Thank goodness we have politicians, huh?
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.
The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.
“You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,” Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. “And if that’s accomplished we’ll be successful.”
Oooooookay.
So, war’s over. Pack up the troops and bring them home. We can’t beat the Taliban, even though we beat the living daylights out of them once, with our military, so why, exactly are they there?
Frist says that he was misquoted and taken out of context, but his revised comments don’t give me much to support either.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
Well, yes. But let’s not forget that our attempts to “win hearts and minds” also very much includes removing the other, murderous and torturing option the Taliban represents. We have to make very clear that the Taliban is a dead-end and that we will hammer them every time they stick up their heads. Period.
Which brings me to another topic: ruthlessness. I had a conversation today with one of my professors and the subject of the war came up. One of the points he made was that, from the very outset of our actual fighting this war, the President has never made it clear that we need to bear down and actually fight. Sure, he’s told us that we’re going to be involved in fighting terrorists for a while and that we should expect that maybe this fight will last a generation, but he’s never really imparted on us what that means. He’s never impressed on us the need for a sacrifice of any sort or what sort of sacrifices we should be making.
My professor is absolutely right and I get the distinct impression that he, no supporter of our being in Iraq or Afghanistgan, would have at least considered supporting our fighting the war if the President had actually told us what we needed to do to fight it ruthlessly and to win.
The President failed us in that regard. During World War II, a war which is very similar to this war in many, many ways, the American public knew pretty clearly from the President what it was going to need to do. He kept them informed, in pretty fair detail, about what was happening on the battlefronts. He made sure that they knew how their sacrifice helped. Most importantly, he made sure their sacrifices were spent vigorously. When we fought our battles, we fought them to utterly defeat the enemy, to crush not only their militaries but also the will of their civilians to fight us. We fought ruthlessly not only to crush the armies of Germany, Japan, and Italy, but to impress upon the German, Japanese, and Italian citizens the futility of supporting their armies.
This we have not done in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have not been ruthless. We have not been brutal with our enemies. We have not demonstrated in any meaningful way that backing the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Ba’athists, the Iranian and Syrian-sponsored terrorists trying to knock down the duly-elected government of Iraq and Afghanistan, or anyone else devoted to enslaving or destroying the free is a vain and deadly thing to do. President Bush has spent more time reading from the mostly uninspired and tepid speeches polished to a dull sheen by his speechmakers than he has being inspired as he did in the days immediately following 9/11. He lost the support he had in huge amounts back then because he’s stepped away from fighting the enemy. He needs to go back to that theme, bluntly and in detail and he needs to make abundantly clear to people like Bill Frist that they need to be on board.
That’s not likely to happen in the immediate future, though. Having left the “killing the enemy” phase of the war far too soon, our politicians have found that it’s very difficult and politically hazardous to try to go back to it, even if that’s exactly what we need to do.
I disagree strongly with Senator Frist. We do not need to nicey-nice those folks who might incline themselves toward the Taliban. Winning a war is not a debate club. It doesn’t happen throught the judicious use of pamphlets. It happens by killing the enemy and demoralizing their supporters so thoroughly that the thought of opposing us never enters their minds. We need to make it exceedingly clear that no one who supports the Taliban’s return in any way, shape, or form may claim the title of “moderate” Muslim (or, as the Senator calls them, “moderate Islamists”, whatever the hell [i]those[/i] are. Perhaps they’re Islamists who simply make the bomb belts instead of actually strapping them on teenagers). Those who do have earned only the label of “enemy” and will live a short and empty life.
I do not imagine that will happen, though. Not now. Not while the pedantic pseudo-intellectuals among us would rather niggle over what we call the enemy rather than giving them the ruthless whipping we should. And since the President has decided to take a powder on asking for sacrifice and steel from all of us, the pedants are going to carry the day so that, in the end, we’ll have a well-vetted name to call our enemy.
At least we’ll still be able to see what ruthlessness looks like. Our enemy will show it to us in spades.
(h/t: Mary Katherine Ham)
UPDATE: Welcome, readers of the Daou Report! Feel free to look around the place and don’t hesitate to leave any polite and informed comments you might have. One note, though. Bringing up the chickenhawk canard is considered neither a polite nor informed comment.
