RSS
Time to Cut and Run in Afghanistan
As the casualty rate begins to mount in Afghanistan, it is time to assess our progress and determine whether any good can come from our continued military presence there. On September 20, 2001, President Bush gave an ultimatum to Taliban leaders in Afghanistan to dismantle terrorist camps in that country and to hand over members of al-Qa’eda through an address to a joint session of Congress. After those demands were met with silence, America went to war in Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, President Bush announced to America that he had ordered the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom. Its goals, as expressed by the president in that address and the earlier address to Congress were to detroy the terror camps operating in Afghanistan, capture al-Qu’eda’s leaders, and to put an end to terrorist activities within Afghanistan.
These goals have been met, to a greater or lesser degree. There are no terror camps operating within Afghanistan. Many of al-Qu’eda’s leaders have been captured or killed. The Taliban, who harbored and protected al-Qu’eda was deposed and scattered to the winds. As for terrorist activities within Afghanistan, it is difficult to separate insurgency from terror and it is unclear to what extent attacks would continue in the country if America were to withdraw its troops. Certainly there will be a fight in Afghanistan to fill the vaccuum that America’s departure would create, but that violence is more properly called civil war than terror.
Nonetheless, the great prize has not been accomplished in Afghanistan – the capture or destruction of al-Qu’eda’s leader, Osama bin Laden. After nearly eight years of constant occupation of the country, bin Laden remains at large and is sufficiently safe to issue occasional messages tweaking America for its inability to reach him. This is likely to continue for as long as thousands of American troops remain in Afghanistan. The very fact that the military is in every nook and cranny of Afghani life, means that bin Laden and his protectors will keep their heads down and do what has been so successful for nearly a decade. Clearly, after a decade of futility, a military operation has been shown to be ineffective in rooting out bin Laden.
The natives, as they say, are getting restless it seems. Violence is on the increase in Afghanistan and the Coalition is losing troops at a rate higher than at any time in recent memory. At the same time, the Aghan government seems to be losing stability rather than consolidating its hold on the country. Indeed, it would seem that the Afghani people are chafing under the continued occupation of their land by foreigners. As the Soviets learned in the eighties, Afghanistan can be a tough nut to crack. Meanwhile, al-Qu’eda has relocated to the mountains of Pakistan (everyone seems to think) where they have enjoyed relative safety from American or Pakistani forces.
If the military were to leave Afghanistan and the pressure to keep bin Laden hidden were lessened, he might be enticed to relax his guard. Surely, over the course of the last eight years, the CIA has not been sitting on its hands. One would hope that they have developed sources in Afghanistan that might prove more able to penetrate the defenses around bin Laden when those defenses slacken in his eagerness to reassert himself in new terror endeavors. The military angle has played out; it is time to try something a little more circumspect. In the process, we just might save our young soldiers from spilling more blood in an operation that, while enduring, has done little to promote freedom and has little prospect of doing so or of capturing the mastermind of September 11th.
In short, it is time to cut and run. Let the chips fall where they may in Afghanistan and hope that Osama bin Laden pokes his head out of whatever spider hole he has been sheltering in for the better part of the decade. And, when he does, let us hope we have a man on the scene who can settle accounts that have long been overdue.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Lovely and well-reasoned.
When they plot inside Afghanistan and we have the next 9-11 here, likely in LA, with 250,000 dead, what will you say then?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I don’t know why they couldn’t plot the next 9/11 in Indonesia or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia – or for that matter, in Dearborn, Michigan. You seem to be certain that the fight must be won in Afghanistan. What reason do you have for hope that that can or will be accomplished there?
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
they are definitely plotting in dearbornistan
it is a GLOBAL war on terror…i agree…we should not limit our resources to a few nations
iraq, to me, is still the easiest fight. i disagree with obama moving troops to afghanistan, but then again, while we were studying military science and history, he was studying post-racial transgender nature studies at Columbia
we should fight it (have a security force) in many locales
i know you will hate that but i prefer to live
August 4th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Fighting the “easy” fight in Iraq misses the point entirely. Are we simply interested in fighting them or in killing their leaders and destroying their ability to carry out large-scale terrorist attacks? If we are simply going to fight them whereever we find them, then we are going to need to enroll every able-bodied man and woman in America and Europe in the armed services and press them into action.
