October 18, 2009
By Sandy Shanks
Pakistan is heating up with recent attacks, including an attack on Pakistan's "pentagon" in Rawalpindi. After eight years of war in Afghanistan U.S.-led NATO forces are actually losing ground as the resurgent Taliban gains in strength and territory. In the midst of all this I am hearing some of the most incredulous rhetoric, rhetoric that questions either my own sanity or the sanity of our nation's leaders.
::::::::
Iraq appears to be heating up ... again. There have been suicidebombingsin
Anbar Province and Baghdadthat are as serious as a heart attack. Remember
Ramadi and Fallujah, the scenes of some ofthe most ferocious fighting in Iraq
in days long since past. Pakistan is heating up with recent attacks, including
an attack on Pakistan's "pentagon" in Rawalpindi,causing some to question the
security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. After eight years of war in
AfghanistanU.S.-led NATO forces are actuallylosing ground as the resurgent
Taliban gains instrength and territory.
In the midst of all this I am hearing some of the most incredulous rhetoric,
rhetoric that questions either my own sanity or the sanity of our nation's
leaders.
Allow me to begin with an article by Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll
Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, and a highly respected columnist. Kondracke
recently stated, "More and more, it looks as though
President Barack Obama is going to adopt a 'split the difference' policy on
Afghanistan that will basically continue current strategy - and likely lead to
catastrophe." He later added, "The problem with this
'counterterrorism' strategy is that, with a few new wrinkles, it's a
continuation of what's going on at present - ironically, the policy that he
inherited from former President George W. Bush." So far, so good.
Kondracke is, after all, entitled to his opinions. Then he reports, "Obama told congressional leadersrecently
that he does not intend to reduce U.S. troop levels, but he described his war
aims strictly in terms of 'targeting al-Qaida,' not defeating its Taliban allies."
"Targeting al-Qaida" in Afghanistan? The leadership of al-Qaida is no longer in
Afghanistan. They are located in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)
or the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan. Adding to the confusion
regarding al-Qaida, the President's national security advisor, former Marine
Gen. James Jones, had this to say recently, "The al-Qaida presence is very
diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no
bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." Since this
statement is based on the very best intelligence available to our government,
which is it? What is the truth? Since the statement by our President and the
statement by Jones are mutually incompatible, they cannot both be true."...
not defeating its Taliban allies???" Now how is that
going to work? Rest assured the Taliban are doing everything they can to defeat
the occupiers of Afghanistan, which would include American forces, but Obama
does not want American forcesto defeat the Taliban?
General Stanley A. McChrystal, American NATO commander in Afghanistan, recently
stated, "Resources will not win this war, but
under-resourcing could lose it." Stop right there. Let's go back. Resources will not win this war. This is the same
general who recentlytold his troops told his troops that the supply of
militants is "effectively
endless."He hopes to install a new approach to counterinsurgency where
troops will make the safety of villagers the top priority, above killing an endless supply of
militants.
One might easily conclude that the U.S. commanding general in Afghanistan is not
overly optimistic.It gets better, or worse, depending on your perspective.
According to Ewen MacAskill, a Washington Correspondent for the Guardian, U.K.,
"President Barack Obama is quietly deploying an extra 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, an
unannounced move that is separate from a request by the US commander in
the country for even more reinforcements [emphasis is mine]." Now someone needs
to explain something to me. How can even the President quietly move
13,000 troops to a war theater unannounced? Is there a growing pattern
here? But, wait, there's more.
However, before continuing, MacAskill tried to offer some form of explanation,
one that does not suffice. The article stated that the Washington Post reported
"based on conversations with Pentagon officials, an extra 13,000
'enablers'are being deployed. They are mainly
engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers and military police. About 3,000
of them are specialists in explosives, being sent to try to combat the growing
fatality rate from roadside bombs." "Enablers?" That's a new one.I have not
heard that term before in this context. If the reader is getting more
uncomfortable by the minute, that is understandable.
According to Melvin A. Goodwin, professor of government at Johns Hopkins
University, there is a persistent myth about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He
states, "As part of its counterinsurgency strategy, the United States must
invest billions of dollars to create more capable, accountable and effective
governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan. US nation building will enhance
civilian control and stabilize constitutional government in both countries. This
myth ignores the fact that Afghanistan and Pakistan are two of the most corrupt
nations on the face of the earth. US aid to both countries has been siphoned off
to individuals and institutions that do not contribute to US national security.
US assistance strategy has been particularly ineffective in Afghanistan, which
is 70 percent rural, and there is no indication that the weak Pakistani
government is in a position to make the reforms needed to use US assistance
effectively."
Afghanistan is 70 percent rural. I turn now to Tom Engelhardt of Tom Dispatch as
he describes General McChrystal's redeployment option. Engelhardt stated, "The
redeployment option calls for moving troops from sparsely populated and lawless
areas of the countryside to urban areas, including Kandahar and Kabul. Many
rural areas 'would be better left to Predators,' said an administration
official, referring to drone aircraft." That is what was meant when I said
earlier that we are losing ground in Afghanistan, 70 percent of the ground to be
exact. Is there a growing pattern here?
