War On Terror News

Withdrawal is NOT an option in Afghanistan

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing"-- Edmund Burke

It seems like every-time that I turn on the news there is some political pundit, politician, academic, or political activist stating no more Troops for Afghanistan, and pull our Troops out now. It must be nice to be able to make statements, with no regard for our Allies, Enemies, National Security Policy, and our own Nation's security.

First off, whether you agree with why we went to War in Afghanistan, the simple fact is we are there now. Which leads to a very important concept. "If you break it, you bought it", sounds like something you would tell your children. But, within International Law and Norms if you invade a country, and unseat their government, you are responsible for rebuilding it. So we, very simply put, have a solemn and legal responsibility to help rebuild the Country of Afghanistan.

Secondly, we have in good faith, in treaties, and in military arrangements given our word to helping the Afghans build and restore their country, military, infrastructure, and government. Do we no longer believe in our word? Do we no longer believe in our honor? We have spilt blood in the same mud alongside these heroic men who have put themselves, and their families in grave danger by siding with us. How can we abandon them? Very simply put, We Can Not!

September 11th And Have We Forgotten?

I was going to start this post off with the Darryl Worley Video, "Have You Forgotten", but Universal Music Group has all the embedding disabled on their videos. But that is ok. Its a great song, and he's a great guy, so just think about the song as you read this article.

This post started off completely differently two days ago when I began writing it. My original intent was to highlight all the good that has happened since then, and my memories of it. I no longer think that is the correct way to go.

You see, over the last 48 hours, I have heard a phrase over and over again, and it has really begun burning me up inside. Maybe it's because since September 11th, 2001, I have lost more good Friends and Soldiers then I care to count anymore. Maybe because many those times I was there as they breathed their last breath. Maybe it's because in the Military our families have given so much, that it will take years to catch up with one another. Maybe it's all of the above.

This is not me whining. I raised my right hand fully knowing what I was doing. I wholeheartedly believe in my Oath of Commissioning, and the sacrifices that it asks for. That is what I signed up for, to defend my Country at any price; and trust me I understand those costs and would pay it gladly. But, when I hear political analysts stating that we could have paid for health care and fixed the economy if not for, "Those Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan", I get just a bit angry. Well in all truth, I get downright flaming mad.

Have we forgotten that almost eight years ago four planes loaded with our fellow citizens were hijacked? Have we forgotten that three of them were used to destroy the World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon? Have we forgotten that Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers rallied themselves and saved a fourth attack on DC from happening? I know that for many of you that is a resounding no, especially those of you who follow the blog. But, for many right now, especially those who are on television trying to discuss current issues, I would say yes, they have forgotten. If not for "Those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" how could we look the survivors in the eye.

Why Afghanistan Matters

There has been a great deal of discussion in the past 48 hours about Afghanistan in many of the papers. Most of it focused in the editorial pages by esteemed men like George Will. The peace movements also seem to be mobilizing to try to launch a public relations campaign in October to focus upon pushing for a withdrawal of US Forces from Afghanistan. With all of this being said, the question becomes; why does Afghanistan matter to us?

To answer that question, and to try to cover all bases in an objective fashion, I am going to address it utilizing the foundations of the Realist, Liberal, and Idealist schools of thought. I debated long and hard over whether I should address it as an idealist. But, since many of the arguments are being formulated in this fashion, I thought it was only fair. That, and to be honest, I tend to be a bit of an idealist myself.

First up, the Realists. The Realists state that all nation-states operate in a system of international anarchy and that they act solely in their own self-interest. If I were to answer the question as a Realist, I would tell you that a failed state in Afghanistan would directly affect the security of Pakistan, a nuclear power. It would also serve to provide a safe-haven for Al Qaeda to operate from again. In addition, it could act to destabilize the Central Asian states to its north. Opium trade would increase thus directly increasing organized crime in Russia and Europe. In the end, becoming a security threat to the United States both through direct and indirect methods. As a Realist, I would argue for the United States finishing the mission we started because it is simply in our best interest to do so.

Military and Social Media Part Two

There has been a huge amount of discussion about the Military and a possible ban on Social Media. The US Marine Corps already has gone that route it seems. Here are a couple blog entries about it:

• USACAC FT Leavenworth: Overcoming SNS Fears
• The Pitch: A Step Backwards
• DoD Live: DoD & USMC Speak Out on SNS
• FT Leavenworth Lamp
• A Major's Perspective on SNS
• Army LIve: US Military and SNS Access
• Wired.Com's The DangerRoom: USMC Bans SNS
• WOTN: Orwellian Allegations Obscure Debate
• On WOTN: Actual USMC Message on SNS ban  

My goal tonight is to talk about a couple of comments made in the various discussions. Most of you know from my first article about this subject where I personally stand. Just to re-cap though:

1. It is imperative and part of our duty as Professional Military Officers to tell the stories of the American Soldier to the American People.
2. The American People deserve to know what their wonderful Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard are doing for them.
3. Social Media to include Blogs, Twitter, and Facebook are imperative to accomplishing this.
4. Cutting off access is not the answer, fixing the security problems and providing proper education on usage are.