Also while you’re hear, you might be interested in Part I in the series explaining why I’m sick and tired of politics. You’ll probably be more interested in why I believe the Speaker of the House ought to resign today.
I Sincerely Hope This Is An AP Misquote…
If it is not, Bill Frist may as well not bother to run for anything except cover. Because there are going to be a lot of rotten tomatoes flying about.
QALAT, Afghanistan U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerr…
Jimmie, since you talk about speaking with a professor in the post above, I am assuming you are of college or graduate school age. I wondering why, if you think the policiy in Iraq and Afghanistan has not been ruthless enough, why you haven’t enlisted so you can participate in all that killing. I would recommend the Marines, since they are doing a lot of the really difficult missions, but if that seems too hard for you there is the Army. The enlistment standards have been lowered lately, so even if you are not the best candidate they will surely take you. It is easy to call for ruthlessness but it is hard to do in real life. Killing people, even in war, is a life changing, life altering experience and those that advocate more of it should be willing to do it themselves. My son is currently stationed in Iraq, in a very dangerous part of the country. He puts his life on the line every day and has to make decisions about the lives of others every day. Unless you, Jimmie, are willing to do the same I am not interested in your opinion.
Carol – Two points.
First, though I am a college student, I am not of enlistment age.
Second, though you have couched it reasonably, your argument is seriously flawed. I am sure that you would agree that our police departments enforce the laws vigorously, yet I do not expect you to actually become a police officer to make that claim. Neither would I expect you to become a firefighter to demand that when your house is on fire the fire department respond promptly and work to the fullest of their ability. YOur opinion shows a lack of serious thinking that borders on the laughable. That you are still allowed to voice it publicly is a great credit to this nation.
What I ask is that the President ask of the military what has always been asked of the military – that they fight our wars to win them. That will mean that our brave soldiers will kill other people and that some of them will die. That is what all of them, your son included, are there to do. That is the job they accepted – to risk themselves in our stead. They have taken on a dangerous task voluntarily and I have no compulsion whatsoever in asking that they perform their tasks to the limit of their abilities. I do not do this vainly and I am thankful every single day that we have had millions of people through the years willing to do that in our stead.
I actually find it rather sad that I have to say what I did. One would think that everything in this post would have been obvious to a remotely-informed citizen.
Jimmie, how old are you exactly? There were men in basic training with my son who were 17, perhaps you will be that age in the not so distant future. My son did volunteer, but just because he and his fellows soldiers volunteered is does not mean they are disposible, that the govenment can do whatever it wants with them without answering to them and to the American people. Asking them to be more ruthless without analyzing the cost to them and to the nation is naive in the extreme, but I suppose I should not be surprised by that in someone under the age of 17. We do not ask our police and firefighters to be ruthless in their work, to kill and main more violently. War is unique, and if are asking more of the people who fight it we should be willing to fight ourselves.
Well the rethugs were much to busy providing cover to war profiteers and child molesters to run a war effectively.
Jimmie…you lying dog…if you can walk the army will take you these days…college will always be there.
Carol, youre getting farther from what I actually wrote. I am not asking our military to be unusually ruthless. I’m asking that they be exactly as ruthless as they are trained to be and as they have been for their entire history. No more and no less.
And you’re completely wrong about my age. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions and pay some attention.
In contrast to your other commenters, I want to point out where you’re right. Or at least, where I agree with you: the war effort hasn’t worked out as well as we might have hoped, and a fair amount of the problem can be traced to the leadership. What the President has failed to do, consistently, is rally popular support for the war (either at home, or with allies, or in Iraq); I’ll go so far as to say that, to the extent that the Vietnam conflict allowed political considerations to get in the way of military ones, the GWOT does bear some resemblance.
Jimmie, since you say that you “are not of enlistment age” I assumed that you were under 17. The oldest man who was in basic with my sonwas 40 and he did just fine. Apparently you are over 42, since that is the new cut off age for enlistment. If you between 17 and 42 I wonder why you have not enlisted, since you think the war is such a good idea.
