Perspectives

On the path to defeat in Afghanistan

For those that have been paying attention, it is obvious that the War in Afghanistan is going poorly in 2012, that it is far worse now than in 2008.  National Security should be on the campaign stump, and how the candidates would win the war should be part of the discussion, but its not.

Rarely do we hear in what little discussion there is, why we went there to begin with.  That's an important detail because before we can pronounce the "war has been ended," or that the mission is complete, we must remember what the mission was and what was so important that we were unified as a Nation to go to the other side of the world, to a country landlocked and surrounded by less than friendly Nations, to fight a war in the 14th Century.

The desired end state is also missing from the discussion.  That hasn't always been missing.  It was quite clear in 2001 and slightly fuzzy but stated from 2003 to 2008.

Since we don't remember where this war came from, nor have a plan on where we want to take it, it is not surprising that we are confused as to how to get there.  Instead, politicians have gotten mired in tangential side issues.  The big issues pushed by the current political leadership have been: repeal of DADT, putting women in combat units, establishing no-fire zones around structures, and pushing talks with an enemy that has no desire to compromise.

Former Marine Paul Szoldra, in Business Insider writes:

"And yet all the blood, destruction—all the efforts of our military—cannot change the unfortunate and highly probable outcome that our 2014 exit from Afghanistan will be marked as a failure."

"I don’t want to believe it, but we are losing this war." (Paul highlights the post here)

And he is right.  We are losing.  And it is not because Our Troops lack the motivation, dedication, or will to win.  They are winning, in every encounter with the enemy.  We are losing because the politicians tried to play General, and tried to play politics on the battlefield.  They tried to use the buzzwords that were used to describe things that worked before, but stripped those strategies of key components under the cover of "Afghanistan is not Iraq."

In 2008, Obama campaigned that Afghanistan would be his "top priority."  It was not and is not and never was.  In March of 2009, he announced that "his new" strategy had been written and was being implemented, but when his new architect of the war told him he needed more Troops, he took 3 months in one hour a week meetings to hear what his political advisors thought of the General's request and strategy.

In December of 2009, Obama finally made a decision.  He announced that General McChrystal would be authorized 75% of the minimum number of Troops he needed to win, and less than half of what he wanted to do so quickly.  But more importantly, he announced that the US would be begin retreating from the war in 2011, at the same time he announced "the Surge."  This, Obama said, was finally his strategy.  He said that his time based retreat would be conducted based on conditions on the ground, and the recommendations of Generals, but he has ignored both.  Things are worse now than they were in 2009, and the Generals have asked for more, not fewer Troops.

There has been a lot of criticism about the "Rules of Engagement" in Afghanistan.  There have been times when it was reported that Troops were not authorized to have magazines in their weapons.  There have been times when air assets could not fire within 250 meters (or some other distance) from a manmade structure.  Artillery support has been denied Our Troops when they were going into the heart of enemy territory.  The Administration mandated that all night operations be approved by an Afghan court.  There have been times when US Troops were told to disarm so their disarmed Afghan colleagues would not feel slighted while in the presence of Leon Panetta. 

Troops were re-tasked with sitting through DADT repeal powerpoints instead of patrolling.  They were sat down for Suicide briefings.  They were diverted to PTSD briefs.  And the latest round of military appointees by the POTUS have stated that the characteristics developed in winning in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan must take a backseat to Garrison policies of haircuts and schools and parades.

Most recently, the senior General in the Military, selected and appointed by Obama, has entered the election campaign, aboard a Department of Defense airplane, to tell Veterans, like myself but more specifically Special Operations Veterans, to stop utilizing their 1st Amendment Rights about his boss.  General Dempsey has the authority to tell Active Duty Troops that they cannot support partisan politics (as he was doing in that use of government equipment and fuel for a media interview) while in uniform, but he has no authority over those of us who have completed Our Service.

