|
On War #186
October 3, 2006
Dear Jim
By William S. Lind
[The views expressed in this article are those of
Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect
the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation,
its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.]
The Washington Post is currently serializing
excerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book, State of Denial, which
reads distressingly like Count Ciano’s diaries. Yesterday’s excerpt
quotes Marine Corps General James L. Jones, the current NATO commander,
saying to another Marine, General Peter Pace, on the eve of his accession
to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “You’re going to face
a debacle and be part of the debacle in Iraq.”
I’ve known General Jones since he was a major. He
is an acute observer of the political scene, and his warning to General
Pace was right on the mark. Unfortunately, General Jones is now caught
up in another war, the war in Afghanistan, which is not going altogether
well. Perhaps it is time to share some bad news with him, as he did
with General Pace.
Dear Jim,
I hope this autumn finds you well and enjoying
the rigours of chateau campaigning. No wonder the Europeans fought
so many wars; they had such lovely places to fight them in.
In another part of the world, less lovely, the
snows will soon bring campaigning to an end. As winter will offer
some time for adjustment there, I thought I should say to you what
you said to General Pace: if NATO continues on its present course,
you’re going to face a debacle and be part of the debacle in Afghanistan.
It is not news to you that the Taliban has the
initiative. What your staff may not be telling you is that NATO
is helping the Taliban stage its comeback. NATO is botching the
war in Afghanistan in ways remarkably similar to those the U.S.
has employed in Iraq. It is conducting massive sweeps, bombing villages,
and alienating locals. It may not be too late to turn it around;
no one is better positioned to do so than yourself. But if you are
to avoid presiding over one defeat while Pete Pace presides over
another, you need to act along the following lines:
1. Stop fighting the Pashtun. The war in Afghanistan
is in part a civil war, and the Pashtun always win Afghan civil
wars. NATO’s presence won’t change that outcome, although it may
delay it. If NATO doesn’t want to end up on the losing side, it
needs to make peace with the Pashtun, then if possible ally with
the Pashtun. As NATO’s supreme commander, that ought to be your
main strategic objective.
2. Stop attacking the Taliban. Of course NATO
forces must respond when attacked, but don’t look for fights. Every
engagement with the Taliban, won or lost, moves you farther away
from peace with the Pashtun. Drop the sweeps, “big pushes,” etc.
Stop talking about body counts; those bodies are almost all Pashtun.
A story in today’s Washington Post shows
the right way to do it. It reports a deal between British troops
and local elders:
Under the agreement reached in the small
town of Musa Qala, in Helmand province, British troops will
not launch offensives. In return, the elders will press the
Taliban to stop attacks, a NATO spokesman said Monday.
“If we are not attacked, we have no reason
to initiate offensive operations. The tribal elders are using
their influence on the Taliban,” NATO spokesman Mark Laity said.
U.S. forces in Afghanistan will hate this, but
those forces are now under NATO command, which is to say your command,
Jim. Make them stop doing things we know don’t work, like sweeps.
3. Remember one of John Boyd’s favorite admonitions:
we don’t want to be attacking the village, we want to be in the
village. Operationally, NATO’s focus should be a variant of the
Vietnam CAP program. The units in the village should be backed by
mobile reserves that can fight battles of encirclement (U.S. forces
can’t, but maybe someone else in your coalition can). When the Taliban
hit a village, the object should be to encircle them and take prisoners,
not kill them. One turned prisoner is better than many bodies.
4. Eliminate all airstrikes. Not only
will they continue to hit civilians, they make NATO into a monster.
Every airstrike, no matter how “successful,” is a blow against NATO
at the moral level of war.
5. Finally, accept that Afghanistan will remain
Afghanistan. It will not become Switzerland. Stop promoting things
like “womens’ rights,” i.e. Feminism, that tell the locals we want
to force Hell down their throats. At best, NATO may be able to leave
Afghanistan what it once was, a state with a weak central government,
powerful local war lords, a narco economy and chronic, low-level
civil war. It would probably help if the monarchy were restored.
Anything more as a strategic objective is unattainable.
To accomplish any of this, you will need to
tell the U.S. military and Washington to pound sand. Remember, you
don’t work for them any more. What are they going to do to you,
shave your head and send you to Parris Island?
Best Regards,
Bill
William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion,
is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress
Foundation
Word document available upon request.
To interview Mr. Lind, please contact:
Mr. William S. Lind
Free Congress Foundation
717 Second St., N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Direct line: 202-543-8796
nnn@freecongress.org
The Free Congress Foundation is a 28-year-old Washington,
DC-based conservative educational foundation (think tank) that teaches
people how to be effective in the political process, advocates judicial
reform, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the government
encroachment of individual liberties.
Archive of On War
|