Carol, why, exactly must I enlist to have an opinion on the war we’re fighting? Do you propose that only those who have served in the military be able to speak on matters of war?
If you are pounding the war drums and complaining that the war is not being fought “ruthlessly” enough it ought to know what it is to have shots fired at you in anger. The people who brought us this war, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and all the neo-cons and the vast majority of right wing blowhards have never been in combat. In fact, when they had the opportunity to go to Viet Nam and actually fight they, like Cheney, had “other priorities.” War seems simple when you have never fought in it. By you answer, I assume that you are of enlistment age. I am not interested in anything you have to say.
Such famous pounders of the war drums as Patrick Henry, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin never served a day in the military.
Abraham Lincoln spent about two months in 1832 in a state militia.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt never served in the military either.
Neither did Bill Clinton.
The latter three, along with Jefferson, actually ordered men into combat where many died. One of them ordered men into a war zone where we still have troops to this day (that would be Clinton, by the way). Save for the drum-pounding of the first group, there would be no United States of America right now. That is one of the reasons that those four men, along with others of the founders, established a nation where the military is subordinate to civilian leaership and there is no requirement that the Commander in Chief have a moment of military service.
Of course this requires some interest in facts and history and such and it doesn’t apear that your interested in either of those things. But, hey, enjoy the script you’re reading. It’s worked quite well for you all thus far, hasn’t it?
[...] The Sundries Shack, “So Whatever Happened to Ruthlessness?” [...]
Let’s see, Lincoln did not serve in an Army during war time but his only surviving son did, fighting for the Union during the Civil War. Roosevelt was of course paralyzed by polio in young adulthood, but all four of his sons fought in WWII and all four were decorated for combat bravery. Are any children, neices, or nephews of Bush, Cheney, et. al. serving in this war? Can you name one? Clinton did not fight in Viet Nam but he also did not support the war. Bush, OTOH, hid out in the Texas Guard while supporting it, sending others to die in his place. I was a young adult during Viet Nam and we all knew that the Guard would keep you safe, but you couldn’t get in without connectons. Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, true, but how many have died there? Any? Compare that to the number of troops dead and wounded in Iraq. It is one thing not to fight in war like some of the early founding fathers did, but quite another to duck out when your country calls because you had, in Cheney’s words “other priorities.”
Now you’re changing the subject, Carol. Your contention, made quite plain, is that since I have not served in the military, I have no standing to speak on military matters. I have given you several examples of national leaders, including Commanders-in-Chief who did not serve either and you move the goalposts to whether or not members of their family served.
The simple fact is that military service has never determined whether or not someone could speak about the military, have a decision about war, vote during wartime, or even lead the entire military. The Constitution itself places the military entirely under civilian control with no service qualifications. Now you want to change it because….well…because you have the notion that only service gives expertise, or some such nonsense. And you hypocritically excuse President Clinton because, what? Fewer soldiers died in Kosovo than have in Iraq (two completely different wars with two completely different circumstances).
And you can’t even get your facts straight. The President did not hide out during Vietnam. He flew jet interceptor planes as part of a mission that hundreds of pilots take on even today. Would you say that those pilots are shirking their duties? The President also volunteered to go to Vietnam as a pilot and serve in combat. He was refused that request because he did not have the requisite years of service and, by the time he did, we were pulling out of Vietnam and didn’t need volunteers. I suspect that you don’t really know what the mission was of the Air National Guard at the time.
Really, Carol. If you’re going to use the “chickenhawk” argument, at least make it compelling and logically-consistent. Otherwise don’t bother.
To get back to the main issue, this is entirely accurate an assessment. Our first mission is to kill as many terrorists/AlQuada/Taliban as possible. To do this properly, we must be much less concerned with collateral damage and, instead, communicate by our actions that those who aid and assist our enemies will pay a direct and immediate price. This will require us to attack the Taliban in Pakistan, concentrating on that area which Pakistan has abandoned. This may require a return to the use of Napalm instead of smart bombs. It will require us to become much more focused on our first mission than on nation-building.
[...] So Whatever Happened to Ruthlessness?The Sundries Shack [...]