On October 27, the Washington Post ran an article with quotes from anonymous officials questioning the optimistic tone of General Petraeus towards the surge in Afghanistan. Major obstacles to victory undoubtedly remain, but the piece overlooks signs of progress and practically declares the surge a failure less than two months after all of the additional forces arrived. Have we heard this song before?
The article, titled “U.S. Military Campaign to Topple Resilient Taliban Hasn’t Succeeded,” describes recent gains as “fleeting setbacks” for the Taliban that haven’t forced the group to the peace table. This judgment comes before the offensive into Kandahar has even been completed and far before a credible assessment can be made. It describes the military effort as falling short of forcing the Taliban to discuss a peace agreement, but that isn’t even the objective of the surge. Although the article does state that U.S. officials caution that the strategy is in its beginning stages, this clarification comes on the second page and will be missed by many readers.
Measuring success by the willingness of the so-called “moderate Taliban” to embrace peace and democracy dooms the strategy to failure. Instead, any effort to reach out to the radical Islamic forces should be done with the goal of making them defect, rather than achieve their aims politically. The Afghan government and NATO forces are expanding the effort to enlist local tribes in their fight against the Taliban. No evaluation of the strategy in Afghanistan can take place until this outreach is completed.
The governor of Kandahar has just met with 350 elders in local communities that had been under Taliban control until recently. General Petraeus has begun a new program to set up local security forces, which he calls “community watch with AK-47s,” that is being implemented in 68 districts. This closely resembles the Sons of Iraq program that successfully turned the country around. U.S. forces are also moving out of large bases and into smaller outposts among the communities, as was also done in Iraq.
Pages: 1 2
The problem was GWB was a liberal masquerading as a conservative. When he ran against Al Gore, he promised he would never occupy another country for the purpose of pursuing silly altruistic fantasy based nation-building missions. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what he did in Afghanistan at his first opportunity.
Instead of targeting for eradication OBL and AQ ONLY in retaliation for 9/11, he sidetracked our military to pursue an asinine fantasy based nation-building mission to win the hearts and minds of Muhammadans who are obligated to hate our guts no matter what we do by the Koran, and as a direct result OBL and AQ were able to escape without retaliation. Hence, today almost 10 years later we are still stuck in the muck in Afghanistan with no end in sight. Meanwhile, OBL and Zawahira have been living a life of luxury right across the border in Pakistan hosted by Pakistan’s ISI, while still directing terrorist attacks against the USA and Europe.
In addition, thanks to GWB the Secretary of Defense and the Generals that control our Defense Department and Pentagon today are all also political correct liberals, which accounts in large part for their institutional blindness with respect to Afghanistan, Iraq, and our enemy’s threat doctrines.
On top of that, the decisions to occupy first Afghanistan and then subsequently Iraq were based on political correct myths like Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, like poverty and despair are the root causes of terrorism, like Islam is a religion like any other religion instead of a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology, and like the Islamic world can be democratized and modernized. All of those stupid and idiotic absurd assumptions are totally ludicrous to say the least.
The truth is the Secretary of Defense and the Generals that control the Defense Department and the Pentagon today don’t have the first clue about our enemy’s threat doctrines. Indeed, they are all totally oblivious. Hell, Admiral Mike Mullin, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says his first priority is not victory in Afghanistan, but instead to create a multicultural and diverse military. These are the Leftwing loons we have in charge of protecting us today exactly because GWB was a liberal masquerading as a conservative.
Anyway, the so-called democracies we created in both Afghanistan and Iraq are for all intents and purposes Sharia States, as thanks to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muhammadan infiltrator, Sharia was enshrined in both respective constitutions as the highest legal authority. Hence, the reality today is we are in effect propping up Sharia states in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which wouldn’t be so bad except for the fact that the only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muhammadans to become more devout slaves of Allah.
