ON WAR #324: O = W

William S. Lind
December 4, 2009

“O=W” is a bumper sticker beginning to show up on liberals’ cars. After the President’s speech Tuesday night at West Point, I suspect it will spread rapidly.

For eight years, conservatives endured the agony of watching President George W. Bush attach the label “conservative” to a host of policies that were anti-conservative: Wilsonian wars, American empire, vast budget and trade deficits, increased entitlements, and the subordination of America’s interests to those of foreign powers. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and liberals are bidden to hold their tongues as President Obama makes Bush’s wars his own. The usual Washington sell-out is in gear.

It should not come as a surprise. America is now a one-party state. The one party is the Establishment party, which is also the war party. Unless you are willing to cheer permanent war for permanent peace, you cannot be a member of the Establishment.

What can we say militarily about Obama’s surge? Understand that in Afghanistan, 30,000 troops is a drop in the bucket. The size of the country, the wide extent of Taliban and other anti-occupier action, and the largely mountainous nature of the terrain make Afghanistan a troop sponge. A serious effort would require 300,000 more troops, not 30,000.

Obama’s surge only makes strategic sense if it is intended to strengthen our position politically as a preliminary to negotiating with the Taliban. By holding a few areas in the Taliban’s heartland, we might make such negotiations worthwhile for Mullah Omar. The deal would be a coalition government including the Taliban, to last until we withdrew, coupled with a promise not to invite al Qaeda back. Is that the White House’s intention? I can only say that I have seen no evidence of it.

On the operational level, we are adopting a fortress strategy: Festung Kandahar. The Taliban’s operational countermove is obvious: take the rest of the Pashtun areas, isolate us in our fortresses, then work to sever the supply lines running to the fortresses, including Kabul. The Taliban is already attempting to do this; our concentration should make it all the easier.

Tactically, the Taliban will withdraw from areas where we concentrate rather than trying to defend them: “when the enemy advances, we retreat.” Then, they will penetrate those areas with small raids, ambushes, IED-placing parties, and suicide bombers: “When the enemy halts, we harass.” We will face a war of the flea inside our fortresses.

If we add all this up, we see that militarily it makes no sense. Of course, that is true of any military option in the Afghan war. We are fighting the Pashtun, and in the end, the Pashtun always win Afghan wars. “This time is different” is, as always, the battle cry of Folly.

So what lies behind President Obama’s decision? Domestic political considerations, of course. He has done what politicians always do when faced with difficult choices: he has kicked the can down the road, to a specific date, July, 2011. That is when the President promises we will begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. The date is meaningless beyond its political meaning, i.e., at that point Obama will again be faced with the same decision he just punted. With a Presidential election looming, he will punt again. Meanwhile, the war’s price, in money and casualties, will have risen, making it even harder to walk away from sunk costs.

The real choice Obama faced was not how many troops to send. We do not have enough troops to commit a militarily meaningful number. The real choice was to get out now or get out later. His duty as Chief Executive, the state of America’s treasury (empty), concern for the well-being of our troops and their families, and the hopelessness of the situation all dictated he get out now. By punting the decision, he showed America and the world what he is made of. December 1, 2009, was the date the Obama Presidency failed.

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

Comments

[j stuart]

Lind said it perfectly. Obama is now a war president. I'll also add that the Norwegian fools that gave him a peace prize are stupider than he is if they thought he would do anything other than keep the wars going.

Peace=War Orwell was right.

[Pete]

The essential problem in Afghanistan, IMO, is that there is no facing-saving way for us to withdraw that does not involve egg eventually being on Uncle Sam's face. Members of the military whom I have debated and discussed the issue, often defend "our being there because were there," to paraphrase the old WWI song. They do not want, after Vietnam, the word "defeat" attached to their name.

So, this begs the question: is there a way home that gives us the appearance of victory, and allows us to save face?

Devil's advocate for a moment, Bill: Suppose Washington does a thumbs-down on the option you mentioned. What is the next best thing? Might it be time for the "Hama" approach? Would going very light and low profile work?

[stevelaudig]

Hey, hey BHO
All the troops have got to go.

