SHORT ESSAYS ON OUR PRESENT MILITARY STRATEGY

SHORT ESSAYS ON THE MILITARY

  A WORKABLE AFGHANISTAN COUNTER INSURGENCY STRATEGY

  On The Newshour the other night, Jeffrey Brown interviewed General McChrystal. I would say that it was useful and telling but I can't. General McChrystal is a winsome soul and I like him as well as Petraeus, CENTCOM (Central Command) commander which is over both our present wars but they are generals. McChrystal is an interesting study for someone who understands the history of our Special Operations evolvement. Years ago, in terms of career, any officer who was either chosen or decided on his own to pursue the Special Operations track had probably sounded the death knell for his career. However, like many things, events set the military on another track and in General McChrystal case, he possibly might have gone from “end of career” to favored son. This is speculation on my part. Regardless, Paetretras and McChrystal are like all generals, they are politicians, relatively speaking or they would not be where they are. They know how to say the right thing. They have been to all the schools. In fact, the most popular school teaches, "when dealing with the media, never answer the question asked, answer the question you wish had been asked.”

  "What can the head general say about Afghanistan? "We are making progress but nobody is winning." What in the hell does that mean? With us soon to have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, not a good answer. Brown was pretty good in not pitching softballs but nothing new. McChrystal acknowledged the difficulty with the new counter insurgency, plus the strength of the Taliban. Most telling were his comments which should worry every American who cares. When Brown mentioned the President's timetable, the good general said something like, The president has said that we are committed to the people of Afghanistan how ever long it takes. This sounds to me like some kind of open ended commitment that is far more than what we can imagine. Eight years already. Damn. What the president who is a real thinker, needs to know is that generals have a different mindset. McChrystal thinks in military philosophy: "can do." You want me to fix Afghanistan. You got it. An intransient country, with more lethal variables that no normal human being would attempt, from Alexander the Great to the Soviets--McChrystal, CAN DO!!!!

  McChrystal more than most, lives a solitary life, sacrifice is his middle name and he wants everybody around him to sacrifice. He did away with Burger King for God sake. He's a good man and we can feel comfortable with him leading our troops. But, I, for one, would like him to come clean. "General, let's have your true thoughts."

  "OK, here are my thoughts: 'Karzai is a fraud, won in a disputed election and didn't even try to conceal it. His brother is under a constant cloud of influence peddling, to include involvement in the heroin trade, millions of tax payer dollars to a government that can't even account for it.  Poppy growing, $2-300 million profit for the Taliban; Tribe loyalty, War Lords. Need I go on? The list of challenges are endless.' "’

  I'd like to on, How the hell did this happen to us? It is impossible and any thinking person on the street can tell you that we are on a “fast train to nowhere.” Needless to say, a general is not going to say this! It is simply not in his nature.

  To me, there are two courses of action. Follow the lead of the Russians and just get the hell out. Not a bad option. The second one is not to my liking (I’m not for anything that spills American blood for Sfany dubious purpose) but is a possibility. Keep 30,000 soldiers or thereabouts, exclusively Special Operations soldiers in Afghanistan. Get the "conventional" troops out of the country. Conventional soldiers are soldiers like most of our troops, trained in the "art of war" but in conventional ways. Compare them to a police force. They are the "beat" cop. Then you have all the specialized policemen, the swat team, the hostage negotiators, the terroism experts. The specialized cops have special training, they are more schooled in their specialty, they are older.  In Special Operations soldiers, there are rangers, Navy Seals, snipers, Air Force explosive experts. And, specialties that we don't even know about. And, a factor that we can't discount, by in large, special operation soldiers  love war. It is their life. They need continuous training. They are elite. For every soldier that becomes an elite soldier in Special Operations, only about one in ten makes it through the rigorous training. Think Marines but a hundred times harder. They don't call them "snake eaters" for nothing So, Why not Afghanistan. Concentrate on holding onto the major population centers, concede some of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Fight them to a draw. They might negotiate but then again, not really an issue, all this time we are training Afghans to be policemen and soldiers. We are not thinking leaving on a time table. When it is ” time"we'll know.