By the way, Sharia also obligates Muhammadans to wage armed jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam. Hence, if Ryan Mauro, Barack Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and the Generals in charge of the Defense Department and the Pentagon today all collectively believe that Afghanistan and Iraq will remain loyal to the USA once we finally exit the scene, then I have a bridge I need to sell them.
The USA desperately needs to elect a true conservative in 2012 that has a thorough understanding and knowledge of our enemy’s threat doctrines, who will also have the courage of his convictions to completely clean house at the Defense Department and Pentagon, which would entail retiring all the leftwing Generals currently in charge and replacing them with conservative Generals who aren’t blinded by political correctness and multiculturalism.
Typical…
No one can accuse Robert Spencer of being soft on Islam, and he is an outspoken proponent of withdrawal. His arguments are cogent and difficult to refute. My own feeling is that our fiscal problems at home are so acute that we simply can't afford open-ended commitments to try and civilize Islamic hellholes like Afghanistan.
Spencer may be absolutely correct in the final analysis. But the one thing I'll admit that he never seems to….is that there WILL be national-security and geo-political repercussions in letting the Taliban reconquer Afghanistan. The question is, do they outweigh the costs of a continuing, open-ended drain of American blood and treasure?
WILL be national-security and geo-political repercussions in letting the Taliban reconquer Afghanistan. The question is, do they outweigh the costs of a continuing, open-ended drain of American blood and treasure?
Well let’s face facts, thanks to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muhammadan that managed to penetrate our State Department, which considering how leftwing, politically correct, and blind that department is today wasn’t very hard, the so-called democracies we helped to establish in both Afghanistan and Iraq, for all intents and purposes, are Sharia States, as Sharia (Islamic law) was enshrined as the highest legal authority in both respective country’s constitutions. The only freedom that Sharia allows is the freedom for Muhammadans to become more devout slaves of Allah, and it also obligates Muhammadans to wage armed jihad for the spread of Islam.
Hence, it really doesn’t matter how many more years we stay in either Afghanistan or Iraq spinning our wheels, as both countries will inevitably rejoin the global jihad as soon as we leave exactly because they are both Sharia states. In other words, both fantasy based nation-building occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq were incredibly counterproductive, and they were incredibly counterproductive exactly because the GWB administration miserably failed to study the enemy and the enemy’s threat doctrines, which according to Sun Tzu is the first rule of war.
Hell, they failed so badly in that regard that they even declared war on one of our enemy’s tactics, terrorism, instead of our actual enemy, and this pretense is being maintained to this day. Indeed, if you ask John Brennan, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, if the USA is at war with Islam, he will resolutely say never! Indeed, he even denies that Jihad is combat for the spread of Islam.
Therefore, what exactly is there to win in Afghanistan? I mean Afghanistan was a backwards medieval like country in 2001. It couldn’t represent an existential threat to a superpower like the USA even if it wanted to. Why did we even occupy that hellhole to begin with, especially after what happened to the Soviets? I mean we could have simply targeted any threats emanating from there and eliminated them. Which is exactly what we should have done with respect to OBL and AQ.
Finally, how many wars have we ever won via fantasy based nation-building missions? The answer is zero, as every one of them has miserably failed, including the last two in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I agree with most of what you wrote…but there are points of divergence…
A quasi-Sharia state like Iraq….or even a more comprehensive one like Karzai's Afghanistan is – mostly because of our continued presence – much less likely to be a base of operations for worldwide terrorism than a full-blown Sharia state in either country that is dominated by the likes of Iran, Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban. In other words, it DOES matter who governs these countries, based upon the singular issue of terrorism.
I also disagree conceptually with your assertion that nation-building never works. It worked in post-war Germany and Japan, and it has worked at various times in Latin America, when a failed state was reconstructed and new institutions took hold (Colombia is a good contemporary example, though its institutions never COMPLETELY collapsed). Meanwhile, there is a distinct possibility that our nation-building efforts will succeed in Iraq (although this is far from a certainty).
