“I think we put all our eggs in the Petraeus basket at this stage.” – Sen. Diane Feinstein (on Fox News Sunday)
Fire the ambassador!
Fire Richard Holbrooke!
That was Sen. Feinstein, saying that if there’s a problem and Gen. Petraeus can’t work with certain elements of the civilian leadership they should be “changed.”
Now, that may be so considering where we now find ourselves in Afghanistan, but it further illustrates the dire straights of our strategy. Never mind that Feinstein’s quote at the top was what Pres. Obama and the administration was hoping to hear. In fact, it’s what they’re counting on from the political establishment on both sides.
Play while reading.
As someone who’s supported Pres. Obama since the beginning on Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal made it clear that we’re floundering our way to a very bad end. Sebastian Junger spoke for me today, especially on ethnic minorities, but also regarding the women of Afghanistan, with Tom Ricks, Gen. McCaffrey and others today on “Meet the Press,” the entire conversation important. Possibilities for short-term progress in Afghanistan, though I never bought the notion of “winning,” now lie in the rubble of McChrystal’s career. Not because he was the only man who could “succeed,” but because through COIN, and because the Afghan country and culture itself, there is no way to impact the progress needed in the time the American people will allot for the mission. Simply put, this is a 15-year effort, with Obama in year two; because you can’t count the Bush-Cheney years after 2003, which is when it all began to unravel, as did any hope of salvaging the country on our terms, though you could argue that was none of our business from the beginning. It’s simply up to the Afghans, with whatever we can do now never going to amount to what was once possible.
It’s the real reason why Gen. McChrystal’s stunning Rolling Stone interview was so explosive. Beyond the insubordination and the atmosphere MsChrystal allowed to rise around him from his staff, there is simply no way a military man as seasoned, gifted and tested as he was would have vented if the situation over which he had command wasn’t in horrible shape, in fact, deteriorating uncontrollably.
Fast track nation building through COIN is an abysmal failure; nation building being the primary event underway. If you don’t take anything away from McChrystal’s implosion that much should be clear. I’ve never bought the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan canard, because they’re in Pakistan, with Leon Panetta reiterating the reality today on “This Week.” Being part of the Vietnam generation, I also have always believed the Taliban will just wait us out, so the fact that Karzai will eventually bring even the worst aspects of this fundamentalist force into his government has to be reconciled. We’ll simply never stay long enough to tilt the culture away from the Taliban. The “Runaway General” article pointed to the fact that Biden’s CT-plus is evidently enjoying wider acceptance (mentioned before). The mounting casualties are part of why COIN is not succeeding, but also points to the general strategy (no pun intended) not working.
It gets back to the old saying that you don’t teach an old dog new tricks, which isn’t exactly true, because given enough time you can make headway. Correlated to the U.S. military deployed in Afghanistan and implementing COIN strategy, the challenge is that Afghanistan is one of the most unruly, unsophisticated and untamed areas in the world, with corruption rampant and drug trafficking prolific, while being rich in all sorts of exploitable resources. Simply put, we’re asking our military to fight warlords and insurgents with one hand tied behind their backs; putting civilian casualties above their own safety, though I’m not saying COIN is failing because we’re not killing enough people.
From Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal:
We should go out of our way to protect civilians in Afghanistan, but if in doing so it undermines the war effort there or leads to likely failure then we shouldn’t take the gloves off – we should adopt a new strategy that takes into account the actual capabilities of our armed forces. The question at hand is whether US troops are properly trained, equipped, resources and supported to carry out a COIN mission in Afghanistan. If their experience over the past six months is any indication – it appears they aren’t.
Cohen’s the national security expert, I just meet him on the foreign policy meets the political landscape, but I think he misses something here, though his analysis is always terrific. The truth is that COIN is failing because, as McChrystal revealed, the military, diplomatic and civilian components, which in Afghanistan reveal a cultural and reality chasm miles wide, prohibits the intersection of critical aspects of COIN in order to make it successful, particularly given the time frame strictures. Afghanistan and America are miles apart in every respect.
Many aren’t getting this. There is a very odd article in the Washington Post today that brings up interesting points while proving my point. It seems everyone is puzzled and alarmed about the turnover in high command. The writer of the piece, Greg Jaffe asks this question: For the military, this record of mediocrity raises a vexing question: What is wrong with the system that produces top generals? The setting for the question is the Afghan and Iraq wars.
Well, how about that these two wars and the missions in each were wrong in the first place? Civilian diplomatic missions are also confusing when you’re armed to the teeth and told to walk softly; you don’t carry a gun in dangerous territory without being ready to fire if challenged. (If someone comes into my home unannounced, I’m not going to ask any questions or pause for explanation.) In war that means offense; so perhaps war means war and fighting men shouldn’t be asked to do missions that are loosely defined and merge military force with diplomacy in a land where Afghans have relatives who are Taliban. Afghanistan was a righteous war after 9/11, but once Bush took his eye off the target to focus on Iraq, at the same time as Gen. Tommy Franks let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, anything we might have accomplished slipped through our fingers. Iraq was quite simply the largest misadventure in U.S. history.
As for where we stand today, just days before Gen. Petraeus’ confirmation hearing the facts are stark. Maybe what we’re trying would have worked before Bush-Cheney walked away and let Afghanistan unravel. But the simple truth I’ve come to after supporting Pres. Obama’s efforts from the start is that it can’t work as currently prescribed, which is another reason for the choice of Gen. Petraeus. It’s nakedly obvious. Still, when I look out on July 2011 as a drawdown target, with McChrystal’s revelations and the failure of COIN in Afghanistan clear, nobody has proven the longer timetable required is worth more U.S. blood and treasure.