He may not like what we have to say, but not only were we lucky enough to be born to the Right, but we risked Our Lives, and Sacrificed our comforts and time with Family, to ensure Our Citizens, Our Families, and Ourselves maintained that Right.  Those Special Operations Veterans, to a greater extent than others, have earned the Right they have exercised.  It is their moral duty to speak on behalf of the lives put at risk, who cannot complain about the infractions of the politicians.

So, how did we get here, where do we want to go, and how do we get there?

Most Troops today were not in the Military on 9/11/2001.  They don't remember the frustration of decades of terrorist attacks where we turned the other cheek.  They don't remember the elation of finally being unleashed.  They don't remember the concern that the politicians would put the leash back on before the war was finished.  There are now Lieutenant Colonels that are retiring who were brand new Lieutenants, when the first battles against Al-Qaeda in Mogadishu were developing.  They were 1st Lieutenants when Al-Qaeda bombed the basement garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Battle of Mogadishu was fought against an enemy we didn't know was Al-Qaeda.

We went to War in Afghanistan, because the Taliban government of Afghanistan was a staunch ally and protector of Al-Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11/2001.  In the 1980's, Libya had been a primary training ground for terrorists, while Lebanon was the primary area of operations.  By the end of the 20th Century, Afghanistan had become the training ground, and US Citizens, Diplomats, and Troops the target.  We went to Afghanistan to put an end to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban tyranny of a government.

Regardless of what politicians say now, the Taliban has ALWAYS and continues to be the enemy.  The chief politician was saying the same thing in 2008.  Unfortunately, his politics have created policies that undermine that fact.  In 2009, he created a revolving door policy of Taliban fighters.  He mandated a 30 day hearing after their capture, and released them to fight again.  And it has only been political pressure and enemy stubborness that has prevented him from releasing the top Taliban commanders from GITMO.

Our Troops, primarily about 200 Soldiers from 5th Special Forces Group, defeated the Taliban government in about 2 months in October and November of 2001.  They won quicker than anyone expected.  Al-Qaeda had lost considerable ground and retreated into the lawless border regions just outside Afghanistan, along with the Taliban.  Al-Qaeda may have expected a Clinton era response of million dollar cruise missiles blowing up thousand dollar mud huts, but its strategy was to outlast the American Will to Fight.

For some time, Al-Qaeda thought the path to victory lay in Iraq.  It appeared to them that they could play on the discontent in American politics there.  One of the key components of the Sustained Successes of the Petraeus Plan was convincing Iraqis that we were committed to Victory, that we would stand by Our Friends, this time.  When the Iraqis were convinced that we would not abandon them, they fought alongside us against Our Enemy.

What should be our desired endstate?  A stable democratic government that respects human rights, an ally, in Afghanistan.  That doesn't mean that their President has to like ours, but it does mean that ours should respect that theirs was elected by the Afghans, and that our chief politician doesn't have a vote.  The desired endstate must recognize that if the same Taliban government returns to power, we have given away Our Victories. 

We have to know where we were, where we are, and where we want to go, before we can figure out the path of how to get there.  We have to recognize what it takes to win a war, before we can set a path to Victory.  And defeating the enemy boils down to one primary factor: destroying the enemy's will to fight.  There are many ways to do that, but none of those include telling the enemy that you are going home.  And we can't reasonably expect to destroy the enemy's will to fight when we won't even admit who the enemy is.  Ignoring Al-Qaeda's declarations of war in 1996 and 1998 did not prevent 9/11 and ignoring the Taliban's plan to retake Afghanistan won't win there.

In October 2001, the odds were stacked far higher in the enemy's favor.  Then they had an Army, with tanks and artillery, on terrain they controlled and knew, against a few hundred dedicated Special Forces Soldiers.  In October 2012, they have a few thousand terrorists, many of which have been released by Coalition EPW facilities, and often dress in burkhas out of fear.  They rarely have more than medium machine guns and explosives, but no tanks.  The one thing they have plenty of is hope and a date of departure of their enemy.

