Withdraw From Afghanistan
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 11 months ago
Michael Yon has written a short note entitled Time To Leave Afghanistan. I concur, but for somewhat different reasons, or at least, I will state my reasons somewhat differently. I had been pondering going public with my counsel to withdraw from Afghanistan, and then I read possibly the most depressing entry on Afghanistan I have ever seen, from Tim Lynch. Some of it is repeated below.
Ten years ago, Afghans were thrilled to see us and thought that finally they could live in peace and develop their country …
Five years ago they watched us flounder – we stayed on FOBs and shoveled cash by the billions into the hands of a corrupt central government that we insisted, despite clear evidence to the contrary, was a legitimate government – one that had to be supported at all costs. We raided their homes at night and shot up civilians who got too close to our convoys, we paid for roads that did not exist and, because of the “force protection” mentality, most Afghans thought our soldiers were cowards because they never came to the bazaar off duty and unarmored to buy stuff like the Russians did. In fact, every bite of food our soldiers consumed was flown into country at great expense, so in a land famous for its melons and grapes our troops ate crappy melon and tasteless grapes flown in by contractors from God knows where.
Now, they want to shoot us in the face. Except for the klepocratic elite who want us to give them billions more and then shoot us in the face.
There it is; Afghanistan is toast, and what the last 10 years has taught us is we cannot afford to deploy American ground forces. Two billion dollars a week (that’s billion with a B) has bought what? Every year we stay to “bring security to the people,” the security situation for the people gets worse and worse, deteriorating by orders of magnitude. Now the boy genius has announced a “new strategy”. A strategy that is identical to the “strategy” that resulted in a hollow ground force getting its ass kicked by North Korea in 1950; a mere five years after we had ascended to the most dominant military the world had ever known.
Tim goes on to say things about Iraq and national defense policy with which I don’t entirely agree. My views on Iraq are complicated, as my readers know, and I will recapitulate (and summarize) them soon. But if anyone would know that Afghanistan is toast, Tim Lynch would.
Listen well. This is no anti-war cry. I have argued virtually non-stop for increasing troop levels, staying the course, and increased (and different) lines of logistics for support of our troops. But I have watched with dismay and even panic over the course of the last six years as we haven’t taken the campaign seriously, and good men have suffered and perished because of it.
I have watched as different members of NATO carried different strategies into the campaign without being united at the top level. I have argued for recognizing the resurgence of the Taliban, while General Rodriguez argued against even the possibility of a spring offensive in 2008. I watched as that same general micromanaged the Marines as they surged into the Helmand Province, issuing an order requiring that his operations center clear any airstrike that was on a housing compound in the area but not sought in self-defense.
We have seen General McChrystal issue awful and debilitating rules of engagement, along with personal stipulations that modified them to be even more restrictive. “If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy… if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don’t know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so,” said McChrystal.
Those disastrous rules and McChrystal’s disastrous management played a critical role in the shameful and immoral deaths of three Marines, a Navy Corpsman and a Soldier at Ganjgal, the firefight where Dakota Meyer earned his MoH. Read the comments of the families of those warriors who perished at Ganjgal, and let the sentiments wash over you.
Study again my writing on Now Zad. I was the only writer or blogger anywhere who was following the Marines at Now Zad – how they brought more trauma doctors with them than usual due to the massive loss of limbs and life that Marine command knew they would sustain, how they lived in so-called Hobbit holes in Now Zad, two or three Marines to a hole in distributed operations, hunting for Taliban fighters who had taken R&R in Now Zad because we didn’t have enough troops to prevent them from doing so.
While I was arguing for more Marines in Now Zad, I watched as a Battalion of infantrymen at Camp Lejeune (the class entering after my own son returned from his combat deployment in Iraq) entered the Marines expecting to go to Afghanistan or Iraq. At that time we were heading for the exits in the Anbar Province of Iraq, and instead of focusing on Marines losing their legs and screaming for help in Now Zad, Afghanistan, that Battalion went on a wasteful MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit). No MEU has ever been used by a President for anything in the history of doing MEUs except for humanitarian missions.
So that Battalion didn’t deploy to Iraq, went on a MEU, and then weren’t on rotation for Afghanistan. Instead of helping their brothers in Now Zad, the Marine Corps Commandant had them playing Iwo Jima, as if we’re ever going to launch a major, sea-based forcible entry again. A full Battalion of infantry Marines with two wars going on – and no deployment to Iraq, and no deployment to Afghanistan in a four year enlistment.