  THE PRESIDENT ON AFGHANISTAN

  NIXON AND VIETNAM

  This is painful for me to even think--to talk about our President in the same sentence as Nixon. And, I only do it out of enormous conviction. Recently, when the President made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, he said all the Commander In Chief sort of stuff. What he didn't say was: "have you heard the one about the two Sheppard’s who were guarding their flocks when they heard rustling in the bushes. One Sheppard turns to the other and says, "let's get the flock out of here. " 

  AFGHANISTAN, LIKE VIETNAM IS A QUAGMIRE

  LET'S GET THE F...OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. Is there a debate about Afghanistan, our strategy?--if there is, it is only whispered because it's old news. But, if history is any teacher, at some time in the future, the war will be news again. What fascinates me is that it is talked about so matter of factly without recognizing the fact that we are in a strategy in Afghanistan that is a "forever" war. We have been there eight years. Being there at least another eight or longer is more than a possibility. It is what the counter insurgency is: time and more time to win the hearts and minds of the people, even if it is possible. Think Vietnam. The military types hate to hear this. But, I can't be the only one in America that sees it. Here's the short version. Vietnam escalates. More and more troops. It transforms from the Viet Cong in black pajames to highly trained NVA soldiers. It is win the hearts and minds of the people. We've been in Vietnam 8 years or so based on start date by this time. No end in sight. Nixon is elected President to get us us out of Vietnam. He reneges on his promise. When he takes office, there's like 17,000 young Americans dead. By the time we leave Vietnam, over 58,000 young American have gone to their just rewards. Nixon wouldn’t have known the truth if it ran over him!!!!

  Ho Chi Minh was simply waiting us out. His only interest was Nationalism, uniting North and South. No plans for world domination. This is a sidebar.  There's a wide spread belief, especially among Vietnam vets,  that Ho's thinking crystallized with Jane Fonda’s visit to North Vietnam. Ho didn't understand our political system. Here is this renowned movie star, person of importance. She is saying that in the states, the opposition to American involvement is so fierce that they are going to force us out. I don't know if this is true or not. I doubt seriously if she could ever redeem herself with Vietvets. For me, I've simply viewed her as young and stupid. What it appears to me is that we were bombing the North furiously and there were rumblings that Ho was ready to negotiate but then something happened, the wily and cagy leader vowed to fight on. What happened?  

  Another credible comment came from a Marine buddy who was a Company Commander in Vietnam who is now an expert on the happenings of Vietnam. He says that Ho and the Vietnamese were crying Uncle bigtime. The bombing had taken a toll. It, to them, was endless. However, suddenly, they heard Henry Kissinger and the words negotiate resonated--he’s working on a deal. Ho and company decide to wait it out. We leave Vietnam. Ho moves South and unites the country. And, here we are today, millions expended in Vietnam, all those young American lives lost. Was
it worth it? A resounding "hell no" from most Vietnam vets. Not one single American life. 

  What makes Afghanistan worse than Vietnam is doubt that we can truly win the hearts and minds. The factions are too immense and we are constantly in denial. Tribes, loyalties that constantly change, corruption, money and drugs, religious fanaticism. Need I go on? In the Nam, with strong Special Operation Forces, (Green Berets), we stood a chance, a good one to fight to a standstill and at some point when Ho realized we were not leaving, he would have negotiated. The Taliban has no reason to negotiate. 

  The President needs desperately to understand the lessons of Vietnam. We have to figure out how to get "the flock out of Afghanistan." If we don't, we are repeating Vietnam and at some point down the road, we run the real possibility of Iraqi and Afghanistan vets repeating the Vietvets mantra, " And for what!".

  IN AFGHANISTAN FOREVER

  On NPR recently, I heard a Twitter type talk to several GIs in the 101st Airborne who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. They are playing soldier in a mock situation, probably back at Fort Campbell where part of the exercise means playing an Afghan soldier. We had the same thing during Vietnam. These mock villages where we were suppose to kind of "get" the process of war. It didn't happen for us as we viewed the mission as search and destroy always. It is what war is.

