Winning a war means clearing and holding territory on the ground. It means occupying the ground and making it "safe" and holding it against all comers until a follow-on authority can be found to accept governance responsibility.
For 6000 years Afghanistan has been the world’s Badlands — an ungoverned zone. A funny little hat and cap is a fashion statement, not a government. Karzai, like Chalabi, like Maliki, is a double dealing corruption source of the first magnitude.
So even if we somehow conquered and occupied and made 100% safe every single square in of Afghanistan, there would be nobody to take our place, we couldn’t leave, we would be stuck with a Military Governor over there forever.
Aren’t we much better off with Afghanistan as a no-rules-in-a-knife-fight badlands? Can’t we kill the enemies of USA much better, quicker, and cheaper that way, with far less risk to our troops based on Phoney-Baloney Sitting Duck Rules of Engagement?
What if the only rules are:
1. Make sure the target is bad guys.
2. Make sure you have a clean shot, with few or no casualties other than the bad guys.
With those rules, we could use the Space Command, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the DIA, and the Air Force Facility at Battle Mountain to find the enemy, put the crosshairs on the enemy, to put fire and steel on the target, and to write and file the after action report.
Cost — about $50 billion per year (1/6th of what we are spending now trying to "win a war" in Afghanistan — a very dubious proposition in terms of it benefit to American taxpayers or their security.
Any activity of any kind, apart from whispering together in a cave, that could have serious security implications for US citizens in USA, would have some traces above ground. They can’t build a huge bomb, or poison pellet, and EMP device entirely underground even if anyone over there knew how the build such a thing.
We need to Upskill ourselves in the overhead viewing area, and learn how to deploy passive infra-red devices, and get a lot more sneakers on the linoleum at NRO and Battle Mountain, with ever more sophisticated means and methods of overhead viewing analysis.
You can’t win a war by air power alone.
Let’s say that again, so the knuckleheads hear it loud and clear:
YOU CAN’T WIN A WAR BY AIR POWER ALONE!!!!
Did everybody hear that? So, you’re not going to quote that military fact back to me, right?
But, we don’t need to, and should not seek to win a war in Afghanstan. We are 1000% better off if we let the Badlands be the Badlands.
As long as we are the most dangerous thing in the badlands — the less rules in the knife fight, the better for us.
Taliban want to shape up, or become invisible, or live like Moles for the next 20 years — their choice.
There is no Al Qaida in Afghanstan (wrong country, sorry Mr. Gates)
There are no Afghanis in Al Qaida. Too stupid. Too duplicitous.
We cannot prevent people from whisperingto each other in caves in an area the size of Texas and the terrain topography of Switzerland — we just can’t do it. If every single atom in the entire universe were a US taxpayer dollar, and if every single American were in uniform over there trying, we still couldn’t do it.
Winning a war in Afghanistan is the worst possible military, diplomatic, and fiscal out come for the citizens and taxpayers of USA.
We should switch over to a Predator-based over the horizon strategy (BY WHICH WE DON’T EXPECT TO WIN A WAR, DO NOT SEEK TO WIN A WAR, DO NOT PLAN TO WIN A WAR) aimed a furthering the actual authentic national security interests of USA.
No nation building.
No Karzai Ventroloquism
No Hearts and Minds for $100 bills or candy bars, or roads, sewers, bridges, schools, hospitals, office buildings etc etc.
No unravelling tribal groups or cells
No rolling them up
No MRAPs
No IED’s
Let the conspirators conspire. Hit them during the action phase when they have an above ground profile. Be accurate, lethal, and watchfully waiting 24/7/365, and patient, ready to rock and roll for 20 years.
Needed: 5,000 servicepersons at Bagram
plus 15,000 more in the fleet
plus 24 CIA Black Ops guys to place PIR devices
Plus 50,000 at NRO, NSA, and Battle Mountain.
Anticipated casualities 10 per year mostly re-arming and re-fuelling accidents behind the wire. It’s possible we may lose a CIA operative or two.
Outcome: Cheap and Effective Attainment of our National Goal which is to Neutralize the Threat that May Arise in an Un-Managed Ungoverned Afghanistan.
But cheap and effective is good!
So all of Washington is allergic to this plan, except Joe Biden and George Will, and me.
The grunts hate it.
All they know is "Win the War"
Thinking outside the box is not the strong suit of grunts, or of G.W. Bush, who appointed Gen Petraeus and Gen McChrystal and Secretary Gates, and who thinks that the whole chain of commnad has got really
The concept of "winning" has to be changed in the minds of the people.
We’re not fighting a "bad guy" like Hussein or Hitler, who’s death will signify the end of war. We’re not fighting a country that can sign an unconditional surrender signifying the end of hostilities… as was the case with Japan. We’re fighting a the concept of the rule of the few over the many by terror rather than by consent.
