There's growing momentum in the "anti-war" crowd to retreat from Afghanistan. While, the War In Afghanistan was not an issue in the 2010 elections, indications are that it'll get growing attention over the next two years. The current administration has already announced a 4 year plan to abandon an ally led by an elected leader it has been at odds with for 3 years. Fed by the MSM, few milbloggers will even defend Karzai. He's under constant attack across the media spectrum. It is all-out character assassination.
Admiral Mullen has echoed the White House in saying withdrawal will begin in July 2011, that that is set in stone, and will occur based on recommendations by ground commanders and conditions. I read this as him ordering General Petraeus to recommend withdrawal.
The party in power in Washington has long espoused standoff wars, fought with the fewest possible Troops on the ground and hence political liability for the loss of US lives. It has preferred US Humanitarian Aid be given through the America bashing United Nations, than to be stamped with a US Flag. It has ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan while announcing the July 2011 retreat will begin "based on conditions on the ground" even while conditions on the ground grew more heated.
But even those in the far right have become frustrated with the War in Afghanistan, as they see misguided Rules of Engagement and a Commander in Chief with no will to win, a politician that won't even use the word "Victory," in relation to the enemy, much less identify what it would mean to him.
Very little of the ground truth escapes Afghanistan to the rest of the world. It's not that it's unavailable but that the MSM won't report it and few know how to find it. The situation and the Nation are too complex to fit into a soundbyte or even a thousand word essay. But to assess the necessity (or lack thereof) we must look at what took us there and what would likely ensue if we pulled out. To assess the honor or dishonor of Our Troops, we must look to what they do on a daily basis.
The "peaceniks" will point to a few anomoly stories filled with striking atrocity or disdain for civilian life. The world has heard over and over of the 3 terrorists waterboarded, by the CIA, of Haditha, of Gitmo, of the Wedding Party, even of Troops tossing puppies over a cliff. If the stories were what first portrayed and so oft repeated, which they are not, it would still pale in comparison to Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Acid Scarred School Girls, murdered 14 year old "spies," and assassinated politicians, by the enemy. The fact is that Our Troops regularly risk their lives to protect the lives of civilians while the enemy as a policy target civilians, and school girls.
The Truth is that every day, Our Troops are killing/capturing bad guys, while at the same time building schools, clinics, and roads. The fact is that 70% of Afghans want democracy. The Truth is that the Afghans are working with us.
But what took us to Afghanistan? 9/11 woke America up to an enemy so set on killing Americans that it would commit suicide to do so. It was not Al-Qaeda's first attack and it won't be the last. The Government of Afghanistan was controlled by a tyrannical dictatorship known as the Taliban. The Taliban had invited in Al-Qaeda, allowed them training camps, and protected them from International Justice. In exchange for logistical assistance from Bin Laden and recognition as an Emir in the AQ plan for an islamist empire, i.e. caliphate, the Taliban opened up their nation to international terrorism.
Who are we fighting in Afghanistan now? The Taliban, Haqqani, the HiG, and Al-Qaeda. In other words, the same enemy we went to Afghanistan to fight, the same enemy that attacked us on 9/11. The same enemy that planned and trained for that attack in Taliban's Afghanistan.
If we abandoned the field of battle today, would the Afghan government be able to stand on its own? Possibly, but given that there are 120,000 professional Soldiers fighting today that would not be in that scenario, it is far from a certainty. What is a certainty is that the country would fall into full scale civil war, not the pockets of enemy activity in today's war. In a best case scenario, the Taliban would seize multiple provinces, as opposed villages. Haqqani would carve out smaller areas of control.
In both of those areas, the mass atrocities of the 90's era Taliban would return. Women hanged for showing too much ankle. Girls condemned to illiteracy. Massacres would ensue, as would mass refugee migrations.
While the Afghan military would likely maintain control over some areas, the Pashtun areas of the east and south, along the Pakistan border would most likely become the strongholds of the Taliban, with an open invitation to Al-Qaeda.
Internationally, Russia and India would likely back the current government, while Iran pushed their own militants from the west and Pakistan would likely revert to its 1990's policies as each attempted to gain influence over the winner.
In other words, Afghanistan would revert to the 1990's or 1300's if you prefer.
But what about Bin Laden? We still haven't captured him and I'm less inclined than most to believe he's across the border in Pakistan. Iran is more likely. It's friendly (to him). It's safer. There are other possibilities, but he's days away from communications and too protected by a core inner circle to effectively lead the organization. This doesn't mean that we should end the pursuit, but that taking out his operational commanders, like al-Awlaki is more important. And routinely, we are taking out the #3's of the terrorist group.
Some politicians may covet the money of the DoD budget, but as I've demonstrated numerous times, we're fighting this war on the cheap compared to even the peaceful years of the 1980's.
Can we fight the war with fewer Troops? Our Troops will commit to Victory no matter how few are there. With fewer, it will take longer and cost more.
Can we fight this war as we did in the 90's? Remotely with drones and cruise missiles? No.
Stumble It!
