The 30,000

Posted on


Last night, President Obama presented his plan for Afghanistan to America. The president plans on sending an additional 30,000 troops, and to begin withdrawal by July, 2011.

Since the new wave of surges in Afghanistan, I have been critical of the war’s continuation, based on the following:

  1. Afghanistan does not hold the strategic value some would have us believe. Al-Qaeda–unlike more advanced terror orgs. like Hamas and Hezbollah–does not need official state sanction or geographic boundaries in which to operate. It more resembles the Mob than a post-modern army.
  2. After almost nine years of war in Afghanistan, the fight has become one of inertia rather than need.   We are there because we were there before–year after year.
  3. Our troops are not allowed to take the fight to the enemy. While Liberal debunkers of war love the idea of winning hearts and minds, they forget that counterinsurgency is only one facet of the jewel; kill those who refuse to surrender, endear yourself to those who will help. Simple, except to the intellectual, who only finds solace in labyrinthine theories.
  4. Our military needs a rest. While this in and of itself is not enough a reason to quit the fight, the lack of strategic value of Afghanistan couple with a massive increase in soldier suicides, is. The suicide rate in the Army has doubled since 2004, and now doubles that of the civilian population. Some of this can be attributed to the “cascade effect”; media attention and talking too much about it can cause some to consider suicide as an option. But I see  trickle-down stress in the military. Like a husband home from a stressful job, the entire Army family feels the strain when an NCO with PTSD comes home from the fight.
  5. The military’s manpower may be needed elsewhere. Iran presents a much more dangerous foe at this time than Afghanistan.

Some think that Obama should do whatever the commanders on the ground say he should do. I disagree. Afterall, General Douglas McCarther wanted to nuke China during the Korean War. The president is the Commander in Chief, it his his right–nay, his duty–to consider a war’s options using his own brain. It’s up to the generals to present him with the options and what the likely outcome of each will be, then to carry out the president’s orders.

Some also say that Obama is trying to appease all sides with his plan: Give troops to appease the Right, give a pull-out date to appease the Left. Perhaps. But this time, in his appeasement, he may have gotten the big picture right. It must be said that an immediate pull out of all our assets would probably send the wrong message to the entire world. It would appear that we are running away from a fight. Some say that we should not give a withdrawal date, as it telegraphs our intentions to the enemy. In most circumstances I would agree. But the Taliban is not a real army. It’s ability to unify and take advantage of tactical situations is limited. To them, a hand-held radio is a magical relic. So a timetable works to our advantage in this case; it says to the world: “We’re leaving on our own terms, just like we said 18 months ago, not because we lost the war.”

A timetable also motivates the Afghan government. Nothing gets the juices flowing like knowing the sugar-daddy Americans are about to go, the money faucets are about to be shut off, and the Taliban will be knocking on your back door if you don’t do what needs to be done. Survival is the best drill sergeant.

The only concern I have, is what the mission of the additional 30,000 troops will be. They should be used boldly and decisively and the operational tempo should be relentless. Then–when their duties are finished– let them come home to stay.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The 30,000

    lovebug35 said:
    December 2, 2009 at 8:44 am

    I agree with some of his plans.

    Amos Volante said:
    December 2, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    I’m sorry, but I cannot help inserting my smartass, rude, comment here:

    The 30,000 troops should all be army engineers and SF engineers to single handedly build, or direct locals to build an infrastructure.

    Why use them as combat troops? They are not allowed to go blast baddies, so let them build instead of using millions of tax dollars for the locals to build useless structures.

    If we send 30,000 troops: Show me the electricity!!!

    kernunos said:
    December 3, 2009 at 12:44 am

    July 2011? You do not find that coincidentally right before the next Presidential election? He also gave no clear reason why 34,000 and why not 60,000. I was not impressed with his pissing on America part or again, shitting on another administration for a job he is supposed to do. It took 90 days though to decide on this?

    Amos Volante said:
    December 3, 2009 at 2:42 am

    Wait! I have a clear strategic explanation for the president’s 2011 date:

    Um. Hmm.

    Nevermind.

    magus71 responded:
    December 3, 2009 at 7:10 am

    Many parts of this are indeed politically motivated.

    I’m glad that the troops are getting out of that worthless country.

    Obama will never get my vote.

    kernunos said:
    December 4, 2009 at 1:50 am

    They should get out now then. Eighteen month pullout proclamation has just destroyed most if not all of your information on the ground through friendly means. The locals are thinking about which side they want to be on in eighteen months.

    magus71 responded:
    December 4, 2009 at 10:55 am

    Even fervant neo-conservative and Obama critic, Max Boot, agrees that the plan is sound, and in compliance with General Stanley McChrystal’s plan:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot3-2009dec03,0,1064799.story

    Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars (a great book) also says it’s probably the best choice amongst bad options:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2009/12/the-speech.html

    On the other hand, respected strategist Fred Kaplan remains skeptical:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2237101/

    And my favorite author and strategist, Ralph Peters, is downright hostile:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2009/12/02/setting_our_military_up_to_fail_225531.html

    My view is this:

    1) This plan gets America out without serious damage to our image.

    2) We should use the troops to kill the enemy, not sit around and present targets. That, to me, is up to the commanders on the ground. If they choose the politically correct route of avoiding the enemy and handing out soccer balls, we can no longer blame the politicians. The commanders should step up and allow the troops to fight.

    3) America can’t really lose here, other than if we stay forever, allow our troops to be targets and see no change whatsoever in Afghan politics (which is likely if we stay). America will remain the greatest country in the world, Afghanistan will remain one of the worst. Al-Qaeda, as best we can tell, may have less than 100 operatives in Afghanistan.

    Amos Volante said:
    December 4, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    Furthermore… I must be way, way Old School because:

    How is an enemy body count NOT pertinent to success?

    To use a metaphor the chief exec might understand:

    Is the score important in basketball as a measure of which team is winning?

    magus71 responded:
    December 5, 2009 at 7:02 am

    The body count thing dates back to Vietnam. It’s now used by commanders as a way to justify us not fighting. I guess we’re just hangin’ out and makin’ friends. Sounds like some interns could do the job.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s