If, on the other hand, we wish to kill those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, then it seems a change in tactics is necessary. Large-scale military intervention does not appear to be equal to the task. My suggestion is simply to hand the task over to the spooks who run covert operations.
If you’ve ever played chess, you will know that being able to make moves that disguise one’s intentions – that seem to be one thing, but are in reality something else entirely – are the key to playing well. Circumspection and misdirection often accomplish more than bluster and might of arms. I am simply saying it may be time to adopt new tactics.
Your wish for global war is, frankly, alarming. (“We should not limit our resources to a few nations”). I cannot share your enthusiasm for a global war that is impossible to win. (How do you prevent one hate-filled person from making a pipe bomb in his basement and throwing it into a crowed synagogue on any given Friday evening?)
August 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Karl, I largely agree with your assessment of the situation and I could not agree more that a change in tactics is needed. Trooping around, destroying the only profitable crop and waiting to get shot at like Redcoats in Massachusetts is just plain dumb.
That said, I agree with Doughboy (and you, as it is) that continued intelligence and selective targeting most not be abated.
I do take issue with you intentionally inflammatory “cut and run” rhetoric. Why write as if we have lost? Why insult our soldiers, their families and our nation with defeatist lingo?
August 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
First, it is not an insult to our soldiers to admit that the government committed them to a war that they never had any chance to win. No matter how brave and capable our soldiers are, they cannot put an end to terrorist activities in any one country, let alone globally. The very idea that we should try is insane. I think the soldiers have done an admirable job in a no-win situation. As far as the immediate military objectives were concerned in Afghanistan (and Iraq), our soldiers acquitted themselves admirably.
Second, the use of the rhetoric is a direct provocation against those so-called conservatives who foment global war and ignore the reality of the situation. The Sean Hannitys of the world would continue to fight indefinitely – indeed, 100 years or more if we are to believe John McCain’s campaign rhetoric – simply so they would not have to admit defeat. Problem is, I don’t see it as defeat to change tactics. The military role is ended – the Taliban is deposed. A new government, however feeble, has been imposed. We are trying to use a hammer now for a job that requires an auger. I used the phrase in acknowledgement of the response this proposal was likely to elicit from those types of “conservatives.”
In my view, the military can walk away with our gratitude at a job well done. They did everything that should have been asked of them, did it with near perfection, and then tried to do something that they shouldn’t have been asked to do. In my mind, they aquitted themselves professionally, capably and heroically.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“First, it is not an insult to our soldiers to admit that the government committed them to a war that they never had any chance to win. ”
Wrong, they did win. Major combat operations can be ceased.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Good. Bring ‘em home.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Umm, its not up to me but I flattered you thought it was!
August 5th, 2009 at 9:22 am
As per Bill:
“Continued intelligence and selective targeting most not be abated. I do take issue with you intentionally inflammatory “cut and run” rhetoric. Why write as if we have lost? Why insult our soldiers, their families and our nation with defeatist lingo.”
Karl, you make good points here too. Our differences in actuality appear to be minimal. Let’s continue to fight terrorism here and abroad thanks to the best trained military on earth — which continues to have sky high enlistment rates.
We don’t “bring ‘em home” when we win wars. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc.
Too bad military history has been banned by the fascists on college campuses. It might help this generation to understand their country and destroy leftism.
August 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
“We don’t “bring ‘em home” when we win wars. We still have troops in Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc.”
Nice, your self conscious admission that it all really is about building empire, not freedom. As GWB II said when ordering Syrian troops out of Lebanon, “We know that no country can hold free elections while it is being occupied by foreign armies.” That quote, unfortunately, didn’t get a lot of airtime or press coverage.
August 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
building empire? when have we done that? we’re not 17th century europeans
we free people from tyranny
too bad you guys only care about your pocketbooks and cozying up to the anti war left
August 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Do we not maintain military outposts in foreign countries? I wonder what you call that, if not empire.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
that is called keeping the peace and trying to avoid allowing dictators to retake power
i doubt ron paul would understand but it’s good for our economy, nat’l security and the world as a whole.
