I am a Rush Limbaugh conservative; I have been listening to him for over 15 years.
I have read books from Rush, Ann Coulter, George Will, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Fred Barnes.
I have attended Tea Party rallies and voted for Sarah Palin rather than for John McCain.
I am also a military history buff and a watcher of CSPAN.
In fact I recall watching General Petraeus deliver his "book" on counterinsurgency a few years ago.
It seemed like a logical strategy for some situations, but frankly thought it was a long shot for Iraq.
However he implemented the strategy in that theater including getting the 3 diverse populations to not only form a common government but to take over the military control of insurgents freeing the US forces to leave; well at least it's in process.
However, Afghanistan is different.
First and foremost the US and its military is fatigued by war.
One of the tenants of counterinsurgency is massive boots on the ground to as they said in Vietnam, "Win the hearts and souls of the people".
Many people referred to the implementation of counterinsurgency in Iraq as "the surge".
The US currently has a relatively small army with many solders having already served multiple tours in combat.
The military and public are weary of funerals, amputations, and suicides of our heroes.
A successful counterinsurgency would take years and countless lives.
Second, Afghanistan is not Iraq.
The infrastructure and culture are much older and less modern.
While they have valuable minerals they don't have the oil revenue like Iraq to fund their development.
Third, the Taliban move from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
What good would it do to invest in Afghanistan, they would just move to Pakistan? Fourth, President Obama has said we are pulling out starting in July of next year.
The locals are wise to wait us out and not trust the soldiers.
Remember the Khmer Rouge who killed millions following the US departure from Vietnam? Fifth, the rules of engagement are so sensitive to civilian casualties that we will have increased casualties as well as reduced force morale.
Sixth, for counterinsurgency to work you need a partner in government.
Can we really trust Harmid Karzai to be that partner when it appears his own brother is a key figure in the opium fed underground? So that's why I don't think counterinsurgency will work.
Here's why I think counterterrorism will work.
Our main objective is to fight terrorism, not nation building.
If we cripple and kill the bad guys they will not be able to arm, train, and inflict harm upon us or our friends.
Counterterrorism counts on Predator strikes plus quick targeted special forces missions to 'kill the head of the snake'.
This strategy also permits us to destroy the poppy fields without having to have the bad guys (our soldiers) on the ground following the strikes.
Reality time--it would be much cheaper as we grow further and further in debt.
This would give our military a break to recuperate, rearm, and retrain for the next potential conflict(s).
Action in North Korea or Iran would be different especially considering their backers, namely the Chinese and Russians.
I am a big fan of General Petraeus and believe he will go down in history, along with George W.
Bush, as heros who established a democracy in Iraq from the ashes of war.
But let's not force him to prove his strategy in a theater where it makes no sense.
And I don't for a moment believe Joe Biden came up with this strategy following thoughtful contemplation.
I think he heard this in a briefing and saw it as a viable way to counter the opposition.
Finally for heaven's sake let's make this decision based on logic, chance for success, and in the context of where we are, and not as if this is the only existing or potential war theater.
I believe firmly that conservatives can rise above the petty politics of personalities and move to a position based on logic.
For these reasons I recommend we adopt the strategy of counterterriorism and abandon counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.
And don't worry, Joe will be Joe and do something stupid soon..
...
I have read books from Rush, Ann Coulter, George Will, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and Fred Barnes.
I have attended Tea Party rallies and voted for Sarah Palin rather than for John McCain.
I am also a military history buff and a watcher of CSPAN.
In fact I recall watching General Petraeus deliver his "book" on counterinsurgency a few years ago.
It seemed like a logical strategy for some situations, but frankly thought it was a long shot for Iraq.
However he implemented the strategy in that theater including getting the 3 diverse populations to not only form a common government but to take over the military control of insurgents freeing the US forces to leave; well at least it's in process.
However, Afghanistan is different.
First and foremost the US and its military is fatigued by war.
One of the tenants of counterinsurgency is massive boots on the ground to as they said in Vietnam, "Win the hearts and souls of the people".
Many people referred to the implementation of counterinsurgency in Iraq as "the surge".
The US currently has a relatively small army with many solders having already served multiple tours in combat.
The military and public are weary of funerals, amputations, and suicides of our heroes.
A successful counterinsurgency would take years and countless lives.
Second, Afghanistan is not Iraq.
The infrastructure and culture are much older and less modern.
While they have valuable minerals they don't have the oil revenue like Iraq to fund their development.
Third, the Taliban move from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
What good would it do to invest in Afghanistan, they would just move to Pakistan? Fourth, President Obama has said we are pulling out starting in July of next year.
The locals are wise to wait us out and not trust the soldiers.
Remember the Khmer Rouge who killed millions following the US departure from Vietnam? Fifth, the rules of engagement are so sensitive to civilian casualties that we will have increased casualties as well as reduced force morale.
Sixth, for counterinsurgency to work you need a partner in government.
Can we really trust Harmid Karzai to be that partner when it appears his own brother is a key figure in the opium fed underground? So that's why I don't think counterinsurgency will work.
Here's why I think counterterrorism will work.
Our main objective is to fight terrorism, not nation building.
If we cripple and kill the bad guys they will not be able to arm, train, and inflict harm upon us or our friends.
Counterterrorism counts on Predator strikes plus quick targeted special forces missions to 'kill the head of the snake'.
This strategy also permits us to destroy the poppy fields without having to have the bad guys (our soldiers) on the ground following the strikes.
Reality time--it would be much cheaper as we grow further and further in debt.
This would give our military a break to recuperate, rearm, and retrain for the next potential conflict(s).
Action in North Korea or Iran would be different especially considering their backers, namely the Chinese and Russians.
I am a big fan of General Petraeus and believe he will go down in history, along with George W.
Bush, as heros who established a democracy in Iraq from the ashes of war.
But let's not force him to prove his strategy in a theater where it makes no sense.
And I don't for a moment believe Joe Biden came up with this strategy following thoughtful contemplation.
I think he heard this in a briefing and saw it as a viable way to counter the opposition.
Finally for heaven's sake let's make this decision based on logic, chance for success, and in the context of where we are, and not as if this is the only existing or potential war theater.
I believe firmly that conservatives can rise above the petty politics of personalities and move to a position based on logic.
For these reasons I recommend we adopt the strategy of counterterriorism and abandon counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.
And don't worry, Joe will be Joe and do something stupid soon..
...
SHARE
