Blogs
Media »
Videos
Podcasts
White Papers
Webinars
Conferences
Troop Surge to Afghanistan and Politics
December 14, 2009 – 12:05 pmHaving heard from the President directly about the surge of troops to Afghanistan the politics surrounding the decision are coming to light. On countless talk shows the President and his team are waging their own war of words regarding his decision to grow ISAF as per General McChrystal’s request for more. The President himself was defending his decision adamantly against the media’s barrage of questions on whether it is the right decision.
It is funny to think that the very same news media who on September 11th, 2001 clung to every bit of developing news hoping to be the lead on any and all breaking news. All of the major networks began to stream breaking news that we see now in the form of rolling banners, and were all about pushing the agenda of the SF push into Afghanistan a few weeks later. The same media that supported all combat operations when it was patriotic to do so are now vehemently against it.
And now 8 years later American and Coalition forces are still fighting the same fight to rid the nation of Afghanistan of the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces which launched the cowardly acts of 2001 against the US. We find American students of Muslim descent from the greater DC area arrested in Afghanistan attempting to join anti-ISAF forces. And yet all we hear about in the news is that the cost is much too high and that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.
Well plainly put it isn’t. The US was systematically attacked back in 2001 and attempts have been made since than by the same type of cowardly men who root their extremism in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pulling troops out or setting a hard time line are detrimental to the security of the United States and the future stability of the Afghan people. In setting a date of July 2011 the President is attempting to appease those in his party and those that disagree with being in Afghanistan that he is still living up to his campaign promises of removing troops from Afghanistan. And yet ever since his election in November of 2008, the President began to receive his daily classified briefs which opened his eyes to the great and very real threat that currently exists due to instability in Afghanistan.
So moving forward, all politics aside, a secure and stable Afghanistan is in the vital interest and security of every single American citizen because we all stand at risk of another terrorist attack if nothing is done. And it seems that the President is very much keeping Winston Churchill’s words that “In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.”…. Just something to think about on this week leading up to the Holidays.
7 Responses to “Troop Surge to Afghanistan and Politics”
All good points here today.
By Lance Winslow on Dec 16, 2009
I want to preface my comments by stating the position that I support both the troops and the mission and agree that Enduring Freedom is in the vital national interest of the United States.
I tend to become frustrated when I hear people compare Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)to Vietnam or any other war for that matter. War, and folks should look up the definition, is fought by the United States far differently today than any other time in our history. From WWII back, war was about utter subjugation, and complete destruction of the enemies ability to make war in return. War is horrific and needs to be least we make a hobby of it. I would hesitate to even make a comparison of the middle east conflicts with the “police action definition” of Vietnam. The operations, combat and support, that we conduct now are in their own category and eventually history will determine a name and appraising eye.
Lets look at the numbers (admittedly dynamic)
Iraqi Freedom 2003-2009 has had 4371 US KIA with just over 31,000 WIA. Allied losses are at 607 KIA. Enduring Freedom 2003-2009 has had 935 KIA, with 607 Allied KIA. Both of these theaters of operation span more than six years! At a recent conference I attended a senior (3 star) Military official mentioned that the death rate among those WIA was less than 1%. I am not trying to minimize the horrors of combat or the sacrifice made by our men and women in uniform but am trying to make a point in regards to comparing these actions to previous wars. In Vietnam we had 47,378 KIA with an additional 10,824 non hostile deaths. IN addition 304,704 were WIA. During the invasion of Normandy more than 58,000 men died and an additional 240,000 were wounded. Keep in mind that on the first day alone more than 7,900 men died on the beaches. In less than 24 hours more men died in one battle than have perished in more than six years of combat operations in the middle east.
I would say we are very fortunate to have men and women that are still willing to risk death for their county and we should be very grateful that it appears that we can accomplish the mission and protect our national security without actually waging all out war in the manner of our fathers and fore fathers.
By Tom Connell on Dec 16, 2009
I agree that the war in Afghanistan is nothoin glike the war in vietnam. As history show Vietnam was a war fought purely for political purposes, but America was attacked on US soil by a diabolical enemy located in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Americans are tired of war, but if we tuck our tails and run, as we have did in Vietnam, America will have earned the international reputation as a clowardly state that does not have the fortitude to win. Our service personnle are willing to do what is necessary and can win, but our purely political motivated “leader” are not.
By Bob Wells, O'Fallon, IL on Dec 16, 2009
I remember growing up and listening to the evening news with Walter Cronkite. Every night I would see the daily tally of our troops vs. Vietcong killed. Somehow, even to a kid, it seemed that we must have killed everybody in North Vietnam at least twice. Distortion of reality was fairly easy to spot. The point being the evening news reported the facts (as received), boring as they sometimes were. Opinion was presented as editorial, and clearly labeled as such. Reporting the news was a public service, of sorts.
