Posted by
Patrick Henry on Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:28:18 PM
So what should the United States of America have learned from its sundry wars,
what is the prognosis of the current conflict in Afghanistan, and what principles
should guide us in deciding whether and how to fight in the future? That's a longer
discussion than this post will allow, but here are some shorthand observations.
1. We have to get better at calculating what wars will cost and how they will be
paid for. While the nation teeters on the brink of the deficit abyss, we have poured
trillions into the wars in the Middle East, for a modest return. Before going "all in"
to defeat an enemy, America must calculate realistically the costs of doing so, and
argue openly for the shared national sacrifice necessary to win.
2. We have to get better at defining what constitutes "winning" in any conflict in
which we choose to engage. Is it vanquishing a dictator or depriving a dangerous
enemy of armaments that can threaten our homeland, or is it a limited mission to
protect a population until danger abates, or to drive out an unwelcome invader?
Unless we can better define winning, there is no way of knowing when we're done,
and that's what frustrates and demoralizes the citizens whose morale and goodwill
are necessary to military success and unneccessarily costs American lives.
3. We must admit when we have miscalculated or made an error in judgment. Had
we withdrawn from Iraq the moment we learned there were no weapons of mass
destruction, an all-out civil war would have resulted. Because we stayed, the limited
civil war there claimed most of the American lives lost in the entire misadventure.
If we cannot clearly define winning in Afghanistan and commit the resources to do it,
then we should cut our losses and get out now.
4. We have to get far more realistic about what is possible. The notion that a western
style democracy can flourish in Iraq or Afghanistan is historical and cultural wishful
thinking of the most naive kind. Even now, the Iraqis cannot seem to form a consensus
government, nor will the historically and culturally tribal Afghans be able to do it. In a
part of the world where human life remains cheap and corruption is the rule rather than
the exception, America continues to insist on playing baseball by cricket rules. It is
madness!
5. If we continue to decimate enemies and then assume financial responsibility
for rebuilding their damaged infrastructure, our wars will bankrupt us even faster
than Obama and his Democratic congress (which is saying a lot). If we insist on
bombing enemies back to the stone age, then we must accept the painful chore
of watching them rebuild from that point, on their own. The argument that if we
don't help them they will hate us, or that our enemies will move into the vacuum
to establish a new foothold simply no longer washes, because they seem do that
anyway. It makes absolutely no sense to borrow money from the Chinese to help
the Iraqis, who are sitting on trillions in oil, rebuild their country. If that flies in he
face of conventional diplomatic and political wisdom, it is because that so-called
"wisdom" is a stinking pile of irrational garbage and it's time to admit it.
6. It is necessary to re-think the "axis of evil." With respect, George W. Bush,
while right in concept, was wrong in identifying the points of the axis. North Korea,
Iraq and Iran are and were "small potatoes." The real players are Radical Islam,
Russia and China. In spite of the presidential lockjaw about the Islamists, they remain
the foremost short-term threat to American national security. It is a fatal error to
understand jihad as either the benign struggle described by presidential security
advisor Brennan or as a short-term phenomenon limited to al Qaeda alone. Islam's
principal jihad is to impose sharia law and establish a worldwide caliphate by peace-
ful means if possible, but through violence if not. That won't go away if we capture
or kill bin Laden and Alzawahiri, and the persistent attempt to confront it will main-
tain a constant state of tension, sometimes breaking out into open war, between the
west and the Islamic nations of the Middle and Far East. While the Russians and
Chinese play at "nice" in the context of the United Nations or in White House "burger
summits," they continue to spy on us, undermine our attempts to corral rogue nations
of whom they remain principal patrons and supply those nations with both armaments
and economic assistance designed to break sanctions and cause heavy U.S. investment
in countermeasures. American leaders need to go back to the grammar school of
enemy identification, and then start shooting straight with the American people.
7. Finally, America needs to "man up" on national security. Between the no-profiling
whiners, the open borders freaks and the political apology tours, two deadly trends are
developing apace. We are being infiltrated and overrun by illegal immigrants who
include among their number both terrorists and spies, on the one hand, and our slide
toward disarmament and determination to deal, through, diplomacy, with those who
will not honestly engage, is leaving us more vulnerable by the day. The START
treaty constitutes further nuclear disarmament, with woefully inadequate verification
measures to assure that the Russians are doing the same. Our nuclear arsenal and
delivery systems have not been upgraded in years. Are we even certain that they
still work? Recently China announced final development of a surface-to-surface
missile that can sink a nuclear aircraft carrier at a distance of 900 miles with a
single blast. Where's ours? Obama's fantasyland economics has led us to the brink
of national bakruptcy. It would be a real bummer to have to learn to speak Chinese
to boot. It's time to get serious about national defense.
Wars fail when they are fought by political whimsy. Instead of firing MacArthur,
Truman should have taken the leash off. If he had, we wouldn't be treating the
Cinese with kid gloves now. Instead of declaring the North Vietnamese industrial
and harbor complex off-limits for U.S. bombers, and declaring the Yalu River an
absolute "no-go" for pursuing fighter pilots, thereby guaranteeing a loss, LBJ should
have confronted the Russians and the Chinese. How many times must it be proven
that appeasement is a losing strategy? Limited wars are very,very dangerous, and
when America will not fight to win, andclearly define what that means, she should
not fight at all.
So what is "winning" in Afghanistan? If it is eradicating the Taliban, then that is
impossible. So long as they have sanctuary in Pakistan, money from opium and
an endless supply of fighters and suicide bombers from Muslim families who are
too poor and afraid to do anything else, it will be like fighting plaque in one's mouth.
You can move it around, but you never get rid of it. If it is propping up a corrupt
"democratic" government in a society with a historically tribal mindset, then the
outcome will be even worse than the one in Iraq. If it is simply demonstrating
American resolve in retribution for 9/11, then we have to be honest about that and
put a cap on its price tag. The smart thing to do is (a) degrade the Taliban as far as
possible, (b) withdraw, and (c) maintain a satellite and intelligence presence so that
we can bomb out of existience any future terror training camp before it is completed.
It's time to be honest. What's the end game? And how many lives and dollars is that
worth?
War is a hard university with a high tuition and no certainty of graduation. Only
the wise and wary should apply.