My Thoughts On Afghanistan

19 September 2009

President Obama stated not too long ago that the goal in Afghanistan was not to achieve victory. Paraphrasing his remarks on the subject, it appears that Mr. Obama sees an uncomfortable imagery in the word “victory” as it reminds him of the Japanese emperor Hiroito signing the unconditional surrender of Japan on the deck of the USS Missouri.
Even if we want to forgive Obama apparent ignorance of American history (after all it is not really his fault if he attended Columbia and Harvard), I am not ready to give the man a pass when it comes to his rejection of the concept of US victory in Afghanistan.
If the Commander-in-Chief is not inclined to seek and achieve victory as our Military bleeds and dies in the desolation of the Afghani mountains and deserts, why is our Military asked to sacrifice in that land? If not victory, what would he call the purpose of their mission?
I must have been wrong in believing that the purpose for sending American troops in harm’s way was for the purpose of achieving victory. So what is it, Mr. Obama?

General McCrystal, commander of our troops in theater, is preparing a report that he is going to present to the civilian leadership on his assessment of what is needed for our country to achieve the objective in Afghanistan, provided that we have an objective. It is almost sure that the general will be asking for additional troops to improve security on the ground and to train the local police and army.
Speaker Pelosi, in her inexorable pursuit of personal gain even if it means America’s interests are violated, came out warning Obama that she may oppose any additional funding and troops for Afghanistan. Her justification is based on the polls that are telling her that the American people are not supporting the war effort any longer, and that an escalation may become a political liability, which really means that it may be costly when the next elections come around. Once again, the San Francisco madam is more preoccupied about her re-election than about doing the right thing for America and our troops. It is my take that she must have her finger on the pulse of her hippies constituents back on the Left coast and that she may be somewhat challenged in November 2010.
And in a typical example of “you are judged by the company you keep” situation, she is supported by Rep. John Murtha, the ex-Marine who is always ready to dump on the Military. As the chairman of the House Appropriation Committee, Murtha described himself very “nervous” about an Afghani version of a troop surge. It is obvious that he feels politically vulnerable for his chances of re-election in 2010 (by the way, his challenger last November, retired Army Lt. Col. William Russell, gave him a good scare even without much of a campaign, to the point that George Soros had to pour millions in Murtha’s campaign), but Murtha remains uncommitted as he must not feel sure about the polls as Nancy is.
Then there is Senate Majority Harry Reid, who is basically in the fight of his life for his political future in Nevada. He trails against just about everybody, including the city of Phoenix dog catcher. The cadaverous Reid is keeping a very low profile and on the subject as he cautions everyone to hold judgment until Obama has spoken.

Besides the mentally ill Russ Feingold, who wants Obama to take all the troops out right now, there is Michigan Sen. Carl Levin who took the opportunity of the 8th anniversary of the September 11 attacks to regurgitate the same call to more training of Afghani forces, but also saying that without a similar to Iraq troop surge, he does not see any possibility to success in Afghanistan.
I can understand the conundrum the wanna-look-like-Benjamin Franklin Levin is in as he is senator of a state with the largest population of Middle Easterners in the country. Surely we do not want to upset the Muslims!

Arizona Sen. John McCain expressed his disapproval of the Democrats’ resistance to the need of more troops in Afghanistan. And this is a rare occasion where I actually agree with McCain, when he calls for a doubling of American troops in theater. It is only by having a greater presence that the Afghani population will, just as it happened in Iraq, feel that there are other alternatives to the Taliban. It is certain that the road to security is a long one in that country, where the presence of the central government has been mostly inexistent for years, especially in the most remote corners of the country.

So I would definitely agree with the proponents of a robust increase of troops in Afghanistan, also agreeing with Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen.
Few days back I watched a C-Span program where Mullen and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates were responding the questions of a group of journalists. As I watched, one of the answers Gates gave about a troop surge made me want to scream at him. I have respect for Mr. Gates, but I was disappointed by his reasoning behind his reluctance to increase troop level in Afghanistan.
His reasoning was that in his view, there is a blurred line between having enough troops on the ground to inspire the locals about security, and having too many troops alienating the population. He mentioned a comparison with the British presence of the last century and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s and 1990s.
I know Mr. Gates is a smart man and he sure is more informed than I could ever be, but comparing our current efforts in the remote areas of that country with British colonialism and especially with the brutal occupation directed by the Kremlin is really inconceivable.