  It was almost comical listening to young soldiers from the 101st. Soldiers acting out what they thought Afghans would do. I think they "get" it--at least what they are suppose to be doing. However, even in these "play like" situations, making this work is like impossible, not to mention stupid. Soldiers have rules before they can fire, etc. For instance, they can't go into a suspected insurgent house where possibly civilians are without an Afghan soldier with them. I can understand in a way: the military wants to avoid what happened with the 101st in Iraq, now a book called, Death Squad, where soldiers experience a massive breakdown of the chain of command and killed an innocent family. Sad and could have been prevented, possibly. War is hell.

  What the powers that be simply either don't get themselves or are in denial. A strategy of unconventional warfare and in this case, counter insurgency will work, given enough time. How much time? Years and years. In Afghanistan, I would say ten more years minimally. Are we willing? No, I don't think so. Our political system will not allow for it.

  TELLING LIKE IT IS

  Recently, a story crossed my path of a couple of Chaplains being asked by the media if their troops were having any problems. It is obvious to me that the chaplains are trying to be honest: many (soldiers) feel they are risking their lives. Their soldier buddies have died. And for what? A futile mission with an Afghan population mired in the Middle Ages. The chaplains said that the many soldiers who come to them have a sense of futility and anger about what they are being asked to do. They feel they are risking their lives for progress that's hard to figure. They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through it. The Chaplains said they were speaking out because the men could not. Here's what amazes me: you have soldiers saying how they feel, the chaplains trying to be honest and then a commander coming in and discounting all they say.

  The Battalion commander says his men aren't demoralized and his spin is that they have accomplished lots thus far. The good Colonel argues that counter-insurgency will win over in the long haul, maybe 10-12 years (my numbers but I'm sure it is what he meant as we know what a counter insurgency operation entails).

  In a media driven war, no one is more suspicious than me: reporters in a war situation are out for a story and not necessarily the truth but this is simply fact, verified by any source except Fox News, of course. What idiot could not say that Afghanistan is a place with no ending, no clear mission: now we have the counter insurgency strategy of protecting the people: don't kill the enemy even if some of the people are the enemy. You have got to be kidding me! Young Marines who have been taught to kill the enemy and to grieve for their fallen comrades are now told, "let the perpetrators who plant the rosdside bombs escape if there is any chance civilians might get hurt."

  Now, this is the way to fight a war! At the highest levels, the word is, this war is winnable, more troops, etc. On Sixty Minutes, some general answers as though he is a robot: "can do," troops understand why they are in Afghanistan, etc. They love it. Troops understand it? Bullshit. I don't understand it. McChrystal went through a period when he was on TV more than some pop icon. I would have fired his ass in a minute if I were the commander-in-chief. His job is soldiering, not trying to convince Americans of "more troops." Generals always want more troops. (President sent 30,000) The counter insurgency strategy might work but it will take ten or fifteen more years to work and anybody who believes Americans will put up with that, raise your hand. McChrystal says anybody who doesn't go along is shortsighted. Tell that to families whose loved ones are going to die for that strategy.

  Afghanistan is an overlay on Vietnam. How many of us heard troops say in Vietnam, "What are we doing here?" Most of us realized after we had been in Nam a few months, this is crazy and for what. Afghanistan is ten times worse. There is no solution. Politics of the country and even the history aside; more troops is not the answer. VP Biden's plan was better; keep older Special Forces troops around {what many Americans don't realize since so few have served in the military, we have an an extremely well trained segment of our military that loves war, fighting, and will keep at it. The Green Berets or snake eaters as they are often called are somewhat crazy and just the type of soldiers we need in Afghanistan. If we are going to stay which I think we need to get out. But, if not, we need them in sufficient numbers, to rotate in and out, simply let them stay and work the counter insurgency strategy. With them, ten years might be OK. They will get out of the Star Wars uniforms and simply fight the Taliban to a standoff. The third course is maybe just a gradual withdrawal. Create a very liberal immigration policy for women. But, I hope and pray that as a supporter, bigtime, Mr. President, you will not let Afghanistan become your Vietnam. God bless you.