We can thank Gen. McChrystal, not only for his service to our country, but for his rant in Rolling Stone for finally stripping the bark off the battle. We learned a very important thing about what we’re doing in Afghanistan through his career-ending candor.
It’s over. …unless we commit for a 15 years, which we won’t, because there isn’t the political or civilian will. But as Tom Ricks rightly said today, just because you walk out of a movie doesn’t mean it’s over.
Well, it is over and has been for a couple of years at least. My Afghan source tells me the Afghans right now see us as once-welcome guests who have overstayed their visit considerably. Also, they know that whenever we decide to have an offensive in an area, life becomes disrupted in a way we cannot comprehend. We Americans get bent out of shape when our bathroom is being remodeled. Imagine a situation where the visit coincided with people shooting at each other, and forcing you to take sides. This same source, who worked very hard from the start on issues like building schools, etc., says that his many Afghan friends just tell him — “leave, just leave. We will settle all this ourselves.” Kandahar isn’t happening because of a people’s revolt. My source also tells me he thinks that maybe in ten years or so, we could go back on a limited basis, when hopefully the civil war there is resolved.
Like I said in another post, I would have never believed we been in Afganistan this long. I am just worried about our troops as well as the women in Afganistan and hope they don’t go back to the taliban ways where women were subjected to horrible things. Its hard enough for women right now so I could not imagne what it would be like if women were brought back to the taliban days.
I listened to Ricks and Junger today. Plus a heap of other people. They all had differing opinions on different matters. Except one. Each of them agreed that the United States would be involved in one way or another in the Middle East until we stopped using oil to power our economy. That is the key issue to emerge from McChrystal’s flame out. Only diehard warmongers like McCain still believe that Afghanistan is the “good war” and must be fought to the bitter end. For everybody else it’s come down to this: how can we get everyone to stop fighting long enough for the U.N. and American forces to go home without looking too stupid? The Pakistani ISI said the other day that they could deliver the Haqqani Network to Karzai. Obama should forget about trying to tame Kandahar, hell we can’t even bring Marjah under our control, and take the Pakistanis up on their offer. It’s long past time to give up on this fool’s errand of a war begun by people (bush/Cheney) as a stepping stone to settle old scores in Iraq. Peace
It seems like the attitude of the military has been its COIN or nothing, which would seem to imply that we have no plan B other than to leave.
I agree with Taylor- the military can’t be expected to nation build with so few troops (given the size of the country and what they are up against). The biggest weakness in this whole COIN strategy is that it would seem to assume that we have a credible partner in the Afghan government, which we don’t. I don’t know how we get around that and it seems that while the issue is mentioned, when members of our elite media have an admin. official in front of them for an interview, they don’t cut right to the chase about this. We have men and women dying while Karzai makes asshat statements about siding with the Taliban and other such nonsense. Of course, we annointed Karzai, which another frustration. We have this tendency to create problems (Saddam, The Shah of Iran, etc.) and then make even more of a mess cleaning them up.
Taylor, I do appreciate all your time and efforts on the war in Afghanistan in general.
Reading here and various other places, it seems that while McChrystal’s methods were very poor, his actions (whatever his intentions) helped reveal how very bad the policy is. Except that Obama says this is a personnel, not a policy, change, which seems to mean that however politically smart his appointment of Petraeus is thought to be, Obama has signaled he expects the newly appointed general to carry on with the same strategies for the same mission.
And if (and “when”) enough of “we the people’ say “Enough!”; and if and when the Elites (Elected and military) acknowledge this is no more winnable than Viet Nam, will the goal then be to do a better job of leaving, avoid the “last helicopters to get out” fiasco? That’s complicated by the whole access to oil reserves thing, of course.
Meanwhile, and as usual, the people of Afghanistan who live in the daily world of war are left with the worst consequences, and servicemembers and families take the brunt of the impact on this nation.
imhotep, My guess is that either your not a woman or you just don’t care about the Afghan women. We have promised help for those individuals. American gets these folks to help us and then we leave them to suffer the consequences of our leaving. Yes, many American young men will die defending these women…my guess is that if you ask any young american soldier if they will defend these women’s right to an education, and a life,most would give their lives for them.
You are so willing to throw in the towel on this war, that it sometimes amazes me that you live in this country and are in a place where you are safe that you could care less about those who arent.
I suppose that your analysis could be more superficial. Although I don’t know how? Does your concern for the rights of women extend to Saudi Arabia? How about Jordan or Yemen or right here in the good old US of A? Should we invade and occupy every country on earth that treats its women less equally than it does its men? Your hearts in the right place dsue, but the warmongers have taken control of your ability to reason. Peace
Imhotep – Is it possible for you to make a comment without belittling the person to whom you are responding?
dsue is not being “superficial.”
No one cares about your judgments. Just make your point without belittling people.
I just wish we could airlift the women and children out of the country and then let the men fight it out.
Out of every country that mistreats women and children? Or just out of Afghanistan? There are more widows and orphans in Afghanistan now than there were before we invaded the place 10 years ago. And there were far too many of them then. I suppose one could argue that by killing off every man in Afghanistan the result would be positive for all the remaining women in that country. Or not? Certain problems defy solutions. But trying to wash out blood with blood is impossible. Peace
We went into Afghanistan to get Al Qaida out of there. Paneta says we have. Time to leave. Imhotep has a point that we cant (and shouldnt) use our military to improve humnan rights throughout the world…unless we intend to defeat everyone and impose our will everywhere.
It has nothing to do with whether I care about Afghan women. We really need to rethink our priorities.