Myths About Afghanistan
Victor Davis Hanson on whether Afghanistan is really the "graveyard of empires ..."
Barack Hussein Obama flexed American muscle a couple of days ago concerning Pakistan.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Only a single word is necessary at this point: disaster. The incomparable Ralph Peters puts some flesh on the skeleton called disaster.
Here’s why he’s nuts:
* Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction – or terrorists?
* The mountain ranges where the terrorists are holed up are vast. The terrain is some of the toughest in the world. An invasion would suck in hundreds of thousands of troops. And a long occupation would be required.
* Even those tribesmen who don’t support the Taliban or al Qaeda are proud and xenophobic to extremes – they’d rally against us. And all of the senator’s bloggers couldn’t stop them.
* The Pakistani military would fight us. Right now, they’re cooperating, at least to some degree – but they’d fight any invader.
* President Pervez Musharraf’s government would fall – probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.
* We’d also have to occupy a big corridor through Baluchistan, Pakistan’s vast southwest, since we’d lose our current overflight rights and hush-hush transit privileges on the ground.
An army at war needs a lot of fuel, ammunition, food, water, Band-Aids, replacements, etc. (not the sort of things armchair strategists bother about). Afghanistan is landlocked and surrounded by unfriendly states. Pakistan has been helping us keep our troops supplied. And you couldn’t sustain Operation Obama by air. The senator hasn’t even looked at a map.
* Along with giving away the game in Iraq, an invasion of Pakistan would create a terrorist-recruiting double whammy: The Middle East would mobilize against us – and what could we expect after we invaded a friendly Islamic state?
* Our troops are tired and their gear’s worn out. (Obama wouldn’t know, and he doesn’t care.) They’re fighting on in Iraq because they see progress and they have a sense of duty. But does the senator, who clearly doesn’t know any soldiers and Marines, expect them to surrender Iraq – then plunge into Pakistan without a collapse in morale?
* Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other megacities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of beasts?
Go after al Qaeda? You bet. Anywhere, anytime. But we’ve got to do it in a way that makes military sense. A general staff recruited from MoveOn.org isn’t going to enhance our security.
The world would be a safer place if we could reverse time to ensure that Abdul Qadeer Khan didn’t exist, but this isn’t possible. With a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear India, a radical Islamist part of the population in Pakistan, and a moderately secular and pro-West Musharraf in a tenuous perch as President, this region of the world is a flash point. It must be handled with soft velvet gloves on an iron fist. It presents perhaps the most complicated knot of problems any American President will ever face.
While I am no fan of Dick Armitage, the world was safer when, upon nuclear sabre rattling and threats of war over Kashmir several years ago between Pakistan and India (among other disagreements), he took assignment from the President and let both countries know just exactly how the chest butting was going to end. And then it ended without so much as a whimper or whisper.
Agreements to cooperate and send special forces and Marines (along with Pakistani forces) on targeted raids of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, directed and precise air power, robust kinetic and nonkinetic operations in Afghanistan, intelligence gathering, financial pressure, largesse, and intense and close friendship between administrations – these are the things of victory in this region. Land invasion is not. Neither is chest butting.
In further news, we learn that Obama has no plan for the exercise of nuclear power, or he does, or perhaps he doesn’t. U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democratic rivals. “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
So he would send U.S. troops into a land where they are likely to take one hundred thousand casualties and inflict a million, and he has no plan if Pakistan invokes the nukes?
One word: disaster.
On August 3, 2007 at 11:37 am, fumento said:
Give Obama this, he is the first candidate (that I know of) who has called the Pakistanis to task for providing haven to al Qaeda and other international Islamist terror groups. Western Pakistan today is what Afghanistan was on September 10th. SOMEBODY in some way needs to clear out that rat’s nest and if Obama stirs debate as to how, all power to him.
I’m also tired of the black-white fallacy of “Musharraf or an Islamist” as Pakistani president. Musharraf overthrew a democratically-elected president who has shown no inclination that I know of towards Islamism. What’s clear is we need somebody with the balls (or ovaries, as it were) to clear out western Pakistan and Musharraf does not.
On August 3, 2007 at 12:06 pm, fumento said:
Mea culpa. Musharraf overthrew a prime minister, not a president, though he himself uses the title of president. Strangely enough, he previously used the title of “CEO.”
On August 3, 2007 at 5:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Thanks for the feedback Michael. I thought about some of your great work on Afghanistan:
http://www.fumento.com/military/otherwar.html
But got tired of typing late at night, too tired to fully flesh this issue out. Besides, rarely do readers hang on long enough to finish long entries.
I agree. Taking on the tough issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan is more than I would expect of most Dems, and you and I agree in e-mail we have exchanged on this issue. I look forward to the time when we can re-engage in this region. There is unfinished business, and it must be done. You have pointed out very well what is at stake and what conditions are like in your recent embed in Afghanistan.
With that said, Obama’s solution is about as bad as it gets. It is right to return some of our attention to Afghanistan. The way he did it was as wrong as I can imagine. Again, Ralph Peters explains why.
The better way of doing this would have been something like the following:
Text of remarks by Presidential hopeful Herschel Smith (released on 8/3/07 by campaign spokesman):
“There is a global war against forces of tyranny and terror, forces that aim to subjugate us and the world to its dark vision of oppression. We must do what it necessary in Iraq and cannot fail, but lest we forget the first front in this war, Afghanistan represents unfinished business for us. Robust kinetic and nonkinetic operations must ensue in this region of the world. We are friends with the Pakistani government, and will do the things necessary in order to aid them in the capture (or otherwise) of rogue elements in their midst, elements that would not only topple the current government but which would also take control of dangerous nuclear weapons, targeting much of the world, including the United States. We intend to see this operation through, including the provision of effective security of the population in Afghanistan from the Taliban and other fighters who wish to return this country to the 7th century and deny children education and medical services. We are confident that with the right amount of attention, military action and reconstruction, we can deny safe haven to elements of terror in Afghanistan and finally in Pakistan, with the assistance of our allies in both countries. Look for this to happen some time in the near future.”
Then, after having made this statement, the effective president arms his military leaders with the appropriate freedom to hunt down al Qaeda wherever they are, looking first to communicate with the Pakistani authorities, but acting upon intelligence when necessary unilaterally, and then apologizing later with more visits from the State Department and more largesse. And then we do it again, and then again. And again. Small incursions, largesse, well directed air power, spying, financial pressure, and all of the other things we do well.
What an effective president DOESN’T do is chest butting and verbal challenges to a president who, upon being toppled, would be replaced with someone who would most certainly NOT be our friend. And a full scale land invasion would be an unmitigated disaster. If we think Iraq has been hard, wait until Pakistan costs us a 100,000 sons of America in a full scale land invasion.
We agree on all of the details. How we get there is what I have a problem with (w.r.t. Obama). By the way, Pakistan has officially complained about his remarks.
My best to you.
On August 25, 2007 at 1:12 pm, Minority Mandate said:
According to my newspaper, we are already raiding into Pakistan as necessary, especially in hot pursuit or if we see “hostile intent”. I see nothing wrong with this policy in light of the fact that most global terrorists who are not Saudi are Pakistani. Sure there are risks with Pakistan’s nuclear capacity, but that doesn’t warrant rolling over for Musharraf, nor does it make Obama necessarily wrong to advise treating this quasi ally more harshly.