Thursday, October 08, 2009 Afghanistan: Eight Long Years Later

National Review Online

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTU3ZjFiMTJmYTdhYzVkZjgyMjY5ODEwNzg3YmE1N2Y

As we look back on the eight years in which we have fought the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is embroiled in a decision that will define its foreign policy for years to come. Although he campaigned as the anti-Bush candidate in 2008, one would be hard pressed to see any substantial differences between the two administrations with regard to how they are handling the war.

Fresh off the success in Iraq, Generals Petraeus and McChrystal have unmatched expertise in waging a counterinsurgency. But it is only fair to point out that in order to wage a counterinsurgency, you have to acknowledge the particular failings that brought about the insurgency you have to counter. There have been many mistakes in Afghanistan, as there were in pre-surge Iraq.

More important than whether or not Obama will send in the 40,000 troops the generals are asking for is what constraints the troops on the ground will be asked to follow. Dropping leaflets on a population is futile when the population is illiterate. Explaining democracy to a people that have no conceptual understanding of liberty is equally difficult. Many Americans today view counterinsurgency operations chiefly as "hearts and minds" operations involving the handing out of teddy bears and candy bars. But the first step in isolating the enemy from the people is protecting the population from those who wish to destroy it. If you keep people safe, you gain their trust. McChrystal is not a man who will shy away from a fight. The surge in Iraq killed hundreds of insurgents using special operatives and regular infantry.

But the current rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan are simply far too constrictive to eliminate large pockets of threat. The people of Afghanistan don't trust their government and their police forces. We are years away from relying on them as we have with their Iraqi counterparts. The ROE are a direct reflection of that: We are forced to be gentle because of the barbaric manner in which the Afghanis treat their own people. This may make us feel good, but we choose this tactic at the risk of our young men and women.

The chief problem with our Afghanistan strategy is the craven politicians who want to micromanage the war. Moveon.org opposed the escalation of force in Afghanistan eight years ago. Since 2004, however, the Left has turned about-face, bellowing that we "took our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan by fighting the war in Iraq.

The reality is that we have lost three times the number of Americans in the streets of Chicago in two years (945) than we lost from hostile fire in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006 (297). Not coincidentally, this is the same period when global jihadists flocked to Iraq to fight our troops. Once the success of the surge took hold, these terrorists had to find a new breeding ground - and the pendulum swung back to the mountains of Afghanistan.

Today there is still the naïve mindset that killing Osama bin Laden will stop the war, or at least check the box of why we went to war in the first place. This is nonsense, like believing that killing the big-headed TV Burger King will immediately stop the sales of Whoppers with cheese. If we judge the failure in Afghanistan as the inability to locate Bin Laden, we are far off course as to why we fight in that region. Terrorists by nature are cowards: They hide. And in the rugged terrain of the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan it is not improbable that we will never find Bin Laden. It took over a year to find Steve Fossett at 9,500 feet in the mountains of California, and he was flying a 32-foot-long aircraft. Picture the 22,000-foot peaks of the mountains of Afghanistan, and you can understand that these things are not easy.

We cannot rely on senators and congressmen to win our wars. If Barbara Boxer doesn't even realize that military protocol requires soldiers to respond with "sir" or "ma'am," her "solution" to the problems in Afghanistan doesn't have much credibility.

Until we as a nation understand what we are doing fighting the war on terror, we have no chance to win it. The decision as to what to do next in Afghanistan is taking entirely too long, coming from a president who literally talked about the "good war" for over two years. If we are not resolute in our methods in fighting this counterinsurgency we might as well just bring everyone home. And then, after the next 9/11 happens, we will hold benefits for the victims, pray for the families of the fallen, and carry the hope that our good nature as a people will cause other enemies of America to appreciate the way we live and leave us alone.

The reality is that wherever you find an American military presence, you will find global jihadists. If we are not serious about sending 40,000 troops and allowing them to do what they are trained to do, bring our boys home.

- David Bellavia is co-founder of Vets for Freedom and author of House to House: A Soldier's Memoir.