Finally, though we could have bombed Afghanistan from the air after 9-11, doing so – while sowing great destruction – would not have dislodged the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Once the bombing campaign was over, nothing would have changed.
Summing up, I'm with you in the broader context of walking away from these conflicts, but my reasons are primarily fiscal, not strategic. I just don't think our short-term national security will be enhanced at all by premature withdrawal from either conflict (the longer view is a different story). But I'll readily concede that in the end, it does seem rather absurd to continue squandering American blood and treasure on the likes of Karzai and the Shura council that enshrined Sharia in Afghanistan.
PS – Brennan is indeed a disaster.
I also disagree conceptually with your assertion that nation-building never works. It worked in post-war Germany and Japan
In Germany and Japan we defeated our enemies utterly before we did nation building. In Afghanistan and Iraq we never ever challenged our enemy much less defeated it. In fact, our enemy today is stronger than ever before. We completely skipped that part altogether and went directly to fantasy based nation-building instead. Of course, we didn’t even understand who our enemy was, and in fact still don’t, as for as our federal government is concerned.
Meanwhile, there is a distinct possibility that our nation-building efforts will succeed in Iraq (although this is far from a certainty).
For all intents and purposes, it has already failed, as the Iraqi government has been voting lock step with the OIC and also treating the US government like a stepchild since GWB was still in office. It also condemns Israel every chance it gets. I will be very surprised if Iraq doesn’t eventually become a poodle of Iran, a lot like Syria is. In any event, it will inevitably rejoin the global jihad nonetheless once we leave the scene.
Finally, though we could have bombed Afghanistan from the air after 9-11, doing so – while sowing great destruction – would not have dislodged the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Once the bombing campaign was over, nothing would have changed.
I have nothing against the campaign that we did in Afghanistan post 9/11. However, it should have been limited to the eradication of OBL and AQ only. We had no business jumping into the middle of a jihad between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban for the purpose of occupying Afghanistan to pursue an asinine fantasy based nation-building mission to win the hearts and minds of people who are obligated to hate our guts.
Likewise, I had nothing against ousting Saddam, but nonetheless as soon as Iraq was scoured for WMD and Saddam was captured we should have exited Iraq ASAP.
In other words, our missions should be limited to defeating our enemies, creating as much deterrence in the process as possible, and leaving.
Now some people may complain that if we left Iraq soon after Saddam was captured that the vacuum left behind would have inevitably led to a jihad between the Shiites and the Sunnis that would have sucked in Iran and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. I say great since Muhammadans killing each other inside Dar al Islam is good for us (Dar al Harb), and bad for them (Dar al Islam).
You see we are not just at war with certain Islamic states only, which is taking a very nuanced and actually very incorrect view of this war. Instead, for all intents and purposes we are at war with Islamic civilization.
As a matter of fact, this is a clash of civilizations pitting Islamic civilization against Western civilization, and it is clear that Islamic civilization is the aggressor and that Western civilization has no other choice but to defend itself. Hence, let’s exploit all the cracks and fissures within the camp of Islam to our advantage we can. The more the merrier.
Finally, I don’t want to just walk away, I want to transition to a better strategy and one that isn’t fantasy based or based on myths and false assumptions like the current one. In other words, we need to recognize who our enemy is and also thoroughly study their threat doctrines.
1) Your point about Germany and Japan is a good one
2) Your analysis on Iraq may prove to be right, but as of now, it is NOT a purveyor of terrorism and Jihad. Do you believe we should distinguish between Muslim regimes that are active facilitators of terrorism and those that aren't?
3) The clash of civilizations is very real, but I believe you're taking too ideological an approach. We have genuine allies in the Muslim world, such as Tunisia. We have quasi-allies that sometimes support us, sometimes oppose us. It would be a mistake to make enemies of every country in the Islamic world when many are giving us anti-terror cooperation….(yes, I'm aware this says nothing about the "soft" Jihad).