We have to put Victory back into the discussion.  The only "end" to war without Victory, is defeat.

"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." General George S Patton

Just as we defeated the Taliban when George W Bush unleashed Our Troops in 2001, we can defeat them again if the POTUS will unleash Our Troops now.  Just as we defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when the Iraqis realized Our Commitment to Victory in 2007-08, we can defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, again, if the Afghans believe we are committed to Our Friends in 2013-2014.

And Paul, good job.  That's a well written article.

Disturbing Detention: Former Marine held for Facebook Rants

UPDATE (23 AUG 2012): From the Richmond Times Dispatch;

"After an hourlong hearing, Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett said an involuntary commitment petition issued against Brandon J. Raub was invalid because it contained no allegation or basis to holding him.

“The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy,” said the release order signed by the judge and sought by lawyers Anthony F. Troy and Brian D. Fowler.

Sharrett said that he was shocked by the failure of a magistrate to not include in the order any grounds for holding Raub, a Chesterfield resident who was transferred from John Randolph Hospital in Hopewell to the Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center."

This Ain't Hell reports.

I have long stated that the 1st Amendment protects the right of the individual to not only be stupid, but demonstrate how stupid they are, to the rest of the World.  The 5th Amendment comes into play into this case as well.  It provides that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Last week, Brandon Raub, a US Citizen, and Veteran of the US Marine Corps, was detained, based on "tips" about his Facebook postings.  According to some reports, the US Secret Service, the FBI, and County Sheriff's office were involved and he ended up in involuntary detention for 32 days (so far) for "mental health" observation.  So far, the FB postings I've become aware of, demonstrate a propensity for him to believe in various Conspiracy Theories, surrounding 9/11 and other events of historical relevance, but I've seen no indication that he has attempted to commit or conspire to commit any crimes.  It does appear that he believes that the Nation is headed towards Civil War or Revolution in the near future, but I have seen nothing that indicates that he is calling for Armed Conflict, only that he believes it is coming, and that those opposed to the government will ask him to join their side, as a leader.

Some have speculated that there must be more behind the scenes, than what has been published about him, and his condition.  "They" have stated their faith in the authorities that made the decision.  And in most cases, I too extend the benefit of the doubt to my Brothers in Blue, but they are not infallible, and they are not all equal.

Now, I am not defending his rants, but I am defending his right to believe those things, and his right to tell the world about them.  I think his 9/11 Conspiracy Theories are downright idiotic, though it is usually people smarter than me that are able to connect dots with lines that don't exist.  The 1st Amendment doesn't protect only politically correct, uncontroversial, or unoffensive Speech.  It protects offensive, politically incorrect, & incorrect opinion.  It protects political speech against the government and ruling politicians.

Like Raub, I think a Civil War may be coming.  I fear it may be coming.  There is widespread support for a government spending out of control, doing things which the US Constitution does not support.  And there is backlash to that.  I believe it would be counterproductive, to the goals of Constitutionalists, for the Nation to devolve into war.  I hold that if they cannot convince the People of the United States, with rhetoric, of the importance and value of the Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution, there is no amount of violence that would convince the people otherwise.  Conversely, a Civil War would be sufficient excuse for their opposition to re-write the Constitution, or at least "temporarily" set aside the Bill of Rights.

Raub, is a difficult person for the average person to defend.  Few people believe in the whacky Conspiracy Theories he spouts.  Some might even call him paranoid.  But paranoia is a subjective diagnosis.  It rests on the fears of the individual being "baseless."  And the information known in this case does not support his fears being "baseless."  No information has been published giving a basis for crime or danger to anyone.  He's vocally suspicious of his government, and his government has removed his liberty.  His government has given a base for his fears.

