Should We Be In Afghanistan?
McClatchy military columnist Joseph L. Galloway suggests we run the question through the old "Powell Doctrine," and we'll see Afghanistan isn't worth one more American life. Here goes:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? 2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective? 3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? 4. Have all non-violent policy means been exhausted? 5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? 6. Have all the consequences of our action been fully considered? 7. Is the action supported by the American people? 8. Do we have broad international support?It can fairly be argued that not a single affirmative answer can be given to Gen. Powell's eight questions with regard to the actions now planned or underway in Afghanistan. Had those questions been asked about Iraq in early 2003, not a single affirmative answer could have been given.
There was, in the beginning in Afghanistan, a vital national security interest in toppling the Taliban government and killing or capturing the Taliban's murderous guests, Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorists. We toppled the Taliban, but we let al Qaida flee over the rugged, mountainous border into Pakistan.
Even before that, we began to let Afghanistan fester, starved of U.S. manpower and money, and turned our attention to Iraq, where Rumsfeld had estimated that victory would be ours and our troops would be home in six months or so.
We no longer have a vital national security interest or a clearly attainable goal in Afghanistan. Our stated goal is to deny any future sanctuary to al Qaida in Afghanistan - but al Qaida isn't based in Afghanistan and hasn't been for years.
Ayn Rand Institute supports a somewhat different take:
"Washington failed to eradicate the terrorist-sponsoring Taliban and to make Afghanistan a non-threatening regime, because its battle plans are shaped by the moral code of self-sacrifice," says Elan Journo, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center."Instead of waging a ruthless war of self-defense, Washington pulled its punches in the air bombing and ground war--for fear of upsetting Afghans and Muslims elsewhere. By embracing a 'compassionate' war, Washington renounced victory.
"America's security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives--and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression--by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead."
I am deeply concerned about how we are *now* fighting this war. There doesn’t seem to be a clear military objective, NOW.
Obama has been putting US troops unnecessarily in harms by way of his crack-pipe war campaign of "Winning the Hearts and Minds of Afghanistan". Anyone notice the huge jump of military casualties there since July? It is troubling to say the least.
This crack-pipe-campaign of his is meant to reduce civilian casualties even if it costs ten of our military personnel’s lives for one of their civilians! We are fighting against a barbaric enemy who has NO qualms about using women and children as human shields.
If this continues, Obama will have his dream...we will loose this war.
Al Queda may have moved districts, but with support of sympathetic countries they cannot be entirely choked off. Afghanistan, without any political structure or standing government is extremely susceptible to terrorist infiltration.
Good news though, I saw a video the other day that these terrorist cells were being kicked out of Afghani villages by the villagers. They KNOW if the terrorists set up there, they are all sitting ducks.
"Had those questions been asked about Iraq in early 2003, not a single affirmative answer could have been given."
This is a disingenuous and misleading statement. He needs to do his homework if he thinks that these answers; whole or in part could not be answered affirmatively.
I don't like war (does anyone?) - but there is a real threat to our nation and western democracy as a whole when we have countries who provide support to terrorists and have in place crazy-megalomaniacal-dictators with facial hair using every resource available to them to obtain nuclear capabilities.
It’s part of the same group of fanatical-religious shit-heads that have said flat out - that they will do everything within their power to wipe Israel off the face of the map - and the US along with them.
Feebie at September 4, 2009 12:58 AM
You might as well apply the Powell doctrine to the inner city. The only reason we're in Afghanistan is that really horrible guys will use it as a base of operations if we aren't. Feeb's right: This piece asks questions that nobody cares about.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 4, 2009 6:39 AM
What, exactly, has the Powell Doctrine accomplished? We drove Saddam out of Kuwait and had to go back a decade later to win the war. We had no exit strategy for WWII, because we won the war.
You win wars by killing your enemies and destroying their will to continue. Our inaction with regard to Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and the Embassy Bombings led to 9/11. The Constitution lists ensuring domestic tranquillity and providing for the common defense as reasons for its existence. Those would be vital national interests to me, but then I'm not as obtuse as Mr Galloway.
MarkD at September 4, 2009 7:51 AM
I favor winning hearts and minds, and burning crops is not the way to do that. Neither is making the use of human shields a viable enemy tactic.
I favor victory, but victory does not have to mean turning Afghanistan into the 51st state, or even a state. A collection of tribes that don't harbor our enemies would be good enough for me.
Pseudonym at September 4, 2009 8:29 AM
Au contraire. We had an "exit strategy" for World War II.
Shortly after Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US. Churchill, Roosevelt, and later Stalin sat down together and agreed the only acceptable outcome was the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and the Empire of Japan.
The postwar occupation of those countries was different because each of those countries was ruled by a cult of personality. Eliminate the figurehead (by death or conversion) and the cult is dead. In Italy, Mussolini's death by angry mob ended the Fascists' power. Hitler's suicide did the same for Germany. In Japan, the Emperor was the proxy personality for the military junta that actually ran the country. After we dropped two atomic bombs, the Emperor finally stood up to the military and Japan surrendered.
Although there was resistance from some die-hard holdouts, the movements that took the countries to war had been discredited by the parades of Allied troops marching through the cities, the fleets of Allied aircraft overhead, and the general destruction wreaked by total war.