I personally believe in a two-track approach. On the one hand, we wage an aggressive ideological campaign to educate Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the nature of Islamic theory AND practice…in the (probably vain) hopes of compelling Muslims into confronting the intolerance and barbarisms of their creed (our current policy of validation is counter-productive, undercutting the efforts of any valid Muslim reformers). But at least we'll be openly dealing with the problem and enlightening our own citizenry.
On the other hand, I think we need a degree of real-politik in our relations with the Muslim world, cooperating when and where it is in our self interest to do so. A timely tip from a Muslim country's security service could potentially save thousands of lives.
4) The problem with the prospective Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq is that one side – in all likelihood the Shia – would triumph, giving Iran de facto control of the country. As it is, the Iranians have influence, but Iraq is still free of its orbit.
5) Totally agree with your final paragraph
I appreciate the dialogue, amigo. These questions are very important to the anti-Jihad, but are rarely debated. Our differences can serve as a kind-of Think-Tank, hashing out the issues. If anyone else would like to input, please do.
2) Your analysis on Iraq may prove to be right, but as of now, it is NOT a purveyor of terrorism and Jihad. Do you believe we should distinguish between Muslim regimes that are active facilitators of terrorism and those that aren't?
Whether Iraq facilitates jihad at this point or not really doesn’t matter. As soon as we leave it will rejoin the global jihad and when it does it won’t be on the side of Western civilization, it will be on the side of Islamic civilization, which fully intends to subjugate and subsume Western civilization. Hence, no matter what, Iraq will end up in the enemy camp and thus will be the enemy.
Like I said, we are not at war with only individual Islamic states, we are at war with Islamic civilization. Thus, all Islamic states must be regarded as the enemy. It’s sort of like being pregnant; you can’t be just a little bit pregnant. Well, if you are a member of the OIC, you are the enemy as you are a member of the enemy’s camp.
3) The clash of civilizations is very real, but I believe you're taking too ideological an approach. We have genuine allies in the Muslim world, such as Tunisia. We have quasi-allies that sometimes support us, sometimes oppose us. It would be a mistake to make enemies of every country in the Islamic world when many are giving us anti-terror cooperation….(yes, I'm aware this says nothing about the "soft" Jihad).
We have friendly relations with many Islamic states, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t our enemy. They are dazzling us with their friendliness, while at the same time they are sticking the knife in our back through stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad the Muslim Brotherhood calls civilizational jihad.
I personally believe in a two-track approach. On the one hand, we wage an aggressive ideological campaign to educate Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the nature of Islamic theory AND practice…in the (probably vain) hopes of compelling Muslims into confronting the intolerance and barbarisms of their creed (our current policy of validation is counter-productive, undercutting the efforts of any valid Muslim reformers). But at least we'll be openly dealing with the problem and enlightening our own citizenry.
We can wage an ideological campaign till the cows come home, but it will inevitably be a proverbial waste of time. In addition, Islam can’t be reformed for several reasons, such as Muhammad was Allah’s final messenger whose words are final, the Koran is divine and thus it is immutable, the doors of ijtihad have been locked for over a thousand years, there is no established hierarchy in Islam similar to Roman Catholicism, anyone who so much as questions the divine words of Allah is guilty of blasphemy, which is punished by execution, etc., etc., etc.
Now there are some people that claim to be Muhammadan reformers, but all of these so-called reformers are more charlatans than anything else, as the Muhammadans that practice true Islam believe they and their small handful of followers are apostates that should be executed. Indeed, in the Islamic world there have been several Muhammadan leaders that tried to lead movements of reform. However, they were all convicted of apostasy and executed as a result.
With respect to our own citizens, there needs to be a massive educational initiative to make everyone living in the West aware of Islam and the threat it represents to freedom in the world, but before that can happen, you have to educate the politicians first, and that phase is finally beginning thanks to the magnificent work of Frank Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy with their Team BII report: Shariah: The Threat to America. I recommend you download that PDF report and read it. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml
On the other hand, I think we need a degree of real-politik in our relations with the Muslim world, cooperating when and where it is in our self interest to do so.
