[Covert Hawk]

Although the politicians, media, and public believe few things are more important than preventing another al-Qaeda attack on America, defending the founding principles of the republic would seem to be one of them.

The conventional wisdom is that the war in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" that cannot be lost if the war against al-Qaeda is to be won. This proposition is only now being questioned because the fraud-plagued Afghan election makes a legitimate government almost impossible and because the war in Afghanistan has turned into an eight-year quagmire that is getting worse by the day. Not only is the conventional wisdom wrong, but Gen. Stanley McChrystal should be fired, even if it means losing the war.

McChrystal, much like Gen. Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, has publicly spoken out about decisions that are the exclusive purview of the elected civilian leadership. At great cost to his popularity, President Harry Truman cast a great blow for the critical republican principle of civilian control over the military by firing the insubordinate MacArthur. President Obama could do the same with far less cost; McChrystal just took his job and is not a popular war hero, as was MacArthur.

The founders of the United States – reacting to warlike monarchies of Europe and their own suspicions of standing armies as a threat to liberty – realized that the principle of civilian control over the military was crucial to the survival of a republican form of government. The ill effects of militaries meddling in the civilian affairs of state have recently been demonstrated Honduras and Thailand. But hypocritically, at the same time President Obama is letting Gen. McChrystal publicly undermine his freedom of action on whether to pour more U.S. troops into the Afghan tar pit, the United States is making increased aid to Pakistan dependent on the Pakistani military staying out of civilian business.

Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal, the U.S. must face two stark facts. First, a surge in Afghanistan to match the "successful" surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain, it has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq, and that insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan). And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. Besides, it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. In 2005, the U.S. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq, and violence increased. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerillas to redirect their belligerence from U.S. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence, which is likely to be temporary. Iraq’s underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain, the country’s security is fragile, and violence will likely erupt again when the U.S. draws down its forces.

Second, even opponents of the surge in Afghanistan understate their case against it. Their correct conclusions are that in a democracy, it is dangerous to escalate a war on which U.S. public opinion has soured after eight long years of losing and that al-Qaeda in Pakistan can be effectively fought using fewer troops, drones, cruise missiles, and intelligence. However, proponents of the surge answer, seemingly cogently, that Afghanistan must be stabilized or it will be a safe haven yet again from which al-Qaeda will attack the United States.

Because politicians are intrinsically cautious when it comes to national security, the proponents are likely to win this argument unless Americans finally face up to the question that they have avoided since 9/11: Why do radical Islamists, such as al-Qaeda, which are halfway across the world, focus their attacks on the United States?

The answer is in plain sight, but it is too painful for Americans to acknowledge. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given us his reasons – U.S. occupation of Muslim lands and support for corrupt Middle Eastern dictators. For example, in 1998, bin Laden charged that it was "an individual duty for every Muslim" to "kill the Americans" and drive their military "out of all the lands of Islam."

So the nation-building, drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U.S. Islamist rage. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan – not the Taliban – using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.S. better results.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/ ... ghanistan/

[LUconn]

You are a foreign policy disaster. The entire article boils down to, "it's our fault". I would expect nothing less from a website by the url of antiwar.com And then at they end it throws out a "let's focus on pakistan" so the author doesn't totally look like a cut and run defeatist. Too bad Pakistan is a sovereign country who has the power to tell us to stay out, and has already done so.

The only thing that we can do to not step on somebody's toes somewhere in the world and make them mad enough to want to kill us, is total isolation.

[BJWilliams]

And we all know how much good THAT does...

[El Scorcho]

The only thing that we can do to not step on somebody's toes somewhere in the world and make them mad enough to want to kill us, is total isolation.

There's a difference between isolationists and non-interventionist. I think you can do both without stepping on anyone's toes, but the former is setup for a disaster while the latter is legitimate foreign policy. Just my opinion.

I don't really want to dive into Afghanistan right now because I'm falling asleep as I write this, but I will say that I don't really see the point in staying. Not that it matters.

[Liberty4Life]

The only thing that we can do to not step on somebody's toes somewhere in the world and make them mad enough to want to kill us, is total isolation.

There's a difference between isolationists and non-interventionist. I think you can do both without stepping on anyone's toes, but the former is setup for a disaster while the latter is legitimate foreign policy. Just my opinion.

I don't really want to dive into Afghanistan right now because I'm falling asleep as I write this, but I will say that I don't really see the point in staying. Not that it matters.

I don't know about the non-interventionist thing. Are you saying we should be like Switzerland? There is evil in the world that needs to be confronted and stopped (see Hitler, Adolf).