In the Islamic world, the cult of personality is built around Mohammed, who has been dead for over 1,200 years. Hard to eliminate a figurehead like that.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we refused to parade like victors, our planes flew so far overhead they were invisible to the ground populace, and we limited the wide swath of destruction by using smart bombs. And the population's morale was not beaten down by five years of total war.
Iraq and Afghanistan resemble Weimar Germany more than post WWII Germany. After World War I, the Germans did not feel like they were beaten on the battlefield because they didn't see Allied troops marching through their cities. The lack of strategic airpower and no battles fought on German soil meant German cities were not laid to waste. The war's destructive effects were felt in France and Belgium, but not so much in Germany. Near the end of the war, the Kaiser was overthrown by a small cadre within the government which immediately began negotiating the Armistice.
With no visible evidence that they were beaten on the battlefield, the Germans were ripe for a demagogue who convinced them they weren't beaten, but sold out by a corrupt and illlegal government.
Conan the Grammarian at September 4, 2009 9:38 AM
The Powell doctrine is fine for "WAR" but that isn't what we are fighting. Indeed, it may be long before we ever see another one. {Unless Kim actually goes insane.]
Powell just doesn't apply to guerilla conflict. Especially in a place that values life differently from us. This is why Afghan is hard for us as it was for the soviets. The problem is that we have nothing to offer them as a people. Their tribal ways are enduring and uniquly fitted to their lifestyles. Also uniquely fit to the way islam is working now. The only way to change that is to make their economies worth something. To make it worth something for an individual to be free, to WANT to be free. As it is working right now, we are just another warlord, and just as interchangable. We would definitely have to ACT like one as well, and we are not doing so good with that.
The answers we seek are not in past conflicts that WE remember, but in the past that has been fought there, IMHO.
SwissArmyD at September 4, 2009 10:00 AM
Talking about the Powell doctrine is kind of moot. We haven't had grownups like him in charge of our foreign policy since 1992. (Before any morons think I'm ignorant of facts: Yes, I'm aware he was Sec of State in the first Bush II years, but he was clearly a figurehead and the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis ran our foreign policy during those years.) I think the Ayn Rand institute's analysis is right on:
What, exactly, has the Powell Doctrine accomplished? We drove Saddam out of Kuwait and had to go back a decade later to win the war.
No, we opted to go back to Iraq, and we still haven't won that war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we refused to parade like victors, our planes flew so far overhead they were invisible to the ground populace, and we limited the wide swath of destruction by using smart bombs. And the population's morale was not beaten down by five years of total war.
Don't tell me you're suggesting we failed to use sufficient force there!
Whatever at September 4, 2009 10:12 AM
We need to quit questioning why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and look forward. Do we have the will to win? If we say yes, then we have to go to total war. This means re-instating the draft and leveling civilian areas. Oh, we should also be paying higher taxes to pay for all of this. War means sacrifice, how many people here are sacrificing anything for these wars? Answer none. We are now a country of leftist pussies who want to dicuss liberal crap like healthcare, "hope" and "change". One look at our government and you know we will not win these wars. And BTW, call it what it is, the war on islam, and open it up to any and all places where a muslim openly threatens the west. They want to live in the stone age, I say let's help them get there.
ron at September 4, 2009 11:01 AM
"War"
-- on Drugs
-- on Terror
-- In Iraq
-- In Afghanistan
Maybe we need a new definition of the word.
Jay R at September 4, 2009 11:20 AM
Let's not confuse the war in Iraq with the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is won; the Iraqi army is handling security and the Iraqi government is only going to be overthrown through the ballot box. Our troops there have moved from a primary to a supporting role.
Whether or not we will win in Afghanistan depends on our strategy. Since the typical Afghani doesn't want to be ruled by the Taliban, it's our war to lose.
Pseudonym at September 4, 2009 11:38 AM
I say we nuke the ice caps, throw some major chaos into the mix
lujlp at September 4, 2009 4:52 PM
Luj, take your own life, and leave us out of it.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 5, 2009 1:33 AM
Bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age would be an upgrade. :-p
We should have a combo of special forces & civil engineering teams in large villages. Give the villagers in smaller ones a direct contact to military support. If the Taliban shows up they can call for help.
We should also outbid the Taliban/Al Queda on the poppies. Let the poppy farmers raise as much as they can.
Jim P. at September 5, 2009 5:59 AM
Don't be obtuse, Whatever.
There is a big difference between admitting that the rapid disintegration of the Iraqi Army and the Taliban forces didn't leave the civilian populace with the feeling a war had been lost and engaging in mass slaughter of civilian populations (as you advocated on another thread).
Besides, I said Afghanistan and Iraq resembled Weimar Germany - in attitude about losing the recently fought conflict.
Germany was an industrialized modern nation in 1918. Being forced by the hardships of war to live in pre-industrial conditions would have been a setback to them and a strong reminder that they had lost the war. Afghanistan and Iraq were pre-industrialized societies.
Conan the Grammarian at September 6, 2009 11:15 AM
""Instead of waging a ruthless war of self-defense, Washington pulled its punches in the air bombing and ground war--for fear of upsetting Afghans and Muslims elsewhere. By embracing a 'compassionate' war, Washington renounced victory."
Considering that Muslims comprise 1/6 of the world's population, we have 140,000 troops is Muslim Iraq and Pakistan has nukes, I'd say that Obama is right in not wanting to stir up more anti-american feeling.
I think is ironic that some poster claim that 'they don't respect human life the way we do' then call for genocide.
JoJo at September 7, 2009 11:20 AM
Leave a comment