Attention Must Be Paid

Did anyone notice the latest mid-term campaign ads? Did anyone see what the issues were, besides the variety of nastiness used to impugn one another? We heard about health care, good and bad. We heard more about earmarks, the crushing deficit and national debt.

But did anyone hear a political ad mentioning, even in passing, that we are engaged in the draw down from one war in Iraq, and the ramping up of another war in Afghanistan? Did anyone mention the sacrifices that are being made by the men and woman in the Armed Services? We have dedicated volunteers who have joined a branch of the U.S. military who were not even mentioned in this very important election.

The cost of those wars has driven up the deficit sharply and will continue to do so for at least the next four years, if not more. No mention of the brave work our people in uniform do to keep the terrorists on the run.

Ben Stein, the noted columnist, said last week, using his often-used line, that Attention Must Be Paid to these increasingly hard slogs of war creating a huge money pit from which we may not be able to climb out of. He was appalled that no one mentioned the soldiers, marines, and others fighting for their lives. The pols were too busy thinking of winning, and then becoming a thorn in the sides of the other party; maybe even their own party, openly stating that they would not compromise to get anything done for the country.

"Obama Wars" - A Must-read for All Americans Who Want the Wars to End

Bob Woodward’s latest book, “Obama Wars”, was one of those books I could not put down. It read almost like a spy novel that I had to continue to turn pages to see what happened next. My Kindle got heavier as I read each night, falling eventually onto my chest or the bed as I struggled to stay awake.

As an amateur student of history I was fascinated by what Woodward learned about what was going on in the White House with the war planning for Iraq and then Afghanistan. I felt like I was in the same room with the “principals”: General Jones, Secretary of Defense Gates, Secretary of State Clinton, Leon Panetta, and a few others. The dialogue is both intriguing as well as surprisingly mundane.

I was shocked that I understood all that they were talking about, and it often reminded me of many discussions I have had with colleagues on what to do about the two wars in which the U.S. is engaged. The same issues and “what ifs” have likely been thrashed out in offices, dorm rooms, and living rooms across the country. It surprised me how often nothing gets settled in any discussion, even when the President declares it settled (think number of troops to send in to Afghanistan). It seemed like Woodward had a spy cam on the wall of the Situation Room in the West Wing to be able to report such detailed meetings (along with the constant rehashing).

Book reviews have stated that the book title does not just mean the military wars the President is managing. It is clear that there has been (and certainly continues to be) an occasional battle among the principals and “sub-principals” on how to conduct the nation’s business. Now that Chief of Staff Emanuel is gone, that may ease some, but there is still enough pettiness to go around so the internal war marches on.

I was struck (and somewhat disappointed) that these major players in the White House had no real clue about what the right plan of action was in the wars our military is fighting. Some think we are in a quagmire, ala Viet Nam. Some think that we can never win over the Afghan people enough to get them to take over their own country. No one feels that Karzai is playing it straight (if he even could) and that he is just an opportunist taking what he can bleed from the U.S. and coalition forces.

Finally, I was pleasantly surprised at how much the principals, including the President, were concerned about the will of the American people. Knowing that much of the public is tired of wars, they understand do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want. Even the President. Read the book – it is enlightening in a sort of scarily unenlightened way.

Counter-insurgency Seldom Works: A Long Costly Slog

As the American people become increasing tired of the war in Afghanistan, the military and the administration keep looking for victories that will show that the war is winnable. Fewer people believe that everyday.

Most wars of history involve “traditional” methods taught in military academies, where a sort of chess game was played between the sides. In Afghanistan, there is no clear enemy and one that certainly does not subscribe to the “rules of war.” The insurgency continues on with the U.S. and (dwindling) allies playing a sort of “Whack-a-Mole” but never getting to the core.

Guerilla warfare is not new, but it is the lesser method that is often looked down upon by our trained generals. The problem, it seems, is that there are no rules, and therefore hard to define the “game.” In the U.S. Revolutionary War, the colonists essentially won by their guerrilla methods attacking from all sides, within towns, and often without a uniform to identify the combatants from the citizenry.

In the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate Quantrill’s Raiders were successful at terrorizing the people and the Union armies alike. In fact, in 1865 when General Lee could see that the cause was lost, he kept fighting for honor. He was approached by his soldiers who begged him to let them fight by insurgency and guerilla methods, which Lee knew to be their only chance for any success. He knew that insurgents would wreak terror and murder on the North with the Union army unable to quell the actions. Lee knew that he would not have to surrender and that the army as guerillas could keep the population terrorized for decades, and eventually the North would ask for a truce. This was the best and probably only chance the Confederacy had of any success in keeping their new country and with it, its slavery.

Yet Lee, a statesman at heart, also knew he could not put his country (the U.S.A., not just the C.S.A) through this prolonged nightmare of unending battle. He chose to say no to those who wanted to mix with the population and fight in the streets. He did not want to have the country go through that pain.

Today we have a similar situation in Afghanistan. The insurgents will continue to terrorize and mix with the population to plant bombs, murder civilians, execute aid workers, and the U.S. with all its might cannot whack the last mole. Lee was right in thinking that the Union would eventually declare a truce and stop the war, especially after Lincoln was gone. Today, the same thing is starting to happen. Public support is fading and successes are few. Afghanistan does not want our help, cannot form a government that works, and fails to even police themselves. While fighting insurgents we are desperately training Afghans to take over and they are not up to the job. It will not work. We must preserve what treasure we have left, and certainly spill no more blood thinking that we are fighting the ghost of al-Qaeda. No one seems to have a better idea.

Afghanistan - At What Cost?

I read today about the U.S. efforts to help Afghanistan get electric power to the 90% who do not have it. I first read with pride that we have financed and built a generation plant that would ease the suffering of this stone-age country.

I read further that the plant had huge cost overruns, along with shoddy workmanship and the requisite corruption. That plant, built at a cost of about $305 million dollars (and who knows if this is the real cost), is now mostly idle because the Diesel fuel required to run the turbines is too expensive. So the Afghans are importing cheaper electricity from other sources. They say, "thanks, but no thanks" to our now completed power plant. We have spent over $60 b-b-billion for this war in Afghanistan. We are fighting an essentially unseen enemy, who looks like every other civilian in the area. Our troops are required to hold fire to avoid killing civilians. They have to be shot at first (with that method's concomitant troop losses), before they can engage. Then when they do engage in a firefight and a "civilian" is killed while they were having lunch with a Taliban fighter, the U.S. gets raked over the international coals for its actions.

I probably am not for a precipitous withdrawal allowing the Taliban and their pals in al-Qaeda to have free rein, but we'd better develop new Rules of Engagement that allow us a chance to win this war. $60 billion could have bought us about 20 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers - not that we need them...yet.

Help Afghanistan? Really?

I could buy that we needed to be in Afghanistan to "root out the terrorists". I could buy that we were doing good things there. But if Karzai doesn't buy any of that, and in fact, comes close to calling the U.S. "invaders", then it is time to leave.

We cannot responsibly pull up the tent stakes and Humvees precipitously, but we sure as hell can start to move out. The U.S. has always said that we don't want to be where we are not wanted. I assume that only means allies, and not enemies. But now I am not sure that this "ally" wants our help. We certainly could use the money it would save. And there are other ways to get to the terrorists (just ask Cheney). Oh, did I mention that Al-Qaeda is mainly in Pakistan anyway?

Let begin the pullout now; let's get the Navy team over to haul back our materiel and let's get the Air Force to fly our troops home to their families. When an ally calls us invaders, it is beyond time to go.