\u201cThese two visions, one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life, clashed in Afghanistan. And thanks to brave US and coalition forces and to Afghan patriots, the nightmare of the Taliban is over and that nation is coming to life again.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2013 George W. Bush, The War College Address, 2004<\/p>\n
Not so fast, George.<\/p>\n
The United States hasn\u2019t liberated Afghanistan. It hasn\u2019t rebuilt Afghanistan. It hasn\u2019t removed the warlords from power, curtailed opium production, established strong democratic institutions, or improved life for ordinary working people. The US hasn\u2019t achieved any of its strategic objectives. The Taliban are stronger than ever, the central government is a corrupt farce, and, after 11 years of war, the country is in a shambles.<\/p>\n
This is what defeat looks like. The US military has been defeated by a poorly-armed militia which has demonstrated a superior grasp of modern warfare and asymmetric engagement. The Taliban has shown that they are more adaptable, more motivated, and smarter. That\u2019s why they prevailed. That\u2019s why they beat the world\u2019s most celebrated army.<\/p>\n
Americans don\u2019t like to hear that kind of talk. They\u2019re very proud of their military and are willing to pay upwards of $1 trillion per year to keep it outfitted in the most advanced weaponry on earth. But weapons don\u2019t win wars, neither does propaganda. If they did, the US would have won long ago, but they don\u2019t. What wins wars is tactics, operations, and strategy, and that\u2019s where the emphasis must be if one expects to succeed.. Here\u2019s an excerpt from an article by William S. Lind explaining why the US mission in Afghanistan failed:<\/p>\n
\u201cA general rule of warfare is that a higher level trumps a lower, and technique is the lowest level of all. Our SEALs, Rangers, Delta, SF, and all the rest are vastly superior to the Taliban or al-Qaeda at techniques. But those opponents have sometimes shown themselves able at tactics, operations, and strategy. We can only defeat them by making ourselves superior at those higher levels of war. There, regrettably, Special Operations Forces have nothing to offer. They are just another lead bullet in an obsolete Second Generation arsenal.\u201d (\u201cWhat\u2019s so special about Special Ops?\u201d, William S. Lind, The American Conservative)<\/p>\n
The US military\u2019s high-tech gadgetry and pilotless drones merely disguise the fact that America is still fighting the last war and hasn\u2019t adapted to the new reality. Here\u2019s more from Lind expanding on the same theory:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe greatest intellectual challenge in Fourth Generation war\u2014war against opponents that are not states\u2014is how to fight it at the operational level. NATO in Afghanistan, like the Soviets three decades ago, has been unable to solve that riddle. But the Taliban appears to have done so\u2026.<\/p>\n
The Soviet army focused its best talent on operational art. But in Afghanistan, it failed, just as we have failed. Like the Soviets, we can take and hold any piece of Afghan ground. And doing so brings us, like the Soviets, not one step closer to strategic victory. The Taliban, by contrast, have found an elegant way to connect strategy and tactics in decentralized modern warfare.<\/p>\n
What passes for NATO\u2019s strategy is to train sufficient Afghan forces to hold off the Taliban once we pull out. The Taliban\u2019s response has been to have men in Afghan uniform\u2014 many of whom actually are Afghan government soldiers or police\u2014turn their guns on their NATO advisers. That is a fatal blow against our strategy because it makes the training mission impossible. Behold operational art in Fourth Generation war\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n
The Taliban know this technique is operational, not just tactical. They can be expected to put all their effort into it. What counter do we have? Just order our troops to pretend it is not happening\u2014to keep trusting their Afghan counterparts. That order, if enforced, will put our soldiers in such an untenable position that morale will collapse.\u201d (\u201cUnfriendly Fire\u201d, William S. Lind, The American Conservative)<\/p>\n
Lind does not underestimate the Taliban or dismiss them as \u201cignorant goat herders\u201d. In fact, he appears to admire the way they have mastered 4-G warfare and routed an enemy that has vastly superior technology, communications and firepower. It helps to prove his basic thesis that tactics, operations, and strategy are what matter most.<\/p>\n
For more than a decade, the Taliban have been carrying out an impressive guerrilla war frustrating attempts by the US to establish security, hold ground or expand the power of the central (Karzai) government. In the last year, however, the militia\u2019s efforts have paid off as so-called \u201cgreen on blue\u201d shootings\u2013where coalition troops have been killed by Afghan soldiers or policemen\u2013have dashed US plans to maintain a client regime in Kabul when US combat operations end and American troops withdraw. The Taliban found the weak-link in the Pentagon\u2019s strategy and has used it to full advantage. \u201cAs American Security Project Central and South Asia specialist Joshua Foust puts it, \u2018The training mission is the foundation of the current strategy. Without that mission, the strategy collapses. The war is adrift, and it\u2019s hard to see how anyone can avoid a complete disaster at this point.\u2019\u201d (\u201cThe Day we lost Afghanistan\u201d, The National Interest)<\/p>\n
TIME TO CUT AND RUN?<\/p>\n
The persistent green on blue attacks have convinced US and NATO leaders that the war cannot be won which is why President Barack Obama has decided to throw in the towel. Here\u2019s a clip from a speech Obama gave in May at a NATO confab in Chicago:<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think that there is ever going to be an optimal point where we say, this is all done, this is perfect, this is just the way we wanted it and now we can wrap up all our equipment and go home\u2026Our coalition is committed to this plan to bring our war in Afghanistan to a responsible end.\u201d<\/p>\n