August 10th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
That is what Imperial Rome called it: peacekeeping.
As for how it benefits the economy for us to spend millions of dollars subsidizing other nations’ militaries, that escapes me. You’ll have to explain how we benefit economically from these taxpayer subsidies. Perhaps the military presence has a persuasive effect on those countries’ choice of trading partners? That points back to empire, I’m afraid.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I feel like I am on a leftwing site here still. There’s never any praise for our military, our Republican leaders, America etc. And there’s never any criticism twrd Obama, Pelosi, etc, only the military, Bush and peacekeeping.
And we compare the US to Rome.
Ron Paul would be proud.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“we free people from tyranny”
I suspect the former residents of Fallujah, as few as are left, would take issue with your statement. As would most any unreconstructed Southerner.
I’d be curious to hear how you define tyranny.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“I feel like I am on a leftwing site here still”
There is, indeed, great comfort in assigning labels. It helps keep track of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Much simpler that way, and you don’t have to deal with pesky facts.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
“I suspect the former residents of Fallujah, as few as are left, would take issue with your statement. As would most any unreconstructed Southerner. ”
Wow, class warfare. I guess I am right. Never seen a conservative do that. I assume you’ve traveled and lived in the south as I have, Dean? Otherwise, that’s quite a broad generalization, and pretty heinous.
Do you know people in Iraq? Every military man returning from there tells me daily how much everyone they meet loves our presence.
I’m done. This is a CNN.com chatroom. I dont need to waste time siding with America agst Ron Paul’s cult.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
It’s sad you guys, like the left, have so little faith in our military, are so xenophobic (like your hero, Mr. Paul) and do not understand the global nature of present times.
It’ll be interesting to see what you think of my post tomorrow. I’m done if we cannot find common ground there.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
You are looking for common ground on a site named donnybrook? You should post only if you have thick skin and will not become angry. It is, after all a donnybrook, and you started it.
What’s sad is you can’t seem to have your ideas challenged without resorting to name calling.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Why are we fighting amongst each other when, theoretically, we’re all conservatives?
Dennis Prager once wrote:
One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.”
I think we agree here, but will you guys tell your grandkids you were castigating the USA for fighting the Jihadists “wherever possible” so that you could condemn Mr. Bush and praise the biggest antiwar candidate alive? You’ll look bad, you know.
Oh, and Dean, my definition of tyranny is the actual definition from any dictionary:
“A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.”
That wuld be S. Hussein, the leader(s) of the Taliban, etc. You know, the guys who WERE in charge before our heroes deposed of them. Bad, eh? I guess to you…
That’s pretty straightforward. We need not complicate.
Thank you.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Dean, if you read my last THREE posts prior to this, you have left MANY unanswered questions to your VERY broad, cliche, class warfare/”name calling” statements. I anticipate your replies, rather than avoidance. G’nite.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Everyone should support killing terrorists. Why do these so called conservatives refuse to support those trying to kill terrorists and instead support ron paul?
I just don’t get it. Seems like no one remembers 9/11.
August 11th, 2009 at 6:54 am
One wonders how Dean could be “xenophobic” when his ideas do not lead the killing of foreigners on the other side of the world.
I mean if you praise the carpet-bombing an Afghan village, are you not in some way “xenophobic”?
What is your definition of “conservative”? You seem to believe we should all get along when the fact is we have different presuppositions. It is mind-boggling to you that some of us are neither hardcore neocons nor radical leftists. “Does not compute.” Therefore you put us in the leftist camp, except just about all of us are for capital punishment for certain crimes, are pretty much laissez-faire guys, would love to have the traditional family and church play a much much larger role in society, etc.
Is that leftist, really?
In one sentence you accuse Dean of making a “broad generalization,” and in the next you say “every military man returning from there tells me daily how much everyone they meet loves our presence.”
“Every” and “everyone” are broad generalizations. You really have never met a soldier from Iraq who has had his mind changed about our mission over there? I have met several, and I wasn’t looking for them at all.