I have engaged in verbal combat with all kinds of loons and quacks, as well as those across the political spectrum.  It is my 1st Amendment Right to point out the fallacies of their arguments.  In the course of the last few years, I've come across Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Conspiracy Theorists, as well as Republicans, Democrats, Constitutionalists, Isolationists, Libertarians, Militant LGBTers, and various other stripes.  Some have accused me of wishing to deny their Rights to Free Speech, because I was exercising my own.  But the bottom line is that Free Speech is every Citizen's Right, even those that disagree with me, and even those that believe stuff that is bats*** crazy.  One even has a 1st Amendment Right to argue that the 1st Amendment should be repealed.  The 1st Amendment protects the most unsavory of arguments.  It just doesn't protect speech that conspires to commit crimes, nor does it protect crimes committed (including trespassing, espionage, or treason) prior to, during, or after the Right of Free Speech is invoked.

While I believe Raub would have been better served having exercised his Right to Remain Silent, rather than his Right to Free Speech, he also has a Right to Due Process, PRIOR to him being denied his Right to Liberty.  And his detention is more likely to push more to fear their government, than to convince Conspiracy Theorists of the errors of their illogic.

((And for the record, having Adam Kokesh in one's defense team is a bad move.  But I'm not going to link to that.  You'll have to go to TAH to view the video: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=31653))

In EVERY case, the government has the burden of proof and in this case it has not proven, in the court of public opinion, that Raub's 1st or 5th Amendment Rights should be revoked.

Even Rachel Maddow found the concept of preventive detention to be abhorrent, when proposed by her favored politician.  And he was talking about enemy combatants:  

Dishonorable Disclosure: The Silent Professionals Speak Up

"Loose lips sink ships!"

There are thousands to millions of individuals that have devoted their lives to silently serving and sacrificing to keep this Nation safe.  Having sacrificed their bodies, having given up holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, births, deaths, and graduations with their families to serve in the worst s***holes of the world, they've withheld from even those families, the valorous acts they've undertaken.  They've lived the law of "need to know" even when their colleagues had the security clearance to hear.  Video produced by Special Operations (OPSEC) Political Committee.

It should be no surprise that there's a burr under their saddles, when politicians put those lives at risk, to prove how smart they are.  The video above spells out why pretty clearly.  I encourage readers to not only watch the video but share the video with everyone they know.  But, before I saw the video, I heard complaints about it, from supporters of the Politician leaking the information.  Those supporters "couldn't understand" why this would be an issue.  As such, I'll throw my own two cents in the ring:

During WWII, Winston Churchill received classified information that the Germans would bomb a particular city.  He was faced with a dilemna.  He could warn the town and save thousands of lives, but if he warned the town, the Germans would find out he had, and there was but one way the English could have gotten the information.  The Allies had broken the highest level of encryption the Nazis had, and had become privy to the highest levels of communications, communications the Nazis were certain could not be broken.  Because they did not believe it breakable, the de-cryption of it revealed information that eventually defeated Nazi Germany.  Churchill could not warn those townspeople, because while it would have saved those thousands of lives, it would have cost hundreds of thousands or millions more lives in the war.

In 2001-2003, US Forces came close to killing or capturing Osama bin Laden numerous times.  And every time they were getting close, some idiot on CNN would have to prove how smart he was.  He would explain in detail, how he had figured out to within 100 miles of where OBL was.  Bin Laden would stop doing those things, and the trail would go cold.

In 2011, we finally got bin Laden.  There was likely a single individual that put those bullets in our #1 enemy's body, but he didn't do it alone, and it wasn't a politician.  It was a team effort, by individuals that have devoted themselves so completely to defeating Our enemies, that few outside their families and colleagues even know they are anything more than "common SeALs," which are elite forces in their own right. 

It wasn't the decisions of a single bureacrat or politician that led to the information for that operation.   It was information gleaned from Gitmo detained terrorists, as well as ongoing NSA operations, as well as CIA operations, and probably a dozen more agencies we don't even know about.  But there was a single Pakistani doctor singled out, because a politician wanted to prove to the world how smart he is.  That doctor was providing vaccinations and provided the DNA proof that that was the right house.  He should be living large, basking in the millions of dollars of reward money.  Instead, he languishes in a Pakistani prison, because a politician in the White House wanted to prove how smart he is.

