While America bleeds

In a speech at the National Defense University last Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused the Europeans of undermining NATO by refusing to devote to the organization the additional resources it needs to function efficiently and effectively, particularly in Afghanistan.
In addition, however, he lamented the fact that Europe’s current outlook is too pacifist. Last week the Dutch government fell because members of the governing coalition could not agree on prolonging the mission of the 2000 troops currently stationed in Afghanistan. As a result, Dutch forces should be returning home this summer.
Europe’s reluctance to go to war presumably explains its refusal to increase its defense expenditures, the demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st, he said.
In essence, does real security and lasting peace depend on a robust military and one’s willingness to use it? Today, is peace truly conditioned on one’s capacity to wage war without compunction or inhibition?
As such, have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought us any closer to the realization of Mr. Gates’ stated goal?
The US has been in Iraq for seven years. 4697 US troops have been killed there to date, as well as some 100,000 Iraqis…President Obama promised to withdraw all US forces by late next year. National parliamentary elections are to take place on March 7, and it was widely hoped that the poll would allow all of Iraq’s communities to be duly represented. Iraq could then develop peacefully, thus facilitating the US troop withdrawal. Yet, according to Reuters, the campaign for Iraq's first sovereign vote since the invasion has deepened sectarian divides, rather than healed them, after candidates, including prominent Sunnis, were banned for supposed links to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. Saleh al-Mutlak, leader of the most influential Sunni party, the National Dialogue Front has been prevented form running in the election, along with 400 other Sunnis.
Suicide attacks have increased of late, and, according to Leila Fadel of the WP, many here say sectarian strife is reigniting.
As such, some are wondering if this is truly the appropriate time to withdraw US forces from Iraq, all we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005. The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing, a senior American military official told the WP.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s performance as leader of the Iraqi government, undermined by corruption and incompetence, has disappointed many. The decision to ban all those who may have been connected to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party alienated the Sunni community. Furthermore, 18% of Iraqis are unemployed and two-thirds of those who do have jobs are employed by the state. Foreign investment has been minimal, except in the oil industry. As a result, many Iraqis are disgusted, there are no jobs, just bombings. I will not take part in the election. What did the people we voted for last time do for us? Nothing, one Sunni Iraqi told Reuters.
The political system created by the US in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, and conditioned by Order No 1, the decision by L. Paul Bremer III, then de facto leader of Iraq, to ban the Baath party, is based on confessionalism. The powerful one-party state having been annihilated by the US military, each of Iraq’s three main communities, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish now vies for power in order to protect itself and advance its own interests, often at the expense of the others. Distrust and suspicion are so widespread that many perceive the US, however reluctantly, as the only honest broker available. In America’s twilight in Iraq, the imperial role of arbiter, in a system that may yet prove unworkable, still belongs to it, wrote Anthony Shadid of the NYT.
Hence, if the elections are inconclusive and its results not accepted by all major parties, sectarian strife may bedevil the country once again, potentially precluding a comprehensive US military withdrawal.
Should the Iraqi authorities prove unable to prevent the country from sliding into civil war, should they not be ready for the task, to quote Thomas E. Ricks, President Obama would have no choice but to abandon his campaign promise and halt the US pullout. But I think leaders in both countries may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come, concluded Mr. Ricks.
In short, the Iraq war may be far from over and achieving real security and lasting peace many years away…
In Afghanistan, NATO has been present for…nine years…Over 1000 US troops have already been killed there.
President Obama defined a new counter-insurgency strategy late last year, and the US will be increasing its troop levels by about 30,000 in 2010, reaching 130,000.
Last week General McChrystal, the Commander of ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force) who is in charge of implementing the new strategy, launched an attack on Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan, the aim of which is to regain control of the area, and hand it over to representatives of the Kabul government. Afghan soldiers and police would be in charge of security once the battle was over.
Economic reconstruction could then take place, thereby improving the lives of the Afghans living in the vicinity, and hopefully, winning their allegiance.
This exercise would then be replicated in other areas now under Taliban control.
To succeed however, the strategy depends on the ability of the Afghan security forces to protect the area and its inhabitants, and prevent the return of the Taliban once US forces leave.
In order to demonstrate the efficiency and competence of the Afghan army, the latter was to take the lead in the battle for Marja. Statements from Kabul have said the Afghan military is planning the missions and leading both the fight and the effort to engage with Afghan civilians caught between the Taliban and the newly arrived troops, wrote the NYT.
