To be candid and honest, I don't have a clue what our goal in Afghanistan is anymore. I don't think the military has a clear concise goal, and I am quite sure that the Obama Administration doesn't have a clue.....
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:36 PM, M. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-oped-0823-afghanistan-20100823,0,723083.story > > *Petraeus' dubious strategy in Afghanistan > *By Christopher Layne > August 23, 2010 > > Gen. David Petraeus recently began a public relations blitz to convince > American public opinion that the U.S. should stay the course in Afghanistan > rather than holding to President Obama's pledge to start withdrawing troops > in July. > > But most non-military observers understand that the war in Afghanistan > cannot be won in any meaningful sense. They also understand a big reason for > this is that success in Afghanistan requires a lot more than battlefield > victory. To stabilize Afghanistan, the U.S. needs to establish good > governance and foster economic development there. In a word, the U.S. must > engage in nation-building. The U.S. has a long record of failure at that. > Petraeus, however, would have Americans believe that the war can be turned > around if we just give his strategy more time, troops and money. In making > this case, Petraeus is banking on his prestige as the architect of the 2007 > Iraq surge. > > That credibility, however, rests on a dubious foundation. The media-savvy > Petraeus created a myth and that is what it is that the Iraqi surge was > successful. Studies of the Iraq war have shown, however, that the surge was > incidental to dampening down the violence in Iraq. Most important, however, > the surge failed to achieve its overriding objective, which was, as > then-President George W. Bush declared, buying time for Iraq's Shia and > Sunni populations to achieve political reconciliation. As the current > political stalemate in Baghdad indicates, in this respect the surge failed, > and Iraq faces a bleak political future. > > The strategy Petraeus advocates for Afghanistan is a dubious one based on > the counter-insurgency (COIN) doctrine of which he is the primary author. > Col. John Nagl, an influential COIN theorist who is president of the Center > for a New American Security, has said it will take "at least a generation" > for the U.S. to prevail in the fight against terrorism. The new strategy > assumes that the global counter-insurgency may last as long as the Cold War, > and will require a greater mobilization of national resources than has > occurred to date. > > The problem with COIN is that in the real world none of the preconditions > that military planners deem necessary for success can be fulfilled. Neither > Congress nor the American public is willing to accept an open-ended military > commitment to Afghanistan. > > COIN misdiagnoses the root cause of America's Middle Eastern difficulties. > The U.S. is the target of Islamic terrorists because of its regional > policies like support for corrupt regimes, its one-sided stance on the > Israeli/Palestinian problem, its heavy politico-military presence, and the > fact that the U.S. appears to many in the Middle East to be the imperial > successor in the region to the French and British who once dominated it. As > Andrew Mack, currently on the faculty of the School of International Studies > at Simon Fraser University, pointed out in a classic article 35 years ago, > there is a good reason that big states lose small wars: The forces of > national and religious identity are stronger than the will of outside powers > powers that, inevitably one day will go home. > > On its own terms, COIN is a problematic policy. Even more worryingly, it > sets exactly the wrong grand strategic priorities for the United States. In > an ironic coincidence, the same morning leading newspapers carried reports > of Gen. Petraeus' remarks, another headline announced that China has > overtaken Japan as the world's second largest economic power and is on track > to overtake the U.S. by 2030 (indeed perhaps as soon as 2020, according to > many leading experts). In the early 21st century, East Asia is becoming the > world's geopolitical and economic fulcrum, and it is U.S. air and naval > power that will be needed to meet the emerging challenge from China. That is > where America's long-term grand strategic interests lie - not in fighting > futile Eurasian land wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. > > *Christopher Layne, the Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National > Security at Texas A&M University's Bush School of Government and Public > Service, is writing a book on the collapse of the Pax Americana. > > *Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
