McChrystal Biddle [Update -- Sorry, I spaced on this and am just seeing my error now. My sincere apologies.] thinks Afghanistan isn’t the point in Afghanistan — stabilizing Pakistan is — and so we should devote the next 12 to 24 months to making some imperfect-but-clear-enough improvements in population security in select provinces like Khost, Kandahar and Helmand in order to see that through. What? Biddle even said that the parallel between Afghanistan and Vietnam is a "very important analogy to keep in mind." And he favors staying. Much as I can see the argument that these things are complicated and rhetorical strategy isn’t the same thing as actually winning an argument, when you see your own argument becoming, Well, this is kind of Vietnam-esque… that should really occasion a reconsideration of basic premises.
Then I read, via Michael, that commanders in McChrystal’s orbit are talking about counterinsurgency pretty much at the expense of counterterrorism.
Senior government officials said Bin Laden remained a prime target but that they needed to focus on fighting the Taliban.
"We might still be too focused on Bin Laden," the official said. "We should probably reassess our priorities."
As Michael says, Oy. There is a good case to be made that the ultimate goal of getting bin Laden and cutting off al-Qaeda’s actually-existing capabilities to project power depend on cleaving apart the bin Ladenist coalition on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; and that depends on, in part, militarily pressing that coalition to induce state-changes; and that depends on acquiring intelligence from the population preyed upon and passively supporting that coalition’s members (a point Biddle, in fairness, made); and that depends on attending to the population’s material goals — security, wealth, access to services. That is a counterinsurgency strategy for a counterterrorism objective. Among the reasons worth supporting that strategy is that not providing for the population stands a great chance of, well, failing in its counterterrorism aims. Why should the population support us, anyway, if we don’t give them a reason?
But there’s a big difference between that and a counterinsurgency strategy for a nation-building objective, and a still greater one between that and a counterinsurgency strategy for a prophylactic objective. The American people have never approved sending 68,000 troops to suffer for Hamid Karzai, and certainly never approved sending them to keep Pakistan from falling to the Taliban. (Which, by the way, seems like a distinctly unrealistic scenario, especially now that the Pakistani military moved into Swat. The Taliban-led insurgency is a threat to Pakistan. It’s not going to rule the country. Westerners have a tendency of predicting the imminent fall of Pakistan every five years or so.)
Perhaps I’m misreading what it is the people around McChrystal are saying, but it seems fair to say that the balance of evidence favors an interpretation that Afghanistan strategy is coming unmoored from the actual objectives of the war, and the actual interests at stake, and the White House is being either deluded or outright dishonest about what’s happening. "Our goal is to deal with the terrorist elements that are in that country and are making life for Afghans and potentially life for millions throughout the world more dangerous through their activities," Robert Gibbs said from the White House podium today. That is simply not what’s coming from McChrystal’s circle.
Aus-Rotten, "Vietnam Is Back." A killer song I jammed at 15 at ABC No Rio and as a sullen teenager. Sure, it sounds hysterical, but it’s hardcore day today and this was all I could think of while writing this post. I am taking tomorrow and Saturday off, and in my place you will find two very cool guestbloggers. I’ll let them introduce themselves. See you on Sunday. UP THE PUNX



43 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
You mean, in the 5th para, The Taliban-led insurgency is not a threat to pakistan.
Come on. In spite of the spin, we KNOW that the Pakistani army can shut down the taliban anytime they were actually a threat to Pakistan. They see India as the enemy, but that doesn’t mean they hate Pakistan, or are somehow becoming islamist in their worldview.
Pakistan is not under threat, and to the extent there’s an insurgency it’s being allowed to continue because it’s serving some larger strategic purpose. These guys have been playing occupation ju-jitsu for a few hundred years, and frankly, America sucks at boots on the ground power projection.
The American and NATO military presence in Afghanistan is entirely political, and it’s time for people to start questioning it on that basis, because it neither provides for American political NOR military growth.
Remember, ultimately Vietnam taught our military important post-WWII/Korea lessons. Fighters have to have guns. CAS is best performed from under 25,000 feet. Artillery is still the queen of the battlefield. Tanks have no place outside of open country. An armored vehicle is a poor excuse for a bunker. 5.56 isn’t sufficient outside of 150 meters.
Sadly, we’re not even learning anything of value in afpak, except that 1. military solutions to law enforcement/intel problems will fail spectacularly, and 2. counterinsurgency is hard, expensive, slow, fraught and a poor substitute for a coherent counterterror operation…
mikey
No, I mean it is a threat. It’s the threat that we rightfully think should preoccupy the Pakistanis’ time and concentrate their imagination. But it’s just not an existential threat.
I won’t know my opinion about this until Michael O’Hanlon weighs in.