The United Stateswill now be represented in the Afghan countryside mainly by
Predators and their even more powerful cousins, Reapers, unmanned aerial
vehicles with names straight out of a sci-fi film about implacable aliens. Since
I find myself without words to describe this representation of America in the
Afghan countryside, I will relyupon Engelhardt as he continues. "If you happen
to be an Afghan villager in some underpopulated part of that country where the
U.S. has set up small bases -- two of which were almost overrun recently -- they
will be gone and 'America' will instead be soaring overhead. We're talking about
planes without human beings
in them tirelessly scanning the ground with their cameras for up to 22 hours at
a stretch. Launched from Afghanistan but flown by pilots thousands of miles away
in the American West, they are armed with two to four Hellfire missiles or the
equivalent in 500-pound bombs." By way of explanation, the pilots are located
inplaces like Creech
Air Force Base outside Las Vegas, and Davis-Monthan Air
Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. Engelhardt, "To see Earth from the heavens,
that's the classic viewpoint of the superior being or god with the ultimate
power of life and death. Seen on screens, they are, to us, distant, grainy
figures, hardly larger than ants. This is what implacable means."
I read an article the other day from the A.P. that astonished me. Each sentence
assailed me with jackhammer force. The article had the relatively harmless
title, "Afghan corruption worrisome," which proves the old
adage, don't read the headline, read the article.It is offered here in a
consolidated version. Emphasis is mine.
The top military commander in Afghanistan is asking for up to 80,000 more
American troops even as he warns that rampant government corruption there may
prevent victory against the Taliban and al-Qaida. Even with additional troops,
McChrystal concluded that corruption still could let terrorists turn Afghanistan
back into a haven, according to officials at the Pentagon and White House. His
request outlines three options for additional troops — from as many as 80,000 to
as few as 10,000 — but favors a compromise of 40,000 more forces, the officials
said.
"Worrisome?" Wait just a darn minute. Up till now the American public understood
that McChrystal was making contingency plans for reinforcements from 10,000 to
45,000. Now all of a sudden 40,000 troops is a compromise?
Is the federal government being forthright with the American people? Is their a
pattern here?
Meanwhile in Iraq, the US spokesman in Iraq, Brigadier General Stephen Lanza,
reported that the goal was to get all combat troops out of Iraq by August,
leaving 50,000 troops to advise and support the Iraqis. Put a different way, the
most optimistic view in Iraq is we are going to strand 50,000 American troops in
Iraq for an indefinite period of time, many of them to guard the largest embassy
in the world located in Baghdad's Green Zone along with our new and enormous
baseswhile the bulk of our forces will be there for another eleven
months.
As one observes all of this, noting the war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth
year and the war in Iraq is in its seventh year,one is reminded of the Battle
of the Little Big Horn, June 26, 1876. On his own volition the aggressiveCol.
George A. Custer led the 7th Cavalry into Indian Country dominated by the Sioux
and Cheyenne leavingin his wake the forces of Col. John Gibbon, Gen. George
Crook, and Gen. Alfred Terry. On his own volition the
aggressive President George W. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief of the American armed
forces, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, Indian Country in military
palaver,leaving behind the bulk of his forces to engage the Shi'a, Sunni,
Pashtuns, Uzbeks, and Tajiks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thoughdisorganized, not
unlike the Sioux and Cheyenne,the tribes Bushencountered arefiercely
independent and ferocious fighters. There is still another similarity. Neither
Custer nor Bush had a clue as to what they were getting into.
The analogy between the Little Big Horn in the 19th Century and Iraq and
Afghanistan today continues to be rather interesting. Custer was out-maneuvered,
out-flanked, and out-numbered. In the hornet's nest we call the Middle East, the
same is true of Bush, particularly the out-numbered part, according to
McChrystal. There is, however, one major difference. Custer was killed in the
battle. Bush was relieved. The similarities, however, continue. The Sioux and
Cheyenne had complete disdain for the federal government in Washington. The
tribes Bush attacked have complete disdain for any government, central,
provincial, and local, not to mention the government of occupiers.They rely on
the tribe for security. The American Indian was technologically inferior
toWashington's cavalry and infantry. The bow and arrow and spearswere no match
for repeating rifles. The weapons possessed by the tribes Bush attacked,
AK-47's, IED's, grenade launchers, andthe occasional mortars androckets are no
match for thehigh tech American infantry and armor along withcomplete air
superiority.
Despite enormous odds against him, because of his cunning and use of terrain, it
took over a 100 hundred years to subdue the American Indian. The tribes Bush
attackedappear to have the sameabilities. Want proof? The longevity of the two
wars caused by Bush.Are we willing to pay that price again, a 100 years,
particularly when it comes to Afghanistan, a far-off land that has no
consequence to Americans even if they could locate iton a map, aland so
different from us it could be on a different planet.
It is hoped the analogy above ends where it began, that our leaders have learned
the lessons of history ... and the immediate past.
Authors Bio:I am the author of two novels, "The Bode Testament" and "Impeachment." I am also a columnist who keeps a wary eye on other columnists and the failures of the MSM (mainstream media).
I was born in Minnesota, and, to this day, I love the Vikings and the Twins. I am currently retired and reside with my wife of 45 years in Southern California. I am a former educator and a Marine officer [ret.].
I am a self-described amateur historian, the love of the topic going back to my sophomore days in high school. I am probably the only high schooler in the U.S. to read the 1600-page "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." I also consider myself somewhat of a specialist on the Middle East. The vast bulk of my articles concern the topic.
Not unlike many I was devastated by the attacks on 9/11. So devastated, in fact, that I was determined to fight back, following in the fine tradition of the Marine Corps. But how? What could a 58-year old retired Marine officer do in terms of fighting back. The answer was quite simple. Using the writing skills I learned while writing two books, I chose as my weapon what can euphemistically be called the pen, actually a word processor.
I was determined to become a columnist to offer my sage advice while recalling recent history that I know for a fact that Americans had long since forgotten. I am here to remind them.
Fortunately, achieving the goal of becoming a columnist did not take too long. I became a columnist for a Midwest newspaper in Nov. 2001. As an added bonus, all of my articles were placed on the Internet. I have been a columnist ever since, meaning for nine years.