Our war in Afghanistan is the longest war that we have been involved in our history. We are now going into our 17th year of that war and there appears to be no end in sight! Afghanistan has had a long history of wars, dating back centuries. In the 19th Century the Great British Empire tried to control that entire region. The British Empire was the largest and most powerful empire in the world, unchallenged by any other nation or empires at that time. A good portion of the world was under British rule or its influence. It was at this time that the phrase, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" was coined. No doubt the British felt that they could handle Afghanistan without much problem. To their dismay, the British became embroiled in what appeared to be a never ending conflict. Ultimately, the British were able to end the conflict by some backdoor deal making and striking a compromise, not a military victory! In the late 20th Century, 1979 to be more precise, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. What Kremlin thought would be a quick fix if they threw their military might at the rag-tag Afghan fighters, turned into a never ending war. Ten years later, after heavy fighting and much suffering and loss of life, the Soviet Union was forced to pull out of Afghanistan. Do doubt the involvement in that unpopular war in part helped to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union.
A little over a decade after the Soviet departure from that land, the United States launched its invasion of Afghanistan. There may be those who will disagree with the belief that the invasion was necessary, but given the situation at time, the United States had little choice. The horrific 9/11 attack was launched by members of Al Qaeda, the terror group that was led by Osama bin Laden and based in Afghanistan. The Taliban that ruled about 80% of the country provided sanctuary to Al Qaeda. They were in fact, partnered with the terror organization. More lives were lost in the 9/11 attack than in the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack! Opponents of the Afghanistan invasion blame George W. Bush for getting us embroiled in that country, but Bush really had no choice. What was he supposed to do? Negotiate with Osama bin Laden, the man who openly swore to destroy the United States? Given the circumstances, any other president would have done the same thing. Hindsight is always 20/20, and George W. is a convenient target, but his decision, under the circumstances, was not wrong. America had to do something, and the man responsible for the 9/11 attack and his organization were in Afghanistan.
What followed the initial invasion of Afghanistan by our Special Operations, particularly those Army Special Forces teams that partnered with various Northern Alliance groups, was nothing short of spectacular. The surprisingly small number of American soldiers were able to lead the Northern Alliance groups to an unprecedented rout of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in an amazingly short space of time. Unfortunately, after the spectacular and dramatic victory over Taliban and Al Qaeda, we shifted gears and changed our policy and tactics and the nature of the war changed. We poured-in ground troops and equipment and began conducting a conventional war, the very same kind of war that did not work for the Soviets! Apparently, we did not learn anything from the Soviet experience that took place earlier! So, like the Soviets, we too began to get bogged down. We tried to extricate ourselves by periodically downsizing our presence, but all it did was provide a "yo-yo" effect and required "surges" of increase in troop strength. Things just went from bad to worst!
So what went wrong? Aside from the fact that we unnecessarily shifted gears and increased troops strength and changed from unconventional to conventional warfare, we changed focus. We should have stayed with the unconventional warfare and with the goal of getting Osama bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda and Taliban. Instead, we got involved in "nation building" and conducting a large scale conventional war. We did exactly the same thing in Vietnam, and we all know how that ended! However, the problem is not just simply military tactics and or political decisions involving "nation building," etc. The problem goes much deeper. It has to do with what has been taking place both with Pentagon's approach to fighting wars and with the American people's attitude and mentality when it comes to wars since the Korean War.
If there ever was such a thing as a "popular" war, it was World War Two. Perhaps "popular" is not the right word to use, but the majority of the American population at that time supported the war effort and believed that we should destroy the enemy. People understood that lives would be lost and although it was terrible, it was something that had to be accepted in time of war. Korean War was the first "unpopular" war and Americans wanted to know why we had to engage in a war far away when our country was not threatened directly. There was not anywhere near the kind of support or understanding that existed during World War Two among the population. In fact, there was no public support and there was an outcry to stop our involvement! Fortunately, the Korean War lasted only three years, a relatively short war and our boys were returned home. A little over a decade after the ceasefire agreement was signed at Panmunjom, we began our involvement in Vietnam. Actually our involvement in Vietnam took place even earlier, shortly after the ceasefire in Korea. First American combat casualty in Vietnam took place in 1958.
America carried on an unconventional warfare with Special Forces and other Army and Marine advisors in Vietnam from around 1958 until 1965 when President Johnson decided to escalate the war and sent in conventional forces. Prior to this, in 1963, CIA engineered a coupe in which the unpopular South Vietnamese president was removed by assassination. Yep, we meddled in their elections before elections even took place! Those were "low tech" days and no computer hacking, just assassinations. In the early 1970s "Vietnam-ization" (abandonment of our ally) took place and in 1975 the Republic of South Vietnam was no more. Materially (in terms of equipment) we were far superior to the black pajama clad Viet Cong and later the North Vietnamese Army, the NVA. Our troops were better trained, better equipped, yet we couldn't defeat them. Although we had successes on the battlefield, they just kept coming back time and time again. Technically we were superior, but tactically, we were inferior! There was no cohesiveness in our fighting units. Our soldiers and Marines were deployed for a year, then rotated back out of the country and new soldiers and Marines would replace them. There was no continuity or institutional memory with enlisted personnel as well as officers. Once you served a tour in Vietnam, you did not have to go back. Only those who volunteered served more than one tour. Vietnam War was fought on our side with troops that either served for one year or even less, sometimes just a six month TDY tour! In contrast, the Viet Cong and the NVA were there for the duration! They did not serve a one year tour and then return home!
We have had the same situation in Afghanistan. Our soldiers and Marines would deploy for a year, then return home. Many of the combat units would redeploy after a while and some soldiers and Marines end up serving multiple tours, but not with the, the same squad or platoon or company. In other words, despite troops with multiple tours, there is no continuity. Even at the higher level there is no continuity. In the past 15 years we have had 17 different Generals or Admirals in charge of our war in Afghanistan! You can't expect true cohesiveness or any institutional memory when you change personnel so often. During World War Two, soldiers and Marines served for the duration of the war, that was four years if you were in the service in 1941 when we entered the war! Yes, troops were rotated out of combat zone periodically, but as a unit, not individually. The only way you could leave was if you received a "million dollar wound," then you would leave the combat zone for good! The troops in Europe had one Supreme Commander the whole war, Eisenhower. Those in the Pacific had Nimitz on one side and McArthur on the other, also for the whole war!
Pentagon is finally beginning to realize that you cannot fight a war and constantly change personnel and leadership. There has to be some continuity in personnel for a unit to have true cohesiveness. But what is the solution? We can't very well deploy our troops for the duration of the war in Afghanistan! Can you imagine if we had kept the same Army and Marine infantry units in Afghanistan for the last 16 years! We tried that in Vietnam, many of the initial Army and Marine units that arrived in 1965 stayed the whole duration until they were pulled out for "Vietnam-ization" in the early 1970s. But, replacement of troops had to be made constantly during their stay, since the individual soldier's or Marine's one year tour would come to an end and they would leave. So, when those units left Vietnam, they were not composed of the same personnel, the same commanders!
Believe it or not, there is some talk about hiring mercenaries to do the work in Afghanistan! There is talk of hiring veteran Europeans and Americans who are willing to serve in Afghanistan to train and advise Afghan National Army and other troops. They would be paid substantially for their work, something in the neighborhood of $600 a day! They would remain in Afghanistan for the duration, for however long they are needed. This would remove the need for deploying our army and Marine units and would supposedly stop our public from voicing opposition to our involvement in that country. I don't know, sounds kind of crazy. But, as I said, it is seriously being considered and discussed in our government!
No comments:
Post a Comment