Speaking of unity of effort, A recent Rasmussen
Reports telephone survey of likely voters finds that a plurality of 48 percent
now say ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it.
48%, that low? That is shocking. Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by
Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war a sharp reversal since
February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did
not. Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's
Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.
Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, writes, "Part of this has to do with the nature of a counterinsurgency (COIN) effort a phrase and acronym which has been around at least since the early days of Vietnam. Even when it works, counterinsurgency can take years. And the two most recent major examples France in Algeria and the United States in Vietnam hardly worked. Hearts and minds must be won, not only in the war zone, but at home as well."
Columnist Mike Ludwig opines, "Things aren't looking good on the "hearts and minds" front. The United Nations (UN) reported that in 2009 nearly 6,000 Afghan civilians lost their lives due to armed conflict, the highest number since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001."
Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, McChrystal's chief of operations at the time, added, "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win."
Ann Jones, author and an embedded reporter for
TomDispatch, observes, "[COIN is] not working for a significant subgroup of
Americans in Afghanistan either: combat soldiers. I've heard infantrymen place
the blame for a buddy's combat injury or death on the strict rules of engagement
("courageous restraint," as it's called) imposed by General McChrystal's version
of COIN strategy. Taking a page from Vietnam, they claim their hands are tied,
while the enemy plays by its own rules. Rightly or wrongly, this opinion is
spreading fast among grieving soldiers as casualties mount."
Boy, is COIN popular or what? My preference is "or what."
Proven by two centuries of warfare, COIN is not only a failed strategy, it is the antithesis of actually winning a war. The corollary to that is that COIN promotes the elongation of war and severely endangers the troops of nations that engage in such strategy. COIN embodies the ludicrous idea that wars should be fought nice. Nobody gets hurt, and the invaded country's populace will rise up and embrace a beneficent conqueror. The result of such an asinine strategy is that a lot of people get hurt or killed over a very long period of time, witness Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
It is virtually impossible to describe the serious nature of one nation going to war against another. Why? The enemy of man is war itself. When one nation decides to go to war against another, the reasons for doing so should not be ambiguous, nor speculative, but clear-cut, obvious to all. The decision for war is to be a result of intense deliberations, not hurriedly made nor capricious in nature. Once this horrible decision has been made, concentrated effort should be made onthe strategic and logistical effort to limit the war's duration. Go in with overwhelming force, subdue the enemy quickly, and end the war and suffering as soon as humanly possible. No aftermath of resistance operations, and certainly no COIN ops. The war is over, period, and the conqueror instills some stability over the conquered. This has been done before, witness Germany and Japan.
COIN notwithstanding, that is war. War is not heroic. War is brutal. On the battlefield there are no bugles blaring, no flags waving, no drums drumming, only merciless killing. High school teenagers, basketball and football stars and academic achievers, are turned into stone cold killers. COIN strategy only prolongs the tragedy with never-ending wars with impossible objectives.
To put it quite simply, COIN strategy never has worked and never will work because it runs "counter" to every culture on the globe. It assumes the occupied will endear themselves to the occupier once the occupier becomes nice. In essence, once we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, if ever, never again should our nation become involved in COIN operations. It simply doesn't work.
Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor, writes, "Part of this has to do with the nature of a counterinsurgency (COIN) effort a phrase and acronym which has been around at least since the early days of Vietnam. Even when it works, counterinsurgency can take years. And the two most recent major examples France in Algeria and the United States in Vietnam hardly worked. Hearts and minds must be won, not only in the war zone, but at home as well."
Columnist Mike Ludwig opines, "Things aren't looking good on the "hearts and minds" front. The United Nations (UN) reported that in 2009 nearly 6,000 Afghan civilians lost their lives due to armed conflict, the highest number since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001."
Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, McChrystal's chief of operations at the time, added, "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win."
Boy, is COIN popular or what? My preference is "or what."
Proven by two centuries of warfare, COIN is not only a failed strategy, it is the antithesis of actually winning a war. The corollary to that is that COIN promotes the elongation of war and severely endangers the troops of nations that engage in such strategy. COIN embodies the ludicrous idea that wars should be fought nice. Nobody gets hurt, and the invaded country's populace will rise up and embrace a beneficent conqueror. The result of such an asinine strategy is that a lot of people get hurt or killed over a very long period of time, witness Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
It is virtually impossible to describe the serious nature of one nation going to war against another. Why? The enemy of man is war itself. When one nation decides to go to war against another, the reasons for doing so should not be ambiguous, nor speculative, but clear-cut, obvious to all. The decision for war is to be a result of intense deliberations, not hurriedly made nor capricious in nature. Once this horrible decision has been made, concentrated effort should be made onthe strategic and logistical effort to limit the war's duration. Go in with overwhelming force, subdue the enemy quickly, and end the war and suffering as soon as humanly possible. No aftermath of resistance operations, and certainly no COIN ops. The war is over, period, and the conqueror instills some stability over the conquered. This has been done before, witness Germany and Japan.
COIN notwithstanding, that is war. War is not heroic. War is brutal. On the battlefield there are no bugles blaring, no flags waving, no drums drumming, only merciless killing. High school teenagers, basketball and football stars and academic achievers, are turned into stone cold killers. COIN strategy only prolongs the tragedy with never-ending wars with impossible objectives.
To put it quite simply, COIN strategy never has worked and never will work because it runs "counter" to every culture on the globe. It assumes the occupied will endear themselves to the occupier once the occupier becomes nice. In essence, once we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, if ever, never again should our nation become involved in COIN operations. It simply doesn't work.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