I argued against night raids by the so-called “snake eaters,” with them flying back to the FOBs that night, totally absent from the locals to explain what happened and why. In addition to pointing out the wrong way to do it, I pointed out the right way to do it in lieu of night time raids by snake eaters. I have argued for following and killing every single Taliban fighter into the hinterlands of Afghanistan, while the strategists under General McChrystal withdrew to the population centers just like the Russians did.
I pointed out that withdrawal from the Pech River Valley would invite the return of of al qaeda, Haqqani and allied fighters, and that’s exactly what happened. I have been in the thick of this with my advocacy for the campaign, but again and again, it has become clear that we aren’t going to take this campaign seriously. I have advocated against nation building, and by now I think it has become clear that population-centric counterinsurgency and nation building won’t ever work in Afghanistan. Staying long enough with enough troops to find and kill the enemy has its problems, of course, including the fact that we may have to go back in eight or ten years later and do it all over again.
But that’s the Marine way. Do now what has to be done, do it quickly and violently, achieve the mission, and leave. At least I have been consistent, while always acknowledging that we cannot possibly achieve anything permanent, and will probably have to return at some point. As it is, it isn’t clear that we’ve achieved anything at all.
The Wise family from Arkansas has lost their second son in Afghanistan. For all those warriors who have given their all, and those families still suffering today because of that, America isn’t worthy of their sacrifices. To be sure, if we continue the campaign there will still be magnificent warriors who answer the call. But it’s our duty to take seriously the war to which we’re calling them if we let them go. We’re heading for the exits, releasing insurgents from prisons in Afghanistan, and instead of trying to develop better lines of logistics, we’re trying to figure out how to get all of our equipment out of Afghanistan.
Regardless of who calls for what, the President will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff what can be done to withdraw. They will ask the flag and staff officers, and the staff officers will ask the logistics officers. Logistics will decide how and when we can withdraw from Afghanistan. No one else.
But within that framework, I am calling for the full, immediate and comprehensive withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, and that we focus exclusively on force protection until that can be accomplished. It’s time to come home.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the attention.
UPDATE #2: Thanks to Michael Yon for the attention.
On January 23, 2012 at 1:19 am, David Archibald said:
There are 27 million Afghanis breeding at 2.7% per annum, while their agricultural base might support 15 million. At some point or another, half of their population will die of starvation. Nation-building under those circumstances is very difficult. To paraphrase Bismarck on the Balkans, Afghanistan is not worth the bones of one Pommeranian grenadier.
On January 23, 2012 at 1:35 am, Herschel Smith said:
Sir, rest assured that at some point in the future we will regret this. I don’t subscribe to the “Taliban are no ally of al Qaeda” narrative. We will encounter problems and sustain risk that we don’t want. But at the current time, I see no other alternative. America isn’t ready to fight this fight. We aren’t ready to fight militant Islam on our own terms, and so we will fight it on their terms. We will suffer for it.
On January 23, 2012 at 8:34 am, TS Alfabet said:
Well put, Herschel.
It is difficult to describe the feelings swirling around this issue. It is one thing to be a small, weak nation that is bullied by larger ones, with little say over the future. But it is altogether different to be the world’s largest economy; with by far the greatest output and wealth ever seen in the history of mankind; with the largest and most advanced military staffed by men and women of extraordinary valor, dedication and skill; with technologies that are the envy of the rest of the world; blessed with an abundance of natural resources of every kind– a veritable paradise of embarrassing riches; with a Constitution and system of laws that have created the greatest freedom for the most people ever known in history and…. what? We throw it all away. We tie our own hands. We enfeeble ourselves with deluded ideas of the world and our place in it. We take counsel of our political correctness. We elect unqualified leaders who pander to our sentiments with vague slogans of “hope” and “change.” It is watching a slow-motion horror movie. Unbelieving in the tragedy unfolding. Sickening. Humbling. Infuriating.
To call for withdrawal from Afghanistan because it is the least, worst choice is still poison in our mouths. If there was hope that a new president in 2013 could change things, that would be some balm. But the kind of radical restructuring of our leadership and strategy hardly seems possible by a single election. You are absolutely correct: we will pay for this. But there is no, other choice.
