Here's the "advance praise" for Bing West's The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan:
"Bing West is many things—a battle-wise veteran, a skeptical journalist, and above all a brilliant chronicler of America's post-9/11 wars. His latest book provides a gripping account of the tactical realities in Afghanistan, but, no less important, it offers strategic counsel at a time when the Obama administration—and the country—needs it badly."—Eliot Cohen, Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
"If there is an answer for Afghanistan, it will come from only one place—the dirt. No correspondent has spent as much time on this ground as former Marine colonel Bing West, and no one has brought to it as much real-world, infantry-command experience. The Wrong War should be read (and studied) in the Pentagon and in the Oval Office. This is not think-tank theorizing, it's the real shit from a career warrior and first-rate military thinker. The Wrong War is so fresh, you can practically scrape the dirt off its pages. Read this. Read the final chapter. If there is a path to success in Afghanistan (or at least not catastrophic failure), Col. West's recommendations point the way."—Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire
"A devastating critique of U.S. foreign policy regarding a seemingly endless war."—Kirkus Reviews
Our signed copy arrived in the mail yesterday, and will be devoured this weekend. Also look for an exclusive SWJ interview by our editor Mike Few with Bing West in the near future. In the meantime, Andrew Exum has reviewed The Wrong War for The Wall Street Journal. BLUF for Exum's review, In Afghanistan With Our Warrior Elite, is "Mr. West's book shows, we have an amazing cadre of young men and women who continue to serve with valor and distinction in Afghanistan, and for them as well as for Mr. West's book we should be thankful."
Comments
Afgahnistan is the least hospitable place for any ignorant attempt at building a "western style democracy". The US might have done better to offer carrots and sticks to all concerned to achieve limited and defined aims, instead of taking on an endless expensive mission that MAY produce a functioning state someday, but will not produce a liberal democracy that recognizes the rights of apostates or blasphemers in this generation.
But I disagree with Rick's characterization of this as some sort of permanent problem with Muslims. I think there ARE problems that are peculiarly difficult in the core Islamicate world (some outliers,like the Hui Muslims in China, are still significantly different from what most casual observers can imagine) but even there, everywhere is not the same and the future will bring changes that cannot be predicted by someone who imagines a fixed shariah ruling all for all time to come.
For a start, see http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/02/15/egypt-turkey-world-affairs/
Rick FTW. Last paragraph is awesome. If anything, the past month in Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, and Libya should prove to all of us that American experiments in forced democracy (Iraq and AFG) is a moral, economic, and military failure. When a country is ready for it, they'll do it on their own. When they're not ready, we get AFG.
Your comment seems to way off from your normal points, and quite shallow. First off no one said we shouldn't invade countries based on religious beliefs, but that we shouldn't attempt nation building, especially when we're trying to create a nation that embraces modern western values in countries that adhere to non-compatible beliefs. I'm all for invading and crushing the enemies that attacked us, and then leaving.
I am surprised at the number of commentators who seem to think the US should or should not invade foreign countries based on notions of religious values (sometimes exaggerated and sometimes imaginary notions, if I may say so). I was under the impression this blog is more pragmatic than that. But, one lives and learns...
Rick's article is an opinion piece, but one worthy of serious discussion on a separate thread. I think his article supports those of us who argue we don't have a viable strategy for Afganistan. We have no idea what the transition to the next phase should look like because we're living in a world of self imposed PC delusions.
Mr. Pressfield's comment above, "If there is an answer for Afghanistan, it will come from only one place--the dirt" is incorrect. That's the problem we have now, we have a strategy failure, so we're defaulting to those on the front lines to solve it, and by default blame them if they don't. Our troops on the front are winning the tactical engagements, so don't blame strategy failure on them. They are rightfully waiting (hoping) on coherent, realistic and achieveable strategic endstate they fight for, instead of the current forever war we're in now.
The former administration got us involved in the nation building business under the misguided delusion we could build States in that part of the world that reflected our values and deny safehaven. That has been disproven, but subsequent administrations can't end the war without appearing to be weak on defense, which is political suicide. In the meantime we continue to expend precious blood and treasure in pursuit of what?
This war needs to be debated again in Congress, but it will never raise above the current budget crisis. We need to separate discussions from protecting the homeland from State building in Afghanistan. They're the not the same, and attempts to make them so are misleading.
So true,
"The Islamic democracy project is not democratizing the Muslim world. It is degrading individual liberty by masquerading sharia, in its most draconian form, as democracy. The only worthy reason for dispatching our young men and women in uniform to Islamic countries is to destroy Americas enemies. Our armed forces are not agents of Islamic social justice, and stabilizing a sharia state so its children can learn to hate the West as much as their parents do is not a mission the American people would ever have endorsed. It is past time to end this failed experiment."
In this important article, Andrew McCarthy demonstrates (1) that it is Islam, not some "perversion" of Islam, that mandates the death of Muslims who convert to another religion, such as the jailed and tortured Afghan Christian convert Said Musa; (2) that Islamic law is the supreme law in Afghanistan and all other laws must conform to it; (3) that this means that Afghanistan cannot be a democracy or even a minimally humane and civilized society; (4) that the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has long since ceased being a military effort to defeat our enemies the Taliban and al Qaeda, and has become instead a political effort to bring the Taliban into the government "in the vain hope that if they buy into the political process they will refrain from confederating with the likes of al-Qaeda"; and (5) that therefore "It is past time to end this failed experiment," meaning, it is time to end our involvement in Afghanistan.
The full implications, which Bush and almost everyone missed, being that the "they" who hate our freedom are not the "extremists" who have "perverted" Islam, but all believing Muslims. Which means that we cannot democratize Muslim societies, and that Muslims do not belong in the West.
Edited by moderator. Rick's comment simply re-posted the <u>full</u> text of <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/author/52265/latest">this article by Andrew McCarthy</a> here with no commentary linking it to this post. That's offsides on several fronts. Please read the article there.
Bill, my point was not about you agreeing or disagreeing with me (I dont even know where you disagreed with me). I was just surprised at the rather shallow notion of Islam and its effect on people. Again, my problem is not with people disliking shariah law or this or that orthodox Islamic theological position. My point is that this is not the real motivator of people involved in power-plays across the Muslim world. They are still people. They are looking for ways to maximize their power and leverage whatever they have. Islam is a convenient tool for them, but its not crucial to understanding them, though its not completely irrelevant. Profit and loss is a better model for understanding them and understanding why they are milking the infidels for all they can get. Pundita has a better handle on them than Robert Spencer. That is just my opinion. I may be wrong...