And this would be another Vietnam except that we have a “voluntary army” (and Blackwater) and fewer casualties so average American-Joe/Jane just do not engage.
“The American and NATO military presence in Afghanistan is entirely financial, and it’s time for people to start questioning it on that basis, because it neither provides for American political NOR military growth.”
Sorry, a little editing on my part.
And I’m in agreement with you and Spencer fully . . . we’re not there to fight terrorism. We’re there, like we are in Iraq, and elsewhere, for natural resources, their distribution methods.
It’s war for the corporate feudal overlords of USA.
Strictly to control things that make people rich and powerful.
It’s not even ethnocentric, anymore . . . not that it ever was on our part. But in my teens in the 60’s I was blaming ethnocentrism and wave the flag for our useless foreign warring . . . I got wiser in my early 20’s . .
Jesus effing Christ, I would have thought that Vietnam was a lesson that had sunk in on everyone at the top of the military, if not on the effing politicians.
Clearly I was overestimating their ability to learn and remember anything less than total effing disaster affecting them personally.
Is he still working for Hillary?
The US military has this thing that they are going to be the first conventional force to defeat an insurgency supported by the indigenous population. I’ve said it for years, the military learned nothing about counterinsurgency from Viet Nam.
Vietnam turned out to NOT be a key natural resources item by the time the war wound down, and it turned out NOT to be a key location for distribution of resources or maritime access/byway . . . so the generals and pentagon don’t really care about the rest. There was no money to be made other than using and testing our weapons, and we’d done most of that for the MIC Profiteering . . . . Wall Street made a bundle. It was time to leave, no more money to be made . . .
The Middle East, and Af/Pak, now . . . . and the ‘Stans . . . there’s resources AND distribution routes to corral up. Hence our intense involvement, and increasingly larger role that’s bound to continue. Barring millions in the streets to bring it all home and fix our problems here. Like, jobs and restoring the middle class . . . but that’s not the goal for our 1%, who own it all, including the government and media, and such. Oh, our lives, they own our lives, and jobs, or lack of jobs, too.
I don’t see any of THAT change happening soon. Anyone else?
It is not a matter of not learning. It is a matter of greed.
Hey Larue-Did you get my email from Suz?
Sorry for OT.
I’m with that all the way. Short and sweet analysis.
SD, this is just not about the military. It’s about corporate control of resources and distribution of same.
The military is just an arm of profiteering. The pentagon doesn’t really expect to win stuff, or defeat enemies.
They exist only to make, sell and/or use stuff that makes money. And to ensure we control stuff that makes money in other countries. Like, heroin. Or oil. Gas. Distribution routes.
Always like your thoughts, not trying to put you down. Just sayin, the big lens is on corporate feudalism.
Always has been, it seems. Just business.
Not sure, short term memory loss . . . what was the subject? lol
Greed and power and control. Yes! Ma’am.
Military tactics are a separate issue. The US military very badly wants to prove that they can prevail militarily. The reason(s) we’re there are immaterial, tactically, to the generals in the Pentagon or on the ground. Not. Gonna. Happen.
I agree but see my 17.
Thanks SD, coming from you I really appreciate the nod as I’ve ALWAYS appreciated your thoughts and comments . . . *bows*
The only way they ever managed that was by committing genocide. And they lost more than a few people of their own in the process.
Really? Is the pentagon and military that far separated from how they are being wielded by the corporates?
I have just assumed they were willing partners in power and control and greed wrapped up in a facade of patriotism and macho valor . . . Honestly, I NEVER would have thought they really want to excel!!!!!
That excelling is a propaganda tool they use from top down to motivate I have always accepted but to think they actually WANT to excel? Never occurred to me . . .
yep, my bad . . . always a post or two behind . . .
No subject. I just changed my email and didn’t know if you had it. I asked Suz to send it to you.
The top military officers have been trained to fight and kill for most of their lives. Without it they don’t feel alive.
They like war because it makes them feel important and besides, if you have a military you have to use it so the troops get the practice. Right?
Ahhh . . . yep, and duly noted and executed!!!
Say howdy to hubby for me . . . you see my reply in older thread last night in regards to calorie counting and how to lose weight? I went on forever . . I can cut and paste it an email it to ya if ya want the info.
I’m down 27 lbs now in 40 days . .
Right outtta Dr. Strangelove . . . but doncha think that’s a bit old school nowadays?
The power and glory is tied to corporate sponsorship anymore.
The battlefield is but a facade to play it all out on?
I’m just not a happy camper tonite about CHANGE, and bringing war back into the list of failed reforms along with HC Reform Failure, is just pissin me off . . . and I’ve been WATCHING our Af/Pak adventures, too . . . so I KNOW what’s goin in in terms of what looks like escalation creepy . . . . and STILL Spencer’s post got me goin . . . . sorry if I’m a bit testy soundin . .