Que up the tape of Saigon, April 1975.
Karzai = Thieu.
Pointing out the obvious:
Frm: Wiki. Just prior to the Communist victory, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu resigned and left for Taiwan, handing power to his Vice President, Trần Văn Hương, who took over on April 21, 1975, nine days before South Vietnam unconditionally surrendered to the North Vietnamese on April 30, 1975.
Life in exile

Thiệu fled to Taiwan, finally he took up residence in Foxborough, Massachusetts, where he died in 2001.

[JohnG]

O = W expanding terms...

BO = GW and rearranging

GW = BO

Very true, for performance as a Republican GW stunk. But of course also....

BO = BO And he stinks too.

[Mike Ruff]

Not only is the 30K a drop in the bucket, but spokesmen for the Army admit they can't get 30K troops there any time soon--and they're projecting they might, possibly, maybe, get 20K there by Fall of '10, and they say the '11 pull-out date is bunk.

[Roger]

Our all-volunteer military can not win the war in Afghanistan. They will be defeated by the Taliban no matter what President Obama does. If the Congress restores the draft then maybe we can win in Afghanistan. Maybe.

[Thomas Peter]

In Lind's 5th paragraph he mentions what could be the basis for negotiations w/ Mullah Omar/Taliban. As I recall, Geo. W. Bush was invited by the upper echelons of the then-ruling Taliban to participate in a Loya Jurga back in the Fall of 2001 and to negotiate for the extrication of bin-Laden and the Al Queda loyal to him, as well as other matters related to the Taliban's rule over Kandahar and Kabul. Naturally, there was no way the exalted President of the USA was going to Afghanistan, sit under flowing banners in a desert tent, and do a give-and-take with the medievalist Taliban. You mean to suggest that is where the West could possibly be after a decade and hundreds of billions of dollars, significant military and civilian casualties, and massive social dislocation? While that is but one possible outcome of the Obama surge, wouldn't it be a sick, ironic comment about the ignorance of war?

[Nebris]

Total Victory in Afghanistan would require the complete and utter extermination of the Pashtun people, which would be an operational nightmare, and is a political impossibility.

[Rob P]

Roger, what makes you think that a bunch of people who don't want to be in the military and will do anything to get out of it after being drafted is the key to victory in Afghanistan?

I know today's military has the capability to defeat enemy forces in Afghanistan if we, as a nation, feel like paying the price in money and lives. Question isn't whether we can do it, but, as Bill alluded to, why should we?

Obviously, GWB didn't feel Afghanistan was worth it, which is why he short changed OEF and fully funded OIF, a country with a modicum of modern technology and the possibility to be something.

Really though, this is standard Democrat Party thinking since post-Desert Storm; mock the possibility of real victory in a 2nd world country while demanding the military pull off a miracle in a 3rd world hell hole.

[Peter Principle]

"If the Congress restores the draft then maybe we can win in Afghanistan. Maybe."

Great idea! Let's send hundreds of thousands of unwilling, resentful, undisciplined and poorly trained civilian semi-soldiers to stumble around in a remote, forbidding country filled with ferocious tribal fighters whose language they can't speak, whose customs they don't know, and whose religion they despise.

Yeah, that'll work.

[Roger]

Mr. Rob P, many thanks for your comment on my comment. I like it when someone challenges something I say or write. It makes me think more.

To answer your question in one word, numbers. To achive total victory in Afghanistan, the United States would have to field hundreds of thousands of troops, possibly half a million. There is no way our current military can supply troops to Afghanistan in those numbers. So there is only one other way, the draft.

As for draftees not wanting to be in the military, that is irrelevant to achieving victory. The draftees at Normandy, Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima did not want to be there. Yet they still achieved victory over the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese. I am sure twenty-first century draftees could handily deal with the Taliban, if there were enough of them. And assuring there are enough of them is the whole point to the draft in the first place.

As for standard Democratic Party thinking, I am not a Democrat. I despise the Democrats. I also despise the Republicans. I think the Democrats and Republicans are two arms of the same beast. And I have thought that since 1996 when the Democrats and Republicans conspired together to keep Ross Perot out of the 1996 Presidential debates.

Again, Rob p, thanks for your feedback.