That being said, you do need to understand what our strategic interests are before waging any sort of operations. Iraq was a strategic war (which we botched, or at least, were ill-prepared for. We all thought it would be a repeat of the 6-week whooping it was back in the the '90s, not some multi-year quagmire. Good thing we had General Petraeus on that front to turn things around).

In areas where we do not benefit strategically, I think we should rely on the United Nations (and yes, we would take part in any peacekeeping operations).

If the UN shirks its responsibility (see Darfur), then the United States, as a superpower, owes it to the world to not stand idly by while tyranny and despotism reign free. If the UN cannot and will not step in while children are being massacred, then the United States needs to form its own coalition of like-minded allies.

[UNCA Alum]

They wouldn't be able to make inspiring speeches or talk about themselves on national TV 23 hours a day, but this is where we could really use a President McCain or a President Hillary Clinton. The decision to send more troops over or not should have been made months ago. Obama is putting it off because he's afraid it will hurt his political image here at home. How long do you seriously need to contemplate what you are going to do? McCain and Hillary would have made the decision already, even if it might have temporarily dropped their approval percentage by a few points.

You are Commander-in-Chief. Your re-election hopes shouldn't be the only thing on your mind. And you shouldn't put off decisions regarding our young men and women who put their lives on the line everyday half a world away because you are afraid it might impact your push for having the government take over healthcare back here at home.

It's one thing when your own military thinks you are a joke, which they do. They are still going to do what you tell them to do b/c that's their job. But it's another thing when your inability to make a decision makes it perfectly clear to our enemies that you are a joke.

[Sly Fox]

They wouldn't be able to make inspiring speeches or talk about themselves on national TV 23 hours a day, but this is where we could really use a President McCain or a President Hillary Clinton. The decision to send more troops over or not should have been made months ago. Obama is putting it off because he's afraid it will hurt his political image here at home. How long do you seriously need to contemplate what you are going to do? McCain and Hillary would have made the decision already, even if it might have temporarily dropped their approval percentage by a few points.

You are Commander-in-Chief. Your re-election hopes shouldn't be the only thing on your mind. And you shouldn't put off decisions regarding our young men and women who put their lives on the line everyday half a world away because you are afraid it might impact your push for having the government take over healthcare back here at home.

It's one thing when your own military thinks you are a joke, which they do. They are still going to do what you tell them to do b/c that's their job. But it's another thing when your inability to make a decision makes it perfectly clear to our enemies that you are a joke.

[Liberty4Life]

I don't get it. The reason for not sending additional troops over to Afghanistan is that it'd irritate his ultra-left wing base.

But you know that they're still going to support him come '012. They're not going to stand idly by and let the Pawlenty (or Romney) ticket win the White House.

[UNCA Alum]

We need to either send more troops NOW and win or bring them all home and let Afghanistan figure it out on their own.

Keeping troops at the same level (which would, in essence, appease the left b/c he's not sending more and won't allow the right to characterize him as a wimp) just ensures that the war, which we might not win, gets drawn out even longer and costs even more lives.

Obviously I agree with the republican concept of having a civilian commander in chief, but this is one of those instances where it is probably just going to screw crap up.

He's going to make the move that helps him best politically, as opposed to the move that would be best for our soldiers.

At least he'll look and sound good doing it.

[Purple Haize]

This boils down to a change of Strategic and/or Tactical approaches. I disagree that we have strategically botched Afghanistan until recently. We were content to let Pakistan work with it and we with them. Sure they were corrupt and had more leaks then anything, BUT they were containing the problem more or less.
It seems like we are trying to make Afg into another Iraq, with a "Surge" and everything. Two different countries two different sets of problems. Now if we broke out some Agent Orange to take out the Poppy Fields now THAT would stir up a hornets nest!!!!

[Covert Hawk]

Five Facts About Afghanistan

The corridors of power in the nation’s capital are abuzz with the complexities of the situation in Afghanistan. If only we send 40,000 more troops, say the military brass, the U.S. could have some hope of turning the situation around and preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorists yet again. Vice President Joe Biden has apparently suggested keeping the number of forces the same but shifting the U.S. mission more toward training the Afghan security forces and conducting Special Forces raids and drone attacks against al-Qaeda.

Instead, a few simple facts on the ground in Afghanistan point to a third alternative. First, al-Qaeda already has a haven – Pakistan – and could have one in any country that has instability – for example, Yemen, Somalia, or Sudan. The U.S. does need to focus more on the untamed areas of northwest Pakistan and encourage the Pakistani government to go after militants there.

Second, the U.S.-led nation-building occupation in Afghanistan is fueling the Taliban resurgence. If you follow the timelines, increases in Western forces have brought about the Taliban renaissance. Opponents of a U.S. surge believe that 40,000 more American troops could make the Afghan people regard the U.S. superpower as a foreign occupier. Incredible news: they already do, and have for eight years.

