NO MORE AFGHANISTANS
Those who do not learn from history will not survive! Afghanistan: The very definition of "insanity."
By J.M. Hamilton (Originally Published 7-31-2010)
This week’s editorial was going to address our soaring debt to GDP ratios and the political party that is largely responsible, the Republicans; but there is much time, an ever growing cascade of bad news to exploit in that endeavor, and the political season in on the horizon, so we’ll save that gem for later.
Instead, we depart from economic matters and discuss something very close to my heart: foreign policy and in particular, the war in Afghanistan. It appears that things are not going so well in Afghanistan, not as well anyway, as we had been led to believe. In fact, if we compare this war with another war without end that the U.S. was engaged in forty to fifty years ago, the parallels are remarkably similar, almost frightening. And while the outcome of the Afghanistan war is not preordained, we can almost predict the outcome, if the prior war is any example: a mighty superpower proclaiming victory but severely humbled, walking off the world stage, and learning, hopefully (for a generation anyway), the limits of military power. For war, as Mr. Clausewitz has told us, is an extension of politics, and therefore, war is not a means to an end. It is but a tool in our political arsenal.
The problem with our present war, like the war the U.S. was engaged in some forty years ago, is that the U.S. is using conventional forces to fight a guerilla insurgency. Like the war in Indochina, the benefactor of the insurgency against the U.S. is a nuclear power(s); and while the indigenous populations in both wars disliked the guerilla forces, they grew to have an even greater disdain for U.S. military operations over time. This week saw the release of a substantial body of secret military information in the form of the Wikileaks documents, illustrating that the American people have been deceived about the realities of the Afghan war. And like the papers released this week, the New York Times published similar documents in the form of the “Pentagon Papers” in 1971, revealing the same information about that war. Meanwhile, the American people’s appetite for the war in Afghanistan is eroding over time, and patience is wearing thin as the body count grows.
History repeats.
In both wars military and political goals have been nebulous and changing over time. Towards the end of the earlier war, President Nixon set the goal of “vietnamization,” so that South Vietnam would learn to care for and defend itself. Sound familiar? Nixon also set time tables for troop withdrawals, as has our current President. For entirely different reasons, both wars led its respective military commanders to go home in shame and defeat: Westmoreland and McChrystal. What the U.S. came to find out at the end of the Vietnam War was that the world went on for America; the enemy did not take over the world, and in fact collapsed upon itself over time, in the form of the Soviet Union. In a similar fashion, if America pulled out of Afghanistan tomorrow, would America crumble and implode? Probably quite the opposite.
So who do we turn to then for some expert guidance on our present predicament? Well that would be none other than the master statesman himself, the sly one, Richard M. Nixon. Hold on, hold on, before you shut down your computer or toggle onto the next site, hear me out. Mr. Nixon, despite personal failings, was a brilliant foreign policy expert. Some would say President Nixon was deeply paranoid, but you’d be paranoid too, if the Kennedy clan stole your 1960 presidential bid. Besides, given the economic events that have unfolded in the U.S. and world economy over the last five years, what is paranoid? Not even your worst nightmares can compare to this Kafkaesque economic dreamscape America presently exists in, brought to us all by the fine folks at Goldman Sachs, the FED, the U.S. Treasury, and AIG, Et Al. But I digress.
Back to the man, the war, and the lessons not learned. Upon leaving the White House under less than auspicious circumstances, Mr. Nixon set about cleaning up his image and he wrote several books. Quite possibly one of the more obscure books Mr. Nixon wrote was called: No More Vietnams. And within it, Mr. Nixon laid down some very salient advice and counsel in conducting U.S. foreign policy, and in particular, the manner in which the U.S. military is to be utilized to further America’s political aims and goals. Let’s cut to the chase, shall we.
Former President Nixon wrote, and I paraphrase:
1) Wars must only be engaged in with the support of the American people and the Congress of the United States.
2) Military force should only be utilized as a last resort, and it must be used sparingly.
3) The President must be highly selective in the use of force.
4) Military goals and objectives should be clearly defined and achievable, and the objectives vital to our national interest.
5) There should be only one overriding goal for the U.S. military and that is: Absolute Victory!
