Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Afghanistan

Recs

12

October 23, 2009 – Comments (4) | RELATED TICKERS: GS

MY COMMENT: The first blog I ever read was by retired COL David Hackworth, who was the author of About Face and the most highly decorated Army veteran with 8 purple hearts etc, etc.... One of the writers on Hackworth's NON politically correct blog was COL Bartos.

COL Hackworth passed away, but we are fortunate to have COL Bartos candor and wisdom. Sense some Fools were posting on Afghan, I thought I would share the COL write up here:

http://mangoparchia.blogspot.com/

Shrapnel

Political - Military *Published each Thursday

Wednesday, October 21, 2009 On the Road to Hell – Afghanistan

If you press button A and button B always pops up and you hate the result, why keep pushing button A? The New Yorker magazine did a recent feature article on Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the US man of the hour. My conclusion after reading it, is that Holbrooke is much more the problem than solution – he is a foreign policy quack and sadly not the only one flitting around Obama’s national security apparatus.

Holbrooke cut his diplomatic teeth as a diplomatic warrior during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Based on his record there, as projected in the article, the significance of his performance should be measured by his failures. He pretends to have learned through mistakes, but so far it is not apparent in his helter skelter, unfocused, self-absorbed behavior while performing Obama's assigned mission.

His claim to fame is his key role in the Balkan Air War where he, Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright successfully had the US garrison Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia permanently. It is still unclear to me why NATO did not assume this occupation mission in its own back yard. Whether this outcome was good for America or not, Holbrooke deserves credit for closing the deal. He used a mix bombs and tough negotiation to succeed, and the US effectively replaced the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans. For short term security, it protected and encouraged the Muslims in Europe, but in the process brought long-term instability – not too smart.

Holbrooke is the standard bearer for US formulation and execution of US policy in Pakistan/Afghanistan; at least he believes he is. He has plenty of competition with the dope dealers, UN, NATO, US Military Command, greedy contractors, Pakistan, India, China and Russia – the 19thc Great Game is again afoot. I dare you to find anything close to unity of command on a theater level. All these forces depend on a corrupt Karzai government to administer the country once insurgent forces are destroyed or neutralized by foreign military force. Karzai-the-Crook has demonstrated he cannot extend his control much outside of Kabul.

The US military is the locus of military power with flaky NATO participation; NATO is a reluctant tiger that in the main requires an attorney before it engages the enemy. Apart from UK forces, most of NATO is brooding over how it went from a cozy regional alliance to a hair-raising global projection of its forces. Bet now it would prefer tranquil Balkan occupation duties over dying hard in the Hindu Kush.

Obama’s attraction during the election campaign was that he was against the fiasco, the war in Iraq and would end it if elected – he was elected, but 120,000 US troops still remain. On Afghanistan he put on a game face said that he was prepared to fight there – still do not believe his heart was in it, but his position countered criticism from the Right that he was a pacifist. Upon election, he ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan. A few days ago, he authorized another 13,000 troops under the guise that they were combat service troops for the 21,000 he just authorized.

Playing a military version of Can You Top This?, his Afghan military commander General McChrystal has requested another 40,000 troops. Obama must have figured he was being rolled by the US military lobby and called a time-out while he tried to understand the situation strategically. The military-industrial-congressional complex is playing hardball to ramp up the war in Afghanistan. It leaked the McChrystal report and Bomb Bomb McCain tried to get senate hearings with McChrystal before the general conferred with the president. McChrystal brought criticism also when he was cheerleading for the expansion of the war in London recently.

Obama really has three choices: get out; stand and die; or fight the Jihadist off shore with special operations, air and missile attacks. Only the rat-neocons believe you can win a ground war there – and they are never right. Any status quo or reinforcement is short-term jingoist gratification, but long term regret and disaster. It is clear that the military establishment with its expanding contractors is the end rather than a means to an end.

My sense is that Obama will press button A, i.e.: status quo or reinforcement, and he will get button B, i.e.: more carnage and wasted American wealth. His military advice is seriously flawed. As GW Bush stupidly said, BRING THEM ON. You would think after Vietnam and Iraq, the US would have learned something. Colonial Robert E Bartos USA Ret.

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM, thefatalist (< 20) wrote:

Barack Obama is this really cool guy who loves bringing people into the center of a cause through "dialogue and inclusion."  People love him, I love him and I can't stand Democrats.

He becomes President of the United States at a time when we are fighting 2 campaigns overseas and neither has the objective that all wars in history have always been based on:  Destroy the enemy and take what is valuable for yourself including the land you occupy.

So, this cool guy becomes the administrator for 2 "conflicts" that are costing us an enormous amount of money at the worst possible time ever and they each have the same objective:  Root out the "bad" guys (whatever that means) so that good people can have a nice life like we enjoy in America.

This is the stupidest kind of war that you could possibly imagine:  Grossly expensive, no "actual" objective, no guarantee the "good" people won't immediately turn on us once we give them that "good" life and no end in sight.  How could there be an end in sight, since there is no real objective?

If the objective was to conquer Afghanastan (and Iraq for that matter) it would be dreadful and wrong but it would be clean and simple:  We go in, we take control and we annex the country.  Anyone who has a problem with this can kick rocks.  These people are responsible for massive loss of life in America and we are declaring all-out war and that is that. 

What can President Obama possibly do?  Afghanastan doesn't want the Taliban, but they don't want us either.  We leave and things fall into chaos or we stay and have a more "Western" more "controlled" chaos.  It will be twenty years either way before long-term order is restored.

I don't want anything bad for Afghanastan and I don't want there to be a place which cultivates the hatred of America which leads to things like 9/11, but we're broke, BROKE.  If we want to take Afghanastan (can't imagine why) than that's something else, but by now the connection between Afghanastan and 9/11 is so far in the distant past that nobody in the world is going to validate that option.

Iraq?  In reality Iraq has options (oil) which are unique to Western interests, but again the ship has sailed too far from the harbor and breaking up the country into multiple parts with the U.S. getting the tastiest part is simply not going to happen anymore.  It could have, perhaps it should have, but it's just a subject for talking about by this time.

You are dead set right, Obama will do nothing, but ask for prayers of hope and increasing dialogue while sending a few more soldiers just because doing nothing or leaving altogether just sort of sounds worse.

Report this comment
#2) On October 24, 2009 at 12:59 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

END BOTH WARS> END THE FED> Help my HERO'S come home. Yesterday.

Report this comment
#3) On October 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM, abitare (38.38) wrote:

FYI -

Report this comment
#4) On October 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Hackworth's book "About Face" is a heck of a read and on my list of books that everyone should read.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement