I wrote before about how I feel writing mil lit. My feelings about the current war are also conflicted. Most people try to pin me down into one camp or the other without realizing that there are a hundred variables and points in between.
Things in Iraq (separate from Afghanistan) finally seem to be happening that are good. That doesn't mean that war is good, it's just that we finally have someone in charge that understands how this war needs to be fought. I don't agree with everything we're doing, and I see a thousand ways for us to lose, even if we kill all the Bad Guys( tm). I also see more danger on the horizon, because we are making some of the mistakes we did before.
To get the elephant out of the room, I have no problems (mostly) with the war in Afghanistan. In fact, I think we lost focus there far too soon, which gave an opening for the Taliban and al Qaeda to reform. We're now dropping more missiles in the Wazeristans (Pakistani Tribal Areas). While some could make a comparison to bombing Laos/Kampuchea, I'm not one of them. I don't like that we killed kids in some Madrasas (somebody dropped the ball on that one), but I like that we are no longer letting our hands be tied by a border that both states don't have control over. My personal feeling is offer Musharef (only because he has been helpful, not because I like the guy) and his closest hundred family members lifetime passes to Disney and let's bring Democracy and the rule of Western Style Law to all of Pakistan to drive al Qaeda and the Taliban into the Indian Ocean ("Somalia is that way guys, start swimming"). If India wants our help with nuclear tech, they'll seal the border that way. Iran, if they don't want us on their soil, will seal that border (Iran doesn't like the Taliban anyway). In Afghanistan we are losing the war because we've lost discipline and we've lost site of the goals. We're being hurt because of stupid mistakes and the use of mercenaries (which is why we should never use them).
Operation Arrowhead Ripper (thank the Gods we're back to mission names that don't have a marketing aspect to them) is working. It's going to get harder real soon as al Qaeda begins to realize we're driving them to a wall and intend to kill them there. As long as we've closed the nets and have the escape routes blocked, we should do exactly that. As long as we keep our heads, keep the civilian casualties to a minimum (and fairly compensate them for their loses, and treat the wounded) we should do well. Want to be captured? We have all the operational intel we need, thanks (bang).
So, I'm against the surge, not because I think it's bad, I think it's too late. We should have had these troop levels to start with. This is now costing (money and lives) too much; the effort is harder than it should have been. Our Army is exhausted. They still have enthusiasm (as to be expected, BTW), but we aren't as strong as we were five years ago. So even though I'm against the surge, I'm glad we're using them right.
I'm against the Iraq War (which was different than the War on Terror, thanks to our bungling it now is a part of it). But if we're going to do it, we needed to do it right. And we didn't. The Bush Administration labels those that wish to withdraw as "Cut and Runner" when the Bush Administration has screwed this up because they kept trying to cut and run. Rumsfeld kept rejecting plans until he found one that had the fewest troops. Bremer laid out a plan for a five-year transfer of power to the Iraqis. The Administration told him to do it within a year. The commanders played musical chairs and the administration let them. All of this lead to instability.
So we've lost five years. We lost hundreds of billions and over 3200 lives, and we're finally, really fighting this war. And we're making the same mistake. There's no plan (at least being discussed) for what comes after.
We're arming Sunni Sheiks to help us drive out al Qaeda (the Anbar strategy). Very dangerous, but necessary. So what do we have to offer them to have them lay down those arms once al Qaeda is gone? We're driving al Qaeda and other militias out into the open and killing them around Baghdad. What's the second move? We should be able to come in, stabilize the government structures, staff police forces, bring electricity, sewer and other services, all of which we have very little money left to bring. And if we don't do this, we'll be right back where we were in January in another two years.
There's a lot of talk in the news about "If this doesn't work, what's our Plan B." This is our Plan B. Well, actually it's something like Plan H or so at this point.
I've helped bury one friend's son. Several other have had their kids in the Stan and the Sand Box. One is now home and is having problems. Most are at least back in the US. I was hoping we wouldn't have to go through this. I wish we had a real leader that could have gotten this done by now. We should really dump the fighting contractors out the window. And I really hope Petraus has the after action plan in his back pocket. 'Cause if he doesn't, we're going to be attending this dance another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment