Tag: war

I kind of want one

So, Markku, would you mind popping over and grabbing a pair?

“There are tanks all over the forest, abandoned,” an unnamed reporter on the video says. “If you need one, come and get it.” Locals in a nearby village said the tanks had been sitting there for almost four months covered in snow. The armoured vehicles were identified as a mixture of T-80 and T-72 battle tanks, the workhorses of the Russian army.

It’s a tough choice. But I’d have to go for the T-80 due to its superior mobility. It doesn’t get great gas mileage, but then, do you really care what gasoline costs when you’ve got a 125mm main armament in lieu of a credit card?

Consequential consequences

Fred Reed muses upon a familiar pattern:

Recently I saw an interview with General McChrystal, head butcher of the the Pentagon’s Democracy Implantation Force in Afghanistan. The General was explaining our ongoing victory. Yes, victory. We were making progress. It was only a matter of time. He could see the light at the end of the tunnel. He didn’t explain what were doing in a tunnel in the first place….

What McMoreland doesn’t get is that people just don’t like being invaded. Yes, yes, it’s for their own good. We, of course, will determine what constitutes their own good. Such is the ingratitude of these people, and their lack of respect for borders, that we find ourselves forced to expand the war into Cambod—Pakistan, I meant. Pakistan. And so the Predators fly, Predating, killing the wrong people because that’s what there are more of. That doing this might produce animosity is irrelevant to soldiers. The Mision is sacred. Our intentions are good.

The consequences of not understanding what you are doing can be consequential.

It is truly remarkable how most self-styled conservatives resolutely refuse to recall the lessons of military history. The failing occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq will hardly mark the first time that a once-wealthy, but still-powerful society in decline has bankrupted itself while haplessly engaging in pointless military overstretch.

I find myself wondering how many pro-occupation “conservatives” have lost their jobs yet? And I wonder how many of them will still believe in the absolute priority of occupying third-world countries on the other side of the planet once they find themselves out on the street and collecting unemployment?

Victory in Afghanistan

As every armchair military historian knew from the start, it’s not going to happen. But this is a morbidly amusing commentary on eight years of occupation:

America’s deputy chief of military intelligence in Afghanistan has issued a damning indictment of the work of US spy agencies, calling them clueless and out of touch with the Afghan people. Major General Michael Flynn described US spies as “ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced… and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers”….

It quotes one operations officer saying that the US was unable to make informed decisions about what to do in Afghanistan because of a lack of much-needed intelligence about the country.

Bad strategy always leads to confusion, bad tactics, and demoralized troops. And the U.S. strategy has been completely hapless in Afghanistan and Iraq… don’t think for a second that the situation in Iraq is settled. It’s no wonder the global jihadists are feeling increasingly confident and stepping up their activities in the Dar al-Harb. Even the most rabid Republican neocon nattering on about the imminent danger to national security that can only be prevented by an immediate invasion of Iran/Pakistan/Yemen/Dubai should now understand that military occupations are not an effective means of convincing the world of the danger of offending a superpower. Shock and awe has been replaced by contempt.

The obvious solution

Disarm the military:

As a number of others have already pointed out, the mainstream media are doing their best to turn a mass murder committed by someone who worshipped at the same mosque as two of the 9/11 hijackers, made repeated attempts to contact al-Qaeda-supportive clergy, and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the start of the attack into something other than an Islamic terrorist attack. If this wasn’t such a dreadfully serious matter, it would almost be funny watching Democrats insist that there’s no elephant in the bathtub. Perhaps the most bizarre of these claims is that of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who insists that the core problem behind Fort Hood is that “America loves guns.”

Clearly the solution is not to remove all Muslim jihadists from the U.S. military, but to take away all of the military’s guns. I am told that historically, soldiers are known to have been particularly prone to shooting people with them, so the time is long past to disarm the soldiery. While some might think this would make the military’s task in Afghanistan and Iraq more dangerous, that’s obviously not the case. Since the battle for hearts and minds concerns niceness and school-building, not breaking things and killing people, it is self-evident that an armed military is actually inhibiting the pursuit of victory in those countries.

After all, people are people everywhere you go, and if the military doesn’t require armaments in the USA, why should they require them anywhere else?

On the radio

Here’s a link to yesterday’s interview on Morning Magazine. It was a relatively slow day… only four interviews. This one, however, was not about the book, but the wars and Veteran’s Day.

The Obama administration’s dithering over whether or not to accede to the theater commander’s request for more troops is a good example of the sort of thing Michael McSorley and I were discussing. If you can’t make up your mind about such a relatively minor decision, then you clearly have no idea what you’re doing in the strategic sense. If Obama doesn’t have enough confidence in General McChrystal to grant his request without hesitation, he should either replace McChrystal or end the occupation and bring the troops home.

