11 September SWJ Roundup

"The wave of anti-Americanism is rising in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, even among many who once admired the United States, and the short reason for that is plain: the common resentment is that American plans to bring peace and development to Afghanistan have failed, the killing is still going on, and to excuse their failures Americans have now expanded the war into Pakistan, evoking what they did in the 1960s when the Vietnam war moved into Laos and Cambodia."

Well, for those who have read Rashid's "Taliban" (outstanding, well written book) it doesn't take too long to figure out that he is a pretty credible voice on the history of the AF-PAK AO (Pashtunistan). With the above comment, and others, I would say he his pretty much on target. Vietnam seems to be a fan favorite for comparison only for the strategic realities behind it - During one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Colonel Harry told Tu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant." Wow, that must have hurt. But that's the reality of Vietnam. Of course the original decision to put boots in rice paddies came in 1954' when the French, having lost Dien Bien Phu, proposed the idea to President Eisenhower. Army Chief of Staff, hero of the Korean War, GEN Ridgeway, did a strategic analysis of Indo-China and concluded that it would be a "tragic adventure". So, Eisenhower said no to the French. Fast forward ten years later, death of JFK, and I guess Vietnam was a strategic threat. Contain an ideology, interesting trying to contain an idea which you can not see. However, Leader of Wizkids - MacNamara, decides upon an initial war of escalation, defensive war in the south. Eisenhower suggests to LBJ, “When do you go after the head of the snake, instead of the tail?”. Because Ike was all about total victory in war, not wars of escalation. Hanoi was the Clausewitzian (Eisenhower read On War 3 times) Strategic COG ("head of the snake"). However, LBJ like Truman, feared Chinese intervention. Which is where we run into GEN Douglas MacArthur's father, Arthur MacArthur, who said to Doug, "Doug, the councils of war breed timidity and defeatism". Douglas later states, "In war there is no substitute for victory". So, we strategically lost Vietnam because of "timidity and defeatism" at the highest levels of government, subjecting ourselves, like Korea, to a war that ended in something less than total victory.

Wow, that was kinda abbreviated. But kinda simplistically truthful.

Back to "And Hate Begat Hate"

Lots of growing hate for the U.S. right now, yesterday, last year, and the years before. And the trend seems to continue in the wrong direction.

This statement is very wise and true by Rashid,
"War diminishes everyone and all states, even the victors, and that is especially true if the war is characterized by broken promises and dashed hopes, perceptions of betrayal, and disappointment in an ally. For the people living in this theater of war, the litany of such disappointments is long."

There's that word "perceptions". Perceptions in the Arab world, and AF-PAK, are a dominate force to be reckoned with. To a certain extent, because of the "CNN effect" they reach a level of reality. I think perceptions are like a Clausewitzian "friction" point that has to be dealt with. You can't let them linger, and spawn into various levels of "hate begat hate" reality. You have to control them, limit them, and get rid of them. But can you? That would require some type of strategic action. And we know, "Doug, the councils of war breed timidity and defeatism".

I don't think we ever really had a total victory mindset with regards to OEF/OIF/GWOT. Just another war of escalation, subjugated to something less than total victory. Been that way since we created the 38th Parallel (DMZ). And just like Douglas MacArthur said, it was the first time in 150 years of American warfare that we settled for anything less than total victory. He also stated that the U.S. was a "paper tiger". Mao did say it first, MacArthur repeated it.

What exactly is the COG in the Arab World / AF-PAK? The people? Not really winning hearts and minds, just losing more. Kinda like wars of the past. Been kinda used to that reality since we stripped the battle field of one of the greatest, legendary, American generals of all time.

"DUTY - HONOR - COUNTRY, those three hallowed words"

Time for a strategic reevaluation across all fronts? Is that the reality, or just perception? Who knows.

Search

Comments