Eventually, Islamic immigration to the West will have to be banned and reversed, and I also futher recommend the Islamic world be isolated. Also, all immediate threats such as Pakistani nukes and probable Iranian nukes in the near future must be eradicated. Finally, I would also recommend confiscating their oil wealth and oil assets. Otherwise, they will continue using those resources to wage jihad against Western civilization forever per the tenets of their religion.
In other words, the Islamic world should be totally isolated and because Islamic civilization is incapable of producing anything material on its own, thanks to Islam, it will quickly become poverty stricken. Anyway, after Islamic civilization has been allowed to stew in its own poverty stricken Islamic paradise for a few generations, I believe in time that Islam will eventually become delegitimized, and when that happens we can use their oil wealth that we previously confiscated and hopefully held in trust for them to help them build the institutions necessary to become a free society.
A timely tip from a Muslim country's security service could save thousands of lives.
You mean like the tip the Saudis gave us last week. Well the Saudis are stealth and deceptive non-violent jihadists, or, in other words, cold jihadists. Indeed, no other Islamic country in the world has done more to facilitate civilizational jihad than the Saudis. Hence, it only benefits the Saudis to tip us off when the purveyors of the hot jihad are planning attacks, because such actions helps to build unwarranted trust with the many countries in the West that are still oblivious to the Saudis’ stealth and deceptive civilizational jihad. Not to mention that while both factions, the cold jihadists and the hot jihadists compete against each other, they nonetheless are trying to attain the same goal.
4) The problem with the prospective Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq is that one side – in all likelihood the Shia – would triumph, giving Iran de facto control of the country. As it is, the Iranians have influence, but Iraq is still free of its orbit.
Well, if I would have been President back in 2003 instead of GWB, I would have exited Iraq as soon as the country was scoured for WMD and Saddam was captured, hoping at the same time that the giant vacuum we left behind via the ousting of Saddam would have led to a giant jihad between the Shiites and the Sunnis that would have also sucked in Iran, the Saudis, and the Gulf States. Then when Iran was fully engaged in that jihad, I would have used our military might to oust the ruling Mullahs and destroy their nuclear weapons program while they were distracted. I would have also ousted the House of Saud and confiscated their oil wealth and oil assets as well. Nevertheless, that window of opportunity is long gone today.
I appreciate the dialogue, amigo
Thanks, I agree. Great debate!
What is it about journalism today? Do they pull for this country to be defeated on the battlefield? They release secret information for a story that leads to the deaths of civilians cooperating with US forces or to the killing of our servicemen and women. Why is Washington Post ready to throw in the towel.? Give Petraeus a chance and a bit more!
The key is getting Pakistan to go along with American plans. We provide about $2 billion in military aid to Pakistan. We need to use it as leverage to convince the Pakistani government to attack the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
If US forces can pin down the Taliban along the border in Pakistan; if drone attacks are allowed to strike terrorist camps; if the Pakistani army would launch an assault against the border regions, the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be trapped and wiped out. This would be a crucial victory.
These are big 'ifs", but right now the enemy has sanctuaries as the Viet Cong had in Cambodia. While the US controls villages in the day, the VC would come and rule the night. In Vietnam, Petraeus seems to have a strategy similar to the strategic hamlet program of South Vietnam, but he is trying, as he did in Iraq, convince Afghan tribes to defect to the US. If he can do this, it could break the back of the Tailban, leading more people to expose the enemy hiding among them.
Another problem is Obama's timeline for withdrawal. If the enemy are smart, they will wait. If we leave too quickly, we will be doing to Afghanistan, what we did in South Vietnam. There was a bloodbath then. There could be a bloodbath again. Then, there is Diem, no, I meant Karzai.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. Thomas Jefferson