The title of this post comes from a commenter at Abu Muqawama describing the common sense solution to counterinsurgency ordered by several troop commanders in Iraq and later defined as the Surge.
I’ve just seen a televised report from CNN indicating Obama will not recommend more troops be sent to Afghanistan. From what I’m reading this is the right decision for several reasons. He recognizes the war no longer has the support of the people. Secondly, our military leaders do not have a plan for victory. From LTC Gian P. Gentile commenting at Abu Muqawama:
General McChrystal’s recently leaked assessment and its stinging rebuke of ISAF and their purported inability to do population centric Coin could not have been made without the Surge Coin “gets it” narrative underpinning it. Moreover, General Petraeus has acknowledged that of course there are huge differences between Iraq and Astan, but then in the same breath he goes on to say that the “principles” of Coin that we have learned in Iraq and specifically under his command during the Surge, are applicable to Astan.
Well, there you have it, there it is, the template, more population centric coin and its applicable principles in the mountains and valleys of the Hindu Kush. It is those very Coin principles, maxims, talking points, and catechisms that have come to determine strategy, which in essence means we have no strategy at all, just the noise of the promise and hope of better coin methods being applied in Astan, with a few more troops, under a better general and voila soon success will be ours.
Other commenters credit Muqtada al-Sadr’s cease fire for success of the surge in Iraq.
I have read that Plan B is to retreat behind fortifications around Kabul, given that no infrastructure exists in the countryside to exploit and defend.
Here’s a recent NYT Op Ed from Col. Gentile:
The fundamental political and social problem of who will hold power in Iraq has yet to be resolved, and the final reckoning may still have to be determined through fighting.
The ongoing ability and wiliness of insurgent groups in Iraq to carry out suicide attacks undermines the notion that the surge worked and, through military force, put an end to the violence.
These histories should also inform our thinking on Afghanistan.
History shows that occupation by foreign armies with the intent of changing occupied societies does not work and ends up costing considerable blood and treasure.
23:00: As you are no doubt aware, it has been leaked that our Afghan ambassador is advising against more troops.
“Secondly, our military leaders do not have a plan for victory.”
You are kidding, right? The military is master of victory, It’s the politicians who tie their hands. See: Vietnam.
Case in point of politicians setting military policy:
“The offensive will test the Obama administration’s new strategy of holding territory and letting the Afghan government sink roots in Helmand province”
Key phrase: “Obama administration’s new strategy”. From folks whose biggest supporters think the proper way to shoot a handgun is to hold it sideways.
And the increased bloodshed of US troops in Afghanistan due to the Administration’s recent changing of the rules of engagement is negligence.
“Marines and soldiers are being denied artillery and air support for fear of killing civilians, and the Taliban is using that to its tactical advantage.”
Let the military do it’s job or we need to get the hell out. There is no in-between. Don’t blame it on the Officers and enlisted.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=6hQ&q=afghanistan+rules+of+engagement&start=10&sa=N
Read Abu Muqawama’s blog. The game is counterinsurgency and our best minds post and comment there. Your comments are disjointed bullshit and some of it is racist.
@ Fec
I read that blog for a few days a couple months back and quickly realized how … deep it was. I am just a joe-citizen so it has more depth than I value.
I have read daily Pat Lang’s blog which deals with policy and thus politico’s at the core. Though PL’s perspective is much broader than that – see his bio – and his perspective is the right value for me.
To view the issue of victory as, politico’s versus military is a minimally productive inquiry, IMVHO, as one misses a lot of nuance.
You have no idea how welcome your well-reasoned comment is. I am also humbled by the complexity of opinions at Abu Muqawama. However, I am not prepared for commenters who not only don’t read the content to which I link, but mine either.
@ Fec
From Laura Rozen:
Emphasis added.
Given the truth of that from the ‘horses mouth’, I come to the conclusion ‘The Generals’ are looking out for themselves, not the country or the soldiers.
Thanks. I’m always interested in what Laura Rozen has to say. It looks like the Pentagon’s in the dog house for now.