Measuring Success in Iraq and Afghanistan
This WaPo article suggests that US military officials are viewing the Marine-led coalition initiative in Marjah, Afghanistan, as a success in that "a significant number of Taliban forces" are leaving the battlefield.
"It's clear that a lot of individuals with the Taliban decided they did not want to stay in this stronghold and have left," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, describing the hour-long meeting Wednesday in the Situation Room.
In other news, Teh Surge 1.0 in Iraq is finally subsiding, and for the first time in years, there are less than 100,000 US troops in that country. With good luck and continued progress, there may be 50,000 US troops in the late summer. Combined with the recent capture of Mullah Baradar (and others), there may be some high-fives going on in the White House as they demonstrate that Democrats can in fact be successful in national security affairs.
However (you knew there was going to be a "however," right?), it is too early to start the celebration party. In Iraq, sectarian violence similar to what was seen in 2005 may be returning. This shouldn't be an excuse to keep US forces in Iraq, but rather to encourage the Iraqi government to get its security forces in a position where it can take responsibility for the issue. It does, however, contradict the established story that Teh Surge 1.0 was a "success" - it did succeed in protecting American troops, but it failed in that the Iraqi government didn't use the opportunity to stabilize its political and military control.
Similarly, it's too early to say that the offensive in Afghanistan, powered by Teh Surge 2.0, will be a success. If there is one solid rule that insurgencies live and die by, it's that insurgency groups don't believe in stand-up battles with superior numbers of trained and ready government forces. Mao Tse-tung knew this:
Obviously those are two extremes when comparing the "Western Way of War" which focuses on a fast and decisive battle to decide the outcome of a war, and the guerrilla tactics of Mao Tse-tung which focus on the continuation of war and the avoidance of any military decision. This explains the reasons why tactics such as hit and run, fight and live to fight for another day are being used by guerrillas around the world. The guerrilla can afford to run when he cannot stand and fight with a good chance of winning, and to disappear and hide when it is not safe to move. "A guerrilla", according to Mao Tse-tung (1937), "can always sink back into the peaceful population which is the sea in which the guerrilla swims like a fish". The space for time formula is well conceived but the importance of time is that it has to be used to produce a political result which translates into the raising of a revolutionary consciousness or the will of the people. In fact, the population is the key to the entire struggle. Without the consent and active aid of the people, the guerrilla would be merely an outlaw and could not survive for long. Without the support of the population, the guerrilla would not exist because there would be no war in the first place.
So what's the point of a strong military offensive, broadcast days in advance, driving into the heart of enemy territory? There is no D-Day here, no single battle that's going to change the nature of the conflict. Seydlitz provides some insight:
[T]he Marjah offensive could be simply a military action in support of diplomacy, that is the US/NATO negotiation process to remove themselves from the conflict, in effect leaving the Afghan state to its own devices. Up till now the Taliban have been operating/negotiating from a position of political strength. By presenting them with a military defeat in Marjah, the US/NATO side turns the tables on the Taliban and allows themselves a better position in which to bargain. ... An operation meant to help cover a strategic withdrawal, or a radical reformulation of the political purpose as presented to the various US/NATO publics.
This makes a lot of sense. The Taliban will take a loss, knowing that they can easily disperse and come back after the Marines leave the province (I'll bet that the Taliban are counting on an ineffective "hold" effort by the Afghani forces who are following the Marines). But a strong military success might, in theory, be seen by the Afghani population as a reason to stop aiding the Taliban and to support the Karzai government's initiatives. It's a stretch, but it's a better explanation than thinking that continued military operations are going to succeed anytime within the next two to five years in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration has set some goals that support extracting US forces out of the tar pit that the Bush administration placed them. With good fortune, it may be that the number of US troops in the Middle East will be far less in 2011 than it is now. I'm hoping that this is going to be the case - my fear is that if Obama does not demonstrate a solid effort toward reversing the Bush administration's inertia in the Middle East, it's going to come back hard against him in 2012. And for some reason, I do want to see President Obama get a second term.
I've been convinced for some time that the only way the Afghan War will end is if the Taliban simply tires of fighting.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
That's mistaken assumption inasmuch as the Bush regime and now the Obama regime were not and are not fighting against the Islamic Taliban. They have been fighting against the people of Afghanistan, not some mythical, marganlized band of malcontents. The resistance in Afghanistan are people fighting for their homes, their lives, their loved one's lives, and their country.