And it's not just that Doctor that has suffered.  By revealing the means of how we found out, for certain, where ObL was, that politician also put in jeopardy all Doctors providing polio vaccinations in Pakistan.  250,000 kids cannot be vaccinated, because the Taliban are worried that those Doctors too will give the CIA their DNA.  Doctors have been killed as a result.  Doctors have been shot and beaten, because a politician wanted to prove how smart he is.

If the Silent Professionals can overcome the temptation to brag in the bar about their exploits, then that Politician that watched them in an air-conditioned office on the big screen should be able to keep his trap shut too.  Even Diane Feinstein of California understands that, and she's a supporter of the Politician in Chief.  There's a good reason why those that sacrifice take issue with the senior politicians of this country, and this is just one more example.  In this case, he is risking their lives, as well as their ability to keep this Nation safe.

Rising "Green on Blue" Violence in Afghanistan

As of Friday, there were at least four attacks on US Troops by insurgents in Afghan uniforms, last week.  There are no reliable records on how many "insider attacks" have occurred over the course of the war and the government has long attempted to downplay the significance of these attacks, but the number for ALL such attacks in 2007 was in single digits.  In 2007 and 2008, they were referred to as "isolated incidents," and they were.  In 2011 and 2012, they have been characterized as "lone wolf" attacks and they are not.

In one of the earliest attacks of this type, people asked me "how could this happen, why did this happen, what does it mean?"  The first thing I pointed out was that the attacker was in an Afghan uniform, but as of time of the question, we didn't know if the individual had been part of the ANP or not.  A later attack was conducted by an Afghan that was clearly a member of Afghan Security Forces.

The danger of these attacks, even then, especially then, was very clear, at least to me.  A single such attack would erode the trust of Coalition Forces, and the Afghans they were training and mentoring.  As suspicions towards Afghan Troops rose, individual Afghan Troops would feel slighted and disrespected by their International allies.  As the common bond of Warriors and trust of allies broke down, effectiveness of the war would erode.

While Afghan culture does allow for minor slights to escalate into murderous retribution, this was not the most likely culprit, then or now.  It might be the basis for a few of the attacks, but the culprit was far more likely to be infiltration of the enemy into Afghan Forces.  A significant difference between then and now is that the government attempted to find out what happened then while the current Administration attempts to deny the reality that Afghan Forces have been infiltrated by the enemy, even when the attacker appears in Taliban videos.

Investigators have long understood that the most likely answer is usually the correct answer.  The most likely answer is and continues to be that when Afghans attack Coalition Troops, while in an Afghan uniform, it is the enemy, in that uniform.  While it is possible that an Afghan Policeman felt so disrespected by his allies that he decided to kill them, it is highly unlikely that this occurred more than 30 times this year and more than 4 times last week.  It is even more unlikely that he had not joined the Taliban, only after he had killed US Marines.

Why would the enemy infiltrate the ANSF?  It's textbook in guerilla warfare.  First the enemy needs as much information as possible on Coalition operations.  Secondly, these attacks erode the alliance, particularly if the Troops believe they are conducted by average Afghan Troops, rather than the enemy.

How did the enemy infiltrate the ANSF?  In 2009 and later, moreso than in prior years, the International "strategy" was to rapidly increase the number of Afghan Troops.  The "desired end state" was for the Afghan Forces to first take the lead, and then take complete responsibility for their war.  It sounds good on paper.  The problem is that the rapid expansion meant that everyone being dropped off on the Recruiting Center's doorstep was given a bunk and a uniform.  There was no one "vetting" them.  Mullah Omar's own son could have joined and no one would have known.