In fact, the US military dominated every aspect of the operation, for Afghan troops revealed gross deficiencies during the campaign. There have been ample examples in the offensive of weak Afghan leadership and poor discipline to boot, concluded C.J. Chivers of the NYT. Moreover, in multiple firefights in which Times journalists were present, many Afghan soldiers did not aim — they pointed their American-issued M-16 rifles in the rough direction of the incoming small-arms fire and pulled their triggers without putting rifle sights to their eyes. Their rifle muzzles were often elevated several degrees high, he added.
The entire strategy of MM. Obama and McChrystal rests on the ability of the Afghan security forces to secure the country and protect the Afghan population. Only then will US troops be able to withdraw, hopefully starting in the summer of next year.
NATO has devoted nine years and several billion dollars to the training of Afghan security forces. Judging from their performance in Marja, the US and NATO are not about to leave the country. Many more years, if not decades, and additional billions will be necessary to train a competent police force and army. Currently, nine out of ten recruits are illiterate….
Yet, we may not have that much time ahead of us.
McChrystal’s campaign to win hearts and minds suffered another serious setback last week.
NATO forces bombed a small convoy of three vehicles, which they believed contained Taliban fighters.
Tragically, that was not the case. Some 27 civilians were killed, including four women and one child, and an additional twelve were wounded. We are extremely saddened by this tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people. I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans, McChrystal declared after the incident.
The Afghan cabinet was not impressed, the repeated killing of civilians by NATO forces is unjustifiable. We strongly condemn it, it retorted.
For this incident followed another that occurred on February 14, on the second day of the offensive. A US artillery strike mistakenly hit a compound housing civilians, killing ten including five children. We deeply regret this tragic loss of life, McChrystal had then told President Karzai…
Needless to say, these kinds of egregious errors inflame public opinion in Afghanistan, and only serve the interests of the Taliban, reinforcing their claim that there can be no peace and no one will be safe until all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.
In essence, the latest events revealed the fundamental deficiencies of NATO’s campaign in Afghanistan: the repeated slaughter of innocent civilians undermines its moral authority, and thus its legitimacy, as well as the government’s on whose behalf it is fighting, while those forces which could potentially replace NATO’s do not have the competence to do so, and are not about to…
Consequently, real security and lasting peace in Afghanistan is but a distant dream, and NATO’s current war on the Taliban has brought us no closer to realizing Mr. Gates’ objective, nine years after having first invaded the country…
How long will the Europeans and the Afghans tolerate this situation?
Events in Holland demonstrate that the patience of some Europeans is wearing thin.
In fact, it is precisely the war’s inability to solve complex political issues, and the great suffering engendered that fuels pacifism or demilitarization, call it what you will, in Europe and elsewhere.
A nation or a community of nations cannot wage war perpetually.
Enduring conflicts exact a toll both psychological and financial.
So far, the Iraq and Afghan wars have cost the US $965 billion…
The nation is deeply in debt, and the deficits are rising (currently at about $1 trillion per year). Last month, the Senate authorized the US government to increase the debt by an additional $1.9 trillion. As a result, the current national debt rose to $14.3 trillion, or the equivalent of $45,000 per American, men, women and children included…To continue to function, the US is currently compelled to borrow forty cents for every dollar it spends…
Beleaguered by an unprecedented economic crisis that has increased the nation’s deficits and debt, leaders in Washington seem unable to initiate the reforms needed to restore the nation’s finances.
The endless health care debate reinforces the perception in the US and elsewhere that the nation is paralyzed and incapable or unwilling for purely partisan reasons to pass any meaningful legislation. In Washington, and particularly in the Senate, the very concept of compromise no longer holds any value. It is akin to surrender and thus repudiated, for moderation is now an electoral liability.
Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, recently announced that he would retire from the Senate because brain-dead partisanship prevents that august body from accomplishing anything useful…
I used to think it would take a global financial crisis to get both parties to the table, but we just had one. These days I wonder if this country is even governable, G. William Hoagland, a former adviser to Senate Republican leaders told the NYT. In this context of paralysis, gridlock and exacerbated partisanship, can the US succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan what it has failed to achieve even at home in Washington, that is to say instating effective and sound government?