One of the arguments that has been made is that cutting off access to social media sites on government systems is no different then corporations that do this. That service personnel can still access these web-sites from home, so there is no impact.

Well this might be true if we were a corporation that was not forward deployed to all four corners of the world. I can only speak on this matter from my own personal experience, but I did not see many purely civilian computer services in Iraq in 04/05and Afghanistan in 07/08. I would say that 90% of my time spent on the Internet in theater was accomplished through government systems.

Now, I'm sure that someone is going to write to me and give a list of where civilian Internet cafes are in theater. That info is probably all true. As an Infantrymen though, who has spent much of his time in small Forward Operating Bases and Combat Outposts, I didn't see many of those Internet cafes. The only ones I knew of to be honest were in Kuwait, and at Bagram at the USO Facility. For me, I would not have been able to access Social Media Sites 90% of the time in theater on my deployments.

Twitter, Facebook, Blogging, and the Military

Danger Room Article: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/military-may-ban-twitter-facebook-as-security-headaches/

I caught this story from Danger Room today, and to be honest I was very disappointed. Now, just to preface this with, it seems this is just a review and that means that a recommendation would have to be made and then approved. But, the Danger Room Article also sited sources inside of US STRATCOM that stated this was pretty much a done deal. If this was a typical MSM outlet stating that I would be suspect. But, I have a great deal of respect for the Danger Room Staff. They run a top notch outfit over there. Usually when they make a statement like that, its pretty true.

So why am I disappointed? I came into the Army in 1997. As a young LT the first class I was given on media was that they were basically the enemy and to stay away. If you couldn't stay away then watch every word you said, only state what you had been authorized to say, and have a supervisor observe you. How far we have come.

Fast Forward to 2004 in Iraq. I had four of the best embedded media I could ever dream of, to include Michael Yon at our Battalion Level with the Battalion Commander. 2007 in Afghanistan, we worked with our media, international media, and bloggers to get the stories of America's Soldiers to the American People. The American People had a right to know what was really happening, and by God, we were going to tell them what their wonderful sons and daughters were doing.

In 2008, LTG Caldwell here at Fort Leavenworth made it mandatory for students at the Command and General Staff College to blog about the military and their experiences. True to the great leader that he is, he started his own blog at the same time. US Forces Afghanistan, ISAF, even the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs have joined the web 2.0 revolution and are trying to connect with the American People thru Twitter, Facebook, and their own blogs. I believe ADM Mullen is at 4000 followers on Twitter and USFOR-A broke 20,000 fans on Facebook last week.

This is a tremendous change that I have seen in 12 years. The military has embraced the web and understands that as Military Professionals it is part of our job to tell the American Soldier's Stories to the American People. Great leaders as I cited above have spearheaded it, and they deserve a great deal of respect for what they have done.

Taliban Code of Conduct

A number of people have asked me my opinions about the Taliban's new Code of Conduct. I hope to see the actual document as soon as I can find a translated copy of it. But from the excerpts I have seen, and news stories that have been written in AJE about it, it is very worrisome to me on a number of different levels.

The first area that worries me tremendously about this document is its desire to increase the Taliban's legitimacy. Many analysts have said that this document is an answer to General McCrystal's new ISAF Tactical Directive. Well, that may be part of the story, but I do not feel it is all of the story. The Taliban for the last 2-3 years has been striving to increase their legitimacy amongst the local populace. They have realized that there are gaps in the Afghan Governments ability to penetrate all of its territory with security, stability, basic sustenance, and governmental infrastructure. They have tried to take advantage of that gap by establishing shadow governments within these areas, and become the de-facto government.

Also, they have taken advantage of the weakened tribal system, and used it to play weak tribes against other weak tribes. They have formed coalitions of smaller tribes to take over areas that other tribes had once inhabited. What does all of this mean? The Taliban have taken a play from Mao and are establishing legitimacy through becoming the de-facto government. For a long time in Afghanistan, the effort for us was at establishing governance at the central level in Kabul. Because of this, local governance was not strengthened as it should have been. Coupled with the issues of penetration by the Afghan Government, this has allowed the Taliban to become a legitimate force and government in many of these areas. This code of conduct in my opinion is just the next step in achieving greater legitimacy at the local level.