Funny, Mr. Nixon didn’t place “nation building” on the list, which apparently was one of Mr. Bush’s goals, or came to be one of his goals over time, in Afghanistan. To hear Mr. Holbrook (special ambassador to Afghanistan and Pakistan) state it: the Bush administration’s "mission statement" for Afghanistan had been much more ambitious than the goal set by the Obama White House.
Sounds like nation building then, shouldn’t be the job of a single nation, or the U.S. military for that matter, but rather the duty of an international body, with International support and funding.
The bottom line is politicians do the U.S. military, and the United States overall, a tremendous disservice when we assign irrational goals and objectives to the men and women in uniform. The first President Bush (H.W.) recognized all of President’s Nixon’s objectives, laid out above, in the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War it was: Veni, vidi, vici !!! And then you pull the military out, and let the politicians and diplomats set the parameters, hopefully, of a lasting, or at least well monitored, peace.
Based upon our lessons in Vietnam and with” vietnamization,” our activities in Afghanistan appear irrational, and nearly meet the definition of insanity. And this is meant as no insult to the Afghan people, but attempting to turn people – with a rudimentary culture, education (if any) and economy – into democrats, overnight, would appear to meet that definition. The U.S. military, the most effective military the world has ever seen, could spend four decades in Afghanistan and might never achieve the Bush mission statement. Mr. Bush then, maybe with the best of intentions, set up our troops to fail with his goal of nation building; the former president might as well as told the U.S. military to capture and defeat the wind.
As for vital U.S. interests, the military goal was clear after 9-11, and the U.S. military achieved that goal in a matter of weeks, when Osama Bin Ladin was last seen running from Tora Bora and heading into Pakistan. Done. From that point on, the U.S. should have held its so-called ally, Pakistan, personally responsible for any and all terrorist activities against the U.S. or its citizens. Because, as the leaks revealed this week, and as we all have known for some time, Pakistan plays a large role in providing safe haven, intelligence, support, and initiating the actions of destabilizing/terrorist forces in the region. The problematic forces all receive support inside Pakistan, within the state of Warizstan.
In 1985, Mr. Nixon, a man ahead of his time, said it best: “Terrorism today is an international challenge to an international order, and it requires an international response.”
Terrorism is not a war, in the conventional sense, but a cancer that has to be treated at multiple levels, on an on-going basis, within a society in turmoil: politically, diplomatically, economically, spiritually, educationally, and culturally. And yes, terrorism must be addressed when called upon, through the proxy arm of God herself, via U.S. military or NATO forces. How do terrorist gain a foothold in a society(?), by responding to a vacuum, by providing the humanitarian and basic services that any decent government should be providing, to any group of people in a state of malaise or chaos. Hamas in Gaza is a case study in point.
Based upon Mr. Nixon’s good guidance then, the U.S. military had already achieved victory in Afghanistan. Nation building, and policing up the region, should be taken up by the U.N. and financed by the world. Mr. Bush’s goal, in its present form, of building a modern democracy within Afghanistan is an abject failure, and a reflection on him, Dick Cheney, and his cohorts, the Republican Party. The Second Bush administration, unlike his father before him, had no exit strategy in the region, and the same, probably, could be said of his administration’s goals and aims in Iraq. (By the way, this dichotomy, Nixon/Elder Bush versus Cheney/Younger Bush, establishment Republican versus the Neo-cons, is the clearest example of what is wrong with the Republican Party today, and the reason why so many members have fled and independents are turned off.)
It goes without saying that the U.S. owes this man a debt, but Mr. Bush, in particular, as does the Republican Party, owes General Patraeus an everlasting debt of gratitude. However, at a time of record federal debt, unemployment/underemployment in excess of 20% (per Shadow Government Statistics), the time and place for nation building is now, and right here at home, in America. A long and sustained parting shot inside Waziristan by the U.S. Air Force, as the U.S. military pulls up tent stakes in Afghanistan, just might deliver the message that Pakistan needs. And that is Pakistan will be held accountable for any and all terrorist activities within the region, or that initiate from its borders, globally.
If Pakistan wants to play big boy politics with proxy forces and nukes, then they need to join the international order, and stop acting like some third world thug – dictatorship. President Nixon was right, the last thing the U.S. needs is anymore Vietnams, but unfortunately, President Bush set the U.S. up with a beauty of a Vietnam within Afghanistan!
Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment