By Alan Caruba
The U.S.
military has been in Afghanistan since shortly after September 11, 2001. That’s
eleven years and it is longer than the time spent in Vietnam, though with less
casualties. We invaded Iraq twice, once to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait
after he invaded in 1990 and then, in 2003 to depose him in the hope of
bringing “democracy” to that nation. After the 2005 elections, Iraq was eager
to see us leave, but many observers say it is as wracked with violence today as it was during our occupation.
The
American way of war is not working and has not been working since the 1970s.
Armies are not intended to be “nation building” forces. Their job is to kill
the enemy and break things until a threat to our national security is ended. We
did that during World War II, fighting it in two theatres, Europe and Asia. We
won because we inflicted an enormous amount of damage in both theatres of war in just
four year’s time.
Empires
have invaded Afghanistan for centuries and usually left bloodied and battered,
Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the former Soviet Union are
examples. I doubt there is anyone who thinks we should still be there,
particularly since we fought the war by shuffling in a new general every year,
none of whom were there long enough to grasp what had to be done other than to
build up an Afghani security force that is just as likely to oppress the people
as the Taliban. The rules of engagement there are a threat to the lives of
every American soldier. It is the seventh century in Afghanistan still today.
This is a
very bad way to wage war in the 21st century and I suggest we need
to go into combat with the intent of waging short, brutal engagements, enough
to suppress the existing threat and then leave with the obvious option of
returning if that is required.
World War II was one in which we had to occupy
Japan to build an entirely new government and we had to aid Europe to ensure
the Soviet Union would not be able to go beyond the eastern nations that were
sacrificed to keep those in the west free to rebuild.
The Korean
conflict, 1950 to 1953, ended in a stalemate, albeit one that allowed South
Korea to develop into a modern democracy and economic force. The North has
remained a horror story for its people. The U.S. has maintained a fighting
force in South Korea ever since the end of the conflict and currently has about 28,000
troops there to support its military. The
North is said to have a million-man army. And missiles, some of them long range. UN sanctions have had zero effect.
Let’s
understand something. While I served in the Army in the 1960s during the Cold
War that had been ongoing since the end of WWII, I was not an officer and
received the same basic training as any other soldier. I was fortunate that no
shooting war broke out at the time I was in uniform and I most certainly am NOT
conversant with the art of war as is taught in our military universities of
West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. What I know of war I have
read in history books.
It is said
that generals always fight the last war and I suggest we have been fighting the
last war for far too long. We essentially lost the war in Vietnam when, after
the French withdrawal, we intervened in a civil war. It was a Cold War proxy
fight.
The first war against Saddam after he had invaded Kuwait could be said
to have been an American mercenary force to keep him from expanding into Saudi
Arabia, a strategic ally so far as oil is concerned. Deposing a brutal
dictator—one said to possess weapons of mass destruction—was probably a good idea,
but I maintain that once he was caught and turned over to the Iraqis, we should
have left. One thing is clear. Iraq has slipped back into a period of chaos
with constant bombings as various groups within the nation assert themselves.
We may yet
have to engage Syria’s equally brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, along with a
number of NATO and Arab League nations. He has, after all, killed tens of
thousands of Syrian citizens in his quest to retain power for himself and the
Alawite tribe that has run the nation since his father, Hafez al-Assad took
over in a coup, ruling for 29 years until his death in 2000. Syria has
supported the Iranian-backed Hezbollah which is much more than just a terrorist
organization. It controls Lebanon these days. And it threatens Israel in the
same way the Iranian-based Hamas does from Gaza. Most importantly, Syria is an
ally of Iran.
No nation,
however, appears to want to get directly involved and it’s a good bet that most
Americans do not. All manner of military preparations are being made, such as moving
anti-missile batteries to Turkey, a NATO partner with a long border with Syria.
Some U.S. special operations troops are said to be in Jordan.
All this
is occurring while the Egyptians have essentially traded one dictator, Hosni
Mubarak, for a new one, Mohammed Morsi, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood that
has plotted to take over Egypt for decades. Mubarak suppressed them. Morsi has
received an inordinate amount of praise for bringing about a cease fire during
the recent Israeli conflict with the Palestinians in Gaza and is, for all intents and
purposes, backed by President Obama.
None of this has any good long term
outcome because we are looking at a resurgent Islamic revolution everywhere in
the region and stretching across North Africa. Egypt is receding into an
Islamist orbit that cannot be good for the West or for itself.
We live in
an age of a war being waged, not always by nation-states, but by organizations
such as al-Qaeda and others. Killing their leaders with drones is probably a
very good idea and something future American presidents will be doing for a
long time. Beyond that, there is a need that our Special Forces are well
trained and equipped for their counter-terrorism operations. Get in, kill the bad
guys, get out. In larger combat situations another aspect of their mission is
securing the support of indigenous people.
I believe
that where war is necessary—even a preemptive one—the U.S. should apply it with
as much force as possible over the shortest time possible.
Placating
or warning other rogue nations like North Korea is not a policy. It is just a
way to buy time, but North Korea is backed up by China and we surely do not
want to get into a war with that nation. China should be encouraged to end the
present regime there, now into its third generation, but I am sanguine about
seeing that occur.
All this
is occurring as “sequestration” is about to cut deeply into our defense budget
over the next ten years, assuming Congress allows it to occur. Our
professional, all volunteer military is probably the best in the world, but
they are functioning with a lot of older, continually repaired weapons,
including our air fleet. Our Navy hasn’t been so small since the end of WWII. It
must be said that rotating our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors through
multiple tours of combat is probably not a good idea either. Bluntly stated,
our military has been hollowed out in the Obama administration’s first term, a
process likely to continue.
The late
Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf had some useful advice. “It frightens me when I hear
someone propose a hundred-billion-dollar cut in our armed forces without any
rationale other than that the money can be used elsewhere…we should be sure
that we have made a thorough analysis of what our national interests will be
for the next twenty years.”
“We must
ensure,” said Gen. Schwartzkopf, “that our forces remain flexible enough to
handle unforeseen contingencies. The future is not always easy to predict and
our record regarding where we will fight future wars is not the best.”
Nobody
wants World War Three, but if a nation like Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear
weapons that can be put on the nose of long-range missiles, we are virtually
guaranteed a horrendous attack on the homeland or at the very least on Israel
and possibly Saudi Arabia as well.
Short wars
for the purpose of removing an obvious threat seem to me a very good idea.
Invading and then staying around for a decade is a very bad one.
© Alan
Caruba, 2013
3 comments:
Get there fast, bring all you need and then a bit more, use it and get the hell out...
Oh no, not us, we have to rebuild the damned placed even BEFORE the fighting is done, and then we rebuild again and again...
And we leave, several thousand lives and countless BILLIONS in tax dollars later, and we didn't get so much as one drop of the oil that the Progs, Dems, Libbers and all around moonbats said we were after..
Alan, you are correct. America needs to review how they've fought their last few wars and learn from it ASAP. America and fellow NATO countries should leave countries to sort out their own issues and not stick their noses in. IF it directly affects a NATO ally, then that is when they should act. Playing Father Christmas to every country ends up making the USA look like the dictators, and make the world sypathise with the bad guys. Syria needs to sort out their own problems - let the cards fall as they may. When we interfere, then Egypt and Libya happens. Protect Israel - that's your only mission in the ME. And STOP allowing Muslim immigration into your country and stop giving Muslim countries aid. Your Muslim population is the largest growing population in the country and they've increased their numbers significantly and are actively spreading Islam within your borders. ALL Western countries need to do this, but we have traitors in our governments who still believe in unicorns and we-are-one Marxist rubbish. By 2050, at current trends, Europe will be Muslim majority. That's should be our immediate focus, not sticking our noses into their sandpit countries.
:-(
World war and civil war stare us right in the face.
A communist regime in power that gets stronger every single day.
Did I mention economic collapse?
They say every dark cloud has a sliver lining...
I think not.
In 1936, Hitler told the German people that in ten years they wouldn't recognize Germany.
What will America look like in 2019?
A sea of ruins occupied by Russia, China, Canada and Mexico?
Post a Comment