Third, there is a misperception among U.S. policy elites that a troop surge increased stability in Iraq, whereas it was mainly paying off Sunni opponents to quit fighting American forces that brought what probably will be only a temporary respite from the violence. It ain’t over till it’s over.

Fourth, ultimately, in a republic, escalating an unpopular war is political suicide. If the public and Congress are balking at sending a measly 40,000 additional troops, they will not ever be willing to send the number of troops needed to win.

Fifth, historical cases abound where a great power, by not committing enough forces early, lost to a lesser foe or won only with great difficulty. The power needs to bring sufficient strength early on to dominate the war or give up and get out. For example, in the late 1700s, the British lost the American Revolution by having insufficient forces in a rather large territory. In the early 1800s, Napoleon lost against the British and Spanish guerrillas because he failed to commit the effort needed to win. During roughly the same period, the Ottoman Empire and their surrogate, Egyptian Muhammad Ali, finally marshaled enough troops to defeat the fierce Wahhabi guerrillas in Arabia. The British – in the Anglo-Sudan War in the late 1800s and the Boer War around the turn of the 20th century – didn’t initially send enough forces to win but then later sent more and won “ugly.” In Vietnam, the United States gradually escalated to more than a half million troops, but this was not enough to beat a North Vietnamese/Viet Cong force of only 100,000.

The bad news is that Vietnam was a much smaller country in population and area than is Afghanistan. Even the Army’s new field manual on guerrilla warfare says that 20 to 25 occupation forces are needed per one thousand inhabitants. Frank Rich of the New York Times puts the Afghan population at 32 million. This would necessitate an occupation force of 640,000 to 800,000 to have a good chance of winning. The U.S. will have 68,000 troops there, and the Europeans provide just over 30,000 mostly ineffectual forces; with an added 40,000, this amounts to only a paltry 140,000. The motto for counterinsurgency war should be either commit enough forces to win early or get out. After eight long years of a lackadaisical effort, another 40,000 committed this late won’t even lift the Obama administration out of the halfhearted category. The U.S. should cut its losses, withdraw from Afghanistan, and concentrate on pressuring al-Qaeda in Pakistan with a smaller military footprint – so as not to stir up more anti-U.S. Islamists than we are neutralizing.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2009/ ... ghanistan/

[blwall1416]

For example, in the late 1700s, the British lost the American Revolution by having insufficient forces in a rather large territory.

Go figure.....this whole time I thought it had more to do with France finally entering the war & siding with the Colonists.....which in turn caused the British to split their vastly superior force, sending a large amount to the Carribbean to protect their trading assets.

[Purple Haize]

Wow, there are alot of assumptions that are very debatable in this piece. In no particular order:
1. The US has stopped paying the Sunni's and the violence has not ramped up to their previous levels. Also, based on this assumption, one could argue once the Iraqi's take over control, and violence ends it is only b/c the US had already paid off everybody. Paying the Sunni's made great strategic sense. It gave time and opportunity for them to see us in a different and more favorable light. Now that they are not being paid by the US, they realize THEY not some strong man can decide their fate.
2. Pakistan just recently started to increase their patrols and show of force in the "Badlands". Afghanistan has always been an interesting country. It is where great armies have gone and met their fate. It also, within the last 50 years even, been a peaceful and prosperous country. It is b/c of the Islamists that the country has taken an down turn. In fact, there has not been one country that has prospered or been peaceful when run by religious, let alone islamic fanatics.
3. The American Revolution example is very simplistic. If you look at the early history of the conflict the British has more then sufficient forces to quell the revolution. Washington lost a whole lot more then he won. Delay and indecision cost the British. We can be thankful they did not pay more attention to the Hessians!
4. While warfare is best one by overwhelming force and breaking things and killing people, MODERN warfare has had some of those rules changed. A combination of technology and boots on the ground can do a whole lot more then the same number in the past

Another good thing would be to post an original thought. But this is a good discussion!

[thepostman]

I shouldn't say much...but I just wish the military was allowed to do their job and if we aren't then just pull us out...there are great leaders in place right now in the military, but with everything being political its impossible to get anything done...and thats not just the wars

[JK37]

No war should ever be commenced without two things:

1)OVERWHELMING force
2)Clear exit strategy

At the beginning point, a nation should wait for both of these to be carefully laid out before entering, if it has a choice. Starting in 2001, we have always had the choice, but we have consistently screwed up the preparation.

Now that we're in, overwhelming force can be applied. But politics consistently interfere.

War is not a popularity contest!