Secondly, this code of conduct worries me due to its timing. The new tactical directive from ISAF HQ was signed on 6 July 2009. That means that less than two weeks later the Taliban were pushing this new code of conduct. That is an impressive timeline for an organization that is dispersed and spread throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan to publish a concise statement in return. It shows a great deal of synchronization and command and control. The other part of that timing is that this comes out less then a month from the Afghanistan Elections. I highly question how much of this was to also influence voters, and whether it will work. Coupled with the desire to increase their legitimacy, this could be a very ugly development.

Europe, Afghanistan, and Federalism

This post is inspired by a conversation we had in my class today, and by my thesis that I am currently writing for my Masters. For those of you who regularly follow me, you know I've been hammering away on it for the last few months. I am hoping to have the draft complete this week. We will see how many revisions have to be made after that.

But I digress. The point of this post is to discuss the federal system of governance and it's many positive implications for a nation-state. Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries was just exiting the Dark Ages, and the Age of Enlightenment was beginning. What would follow is quite interesting.

You see up until this point and in all honesty for the next three hundred years Europe had many issues, and experienced many growing pains. The religious wars that were fought made many actions within the current Middle East seem tame by comparison. The Catholic and Protestant nations and their military forces were quite literally at each other's throats. Governments had extremely low levels of penetration within their nation-states. Regionalism, and tribalism was quite high. Revenue generation and revenue sharing was almost non-existent. Ethnic grievances were extremely high.

So what happened? First, education began to take hold at many levels within society. The enlightenment was the beginning of this, followed by various romantic movements that strove to reconcile the natural world with the tensions of the creative genius. (1) Second the feelings of Nationalism began to take hold, spurned on in many ways by the results of the French Revolution. Third, and most importantly to me, was that many of these European Nations made the movement to a federal system of government. Some chose Republics, some Constitutional Monarchies, but the result was the same.

The federal system of governance allowed for alleviation of many of these above mentioned issues. It allowed for greater governmental penetration of it's territories. It addressed and reduced ethnic tensions and grievance by allowing for peaceful conflict resolution. It provided a form and function for revenue generation and effective revenue sharing. Regionalism and Tribalism found a positive outlet within this system and reinforced a federal state.

Foreign Policy and the Elements of National Power

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."   President John F Kennedy

I have used this quote many times to summarize my feelings on what we should be doing with the situation in Iran right now. I have also seen many people stating that we should not get involved because using the military in this situation is wrong. Well, your exactly right, but you are missing the point of foreign policy and what the elements of national power are.

Foreign Policy simply put is the complex and complicated creation of how our nation will react and interact with other nation-states. Much goes into creating this policy; personality, national interest, personal politics, and party allegiances. To offer an example, it is like making sausage. Lots of different things go into a grinder, and out the other end hopefully comes something good and useful.

The elements of national power are Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics. We, within the military sometimes refer to it as the acronym DIME. Every nation has at its disposal various levels of influence utilizing these elements of national power. But, all of them are essential and vitally important.

The Treaty of Versailles and Afghanistan

Did the Treaty of Versailles have anything to do with Afghanistan? Well no, not directly, but the inherent attitude that permeated the Versailles Treaty did.

You see, throughout most of the last half of the 19th century the British Empire and the Russian Empire were locked in what became known as the Great Game. They were fighting for control over the area that would become known as Afghanistan. The British wanted to secure their northern frontier in India, and the Russians wanted to continue their march towards a warm water port.

As they signed various treaties with one another, and certain Afghan Tribes they drew up boundaries for a country, that had never been a country. To make matters worse the British signed a treaty with Emir Khan of Afghanistan in 1893 laying out the Durand Line. This was supposed to designate the line in the sand between the Afghan Tribes and Pakistan. The British had fought battle after battle with the Afghan Tribes that had not fared well for them. Establishing a border was seen as a way to secure their possessions within present day Pakistan.

But what did this line in the sand do? Well it doesn't exist. It is just that, a line in the sand. To make matters worse, it split the Pashtun Super Tribes in two between Afghanistan and Pakistan. People in the

Middle East & Treaty of Versailles Today

Last night I talked about 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. As we discussed, it created nation-states where there had historically been none. But what does all of this mean for us now?

Well first, let us look at the easiest example, the Kurds. The Kurdish people are probably the largest ethnic group in the world with no nation-state homeland. They inhabit much of northern Iraq, parts of Syria, Iran, and Turkey. They have always been a very powerful group since they straddled the historical trade routes.

At the Treaty of Versailles they were hopeful they would finally achieve a homeland with the fall and demise of the Ottoman Empire. This was not to be though. After speeches by President Wilson their hopes were again raised by the Treaty of Sevres. But, again, they were denied a nation-state of their own relegating them to a sub-ethnic group of a variety of nations created by the European powers.