintain forces in Saudi Arabia, pursuing a containment (not transformation) strategy in the aftermath of Desert Storm, and because UBL was also hoping this would destabilize the Saudi government.” (Guys: Did I get this right — did I do you justice here?)
As can possibly be seen here — from viewing these two such “alternative main cause” suggestions together — these two such alternative main cause suggestions may not be mutually exclusive.
Herein, the Warlock/RantCorp “main cause” suggestion; this, helping to explain why the U.S./the West — post-the 9/11 attack — would:
a. Adopt a “weak, failed and/or failing states” thesis and, accordingly,
b. Make the decision to implement — by force now instead of only by other means — its clearly announced (by the U.S. in 1993 no less) post-Cold War decision to transform and incorporate the outlying states and societies of the world?
From then-National Security Advisor Anthony Lake’s announcement of the 1993 Bill Clinton National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement:
BEGIN QUOTE
The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement — enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies.
During the Cold War, even children understood America’s security mission; as they looked at those maps on their schoolroom walls, they knew we were trying to contain the creeping expansion of that big, red blob.
Today, at great risk of oversimplification, we might visualize our security mission as promoting the enlargement of the “blue areas” of market democracies.
END QUOTE
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lakedoc.html
Thus, as we all know now, when 9/11 happens, and President George W. Bush adopts the (not limited to Afghanistan?) “we are threatened now more by weak, failed and failing states” thesis; this, in his 2002 National Security Strategy, then:
a. The gloves would come off and
b. “Force,” indeed, would now be used — not only in Afghanistan but also elsewhere — this, in an announced effort to transform the Greater Middle East (etc.?) more along modern western political, economic, social and value lines?
Bottom Line Thought — Based on the Above:
Re: the “main cause” of our never ending war in Afghanistan (and, indeed, our increased difficulties throughout the world generally?), the problem would seem to be that:
a. Even if we chose now to walk away from our “transform and incorporate” missions (for example in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Ukraine),
b. The “world instability,” and the significant enemies, that we have already created — these, via our earlier “transform and incorporate”/”use of force,” etc., approaches — these would still have to be dealt with. (The Pakistan “nukes” dilemma, now for example, to be understood more in these such “we screwed the pooch big-time and, thus, things are much worse than they previously were” terms?)
THIS, I suggest, is the “can of worms” hand that President Trump — and indeed President Obama in large part before him — has been/was dealt; this, re: Afghanistan, Iraq, the Ukraine, etc.?