With the advent of September 11, 2001, we have entered a new war, the War on Terror. Again we have ideological references to a vague goal with no clear cut victory in mind and no possible plan to achieve any end result at all. There is absolutely no way anyone can ever assure the world that terrorism no longer exists. With the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the suffering in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the ongoing internal conflicts in Georgia, Chechnya, China, India, and other countries, there will always be ample room for terror of some kind to promulgate and grow. It has always been obvious to the most casual of observers that the War on Terror is unwinnable.
But America has gone beyond the surreal in its declaration of war on a concept. It has actually initiated two wars on two separate countries with no goal in mind and no chance for any kind of win at all. In fact, it is as equally obvious to the casual observer that these wars were never about winning in the first place.
Let's take Iraq first.
Everyone agrees that the US lied to start the war, although if you look at polls in the US in March, 2003, you would easily notice the overwhelming support for those lies that the US government maintained. In other words, Americans were lied to, completely and overwhelmingly believed those lies, and agreed to begin a real war with real guns, real bullets, real people and real death over unconfirmed assertions that proved to be 100% lies. Rather than demanding proof, Americans demanded war, even though the goals were vague, an exit strategy never outlined, and the reasoning obviously faulty.
This war has lasted longer than WWII and it is far from over. It is clear that the situation in Iraq is far worse now than it was in March, 2003, when America first illegally entered the country. Al Qaeda never existed in Iraq before, Saddam hated competition and didn't trust groups he couldn't control. They are now fully implanted and aren't going away any time soon. Bomb attacks against ordinary citizens occur on a daily basis throughout the country and the central government is almost completely powerless to stop them. For the average citizen, Iraq has become one giant booby trap since the US arrived. Where people once were able to easily survive by staying away from politics, they now have to fear for their lives when they go to buy flowers at a local mart, something that never occurred under Saddam. The end to this American-made nightmare is nowhere in sight and has made the presence of American troops there irrelevant.
Afghanistan
This war is fast approaching the entire length of the Vietnam War and will have very similar consequences. The US ostensibly entered the country to rid it of all terrorist cells, the dismantling of the horrible Taliban regime, and the capture of Al Qaeda leaders. After over seven years, it has little to show for its efforts, except for the undying enmity of the Afghan people.
Where the Taliban was almost completely eliminated in 2002, they are now in control of over half of the country. Where Al Qaeda was once on the run and almost entirely absent in the country, they now have bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan from which they can launch attacks. As Mark Lynch writes in his August 10, 2009, article for foreignpolicy.com, Afghanistan Strategy Debate, "What are the strategic reasons for expanding the commitment in Afghanistan? Why should the US be committing to a project of armed state building now, in 2009?
I hope that the argument isn't that it's to prevent al-Qaeda from reconstituting itself in the Afghan safe havens. That's a fool's game. It makes sense to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, but does that require "armed state building"?
Suppose the U.S. succeeded beyond all its wildest expectations, and turned Afghanistan into Nirvana on Earth, an orderly, high GDP nirvana with universal health care and a robust wireless network (and even suppose that it did this without the expense depriving Americans of the same things). So what? Al-Qaeda (or what we call al-Qaeda) could easily migrate to Somalia, to Yemen, deeper into Pakistan, into the Caucasus, into Africa --- into a near infinite potential pool of ungoverned or semi-governed spaces with potentially supportive environments. Are we to commit the United States to bringing effective governance and free wireless to the entire world? On whose budget?" [3]
Clearly, the US strategy in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, is already doomed to complete and utter failure. A strategy absent of concrete goals, devoid of a specific end result, and missing any congruent plan can never win on the battlefield. When the goal is the recapture of lost lands, the repulsion of enemy forces, or the complete overthrow of an existing government, wars can be won. When there is an absolute commitment to a stated and attainable objective, a war can have a positive outcome. But when the goals are vague, nebulous, ever-changing, and without form, no win is possible.
In the end, the US will leave Iraq and Afghanistan in tatters, a clear loser in an ideological battle it waged against itself and lost. The people of both countries will be torn by the leftover violence and will struggle for decades to rid itself of the stain of battle it has suffered throughout the new millennium.
At the same time, Americans will be given a song and dance similar to the one they received at the end of the Vietnam War. It wasn't the war that was at fault, it was the young people. It wasn't the lack of purpose, it was the media. It wasn't the absence of goals, but the attitude of the middle class. Just as Hitler eventually blamed the German people for not being strong enough to overcome their enemy, the American ideologues will blame Americans for their lack of steadfastness in the face of adversity.
But in reality, wars come in two types, winnable and unwinnable. Winnable wars can be fought on the battlefield, clear victories and defeats can be measured and advances and losses can be ascertained. These wars easily define what is to be won or lost. The first and second world wars were all about territory and who would rule them. Daily results were easily quantifiable and strategies easily demarcated.
Unwinnable wars are nebulous. They have ill-defined goals, shifting priorities and no clear winning strategy. These wars are against thoughts or postulates. The war on poverty can never completely eliminate poverty, therefore it is unwinnable. The war on drugs can never eliminate drugs, therefore it is unwinnable. The war on Communism can never completely eliminate Communism, therefore it is unwinnable. The war on terror can never eliminate terror, therefore it is unwinnable.
Likewise the subsequent military wars which result are equally unwinnable. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely the latest proof of such follies. But perhaps the greatest demonstration of the difference between a winnable and an unwinnable war will always be Vietnam. Only one side had an unwinnable posture, the elimination of Communism, and that side predictably lost. The other side had a very real and winnable goal, independence of the nation of Vietnam, and that side won hands down. More than any other, the Vietnam War illustrates without a doubt the difference and the reason why unwinnable wars are, well, unwinnable.
1 | 2
