Doc91678
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
By Ralph Peters
January 20, 2013
Going to Afghanistan after 9/11 was a necessity; staying there in force was a mistake and dragging out our failure is a travesty.
We invaded to smash al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for hosting them. Mission accomplished. Within six months. The correct military action would have been to remove our conventional-force presence while the jihadi bodies were still warm.
Instead, ideologues safe at home declared that we had to nation-build where there was no nation. Or wed have to go back.
Going back would have been an eff of a lot cheaper.
And while we tied our forces down to worthless Afghan real estate, al Qaeda just went elsewhere. (Rule No. 1: When fighting a mobile enemy, stay mobile.)
Then we politicized our commitment. Hating George W. Bush with the bigotry only a simpering faculty can muster, American liberals damned the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. No matter that, had Bill Clinton done the deed, theyd have heralded him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.
But impending elections required the left to play up national security. So the fools errand in Afghanistan turning savages into apprentice Americans became their good war by default.
Running for office, Barack Obama promised to fix Afghanistan after Bushs neglect. Elected, Obama found himself trapped in a commitment that looked like a loser, but one he had to appear to honor. So we got a surge that was on the meter before it began.
As military strategy, it was nuts. Politically, it split the difference brilliantly.
And our troops continued to be killed and maimed (1,793 killed in action and almost 18,000 wounded in action to date) for a mission the new president didnt believe in.
Ironically, his surge was backed by an unholy clot of conservative think-tank wonks...
***snip***
The New York Times ate it up.
The make-nice doctrine denied that Islam played any role in Islamist terrorism (which didnt exist, anyway). The keys to success would be massive aid and respect for Afghan culture (presumably, the abuse of women, rampant corruption and cruelty). We imposed suicidal rules of engagement on our troops in the field as if they were the threat. And we failed: Afghans still refuse to want what we think they should want.
But careerist generals played along, blaming our troops when anything went wrong. Think-tank Napoleons declared that their theories hadnt been given sufficient time and resources. The fawning journalists wrote books explaining why the generals who did the most damage were geniuses. And embarrassed politicians wont cut their losses but demand to stay the course.
And the troops? Who carried out a cynical, hopeless policy in good faith? When they get home, they can get in line for food stamps.
***snip***
Continue reading: ---->
The perfect squirm - NYPOST.com
January 20, 2013
Going to Afghanistan after 9/11 was a necessity; staying there in force was a mistake and dragging out our failure is a travesty.
We invaded to smash al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for hosting them. Mission accomplished. Within six months. The correct military action would have been to remove our conventional-force presence while the jihadi bodies were still warm.
Instead, ideologues safe at home declared that we had to nation-build where there was no nation. Or wed have to go back.
Going back would have been an eff of a lot cheaper.
And while we tied our forces down to worthless Afghan real estate, al Qaeda just went elsewhere. (Rule No. 1: When fighting a mobile enemy, stay mobile.)
Then we politicized our commitment. Hating George W. Bush with the bigotry only a simpering faculty can muster, American liberals damned the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. No matter that, had Bill Clinton done the deed, theyd have heralded him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.
But impending elections required the left to play up national security. So the fools errand in Afghanistan turning savages into apprentice Americans became their good war by default.
Running for office, Barack Obama promised to fix Afghanistan after Bushs neglect. Elected, Obama found himself trapped in a commitment that looked like a loser, but one he had to appear to honor. So we got a surge that was on the meter before it began.
As military strategy, it was nuts. Politically, it split the difference brilliantly.
And our troops continued to be killed and maimed (1,793 killed in action and almost 18,000 wounded in action to date) for a mission the new president didnt believe in.
Ironically, his surge was backed by an unholy clot of conservative think-tank wonks...
***snip***
The New York Times ate it up.
The make-nice doctrine denied that Islam played any role in Islamist terrorism (which didnt exist, anyway). The keys to success would be massive aid and respect for Afghan culture (presumably, the abuse of women, rampant corruption and cruelty). We imposed suicidal rules of engagement on our troops in the field as if they were the threat. And we failed: Afghans still refuse to want what we think they should want.
But careerist generals played along, blaming our troops when anything went wrong. Think-tank Napoleons declared that their theories hadnt been given sufficient time and resources. The fawning journalists wrote books explaining why the generals who did the most damage were geniuses. And embarrassed politicians wont cut their losses but demand to stay the course.
And the troops? Who carried out a cynical, hopeless policy in good faith? When they get home, they can get in line for food stamps.
***snip***
Continue reading: ---->
The perfect squirm - NYPOST.com