  LOST THIS ONE

  I am a strong supporter of the President and fear that Afghanistan is a quagmire that will drag him/us down. I am a retired military chaplain (COL). I have worked for several generals personally, have been in hundreds of staff meetings and I can tell the President one thing beyond a shadow of any doubt: generals always want more troops. I have enormous respect for General Petraeus and fighting a counter insurgency is a good strategy. However, we are talking years for it to work.

  Afghanistan is a "tar baby" that cannot be won. More troops only means more American lives lost. Mr. President, I think your "out" is NATO. It is a NATO mission. Already we have the most troops in there and Nato needs to "pony" up. They're not going to do it. Next case. But, no more troops. (send 30,000) My idea: Give it to the Taliban, establish a very liberal immigration policy, especially for women. And, then we can become the "insurgency." But, please Mr. President, no more troops. God bless you.

  IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ARE NOT THE SAME

  David Harris's book, Coming of Militant Islam is a classic and should be read by every thinking American. I couldn't agree more on Iraq, what a mess. The so called "surge" only worked because we separated the factions and then armed the Sunnis. A strategy that is built on a house of cards. Time to get out and if the Iraqis do not approve the security arrangement, what a lucky break for us. We got rid of Saddam, we declare victory and hit the road. Regardless, we have to get out and let what happens happen.

  Afghanistan is even more of a quagmire in my opinion. Here's a suggestion: we have a professional Army that constantly needs to be trained. Let's do our training in Afghanistan. The military spends millions of dollars in places like the National Training Center in California. Let's put most of those dollars into Afghanistan for our military. We simply cannot allow the Taliban to own Afghanistan again. Every American woman should be up in arms demanding this.

  We have executed a counter insurgency approach that will wor
k and a long term effort has a chance to succeed. This is the real war on terrorism. We are not the Soviets. We have a moral obligation to give Afghanistan a chance, regardless of how long it takes. Our soldiers will get better and better at counter insurgency and so will the Afghans. This can work.

  SCREWING UP A TWO CAR FUNERAL PROCESSION

  My High School English teacher, Ms Dixon, use to chide us about the world situation by saying something like, “You can never accomplish anything in life unless you get lighting flashing mad". She's right on! I recently read one of those pieces in the New York Times Magazine that made me lighting flashing mad--Is Afghanistan A Narco-State? It was written by Thomas Schweich, a former senior counter narcotics official in Afghanistan. He seems to know what he's talking about and is taking on the supplier of 90 percent of the world's heroin: Afghanistan. Basically, the good professor (he's now a prof. of law at Georgetown U) says that we weren’t allowed to eradicate the opium fields in Afghanistan because of corruption at the highest levels and a myth that had been perpetuated intentionally that poor farmers are driven to raise poppies as their only livelihood: take away that and we hurt them. According to this article, not so, quite the opposite, the wealthy war lords in the South of the country are making big time bucks from poppies while in actuality the poorer farmers in the North of the country have reverted to traditional crops like veggies, cotton, and wheat and are already making great headway. The wealthy farmer/warlords/profiteers in the South are putting big bucks in their pockets, not to mention the Taliban raking in millions to finance their war efforts

  There were so many disturbing things about this article: the first glaring one is that Schweich would write it to begin with; a high muckedy muck with a good case for how we are screwing up. His patience with the corruption, based on the article, astounded me. The article may be written from his perspective but there is no doubting that he knows what he's talking about and is taking a risk. The second big discouraging issue coming from the article, is the continuing fact that it is a wonder that we ever get anything done given the egos and turf issues, to include the military. Rarely does anyone say “for the good of the country,” or accomplishing the overall mission as opposed to saying what is in it for me or how will this help or hurt my career. And, for me, it is reaffirmed that the present U.S. Administration (Condi Rice came out looking pretty good in the article and let's give her credit) could screw up a two car funeral procession.