The political class is calling it quits. They\u2019ve decided to cut their losses and leave. Here\u2019s how the New York Times summed it up:<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan\u2026it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan \u2026.. It should not take more than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama\u2019s narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm\u2026.<\/p>\n
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure \u201clogistical withdrawal,\u201d but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014 Afghan election, seems dubious at best \u2026<\/p>\n
\u2026the idea of fully realizing broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive\u2026.More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not \u201ccome back in..<\/p>\n
Post-American Afghanistan is likely to be more presentable than North Korea, less presentable than Iraq and perhaps about the same as Vietnam. But it fits the same pattern of damaging stalemate. We need to exit as soon as we safely can.<\/p>\n
America\u2019s global interests suffer when it is mired in unwinnable wars in distant regions.\u201d (\u201cTime to Pack Up\u201d, New York Times)<\/p>\n
Notice how the Times fails to mention the War on Terror, al Qaida, or Bin Laden, all of which were used to garner support for the war. What matters now is \u201cAmerica\u2019s global interests\u201d. That\u2019s quite a reversal, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n
What happened to the steely resolve to fight the good fight for as long as it takes; to liberate Afghan women, to spread democracy to far-flung Central Asia, and to crush the fanatical Taliban once and for all? Was it all just empty posturing aimed at ginning up the war machine and swaying public opinion?<\/p>\n
And look how easy it is for the Times to do a 180 when just months ago they were trying to persuade readers that we should hang-in-there to protect Afghan women. Take a look at this August 2012 editorial titled \u201cThe Women of Afghanistan\u201d:<\/p>\n
\u201cAfghanistan can be a hard and cruel land, especially for women and girls. Many fear they will be even more vulnerable to harsh tribal customs and the men who impose them after American troops withdraw by the end of 2014.<\/p>\n
Womens\u2019 rights have made modest but encouraging gains over the past decade. But these could disappear without a strong commitment to preserve and advance them from Afghan leaders, Washington and other international partners\u2026.<\/p>\n
\u2026all Afghans should be invested in empowering women. As Mrs. Clinton has argued, there is plenty of evidence to show that no country can grow and prosper in today\u2019s world if women are marginalized and oppressed.\u201d (\u201cThe Women of Afghanistan\u201d, New York Times)<\/p>\n
Ahh, but lending a hand to \u201cmarginalized and oppressed\u201d women doesn\u2019t really hold a candle to \u201cAmerica\u2019s global interests\u201d, now does it? As one might expect, the Times most heartfelt feelings are shaped by political expediency. In any event, the Times tacit admission proves that the war was never really about liberating women or spreading democracy or even killing bin Laden. It was about \u201cAmerica\u2019s global interests\u201d, particularly, pipeline corridors, mineral extraction and the Great Game, controlling real estate in thriving Eurasia, the economic center of the next century. That\u2019s why the US invaded Afghanistan, the rest is propaganda.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s one other glaring omission in the Times article that\u2019s worth noting. The editors tiptoe around the one word that most accurately summarises the situation: Defeat. The United States is not leaving Afghanistan voluntarily. It was defeated. The US military was defeated in the same way that the IDF was defeated by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, by underestimating the tenacity, the skill, the ferocity, the adaptability, and the intelligence of their adversary. That\u2019s why Israel lost the war in Lebanon. And that\u2019s why the US lost the war in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a reason why the media won\u2019t use the term defeat however applicable it may be. It\u2019s because your average \u201cJoe\u201d understands defeat, the shame of defeat, the sting of defeat, the anger of defeat. Defeat is a repudiation of leadership, proof that we are ruled by fools and scoundrels. Defeat is also a powerful deterrent, the idea festers in people\u2019s minds and turns them against foreign interventions, police actions and war. That\u2019s why the Times won\u2019t utter the word, because defeat is the antidote for aggression, and the Times doesn\u2019t want that. None of the media do.<\/p>\n
But the truth is, the United States was defeated in Afghanistan. If we can grasp that fact, then maybe can stop the next war before it gets started.<\/p>\n
Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThese two visions, one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life, clashed in Afghanistan. And thanks to brave US and coalition forces and to Afghan patriots, the nightmare of the Taliban is over and that nation is coming to life again.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2013 George W. Bush, The War College Address, 2004<\/p>\n Not so fast, George. This is what defeat looks like. Continue reading
\nThe United States hasn\u2019t liberated Afghanistan. It hasn\u2019t rebuilt Afghanistan. It hasn\u2019t removed the warlords from power, curtailed opium production, established strong democratic institutions, or improved life for ordinary working people. The US hasn\u2019t achieved any of its strategic objectives. The Taliban are stronger than ever, the central government is a corrupt farce, and, after 11 years of war, the country is in a shambles.<\/p>\n