As far as tyranny, to limit “tyranny” to one ruler is foolish. Aristotle and the Founding Fathers did no such thing in recognizing that democracy can become a greater tyranny than monarchy. Do you not believe that the EU or the United Nations is tyrannical in its mission and goals? We live under an administrative bureaucracy similar to what Europe has. We allow mothers to kill their children, people to be locked up in jail without warrants. We have a pay czar who oversees how much certain executives get paid. We have many unconstitutional bureaus with vast powers to regulate. We have a 9-person court (SCOTUS) which can make laws at will. As you know, I could go on.
What about all that is not tyrannical?
August 11th, 2009 at 7:17 am
To be clear, when you say kill all the terrorists you are referring to ragheads who won’t bow the knee to DC (they aren’t really people, are they?). You aren’t talking about US military that pushes a button launching a rocket into a country we are not at war with killing civilians. You aren’t talking about Sherman and his minions that leveled Georgia. You aren’t talking about Reno’s henchman that immolated women and children at Waco. ‘Cause those recipients of your particular brand of freedom might have a different view of who the terrorists actually are.
FWIW, I haven’t identified myself as a conservative since the glory days of GWB II when he launched a war against a country that has never fired a shot at us and all the right wing evangelical conservatives cheered wildly shouting, “the voice of a god and not of a man.” I suddenly realized that we had been dropping bombs on that country for 14 years for no righteous cause and GWB II was now going to ramp up the rain of fire from heaven to purge that country of evil once and for all and bring freedom. I realized I claimed to worship a different deity with radically different means of overcoming evil. Nowadays I just categorize myself as a follower of Jesus Christ. I hope there is enough evidence to convict me.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:14 am
[...] specious arguments: that this website “never [has] any praise for our military,” see here, here, here for instances where I, personally, have praised the military during the last year. [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 10:29 am
No fair, you guys throwing a donnybrook while I am in bed!
August 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am
“when he launched a war against a country that has never fired a shot at us and all the right wing evangelical conservatives cheered wildly shouting, “the voice of a god and not of a man.” I suddenly realized that we had been dropping bombs on that country for 14 years for no righteous cause and GWB II was now going to ramp up the rain of fire from heaven to purge that country of evil once and for all and bring freedom”
Wow, I walked into Dailykos.com
See ya
August 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
This site has an amazing (and healthy) blend of discordant and divergent views of any site I have ever posted at. I’m not sure what you were expecting but one thing you won’t find is unanimous praise and adulation of George the Second and the military exploits of the USA. In fact, there is nary a topic raised that does not meet with stiff and vocal opposition. I’m pretty sure that is what the moderators had in mind when launching a site called donnybrook.
Personally, I am very grateful to Mike & Karl (maybe even Bill) for doing it and tolerating my occasional rants. But then I have enough confidence in my views to have them given a healthy challenge. And I’ll always find that here.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Thanks Dean. That is precisely what we were attempting to create with this website. I can’t imagine how boring it would be as a contributor if we all posted the same vanilla topics with the same vanilla slant. Well, that’s not true, I could look at any number of mainstream multi-authored websites to experience that.
What we wanted to do was challenge each other on the extent and content of conservatism. We chose to do this for two reasons. First, whenever a person is forced to defend his position, his arguments become stronger and more thoroughly fleshed out. Second, because the modern conservative movement had evolved into somewhat of a big tent affair, there were all sorts of divergent views that were masquerading under the banner of conservatism. In that sense, we hoped to try to distill a certain canon of orthodox conservatism. This second goal, I am not embarassed to say, has neither been met, nor is it likely to. In one sense it is aspirational. But, at the same time, I think there is value in attempting the argument, if only to point out to others that there are persons in the movement who may not be in complete agreement with you.
It is this last point, I think, where the website has proven to be quite an eye-opener to folks like Doughboy. Can his crowd ever accept a more freedom-minded group like those who respect Ron Paul’s constitutionalism? It remains to be seen. Initial indications are that they cannot, but Doughboy’s visceral rejection of constitutional governance may not be representative of most neocons.
In any event, thanks for your continued participation, Dean. I may not always agree with you, but I appreciate your willingness to put it out there without getting mad.