The astute Tom Engelhardt posed this relevant question:
Why does the military of a country convinced it's becoming ungovernable think itself so capable of making another ungovernable country governable? What’s the military’s skill set here? What lore, what body of political knowledge, are they drawing on? Who do they think they represent, the Philadelphia of 1776 or the Washington of 2010, and if the latter, why should Americans be considered the globe’s leading experts in good government anymore? And while we’re at it, fill me in on one other thing: Just what has convinced American officials in Afghanistan and the nation’s capital that they have the special ability to teach, prod, wheedle, bribe, or force Afghans to embark on good governance in their country if we can’t do it in Washington or Sacramento?
Consequently, could it be that it is al-Qaeda and not Mr. Gates, which has conceived an effective strategy to achieve its goals?
Since the First Gulf War, one of Bin Laden’s principle objectives has always been to evict the US from the Middle East and Muslim world.
Paradoxically, the September 11 attacks were designed to goad the US into invading Afghanistan in order to achieve its strategic defeat and its eventual withdrawal from the region. Christian armies invading Islamic lands could only bolster al-Qaeda’s claim that the West is at war with Islam, and that it is every Muslim’s duty to wage jihad against the crusaders. The subsequent invasion of Iraq, heaven sent as far as al-Qaeda was concerned, only further validated this contention.
That Bin Laden knew the US would retaliate in Afghanistan is evinced by the fact that his followers assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Anti-Taliban resistance (after having fought the Soviets for ten years) who would have been a key ally in any US campaign in the country, two days before, on September 9.
During the Soviet occupation (1979-1989), the Afghan resistance had bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat, Bin Laden declared in a videotape in 2004. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, he added.
Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA who headed the Bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center between 1996 and 1999, wrote the following in 2008, Bin Laden has long described a three-fold strategy for driving the United States out of the Muslim world: (1) contribute to the forces creating domestic political disunity in America; (2) act and encourage other Islamists to act in a way that spreads U.S. military and intelligence forces to the point where they lack reserves and flexibility; and (3) bleed America to bankruptcy. Obviously, al-Qaeda has been successful on the first two points and today bin Laden is staring into the face of an entirely serendipitous opportunity to contribute to economic disaster in the United States.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are contributing to the realization of objective number three…
Concerning point number one, the latest Christmas Day attack spawned a bitter partisan debate concerning the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Many on the right were incensed that a foreigner could benefit from the protection offered by the Constitution, and thus blasted the Obama administration for having authorized the FBI to read the suspect his rights (during his Senate campaign, Scott Brown declared, some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree). Attorney General Eric Holder concluded that there’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.
National security, constitutional rights have become a partisan issue in Washington, undoubtedly to the delight of Bin Laden. Controversies weaken a nation’s resolve, and sow doubt concerning the administration’s ability to protect the homeland.
As for objective number two, that same Christmas Day attack led the US to deepen its involvement and invest additional resources in Yemen, where Mr. Abdulmutallab received training from the local al-Qaeda branch (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
The front in the war on terror is widening, demanding ever-increasing resources to neutralize the extremists.
As for the bleeding of America, is not the process already under way?
The US spends over $700 billion a year for its defense or nearly half of the world’s total…The nation is heavily indebted.
How long can the US sustain such a heavy military burden?
How effective have its military campaigns been?
Have those billions been spent shrewdly, wisely?
Have they furthered the security interests of the nation, and made it more secure?
There does not seem to be any end in sight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless the US decides to withdraw, regardless of the consequences.
We are not there yet, but the day will come when that is the only viable option left, for these wars cannot be won, and the allies we have chosen (al-Maliki and Karzai) are incapable of achieving anything resembling our definition of victory… Not surprisingly, they are looking after their interets, not ours.
America’s belligerent strategy of waging war to impose a Pax Americana on the planet’s most volatile and dangerous regions is failing.
War should not be thought of simply as one policy option upon many to promote US interests. And yet, conventional wisdom now has it that war should be an option always on the table. This is lunacy!
On the contrary, it must only be considered as a last resort, when the very existence of the nation is at stake.
Neither NATO nor the US currently faces any existential threats, certainly not in Iraq or Afghanistan. As such, war should never even have been considered as a viable policy option…These complex challenges demand more thoughtful, constructive solutions.
It is time to reverse course, for war only begets suffering, death and untold destruction. Nothing ever good comes of it, and certainly not real security and lasting peace.
In fact, it is delusional to imagine that it can lead to either. For what can war but endless war still breed, wrote the poet John Milton…
The time has come to promote our genuine values, peace, justice, democracy and progress.
This is what we should be contributing to the derelict regions of the world, and not death and mayhem.
(the photograph can be found here)