I wrote a little about this about a week ago (Congress's Piggy Bank, Oct. 17, 2009), but am starting to get really worried now about the US's position in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure I understand this situation. The US sent troops to Afghanistan about eight years ago now to clear out the Taliban, who were harboring al-Qaeda camps and leaders. And it was pretty easy to clear out that band of thieves. The bigger war in Iraq pretty much took priority, but with that wrapping up now, attention returns to Afghanistan. Actually, the Comrade said during the presidential campaign that Afghanistan was the only war that really counted.
So now, after approving a "surge" strategy in March and appointing General McChrystal to implement it, the Comrade has been hemming and hawing over committing more troops for going on.... three months now?
Meanwhile, anyone else noticed that over the last month, and the last week in particular, that the Taliban and friends have stepped up the violence? Much of this may be directed at Pakistan, but if the Pakistanis force the Taliban back into Afghanistan, will the Taliban meet with any effective resistance there? I mean, if the Comrade doesn't send McChrystal the troops he believes he needs?
Meanwhile, the US sends diplomats to an allies' meeting in Eastern Europe (where the US has just backed out of a missile defense system that had been planned) to beg for troops and support in Afghanistan. Before the Comrade has decided on whether or not the US is really committed. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to deploy, when the US might back out at any moment, depending upon which side of the bed the Comrade wakes up on.
Is this making any sense to anyone? I said before, the Comrade was leaving US troops in Afghanistan for the Taliban to use for target practice. Still looks that way. And exactly what more information does the Comrade need to make a decision?
Was he hoping our allies would absolutely compel us to commit 40,000 more troops, as McChrystal has recommended? Maybe he was hoping they would pat us on the back and say, "Good ol' Unca Sam, you've done enough. Let us take over." I mean, the Europeans hosted numerous, extremely bloody terrorist attacks for 30 years and did nothing about it on their own (Munich, Rome, Lockerbie, etc.). They seem to prefer to tolerate unexpected and random bombings and hi-jackings to getting off their big fat butts and defending themselves. It wasn't until 9/11 and the US stepping up to the plate that al-Qaeda met with any kind of forceful resistance. Does the Comrade expect Europe to take the lead now? (Actually, I believe the UK has sent more men, without the Comrade's decision.)
I admit, I don't know much more about military tactics than I've learned studying the Civil War. But I can tell you one that thing happened over and over again during the Civil War with usually disastrous results.
Often the commanders had very little on-the-field intelligence. No radios or satellites or anything -- although they did try a hot air balloon once -- and messengers could be killed before reaching headquarters. Often the generals found a hill, a rooftop, or a church steeple and watched the action from there. Or they put signalmen up there and they flagged back messages.
In addition, during the Civil War, as now and at any time, most military commanders are protective of their men. They don't want to "waste" them -- and take that any way you want. They're generally careful about engaging unless they must to defend, or unless they simply have no other option but to attack. You usually lose more men when you attack than when you defend.
One recommended tactic (by Colin Powell, among others) is to attack in force, with about twice as many men as you expect the enemy has. You try to overwhelm the enemy. However, in many Civil War battles, the commander might have been uncertain of his intelligence, or simply didn't want to lose his army. He sent his people in "piece-meal." A couple regiments at a time.
Often what happened is that they were overwhelmed, slaughtered, and the commander then sent in another couple of regiments, who were overwhelmed and slaughtered. The casualties were astronomical. And little ground gained. (And I mean, astonomical: 23,000 dead and wounded at Antietam in one day. 52,000 dead and wounded at Gettysburg over three days. 12,000 at Second Manassas. 13,000 at Shiloh.)
Many Vietnam Vets claim that this is what happened in Vietnam. Though we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, there were few "pitched battles," but tons of losses from things like stepping on poisoned spikes or hits by other weapons traps, or small, bloody skirmishes that came not-quite by surprise. The Vets say if the US had gone in full-force, taken the initiative instead of putting ourselves on the defensive, we could have won. Who's to say? We weren't trying to conquer North Vietnam, only keep South Vietnam independent.
The one thing that occurs to me about this is that sending troops to Afghanistan in a piece-meal fashion is only setting up for failure. And in this case, failure means the useless death of our soldiers, maybe 20,000 at a time. It seems that the Comrade is creating another Vietnam when there is a more effective way to attack, and with an actual chance of winning -- McChrystal's strategy.
Of course, the Comrade has to deal with his rabid-left fan club, who are generally reluctant to fight for their own rights and freedoms -- they think holding hands and sharing a Coke would work just as well -- and who are, in fact, happy to hand their freedom and security over to whomever promises them a free ride -- free health care, free education, free mortgage... whatever. Maybe these voters believe deep in their hearts that al-Qaeda is willing to do just this? Maybe al-Qaeda would govern us better? Or do they believe al-Qaeda is just going to slink away? No indications of that at all. Not one. Just the opposite.
The White House seems to say that it wants to make sure Afghanistan has a stable and non-corrupt government before we commit more troops. Only, you know what? We aren't in Afghanistan to provide them a stable and non-corrupt government. We're there to kill al-Qaeda and to deny them any place of refuge.
And it seems to me that every day the Comrade delays -- and he may be waiting on the outcome of several elections in the US, too, just to see which way the political wind is blowing -- he puts US troops in more danger. It's no doubt very important for the Comrade to do numerous fund-raisers and supportive appearances for fellow Democrats in local elections, but I'd rather he was in the White House, acting like a President instead of in New Jersey, acting like a cheerleader.
'Course, that's just me.
No comments:
Post a Comment