On January 23, 2012 at 8:42 am, Baba Tim said:
The Afghans can feed themselves and a good bit of Central Asia too if they modify their harvesting and milling procedures but good luck trying to teach them drip irrigation. It probably isn’t worth the bones of one Pommeranian grenadier or Marine rifleman but what country is? We don’t fight for land or riches anymore, we fight, at least to the best of my understanding, to keep the forces of chaos from disrupting the global economy by bringing it down through terrorism or excessive thievery. There is no threat big enough or capable enough to threaten the United States of America and this fact explains, to some degree, why the military is so confused about what it is supposed to do. Killing people is the easy part of war – it’s doing everything else that is hard and we don’t do “everything else” worth a damn – but we sure can kill people. We’re great at that.
It is just a matter of time before Islam will be disrupting the global economy. Modernity is no friend of Islam – way too many inconsistencies in the old book (not the least being outdated and wasteful agricultural practices) – and when we reach that point let’s hope the sole purpose of our armed forces isn’t still to further progressive social experimentation.
On January 23, 2012 at 11:26 am, Rich Buckley said:
“Do now what has to be done, do it quickly and violently, achieve the mission, and leave.”
While I do not expect the similarities in the prosecution of war represent anything more than coincidence, I noted last night in a live interview with Ron Paul, his own near identical philosophy augmented by his admonition that these events (war) should also be managed by the President to require Congressional declaration.
On January 23, 2012 at 11:40 am, Herschel Smith said:
You’re just kidding yourself again Rich. His philosophy and mine are certainly not “near identical.” He doesn’t believe in such a thing as an enemy. If he thinks that he can befriend the radical Mullahs in Iran – and he does – then there could never be such a thing as an enemy of the U.S.
And for his position on the Taliban, see again:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/01/16/ron-paul-on-the-taliban/
That’s the mistake most men in the military are making with their [robust] support of Ron Paul. He doesn’t believe in getting in and doing anything violently and quickly. He doesn’t believe in the need to do anything at all, ever, anywhere, for any reason. He would fight all of our wars at our own border. Very well. America has never seen this before. One taste of what Ron Paul offers and the public would be aghast.
On January 23, 2012 at 11:58 am, TS Alfabet said:
I don’t want to stay from the main topic onto Ron Paul, but it is extremely worrisome to me when I hear that people in the active military are supporting him in any fashion. His juvenile notions of the world even seem to be spreading to parts of the conservative crowd.
And no one should mistake what I construe Herschel to be saying with the Paulian philosophy of Make Love, Not War. It is oddly like a John Lennon or Eugene McCarthy kind of view. Nice to discuss over cigars and aged bourbon in the parlor, but absolutely useless and dangerous for a national policy. I can sort of sympathize with those who resort to this— it is like the crack cocaine of Foreign Policy: an easy way to dull the pain of living in a complicated and burdensome world. Just keep hitting the Ron Paul Crack Pipe and feel better about things instantly. “To hell with those [fill in the blanks],” is the motto.
Obama has the same addiction, that if the U.S. will just confess its international sins and promise to behave like the U.N. wants, everything will come up roses. Well, it hasn’t come up roses. It has come up as poisonous weeds and we are going to get a mouth full of it before too long.
On January 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm, Warbucks said:
Let’s hope your understanding is correct on Paul, as it will be rather tragic to elect another President under false beliefs (no I didn’t and will not likely vote for a rerun of Obama).
Paul’s election seems inevitable in that it will grow as an off-shoot of a seemingly unexpected alliance of purpose between renegade Tea Party members and core non-violent elements of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
When these two voices find their common ground …. as they have already found this meek little guy named Ron Paul, and there are several political arenas which can facilitate this humble alliance, with different lengths of permanency….. the alliance seems inevitable to bloom into a peaceful “spring movement” for reform:
http://tinyurl.com/7qh28pv
Politicians have been known to tweak their message depending on their audience. Some do it out of a true since of serving the greater good, some do it out of panic and fear of loss.
Tax Returns anyone?
My guys never seem to win, so no worry.
(FYI: My log-in name keeps fluctuating between Rich Buckley and Warbucks depending on the device I use to log in… no specific intention on my part)
On January 23, 2012 at 10:42 pm, Walter Sobchak said:
Of course we should get out of Afghanistan, ASAP. It is a trap. The real enemy is Pakistan, which created, trains, arms, and directs, the Taliban. Our troops in Afghanistan are hostages to Pakistan’s desire to stay on Uncle Sam’s sugar teat. We must get them out of there double time.
Then we need to pull Pakistan’s nuclear teeth.
Ripley: “I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
On January 23, 2012 at 11:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Walter, it’s more complicated than that. If we want proximity to Pakistan, having troops in Afghanistan to kill their fighters is one of the best places to do it.