There's no chance that the people of Afghanistan will ever surrender to the Christanic terrorists.
Everybody knows what fine upstanding and tolerant folk those Taliban are.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
you know for a fact that this is all a scam to keep $1trillion budget item intact. it's a false flag if there ever was one and bush exposed it. this is z-big's 'control oil and control china and russia' strategy. why else would hillary start whining about Iran, the military dictatership? worse, our military is having a hard time against people who only have hand weapons.
give the false justifications a goddamned rest.
[edit] BTW the xtians kill by the hundreds and thousands. How many are the Taliban killing at a shot?
Some stuff you can't make up!
the Russians have more oil and natural gas than just about anybody else I don't really think that strategy was ever intended or possible. The Chinese have access to all the world markets for oil and the dollars to pay for it. If this is a strategy it is a foolish one and I don't buy it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I don't think they make rulers that small.
!!!!!
Some stuff you can't make up!
What a pile of steaming dung.
Ask the old Soviet Union about *their* resounding "success" in Afghanistan. The Soviets also routinely proclaimed winning their invasion and occupation, also touting how many tuncoat traitor Afghanis they had paid to commit treason against their own country in cooperation with their occupational armies.
There's not a chance in the Christanic "Hell" that the Bush regime's occupying terrorists will ever take or hold Afghanistan given the will of the people of Afghanistan to defend their homes, their lives, and their country.
The "Soviet Lesson" was some how missed by the Bush regime which invaded without a clue. Now the Obama regime continues the war crimes and Christanic terrorism of the Bush regime, and the consequences are the same: Afghanistan won't surrender.
http://www.blogged.com/topics/soviet-afghanis...
UNOCAL's Northern pipeline continues to be incomplete thanks to Afghani freedom fighters' continued successful sabotage as well. The existing natural gas lines along the proposed UNOCAL completion line continue to have to be massively patrolled and defended despite A-10 straifing by the Bush terrorist regime of any freedom fighter who approaches the extant gas pipe lines, all to no avail since the pipeline is long and undefendable.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil...
The rightarded notion that invading innocent countries and launching wars of occuption while enlisting traitors can some how "win" is idiotic, unsupported by history anty later than the decline of the Roman Empire.
Build an fragile pipeline to carry natural gas through some of the toughest terrain on the planet to markets that don't really have the money to pay for the gas. Looks like a sound business decision to me.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
that history does not apply to us.
funny how the budsget deficit is $0 if the wars stop!!!!!
Some stuff you can't make up!
national security affairs. But rather national insecurity affairs since both those wars were launched out of a sense of insecurity and both have left America less secure.
Very good, informative read. Iraq has become the New Afghanistan as far as news coverage (or, rather, lack of) goes. Thanks for connecting some dots.
Having the other side leave the battlefield is no measure of success whatsoever. They're guerrillas, and that's what guerrillas do. I'm sure you wouldn't be able to find any Taliban leaders that considered a tactical withdrawal to be a defeat in any way.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
If it succeeded the filthy basterds in the war business would not be making so much money. It is designed to fail so they can keep on killing. It is what we do the best! Kill brown people!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
blackwater = privatization of war.
Some stuff you can't make up!
by troop reduction
me-oww!
That would be the only realistic measure wouldn't it?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Success in America might come after the massive obscenely bloated perpetual war machine is dismantled, the host of foreign bases are closed and the troops are brought home and decommissioned.
End the 'wars', dismantle the MICC.
WAR IS TERRORISM.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
At the end of World War II, the USA military budget was slashed to the quick. The war profiteers, the military cadre, and the politicians that derived benefit were desperate -- the National Security Act of 1947 which created the CIA and NSA saved their revenue streams by seeking out new enemies to oppose. The USA has been in a virtually uninterrupted succession of conflicts since then. There has never been a "peace dividend", and if the MICC have their way there never will be.
The USA could easily reduce the MICC by 90%. A senior cadre of military infrastructure could exist at the Federal level, with a fully funded citizen warrior clan comprised of the States' National Guards. Eliminating most overseas military bases, the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the entire CIA Operations Directorate (including the JSC) would need to follow.
Alternatively, the USA could institute a universal draft with a two year obligation, with placement in either the military or else in a civilian public works system. This would tie in very nicely with a single-payer universal healthcare system, modified somewhat from what federal employees and the military have available today. Free college education could be tied into the successful completion of such service, based perhaps upon a further 8 year obligation to either form of public service.