Personally, I suspect the troop request was a political CYA on McChrystal’s part. He knows he can’t win there because the US lacks sufficient loyalty from the famously fractious locals and he also knows Obama has zero desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, so the request for 40,000 troops is essentially McChrystal washing his hands of responsibility while hoping Obama has the balls to withdraw U.S. forces. I think he’s miscalculated and that Obama will ultimately send the requested troops because, like most individuals with weak characters, Obama is terrified of being correctly perceived as weak. If the general is fortunate, Obama will send fewer troops and give him the ability to claim that he wasn’t given the necessary forces required to do the job.

Of course, none of this ritual dance between commander and commander-in-chief has anything to do with either the U.S. national interest or the interests of the individual American soldier.

Is the Rumsfeldian Rubik solved?

Perhaps the Fort Hood murders are unrelated to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism and it’s just another disgruntled postal worker or three run amok, but it would appear that after only eight years, the terrorists have finally figured out the flaw in the clever Rumsfeldian strategy of fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them there.

A mass shooting at Ft. Hood military post in Texas has left at least 7 dead and 20 wounded [MSNBC is reporting 12 and 31 now -VD] and one suspected gunman is on the loose, officials told Fox News. A massive manhunt was under way for the suspect at large, Fox News confirmed. One person was in custody. The New York Post said that there were two shooters at the Army post massacre; other reports said there were three.

I wouldn’t bet on the postal workers, though.

UPDATE – the attempted PC spin never fails to amuse: “The official said the shootings could have been a criminal matter rather than a terrorism-related attack and that there was no intelligence to suggest a plot against Fort Hood.”

Or, it could have been an attack by aliens who have secretly infiltrated the U.S. military disguised as humans as part of their master plan to steal Earth’s water. Or perhaps highly evolved land sharks. But surely not Islamic terrorism, since we’re, you know, fighting them over there.

UPDATE II – I’m sure we are all shocked: “The suspected gunman was identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.” More of the joys of multiculturalism.

It’s over, go home

If your troops are being murdered by your allies, that’s a good sign that you should give up the hearts and minds strategy:

Five soldiers have been shot dead by a “rogue” Afghan policeman in an attack at a police checkpoint. Three Grenadier Guards and two Royal Military Police were attacked as they rested inside a compound. The soldiers, who had removed their body armour and helmets, were shot by an Afghan national policeman who then fled. It is not known whether he was a member of the Taliban or being coerced by the insurgents.

The Afghan and Iraqi occupations are of zero national interest to the United States. They are of even less interest to Great Britain. And one wonders how long it will be before similar attacks happen to British troops and policemen in the UK itself. If you haven’t managed to win over a populace after eight years of occupation, give up and go home. It’s not going to happen.

Late, but better than never

It’s was obvious that the strategists had no idea what to do about 10 minutes after they successfully kicked out the Taliban with the help of the Northern Alliance. In fairness, this was mostly because there was nothing of material benefit to the USA to be gained there. The invasion and campaign were brilliant, but the occupation was awesomely stupid. I thought the decision to allow the DEA to co-opt foreign policy was the particular highlight.

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department’s head of personnel. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”

[M]any Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there — a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.

While I applaud Captain Hoh’s integrity as well as his belated recognition of the futility of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, he really should have recognized this several years ago. It is not a surprise that an occupied nation would fight the occupying forces and there is no rational national interest in the USA continuing to keep its military forces stationed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All they can reasonably expect to do is to further destabilize the region while providing a sitting target for the various sides jousting for advantage there.

As the Romans knew, if you’re not going to settle colonists in a conquered territory, you’re not going to stay. And if you’re not going to stay, there is absolutely no reason to occupy territory once the initial objectives have been realized.

Seriously, give it up already

Precisely how is the continued military occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq of any national interest to Americans?

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

This is insane. It’s been insane for some time now, but the fact that Obama sold out the antiwar movement that got him elected to this extent only goes to show what a sham the American electoral system has become. You can’t count on a Democratic politician to do the right thing even on the very rare occasions that the broken clock of the Democratic base is correct. This isn’t a war that can be won… there isn’t anything to win there in either country. And as a general rule, if you see the need to establish special rules of engagement, you shouldn’t be deploying troops in the first place.

A rethink may be in order

Let me get this straight. The plan is to stick around occupying Afghanistan until these guys have been made into a more effective military?

An Afghan soldier on guard at a joint base with U.S. troops shot dead two American servicemen and wounded two others as they slept, a provincial official said on Saturday.

It’s over. It hasn’t worked. It was never going to work. Deal with it.