Posted
by Bill Hoyt
March 10, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Not winning
See if you can find today's meme:
Obama says U.S. not winning Afghanistan War
Biden says West "not winning" in Afghanistan
McCain: 'We Are Not Winning' War in Afghanistan
US general says troops "not winning" in Afghanistan
So we started the war in Afghanistan in what? 2002? If we have not won by now, we have lost, and it's time to come home. It is a simple reality of history and of politics, and not unlike our own history, though sometimes we lose valuable insight by trying to make a morality play out of everything.
In 1776, the American population was not at all unanimous on breaking away from Britain. It was not even a majority view, though it was a large plurality. The rest of the people were either doggedly anti-independence (maybe 1 in 5) or completely apolitical. That was at the beginning, and if there was ever a chance to "settle" the Americans it was while the majority of them either supported Britain or didn't care.
However, as the war dragged on, as it affected more and more people in more and more ways, and as it became harder to stay out, more people chose sides, and once they chose, that was permanent. From the time a solid majority of armed, male Americans wanted independence, it did not matter what the British did short of killing them all, which was out of their power. Britain was going to lose America, and if not in 1776 or 81, then in 1812 or whenever they turned their heads to look at something else. Because the outcome was not in doubt, the faster they lost, the better for them in the long run.
Americans in 2009 are the Brits of 1781. We have years of war behind us. We have years of people choosing sides, of dead relatives, of passions whipped up by partisans. We have a generation of boys grown up whose sole purpose in life is to kill the Americans. The sides are drawn up, and there are no more hearts and minds to be won. Short of oppressing and driving millions from the country, we can no longer win in Afghanistan.
So why don't politicians see it that way? Because it's not a matter of history. Afghanistan to Washington is a puzzle, a challenge, a chance to show how clever they are and what great leaders they are. They truly believe that victory there is a matter of strategy rather than a matter of several million men with guns who do not want you. Surely a few more tweaks to our strategy will convince them that they were wrong to fight us, right?
"When you aren't winning in this kind of war," McCain says, "you are losing." I would say that if after billions of dollars and eight years, if you have not already won, you have already lost.
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"What do you suggest that the US does?"
Let's ask it this way: Suppose the Chinese came in and knocked down our government, imposed one more to their liking, and generally spent 7 years mucking about over here. Assume that the was a nasty insurgency here just like we face in Afghanistan, with vast areas of the country not under central control. What would we, as Americans, suggest the Chinese do? I know my answer.
No, there are no easy solutions. This is not an episode of the A-Team of MacGyver where a plan comes together in time for commercials. No matter what we do, a lot of people are going to die. We can be the ones doing the killing and some of the dying, or not. But I do not see any chance that we will, by force, turn Afghanistan into anything but what it already is, and for that, we do not need to be there.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Bill, all they have to do is catch Bin Laden. Then they'll pull out (having saved face) and declare victory (while not convincing anyone of anything). Do you not think this is the scenario they are really hoping for?
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
Bill, you are skipping a step in your Chinese analogy. First, the US government is couped by militant pro-life fundies who round up every woman who ever had an abortion and shot her in the head in public, say at the local softball field. Then these fundies knock a couple of buildings down in the godless baby-killing country of China. THEN the Chinese came in and knocked down our government...
I'm just saying. Dependence on OPEC, wacko fundies with nukes, unstable middle eastern governments... there is no nothing that could be done.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
I think that's a huge hope - one I share - but I don't think it's a plan. I think right now that they still believe that our failure to win in Afghanistan is because we are doing something there that we could be doing differently. Obama says we need to reach out to (parts of) the Taliban, Biden wants to build consensus in Europe, McCain... well, McCain lost so who cares? I don't think we are looking for the exit yet - all of them are still talking about being there for years.
Eventually we'll be looking for a way to save face, but when you do that, everyone knows it. You're really not fooling anyone but yourself. I just hope it happens before Pakistan falls.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
The huge hope is obviously a response to ALM, not Dots...
Yes, Dots, I'm missing plenty in my analogy. I do wonder if even then most Americans would prefer to live under a Chinese-sponsored American government...
DOTDOT (anonymous) says…
Yeah, well. One could argue that we are living under a Chinese-sponsored American government now. If one was wont to hyperbolize.