Once you get on the ground the world changes. It’s all about the mission. And stayin’ alive.
Part of the infinite loop. It’s all interconnected. We’re right back to the MIC with all it’s tentacles, finance, health care, prisons and the rest of it.
You can be testy if you want to.
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that. Testy gets folks up and movin’. Makes ‘em wanna change stuff an’ shit.
Jesus, how are ANY of these fucking people in these fucking countries a fucking THREAT to us, like actual invade or destroy us!? God this is just TOTAL endless murderous blunder after blunder idiocy fuckitude for profit, TOTAL HORSESHIT.
yep.
Left my manners in the other room. Thank you for your kind comments.
Yeah, that part I get . . . . that’s the part each and every individual soldier has a total cachet in.
Pride, and then, survival . . . . war is hell. We just shouldn’t need it any more . . . not with OUR nukes.
But business demands we send young men and women into places they know nothing about culturally, or politically. And we ask them to kill or be killed . . . . for the flag.
Same as it ever was . . . . only, it just shouldn’t BE anymore.
As a species, we’ve PROVEN war is outmoded . . . alas, the rich and few command the military. And the poor here, and there where ever we intervene, die. A lot.
Sigh.
Time to leap into my tree.
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Namaste
I’m sorry but the US military cannot be the first conventional army to defeat an insurgency.
Kitchener with the British Army did it in 1900/1901 against the Boers.
The British did it again in the Malaya Emergency in the 50’s/60s.
And if Kitchener with his realpolitik handn’t interfered in South Africa in ‘74 to prevent South Africa supporting the Rhodies, the Rohdesians would have flattened Mugabe.
Now THAT’S testy! Nice rant SB, I’m with ya all the way . . .
I’m not sure where exactly the separation occurs, or rather where the two worlds merge.
Namaste, SD, and thanks for your words.
I have been stating since this “war” started that this will be another vietnam.
we are not losing the soldiers we did in nam nor is their a draft and the chinese are paying for the war so americans care little about this war.
as long as the gas prices are low, and tv is available, and wal mart is open, and video games for the kids are updated, and the drugs keep flowing americans will not raise much of a peep.
it does not affect us at home. yet.
americans are imperialist in their hearts. now they dont know they are imperialists but look around the world everyone else knows we are but wont say it.
they want to sell us their stuff or want our money. ok our chinese money.
we have 700 military bases around the world if that alone is not the definition of imperialism what is.
we spend more on our industrial military complex than the rest of the industrialized world. they even control the major universities with their grants.
americans actually think these wars have something to do with their freedoms.
give credit where credit is due the industrial military complex and the capitalists are genius at controlling congress and the mass media.
the republic is failing fast but there is always hope.
I think this is right. We saw much the same in Iraq. Generals and battle plans are being substituted for policy.
Where does using economic development and education and healthcare change from being a counterinsurgency strategy to obtain a counter-terrorism objective to a counterinsurgency strategy to obtain a nation-building objective? I think that is where you start having mission creep–trying to clear insurgents and provide enough security to permit non-military aid to begin.
Also, there is a fundamental mismatch between strategy, doctrine, and training in the US military. This is demonstrated in the military’s inability to grasp the fact killing civilians are major setbacks. The troops actually doing the job do not (or maybe it’s just impossible to do that contradictory a training objective) see the world in anything other than everyone foreign is an enemy. And as occupiers, positively everyone is foreign. They’ve not been trained in the language; they don’t understand the culture. Once again, it seems that the whole idea of counterinsurgency warfare using the military is invalid and the source of major tragedy.
McChrystal’s “success” in Iraq should have not been the reason to put him in Afghanistan; there is too much temptation for him to be fighting the last war (Iraq) in Afghanistan, in which the terrain helps and impedes military action in a different way from that in Iraq.
Finally, the commander-in-chief needs to see the mission creep going on and refocus the effort on counter-terrorism.
It really was a law enforcement issue from the beginning.
How much of this is due to two factors? First, the floodgates on information and attention got opened with the change of administration, and the military is flopping around trying to figure out how to deal with all the complexities they didn’t know about or couldn’t talk about before. Second, the one mentality that hasn’t changed in the whole affair is the failure to discuss the fact that our military doesn’t competently do the things that need to be done. The agencies that did, like USAID, were largely dismantled during the last administration because they hated them.
McChrystal is the head of the ISAF/NATO operation. That operation’s goals are nation building, it’s in their documentation taking them into Afghanistan. They never were there to fight terrorism, that was Operation Enduring Freedom, whose quarry hasn’t been in Afghanistan for years.
And the U.S. is virtually the only country in the ISAF that never went to it’s legislature or parliament and obtained overt permission to be part of the nation building mission.