The ex-vice president Cheney has accused the Obama administration of dithering, and thus putting the mission in Afghanistan at risk through appearing indecisive to their allies. Now the chant for more troops NOW is taken up by such people as Elisabeth Hasselbeck on "The View". Except that something is getting lost in the translation.Cheney is smart enough that he would never make statements that American soldiers are dying because of lack of reinforcements. If that was so, then he would only have himself to blame, as an even smaller number of Americans in Afghanistan were left with almost no reinforcements for eight years under his watch. Statements that soldiers are dying for want of additional troops is best left to the Elisabeth Hasslebecks, who have no reputation in military strategy. And actually, pat on the back for Cheney, for not making that ridiculous statement even though he might have gotten away with it, given the extremism of the American press these days.
The number of reinforcements asked for is about 40,000, which is not enough to actually eliminate all the Taliban suspects. (basically every male from 14 to 50) The population of Afghanistan is 31,000,000. US Soldiers number 67,000 currently (I think) which is a ratio of 462 to 1. With 40,000 more troops, the ratio drops to 290 to 1. That is not enough to round up all the Taliban and stop Americans from being killed, however it does provide more targets for the insurgents.
It is illogical to say Americans are dying in Afghanistan for lack of reinforcements. Most of the soldiers are dying because of roadside bomb traps. Bigger and more frequent convoys might even increase casualties. Many other soldier are lost in things like helicopter crashes. Again, the number of soldiers killed would not be reduced by more troops in the country.
The reinforcements probably have a different overall purpose, and that would be to coordinate an effort on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan's effort to purge the border area on their side. The key element to this war is that border with Pakistan, where insurgents can find refuge, and rearm themselves. And it works both ways, depending on who is currently going after them.
During the Bush/Cheney years, Pakistan had remained a bit aloof from the war. According to our ex-General Rick Hillier, on TVO last night, the Pakistani Army has only been really going after the Taliban in the last "6 to 12 months". I wonder if he knew this timing coincides with Obama's election and inauguration.
Anyway, Obama's correct move may indeed be to wait even if it appears indecisive. As long as the allies are still cooperating, for example Pakistan's push into the border areas, and Karzai's trying to make the Afghan government more legitimate.
Don't worry, all you right wing Republicans in the US, your troops in Afghanistan are not all pinned down in a firefight waiting for reinforcements or death. Too bad more reporters are not allowed to go out and show what is really going on, which is something Rick Hillier mentioned last night.
NATO has made a right mess in Afghanistan (as Hillier is quick to point out in his book).
ReplyDeleteIn fact, although purportedly a NATO mission, the Europeans have largely taken a pass on this (a course of action Canada may have been wise to follow).
Anyone with even a superficial understanding of the history of Afghanistan appreciates that the situation there cannot be resolved by
military intervention. This is another mess that the Americans have created - through their earlier (largely clandestine) attempts at intervention (by undermining the former legitimately elected Afghan government) during the Cold War.
Anyone who seriously believed that the ISAF mission in Afghanistan could 'succeed' can take little comfort from the corruption and systemic failures confirmed by the recent elections.
The history of Afghanistan makes fascinating reading. I recommend Steve Coll's Ghost Wars. American media jingoism cannot substitute for an understanding of the historical context and a realistic appraisal of the objectives and likelihood of 'success.'
The reality is that the American economy is strained to its limit with massive deficits; its military is strained to its limits with its commitments.
The current call for additional troops is an echo of the calls for additional troops during the U.S. Vietnam intervention of the 1970s, an echo of the call for more troops during the Soviet Afghanistan intervention of the 1980s.
Dithering? Not really. The U.S. administration has to carefully weigh a huge number of factors, including the viability of the mission, the growing domestic opposition to the war, the economic situation as well as stresses within the U.S. military.