Times have changed . . . everything today is about maximizing profit. Today news “reporting” is about money period. If the news isn’t exciting enough, the audience will tune out, resulting in lost profits. Hence we see the current state of news reporting – make the news. Create sensationalism to get and keep the audience tuned in. Journalism has lost its integrity and believability.
As for the news, I am interested in the facts, not truth. Utilizing the Internet and short wave radio, I try to get the facts, distilled from the biased opinions, from all sides concerned. From this, plus a little background checking, I form my own truth – or set of beliefs based upon the best available information. While this sounds great, who has the time to check out every news story? Unfortunately, we as a society are being overwhelmed and conditioned by the sensational half truth garbage being presented as news. The loss of journalistic integrity is a great loss to our society. There is nothing more dangerous to an authoritarian / autocratic government than an informed public. There is nothing more dangerous to the public, and survival of a country, than a public with a deliberately orchestrated distorted view of reality.
As for the Middle East; having served there I would like to make several observations;
The tribal conflicts of the region have been going on since the dawn of recorded history. Nobody has ever, except for short periods of time, been able to control the region, and only at great cost. Why do we believe we are different?
1) The mindset of the people is totally different than what we define as normal for our country. Given this fact, we cannot expect individuals from this region to respond in what we consider a predictable manner. Our values vs. Middle East values are very different. For example, many people from this region cannot understand our objections to what is known as honor killings.
2) We entered into conflict with Iraq with a clear plan for obtaining quick military victory, which was accomplished in short order. We did not have any idea, much less a plan, as to what to do once we achieved our military objectives.
3) Our involvement in Afghanistan had no clear plan outside of removing the Taliban from official power. Again, once this objective was accomplished we looked at each other and wondered what to do next.
4) Our hesitation, and lack of clear objectives, gave the Taliban / Al Qaida time to regroup.
5) The time factor enabled the Taliban / Al Qaida to successfully turn terrorist action(s) into a religious war. Ideas are very difficult to stop. Our forces are now perceived as invaders to be expelled at all costs.
6) We constantly underestimate the Taliban / Al Qaida. Their leadership are well educated, intelligent, expert manipulators of perceptions, and most important, well financed. They can and do field the latest technologies suited to their needs.
7) Our military is trained to engage in symmetrical warfare. Our adversaries are taking advantage of asymmetrical warfare. As a result, we are not doing very well. (This is how our forces, in large part, were able to defeat the British in our own Revolutionary War.)
9) Tribal leadership takes precedence over any centralized government. Historically, only governments that rule by extreme measures remain in power for any length of time.
I am not attempting to justify anything. I would suggest we, as a country, carefully consider our mission and goals in this region. Any such concept and execution must allow for the dynamic realities of the world. Traditional “allies” cannot be counted on in our ever changing environment. Our partners / allies of today could very well be our adversary tomorrow. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” – of the moment.
Finally, the military is not a police force. When politics become involved in real time military execution, our troops will die needlessly. The cost of prosecuting such policy will not be sustainable for financial reasons resulting in our eventual defeat – in more ways than one.
By Mike on Dec 16, 2009
I fear that the reason the president took so long to make a decision on troop deployment was that he was weighing all of the political plus and minuses of the decision. The result was a strategy filled with internal contradictions. Hopefully these contradictions are not severe enough to doom any chance for success.
By David Rutledge, Ph.D. on Dec 16, 2009
Sorry David, but the politically expedient move would have been to withdraw our forces, fully and immediately. The chicken-hawks that got us in this dual war mess are now too few for any real political consideration.
I’m truly thankful that this President took the time necessary to truly understand the situation on the ground, identify an actual strategy instead of doing as told by Dick, Paul, and Rummy, and weigh all the options. Before committing blood and treasure, to a situation made even more hopeless by not assessing the requirements and objectives and getting America into a ‘war of choice’ elsewhere.
With advisers like Gen. Jones and Bob Gates, I’ll stick with this Commander-n-Chief all the way!
By Jack Hannon, 3 M.A.s & a retired Navy Officer on Dec 17, 2009
Lance,
First my apologies; when you called today – I’m in the middle of two program reviews; I couldn’t remember the topic I had commented on. Now that I have had the time to track down the comments and refresh my memory – thank you for taking the time and effort to contact me.
My sincere thanks for your service. I did my time, but rest assured that it was nothing compared to the scale and violence you deal with today.
In my way I attempt to aide you and those brave individuals who serve through my research which has yielded some significant capabilities.
Again, many thanks for all the good you have done.
V/R
Dr. Michael DaBose
By Mike on Mar 4, 2010