The USA could sure make use of that "peace dividend", if only to "provide for the general welfare" of our citizens, including our healthcare system and higher education -- both of which are seriously broken today. That, and also make some inroads on the reduction of our massive national debt.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
there can be no success for immoral and unjust wars of aggression.
!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
There can be no success in these aggressions. They are illegal wars under Articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.
WTF? A Democratic president and congress are behind them so they're potentially successful if we wipe out the rulers hostile to US interests, leaving a few hundred or a few hundred thousand dead innocents around?
These wars were wrong under Bush and they're wrong under Obomber, no matter their outcome. Ends do not justify means.
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness!
knew the value of guerilla tactics. Much of the American militia fought according to Mao, hitting the British and then retreating. Even Washington said that he would not risk a decisive defeat, but try to prolong the conflict.
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. ~Jeanette Rankin
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
"A guerrilla", according to Mao Tse-tung (1937), "can always sink back into the peaceful population which is the sea in which the guerrilla swims like a fish"
That's not a bad thing, historically that's how terrorism ends. There a study by the Rand corporation at
http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/
that says
"The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.
The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information"
I think these are (or should) be the goals here - remove the virulent leaders of the Taliban, and make it possible for the more mainstream members to enter the politcal process. It will require a lot of work, but it's not impossible.
Also, it appears that the general population does not support the Taliban, so we are not (or should not) be fighting the ordinary Afghan citizens.
Also, it I think it's interesting the emphasis on Terrorism being a matter for the police, not the military. I recall that John Kerry made the same point early on in his presidential campaign, and the Republicans hit him hard for that, claiming that he wasn't serious in fighting Terrorism, and Kerry just sort of dropped the point. I'm just mentioning it as another point of Republican wrong headed-ness.
The criminal operation being carried out under the direction of the Obama administration has been accompanied by the silence of the middle class “anti-war” organizations in the US. These groups have been thoroughly compromised by their support for Obama and in fact defend the basic aims of the US in the war.
The flagship of these organizations, The Nation magazine, has not published a single article on its website on the offensive in Marjah. What commentary that is published on Afghanistan is concentrated on tactical questions facing the ruling class, including whether or not American forces should engage in negotiations with sections of the Taliban.
The expansion of war is determined by the fundamental interests of American capitalism, including establishing control over the geo-strategically central regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. War is the outward expression of the predatory interests of the American financial elite. The ballooning military budgets, like the massive bank bailouts, will be paid for through cuts in social programs and the intensification of the exploitation of the working class.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/per...
....
spoken like a true imperialist
and i bet you dont have a clue you are an imperialist
not a clue
imperialism is such a mainstay of the american culture it is taken as a given in our society.
do you really think we are having these war for profits to fight terroism or that little girls can go to school in afghan or that iraqis can vote.
you have drank the capitalist kool aid. like most americans demo and repub alike.
the capitalist kool aid tastes good as it gives us a national identity as the super power. ego centered and self confirmatory to the core.
it matters not the war machine in america must continue to have wars for profits or fear of others to maintain their war budgets.
with a mega military and industrial military complex that no one will or want to challenge we will continue to have our wars for profits on an on going basis.
americans are imperialists to the core.
now they dont know they are imperialists in fact they think they are the saviours of the world.
only a complete melt down of the economic system will americans take a long hard cold look at their war machine and war for profits budget.
super power status is a national ego thing and not about to go away any time soon.
the bully in the world is the american war machine and americans love that idea of being a bully.
all bullies sooner or later come down to their knees but not until they create a lot of suffering on their block or in the world.
there is too much money for the capitalists few to even think of eliminating our wars for profits.
capitalism by its very nature create a selfish greedy and aggresssive society based in materialism and greed for profits at any costs and I mean at any costs.
we killed a million vietnamese and did not bat an eye in that war for profits.
few will understand my words very few.
I am currently reading "In The Graveyard of Empires" by Seth G. Jones. All I can say is that the history of Afghanistan is just that - it is the graveyard of other powers. We'd better watch out or we will just be another in a long line of countries who got sucked into the morass of religion, politics and tribal warfare over there.
I agree with the concern that its great that the Taliban has been pushed out, but how long will it last? I feel that as soon as the marines leave, the Taliban will return and push out the Afghan troops to regain the hub of their drug trade. This perspective is shared with both local merchants and Afghan troops as seen in this video from Newsy: http://www.newsy.com/videos/winning-afghan-tr...
Comments are closed on this entry