By the way, "there is no nothing that can be done" is the most profound comment ever posted to any blog anywhere in the history of mankind and blogodom.
If one was wont to hyperbolize.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
dup, it could come from anywhere at any time. Just yesterday on NPR they were discussing leaving the region in it's current condition (tribal, un-democratic, and misogynistic (the alm77 paraphrase)) in order to speed up our withdrawal. The goal is and should be to capture Bin Laden and several of his high ranking cronies. We can't keep spending in order to *force* other countries to become democracies.
Fritz (anonymous) says…
So, by your logic Bill, the South will rise again? Or maybe David Koresh? While I agree that we are f-ed in wherever-i-stan that is our enemy of the day, history is also full of peoples who were subjugated by military force after long struggles. If history teaches us anything, it is that it offers insights, not absolutes.
MyName (anonymous) says…
I think it's a bit stupid to declare 'victory' or 'defeat" when we don't even have a real goal anymore. We're just there. The big difference between this and Iraq though is that we have the major cities. We aren't fighting an urban war with an entrenched insurgency and lots of casualties. So until things change, we're just going to wait it out and see what happens.
And the Taliban are doing the same thing. The guerillas have headed for the hills and are content to wait for us to leave. We can't take them over and they feel like they don't need to take us on.
The point of the Afghan war wasn't to take over a crappy 3rd world country. It was to send a message that if you start blowing up American airplanes and buildings, or you have a government that supports people who do, we're going to kick in your door and blow up your house. That part of the mission was accomplished and now it's just about the US trying to figure out what to do next.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
I don't think we "broke everything" this time. I do believe the people there and their structure (albeit "un-American") can hold up against the Taliban. But maybe I'm too naive.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Fritz: "history is also full of peoples who were subjugated by military force after long struggles."
Yes, it is, and if there is a fly in my analogy, it's Ireland. The British subjugated Ireland for far longer, though at the same time, as America. So doesn't that show I'm wrong?
I think there are a couple of significant differences, the first of which is location. Because Ireland was right next to England and America was not, it was far more difficult (e.g. time-consuming and expensive) to send troops to America. America was also functionally unlimited in geography, whereas Ireland was not only limited, but smaller than England. Ireland was also (mostly) unarmed while America was armed to the teeth. England also had the ability to drive the troublemakers out of Ireland (see: Flight of the Wild Geese) and therefore pacify the non-fighters left behind by force. Even then, they had to conquer it repeatedly.
Now, if one is to look at all of those differences, Is Afghanistan closer to America or Ireland? Yes, we could conquer Afghanistan as England did Ireland, but since we are not willing to pull what Cromwell did to Drogheda and Wexford, I think America faces the same manner of insoluble problems as England did here.
Myname: "I think it's a bit stupid to declare 'victory' or 'defeat' when we don't even have a real goal anymore. We're just there. "
Point well taken. However, I was assuming that our object there was to pacify the country under a non-Taliban regime. Since Taliban is still there and in functional control of much of the country - and parts of neighboring Pakistan - and since Obama's talking about bringing parts of Taliban into a coalition, it's got to be closer to one than the other. But if the point of the war was to show them we can drive out their government, then we won and should come home. Maybe our weakness, as illustrated after "Mission Accomplished," is that we are terrible winners.
"And who ever suggested that we *force* Afghanistan to be democratic?"
To Obama's credit, he has not done so, so at least he's clear-headed enough to realize not only the impossibility but the undesirability of that.
Fritz (anonymous) says…
Okay, America was armed…with the French navy.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
dup, at first, yes. But we've conquered loads of them. The tribes have made progress with working together and getting a "government" system that works together.
I just think when civilians tell us to get out, then we should. I'm sure we could leave some Special Ops to capture Bin Laden (and what ever others) as long as that is our only goal.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
WTF is "?!?!?" You think we should stay where we're not wanted even though they say "Hey, we got this. You can leave now." ?
alm77 (anonymous) says…
I don't think it's naivety. I'm of the opinion that we don't need to waste our resources where we're not wanted. I'm often criticized for my "boot strap" mentality, but I have faith that when the people say they want to resolve their own issues, you should let them. I'm also the eternal optimist. I think people are better than we tend to give them credit for.
Be more specific than "the last, oh, fifty or so years".