Again, we will regret the opportunity that we have wasted in Afghanistan. But since we aren’t yet experiencing the affects of that squandered opportunity, we won’t take the campaign seriously.
Americans are a short sighted bunch of folk. Lack of vision, and all of that.
On January 24, 2012 at 5:54 pm, RJ said:
I saw this debacle years ago, on both fronts, coming. For me, it was an easy conclusion to reach. Post Viet Nam, our national leaders decided to use our National Guard and other Reserves as a back stop program, all the while creating the new and improved military structure of volunteers, sans draft. Meanwhile more and more people who had been trained at law schools entered political life and national government service, even within the Pentagon. Over at State there was a need for “dialogue” with all parties, even those who openly claimed to hate our guts. The feminists of the late 60s and 70s put their stamp of America on all things possible, from universities to military systems. Self-esteem became the order of the day in education, followed by tolerance, especially for sexual preferences. Diversity was code, affirmative action was a new underground railroad for those who had a different agenda for America.
The wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are more police action, a game where we have had our military marry the peace corps, all the while lawyers have been writing the ROEs even though officers present them to the troops. Ten years to fight people who wipe their ass with the left hand while eating with the right…a country that can place a Mars robot on target to do exploration, that can transplant organs on humans…who is kidding who?
Now we have a Neo-Marxist, muslim lovin Jew hatin, metrosexual as a commander in chief.
Who would want his or her son, even daughter, to be on the front lines with this kind on phony rear support? Even a $475,000.00 MRAP can’t get a victory from these people.
We killed ourselves from the home port by a bunch of malignant narcissists…we elected!
On January 27, 2012 at 10:39 am, Warbucks said:
RJ, RE: “Who would want his or her son, even daughter, to be on the front lines with this kind on phony rear support?”
Would there be any national interest served therefore, in reverting back to the practice of requiring a simple, straight forward congressional Declaration of War before we go to war?
On January 27, 2012 at 2:37 pm, Some Sock puppet said:
This whole thing is frustratingly, maddeningly nightmarish
I’ve been following everyone relevant and some not and all I can think is just break it don’t buy it.
Pull out now, deal with Iran, bomb the crap out of Afghan and Pak if they decide to push their luck.
WW is coming. We might as well be ahead of the game.
WHY we couldn’t just make this side of the hemisphere safer and let the Russians, Chinese, and Middle East duke it out over oil? Why can’t we just buy ethical oil? Why why why why why? I feel like having a temper tantrum. I mean, for f***sake!
Let them waste their lives dealing with that nightmare why we and the Canadians peacefully proseper and help Mexico regain their country and bring prosperity to Latin America. We can deal with our infastructure our civil rights issues, our growing police state, our economy and the threat of the children of marx.
On January 30, 2012 at 12:19 pm, TS Alfabet said:
@ Sock Puppet:
Very good questions. Without any simple answers.
Look to Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson for good perspectives on the American dilemma.
If you wanted to boil it down some, you could say that we are reaping the seeds of Leftism sowed in the U.S. for the past 90 years. If you think of every mechanism and lever of U.S. power– resources, military, economy, family, individual liberty, local government vs federal government, education, religion, representative politics, patriotism– each one has been grievously attacked and hamstrung by the Left during the last 90 years. I challenge anyone to identify any area of traditional American strength that has remained unaffected by the Left.
There are any number of ways to right the Ship that is America but each one would be opposed and suffocated by the Left if even an attempt was made.
It is hard not to be pessimistic for the future. The Republic cannot survive for long with this level of spending. We are in an undeclared, Cold Civil War. No one is openly acknowledging it yet, but it is clear that the Left and the Right cannot continue to peacefully coexist. Recall what happened in Wisconsin when the duly elected GOP Governor and GOP majority legislature tried to implement even a small change in public employee union power: violence by the Leftist mobs. Don’t think that was an exception. It will soon be the rule. The Occupy idiots can easily be transformed by Leftist money into snarling mobs that will attack institutions that dare threaten their vested interests.
Make no mistake. One side or the other is going to prevail in this country. The U.S. will either vanquish the Leftist minority (and they *are* a minority of about 20% according to surveys), or the rest of us will continue to allow them to run the country into a true crisis where they can effectively seize power in the name of Rescuing America. At that point, the Cold Civil War could get very hot indeed, at least in the areas of the country not already under the firm control of the Left.