Those people who are promoting that concept have been able to keep their people ignorant of the rest of the world for thousands of years. Until recently, the last few decades, they have been able to do so. But, with the advent of radio, television, and the Internet, it’s become impossible for them to maintain their control. They have convinced their subjects that they are worthless scum and their only salvation is to die in the process of killing the infidels who are responsible for bringing this evil (we call it information and education) on them.
I was chatting with a guy in the Middle East who told me he was illiterate. Forgetting for a moment that he was communicating with me (reading and writing in English), I asked if he could read the Qur’an. He said he could. I explained to him that was the definition of illiterate… one who couldn’t read. He could communicate in seven Middle Eastern languages. Yet some Muslim cleric had convinced him he was illiterate.
The people in the Middle Eastern countries aren’t stupid. Most seem to be quite intelligent. But apparently quite a few of them seem to be relatively uneducated beyond their religion. That’s by design. The powers that be over there like it that way. They like the ability to tell people what’s true and what’s not. They don’t want the people to be able to figure it out for themselves. If the people start thinking for themselves, the rulers will find themselves deposed. Since they can’t control the minds of the people, they try to control their wills through terror.
These terrorists don’t care about ROE. They don’t care about diplomacy. Their only goals are power and wealth. And the ends justify their means. So, they’ll torture, and force their prisoners to plead for their lives on television, then they’ll publicly behead and disembowel them. But they’ll gladly trot out the Geneva Conventions when we look cross-eyed at a book they pretend to hold sacred, or when we take nude pictures of them in prison… when the ROE or conventions serve their purposes.
The military was trained to win. Over the years I was in the Navy, I had occasion to read quite a bit of the Navy Regs. There’s instructions for just about everything you can imagine. However there’s one evolution that’s notably missing instructions… surrender. I would suspect the other branches are very much the same. You don’t train to fight to lose.
Yet the diplomats and politicians tie their hands. These brilliant strategists (most of whom have never been in the military, know nothing about the military or war or combat) are the ones who set up the ROE. In Afghanistan I understand the ROE place civilian homes off limits. Now how brilliant is that? Just where do they think the enemy will now hide? It’s like saying not to search the hen house for predators. Just where do you think the fox wants to go?
You want to know why war is so costly? Because, due to the requirements placed on them by the politicians and diplomats, the military is forced to use technology to avoid collateral damage (non-combatant deaths). Technology costs money. A hundred conventional bombs can do a job for maybe $50,000… but there’s a good chance a lot of damage will be done. One smart bomb might do the job at minimal risk to anybody but the target, but it costs $500,000, and because of it’s pin-point accuracy, might arrive after the target has left the building. Now, a $5-million drone might be able to check that out, but a single SO can put eyes on for a whole lot less… and he can even direct aircraft to the site… and, while the smart bomb is a little less expensive than a jet plane, the jet can be used again. Machines (and, by extension, technology) don’t win a war, personnel on the ground do. The closest we’ve gotten to artificial intelligence is diplomats and politicians.
I was a "grunt" for a few years. I’ve had swamp water, and dirt from several countries in my boots. I’ve also been in the "head shed." There are a lot of intelligent guys there. Their problem is that too many people who’ve never been on the ground in a command position… many of whom have never been in the military… are trying to tell the military how to run the show. They look at a map and say, "It’s only about a sixteenth of an inch to that location. And there’s nothing around it. Take it." The 1/16 inch may equate to 100 miles, and the reason nothing’s showing around the proposed target is that the map is 50 years old and lacks the detail. Or they’ll look at another location and say, "Don’t go there. Too many civilians. We don’t want to make the people mad at us." As soon as the word gets out… and it will get out… where do you suspect the enemy’s heading?
The military is not a political or diplomatic pawn. It doesn’t do well in that capacity. Nor can the military be effectively overseen by just any lame-brain politician who wants to score points for his party. War cannot be a paying proposition.
We won WW II because the people, even those who didn’t like the idea of war, did without so the soldiers wouldn’t have to. The people are so spoiled that today they don’t even want to be slightly inconvenienced. They would rather soldiers do without than for them to get less for doing absolutely nothing constructive for the country or the economy. I don’t understand how people can find some figures, and make up a scenario, and expect the world to jump through their hoop.
Here’s a quote I like. It’s from a WW II Admiral.
"Some critics have accused the military of being profligate wastrels because we didn’t win World War II by killing the last [enemy] with the last bullet we had in our ammo locker. I would much rather defend myself against such charges than try to explain to my three kids why we lost our liberties because military planners didn’t want the war to end with a lot of surplus junk on our hands." (Daniel V. Gallery, RADM, USN)
I spent quite a few years trying to get inside the heads of various enemies around the world. Here’s some things I learned. Never underestimate your enemy. And be adaptive… that is, don’t lock yourself into any plan… because, in the field, situations change.
Today our troops can be faced with some really tough customers and their families in the same rooms. A smart bomb isn’t going to differentiate. A smart, well-trained operative will.
