Ought to be left to historians, rather than mere partisans.
Victor David Hanson will do:
Vowing to do what it takes in the good war by leaving Iraq—infusing more troops into Afghanistan, and occasionally invading Pakistan—was for candidate Obama always a rhetorical stance that proved both his anti-Iraq War bona fides and his larger credibility on matters of national security. But President Obama and his mercurial supporters in Congress will soon face a rather embarrassing dilemma. Without the responsibilities of a commander-in-chief, he once demanded we should leave Iraq when leaving would have lost that war. But now, as commander- in-chief he will soon learn that a few thousand more troops will not guarantee lasting victory over the Taliban. And changing strategy from stealthy attacks by aerial drones in Pakistan to open ground incursions across the border risks widening rather than solving the conflict.
“Taking our eye off the ball” was always a dubious campaign talking point. Afghanistan was not the only “ball” in the global war against terror; we never took our eye off it; and we were always binocular.
The flow of additional forces from pacified Iraq may help in the short term, but anything resembling a “victory” in Afganistan will be much harder than many people assume. It will take time and commitment, something President George Bush manufactured for himself in Iraq against almost universal opposition.
How much commitment will President Obama carry into a fight that will now become his? How much time will the Medea Benjamin brigades give him?
I guess we’ll see.
I truly find it amazing/amusing/unbelievable that the actions taken somewhat irresponsibly so long ago now come full circle to haunt the Annointed One. I am probably not the only one that would prefer the Old Russky Empire and its associated problems/evils to our current slate of stateless enemies. Maybe the Big O should get ZB into the Oval Office and ask him “since you created this crapola, how do we get out?”. The post below is from Cohen’s article at:
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Winter/abstract-Cohen.html
This dismissive tenor evokes that of an interview Brzezinski gave a decade ago to the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur about the arming of Islamists against the Soviets during the Carter presidency. When asked about the invigoration of religious fundamentalists who might one day target the West, Brzezinski responded, “What is more important for world history? Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some energized Islamists or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”
What national foreign affairs type said reflecting on the end of the Cold War said something to the effect: “I miss the clarity…”?
And to think we called it a “peace dividend”.
I wonder how the President will navigate the shoals of his own party. While meeting the Republicans on their own turf was a good olive branch to extend it only emboldened his Democratic “allies” on the Hill to do whatever they wanted to do anyway.
As in the case of the stimulus he needs to realize his problems in this arena are not with the opposition party but number mainly among his “friends”.
Have no fears for The Chosen One. He is a master at placing the blame on others while beavering away at undermining our society.
And the media are happy to provide cover. Be assured that when he blows off Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will be blamed on the evil Bush.
Frankly, good. Obama should pay a price for his prior agitation for surrender and the highly likely genocide that would have resulted. Even more frankly, that price should have been paid by him and his fellow traveler Harry Reid in the form of an electoral trouncing.
But any price he suffers will likely be paid for in more blood of the brave – whether sooner or later.
Having chosen to forget 9/11 except as a weepy memorial to the fallen, the MSM and the Dems will never let the our current wars be anyone’s fault but Pr. Bush and VP Cheney. Whatever mistakes, failures, and ultimate retreats or surrenders we experience, it will not be Pr. Obama’s responsibility.
Meanwhile, in the field, the finest military in the history of the world is slowly be consumed and destroyed, it’s equipment worn beyond use, and the troops themselves overwhelmed by the tasking. Anything less than a commitment to victory and a mobilization on a national level will only get us more of the slow attrition we have been watching for 7 years.
As far as focusing on Afghanistan, Kipling had idea what sort of place Afghanistan is, and what happens there:
If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier…
Yes, go to your Gawd like a soldier.
The question is, can you win a lasting peace in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban has a safe sanctuary to rearm, refit and rest in the tribal areas of Pakistan?
Remember, he did say he’d bomb Pakistan!
JamesT has spotlighted the key question. As Laos and Cambodia showed, insurgent/guerrilla warfare in which the bad guys have a sanctuary, means that they can yo-yo in and out to fight, retreat, regroup, refit, and fight again–playing their opponents like a violin. The “escalation” game is all theirs–overpowering squads with platoon sized forces; platoons with company sized ones, and company sized relief columns with battalion sized number–fading across the border when we subsequently get REALLY pissed and amass forces in “mass quantities.” (as Beldar would say) to crush the target worthy concentrations.
The ebb and flow, as in Vietnam, can go on for decades. And when one throws in the cultural mores of the region with otherwise non-involved tribes giving shelter and aid to their “guests” as per tradition, and with a Pakistan who has minimal control of these border areas on the one hand, but is touchy about it’s international borders on the other (let alone the problem of a nuclear-armed Pakistan walking a tight-rope between pleasing us and losing control–and the nukes–to the religious fundamentalists) one has a nasty brew not easily ameliorated.
(I only hope Obama–or someone in his administration–has read the writings of both Lord Curzon and his biographers. Some things really don’t change much no matter how much time has passed.)
The nature of Vietnam changed dramatically with Tet. The Viet Cong were destroyed and the war was taken over by the North Vietnamese Army. We kicked their tails back north. When we were drawn down almost to nothing, the NVA sent 150,000 south with the Easter Offensive of 1972. Mr. ARVN, with some aviation support from us (the first use of TOW missiles in combat took place then), less than 50,000 went back north of the DMZ. We lost less than 100 troops that year, if memory serves. ARVN lost in 1975 because the morons in Congress who hated America as much as they do now, refused to honor the treaty commitments to South Vietnam. Had I been Ford, I would have honored them and told Congress to go home or I would send them home since they refused to do their duty. But, Ford was a RINO who came from the hallowed halls of do nothing in Congress himself.
Afghanistan has few similarities to Vietnam. The conflict has a much different nature and roots than did Vietnam. Islam and the warring culture of the Aghans, who will fight each other if they don’t have outsiders to fight. Much of the trouble brews in the Northwestern territory around the Khyber pass region, where they make SMLE Rifles and Browning High Power pistols with little more than hacksaws and files. The make AKs the same way (M16s are bit too finely made to be built in their manner). The only way we will end the Afghan war is to back them into a corner where it’s surrender or die. Some will choose to die, and you have to allow them their wish. The rest, they leave Islam permanently. They get into their cage and behave themselves from then on. If they don’t you go in and do it all over again. Sooner or later you won’t have to do it again.
All we are doing now, however, is swatting hornets instead of killing the nest. We lost in Korea because we allowed the Red Chinks a haven where they could rest and regroup. MacArthur was, at the bottom line, fired because he didn’t want to allow them that. The Congressional hearings on Korea were humiliating for Truman as a result. But, you can’t leave your enemy a sanctuary and expect to win.