  From the article, one has to conclude that Afghanistan has become a country where it is only a matter of time until it reverts to where it was or worse, like so many places in our world, self interests trump the people and the good of the country.

  COMBAT SOLDIER STORY

  Almost every Vietnam vet who has been in heavy combat has pretty much the same "story." Sleeping problems, nightmares, and a long period of reconciliation. Most enter into the workforce and live a reasonably successful life while coping with various symptoms of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

  During America's participation in the war, from 1959 into 1975, we lost 58,000 men and more. The Vietnamese recorded more than 1 million soldier deaths and perhaps at least 2 million civilians. One recovering combat Vietnam vet said something like this, which is so "right on." The process of training an infantryman for war is a dehumanizing process--we are transformed as just average "joes" to killers. We are forever changed by a type of brainwashing. The soldier comes home and is afraid to talk about his experiences for fear of losing control. Lost of control may have far reaching effects way past Vietnam but a direct result of the war. At its extremes, loss of control destroys lives in one way or another, i. e., jail or suicide, not to mention divorce, inability to cope, and all sorts of other results. At some point which is a gigantic trigger for the Vietnam combat vet, he grasps that Vietnam was a total waste of human life on both sides. What does it all mean? Without sounding almost cavaliar about a sacred subject, at least to me, (I did get in trouble once by saying the following about a purple heart) Being a combat soldier and a dollar and a half will get you a cup of joe in San Francisco, a small one, based on how much of the general population is interested in a combat soldier's war stories. Look at what little fanfare the war movies about Iraq or Afghanistan have gotten. Like none.

  I just read where one of my favorite actors, John Cusack, is going to give it another shot in a movie called, War, Inc. He plays a mercenary in a fictional country. It is an antiwar satire. John, I doubt it will be on everybody's "to see" list, based on previous records of war movies. But, who knows! I thought In the Valley of Elah would get people's attentions, along with about a dozen others--most hardly made it out of the movie can. I do like the idea of John's movie, however, since he plays the role of a mercenary. At least it might be vicarious--in the old days of all these dictators who were abusing their people, we at least might have entertained the idea of taking them out. Now, with our morass in Iraq, we only can do it in the movies. Good luck, John.

  Now, if you are really interested in reading about combat, I just read a fascinating account on Hamburger Hill. It was only called Hamburger Hill by the movies but an apt name. In actuality, it was called Ap Bia Mountain (in military parlance, Hill 937). And, from my perspective, the movie was pretty accurate, overall the best Vietnam movie made. I have recommended it to those who wanted to see authenticity.

  It may have been the epic battle of Vietnam. But, in a sense, other than historical significance, who is interested or why should they be? Well, it is part of the American experience, and we need to acknowledge and hope against hope, that somehow it might make a difference to future leaders. It surely didn't work with our present one as he and his cohorts acted like Vietnam never existed. But, to those who fought, it surely did.

  The details of the logistics and the battle itself are unbelievable feats. The battle costs the lives of 60 Americans with 372 GIs wounded. It is estimated that the regular NVA (North Vietnamese Army) lost 2000 in the battle.

  The assault on Hamburger Hill signaled the beginning of the end. As a typical example of our many failures in that war, Americans took the hill and then were ordered to give it up. In less than two weeks, the 29th Regiment of the North Vietnamese Army reoccupied Hamburger Hill.(A really great book that details some Hamburger Hill type decisions made in Vietnam, Self Destruction by Cecil Currey)

  Combat vet, Max Cleland's comments seem appropriate here: "I have seen this movie before (Iraq), and I know how it ends with thousands dead and tens of thousands more injured, and years later you ask yourself what you were doing there." And, to the troops, Phil Woodall's mantra in his wonderful poetry book, Rhymer in the Sunset, "They may have died in vain but they lived in honor."