Many would say that "it would be impossible" to vett Afghan recruits anyway.  Hogwash.  It's been done in places just as challenging, if not moreso, than in Afghanistan.  No, you can't google an Afghan's name and check his birth certificate or criminal record.  That is a lazy man's excuse for why it can't be done in a remote, rural, illiterate location.  No, to vett a recruit in Afghanistan, you have to physically send someone to the places he has lived.  You're checking not only the individual but also assessing the person giving you information on him.  And here, Afghan culture actually assists in vetting.  Here, by holding the village elders responsible for the actions of their own, you increase the ties between remote villages and Afghan security, and increase the effectiveness of the vetting process.

So, why is the government denying that Afghan Security Forces have been infiltrated, and Our Troops are being killed by the enemy in Afghan uniforms?  Because the current Administration is responsible for the new "strategy," the strategy that called for a rapid expansion of the ANSF.  The current Administration wants to "end" the War in Afghanistan.  For that, it needs public support.  And support has swelled for an end to the war, even amongst detractors of the Administration, because of the "insider attacks."

While I can appreciate the call to "Fight to win, or bring them home," we didn't start this war.  Before we decide whether or not to continue this fight, we must first remember why we went to Afghanistan to begin with (9/11).  And having remembered why we went there, we must then ask if we leave now, will the situation of that time return, change, or improve.

To answer that question, one must look at the enemy.  How many Americans remember who Mullah Omar is?  Too many do not, but he is and always has been the leader of the Afghan Taliban.  Has the Taliban changed its political ideology?  Not at all.  Has it changed its allies?  Nope, they are still allied with the Haqqani Network and Al-Qaeda.

So, if the enemy has not changed, what has?  Well, we have a different President now than we did then.  The enemy has expanded.  While Al-Qaeda was defeated in Iraq, it has strengthened in Yemen.  Politically, Islamism has taken power in Tunisia & Egypt, and gained ground in Syria and Libya.  While Somalia appears to be a stalemate, it has opened warfronts in Nigeria, Mali, and Kenya.  And a reluctant ally, Pakistan, has grown closer to an age old enemy, Iran, in the last 3 years, while Karzai has been alienated by US politicians.

And while Al-Qaeda was defeated in Iraq, violence is increasing again there.  Though it was a fledgling democracy in 2008, the current power struggle is between Iranian backed political parties and Al-Qaeda backed terrorists now.  The largely non-Islamist people are stuck in the middle.

Wars are won by destroying the enemy's will to fight.  Unfortunately, US Politicians have worked to erode the US will to fight, not the enemy's.  As a result, the enemy is expanding and their resolve growing.  If we want to win, we must renew our resolve, and we must remove those politicians that are undermining it.  The problem is not Our Troops, but the leaders voters put in charge of them.  The problem is not an undefeatable enemy, but rather an uninterested POTUS.

Obama's Anti-Military Legacy

Most legacies are written years after the record has been completed.  Almost all politicians lie.  They claim successes not their own and deny failures of their responsibility.  But in the case of Obama and the Military, the record is quite clear.  It may not have been apparent to party loyalists in 2008, but it can not be considered as anything but clear in light of the last 4 years of decisions.

Party loyalists have asked me how I could dislike this politician this much.  They have asked me why I do.  They have asked me whether I think Romney would reverse the ills of this President.  Some party loyalists want to believe that they can "support the Troops" while voting for the current politician in chief, that he really isn't as anti-Military and anti-Veteran, as the majority of Troops and Veterans I know believe he is.

His record on the Military precedes his current position.  As the junior Senator from Illinois, he voted against funding the Department of Defense and against funding the Troops in Combat, in the middle of Two Wars.  In 2007, when the Senate got their demand to have General Petraeus ordered to Washington in the middle of a war he was turning around, the junior Senator from Illinois leaned back and chewed his gum and ignored the proceedings until he had a chance to give a campaign speech.  When Soros' PAC, MoveOn,org attacked the General as "Betrayus," Obama couldn't find it in him to condemn the actions of his benefactor.