And again the voices of defeatism resound from the halls of Congress with people like the Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, who expects a time limit on our mission in Afghanistan. Even if a classified answer is given to the proper entities in Congress regarding the strategic planning of our Military, it has been proven before that classified info is such only in name and leaks are the common operational occurrence in Washington. Mrs. Feinstein herself divulged a piece of classified information few months ago when she admitted that CIA and Special Forces UAV’s were operating from Pakistani soil in attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Just like so many liberals were eager to point out to any complacent media outlet they could find only few years ago about Iraq, Feinstein does not believe that our efforts in Afghanistan can be successful. Just as the Military families of those who served in Iraq were treated to such a level of defeatism, they are now treated to the same rhetoric about Afghanistan.

Moreover, from the Senate, Maine’s Susan Collins, the Republican Senator that never saw a liberal bill she did not like, stated that she is not sure that more troops are the solution in Afghanistan, and she said so after a whole two days spent in that country. The knowledge Sen. Collins gained from her two days visit will stump the assertions of McCrystal and Patreaus, Michael Yon and Bing West, and countless of officers and NCOs from the field who are hoping for more troops to get the job done. What these politicians are missing is that those personally involved in the conflict, those who fight it and those who personally cover it, and their families here at home, support the maximum effort possible because that is the only way to accomplish the mission and to shorten the times of our involvement. But these knowledgeable people in the field do not have a re-election problem.

And speaking of getting the mission accomplished, at times the strategic view overshadows the tactical one. And that is the case regarding the ROE (Rules Of Engagement) as they have been delineated by McCrystal, doubtless under direction from his superiors. From a strategic point of view, the current ROE are very sensible and heart warming: limit the civilian casualties and collateral damages at any cost. Sure this approach will sway some portion of the population, but the cost is potentially too high at the tactical level.
The NATO Military Command is investigating an incident early in the month when it appears that the new ROEs have cost the lives of four Marines in the Helmand Province. According to the allegations that gave thrust to the investigation, a group of Marines who were training Afghani troops was ambushed by a superior Taliban force. The Marines requested an artillery mission which was denied citing the risk of inflicting civilian casualties. The request, which appears to have been made several times, was also denied because air cover for these troops was supposed to be only five minutes away. In actuality, the helicopter gunships that rushed to the scene, took about one hour to reach the location and provide the air support needed. The refusal of artillery support and the delay of air cover resulted fatal for 4 Marines and 8 Afghani soldiers.
So yes the strategic side of the current ROE is positive and gives all the always important “feel good” sensation, but I personally find it hard to see that silver lining if my thoughts go to the families of those Marines who lost their lives and the families of all the Fallen.

My feeling of frustration is shared by many around the country and around the world. in the aftermath of the attack conducted by the Taliban against an Italian convoy in Kabul last week, a horrible suicide car bomb that took the lives of six Italian troopers and many more Afghani army and civilians, I recently found an editorial on the Italian Newspaper Corriere della Sera that basically delineated the feeling many of us in the US have. The author of the editorial, Sergio Romano, properly titled it The Cost of Ambiguity. In the article, Mr. Romano is asking the question of what is the real purpose of the presence of the Italian troops in Afghanistan. He is alluding to the Italian Constitution provision that renounces war, provision that was introduced just following the disastrous Italian adventure and defeat of WWII. Ever since the post-war era, Italy only deployed its Military as “peace troops” in locations like Lebanon and Kosovo and Iraq after America’s invasion. The point Mr. Romano is making is that national prestige may be enhanced by the military participation of Italian troops, but does not make good common sense to have “peace keeping troops” in a combat zone. If the troops are sent in hostile areas, where they can expect to be subjected to hostile activities, such troops should be trained, prepared and especially equipped for combat, regardless of the prevailing anti-war liberal sentiment of the country. In Sergio Romano’s view, doing anything less for the deployed soldiers, having a ambiguous approach to war is an insult to the nation and its fallen. And I could not agree more with the man.

I still support our mission in Afghanistan, but what I see in our pseudo leadership in Washington is an increasing ambiguity of intent. We don’t want to call it victory. We don’t want to call the enemy terrorist. We are suspending offensive operations on the UN Day of Peace. We are diluting our mission to the point that even the mission objective has become blurred. The politicians grandstand, using our Military as a political tool, while the families of those in harm’s way still live every day with the anxiety and concern. The last thing we want to witness from elected officials in Washington is defeatism and abuse of our sons and daughters in the name of re-election, and our wish, actually a demand, is that politicians stop playing politics with our children.


And these are my thoughts!
Frank “Semperpapa”