The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?

[carl]

The US politicians - remember Nixon with his "Peace with Honor" BS - seem to be able to sell anything to the voters but after the US troops are safely back at home and the country concerned drops off the radar thats when the real problems begin. More were killed after the war in Vietnam. What are the stats from Iraq using "Mission Accomplished" as the end of the war (they thought).

JMA, what do the people you talk to in the RSA and other places think of this continuing pattern of behavior of the US, people who aren't Americans?

[jmm99]

with the OP's question:

from Carl
How come this country of ours that professes to be a cut above, the city on the hill, is probably going to abandon millions of people to lethal killers again?

In answer, it will continue to do so until (1) it ceases to preach that it is "the city on the hill"; and (2) it ceases to preach that it will safeguard "millions of people" from "lethal killers".

It will continue to do so so long as its strategy continues to be based on what was so clearly stated to be US strategy in Afghanistan from the gitgo:

Future of Afghanistan
Richard N. Haass, Director, Office of the Policy Planning Staff, and U.S. Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan,
Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
December 6, 2001

Mr. Chairman:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify before the Committee on Foreign Relations in my capacity as U.S. Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan.

Our aims in Afghanistan are well known to the American people and this Committee. We seek to bring about an Afghanistan that is free of terrorists, that no longer is a source of poppy, and that allows its citizens -- including an estimated five million refugees and an unknown number of internally displaced persons -- to return to their homes and live normal lives in which opportunity comes to replace misery. ... (JMM: much more of the same in the rest of the statement).

Not to blame Mr Haass too much, who was simply following in the footsteps of a flock of US Presidents (from Wilson to GWB, at the time) and stating what his boss Colin Powell wanted stated.

If one believes that the US is "the city on the hill" and has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers", then one is obliged, I suppose, to preach what Mr Haass said. The problem is that, if in the course of these neo-colonial wars, one must pull the plug, charges of hypocrisy are well founded indeed.

I do not believe that the US is "the city on the hill"; or that it has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers" - other than its own citizens. I am therefore a "bad, evil person".

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

I do not believe that the US is "the city on the hill"; or that it has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers" - other than its own citizens. I am therefore a "bad, evil person".

I strongly agree that we are not such and further, even if we were, we do not have the physical capability of properly doing that 'safeguard' foolishness. All we do we when we try an fail is instill a false hope.

That is the biggest single reason we are unpopular with and in most of the world.

Sensible is not evil nor is it bad; behavior that is emotion based but essentially not sensible is, OTOH, bad. It may not be evil due to good intentions but in its disregard for capability it does more harm than good and is therefor bad...

[carl]

If one believes that the US is "the city on the hill" and has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers", then one is obliged, I suppose, to preach what Mr Haass said. The problem is that, if in the course of these neo-colonial wars, one must pull the plug, charges of hypocrisy are well founded indeed.

I do not believe that the US is "the city on the hill"; or that it has an obligation to safeguard "millions of people" (actually "billions") from "lethal killers" - other than its own citizens. I am therefore a "bad, evil person".

Regards

Mike

You don't have to believe the US is "the city on the hill" but I want it to be the shining city on the hill and when we turn our back on our promises we are that much further from what I hope we would aspire to be.

We have no obligation to safeguard the billions except to the extent that we should do what we say we are going to do. What Lincoln said meant something then and can mean something now, and that is important to those billions.

We are choosing to pull the plug on the people we made promises too. There isn't any "must" about it. The Finns through their history have been confronted with musts, we aren't. What we are doing is getting frustrated, mostly because our refusal to see the world as it is, and leaving those we said we would not leave. That lessens us.

You judge for yourself what kind of person you are. I will judge for myself what I wish we would be and judge for myself too when we fall short.

[JMA]

JMA, what do the people you talk to in the RSA and other places think of this continuing pattern of behavior of the US, people who aren't Americans?

As Ken has told me many times he and presumably many/most/all USians don't care what outsides think.

Nobody I know trusts or believes what an American President, diplomat or spokesman says.

There is a little more sympathy for the military because it is appreciated that they are vulnerable to political whim and fancy and as such don't have much real authority.

To an outsider the US system of electoral collages and micro-management of the military by unqualified members of congress is about as ridiculous as what passes for a government system in China.

USians will of course not see it this way as they see their history justifying their current system... much like the Brits preaching democracy to the 3rd world while they themselves had/still have an unelected upper house. There are none blind as...

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Updated Note

Today I have created a new thread 'Afghan Exit: why, how and more in country and beyond': http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=16907

Fifteen posts from here to there were copied over.

Why? These posts have significantly left the thread's subject behind 'The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?'

Please add posts on the wide ranging issues of an Afghan Exit there.

[Dayuhan]

The only "spin" is see in all this is the hair-tearing garment-rending hysteria implicit is terms like "abandon", "bug out", "cut and run".

Try dropping that and looking at it calmly.

Obviously every strategy and every campaign requires periodic assessment. If there's no visible progress and returns on investment are totally out of proportion to cost, those campaigns either need a completely new strategy or they need to be terminated. There are no blank checks and no nation can afford to eternally throw resources into a black hole that shows no sign of progress, especially when no remotely vital strategic need is served.

Is the campaign in Afghanistan working? I don't think so.

Has anyone proposed a clear, coherent, realistic strategy to make it work... not just another strategy for suppressing the Taliban, but a strategy for putting together a self-sustaining Afghan state that fits American preferences? If they have, it's a well-kept secret.

So realistically and without emotional hysteria, given the enormous cost, the economic and political constraints, the absence of any evidence of progress and the lack of viable alternative strategies, what's the argument for staying in?

There are no blank checks or eternal commitments; never have been, never will be. It seems pretty clear to me at least that at this point our presence is an actual obstacle to progress: as long as the Americans are there to do the spending and the fighting, there is no incentive for the Afghan Government to even try to sustain or defend itself.

The US cannot transform Afghanistan or guarantee Afghan security, any more than we can for any country other than our own. The most we can do is give them a half chance and a window to put things together on their own. At some point they have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves, and it looks like that point is getting closer. I don't see any abandonment or betrayal in recognizing that.

[carl]

The only "spin" is see in all this is the hair-tearing garment-rending hysteria implicit is terms like "abandon", "bug out", "cut and run".

You are fond of that rhetorical technique, I think its called labeling. Inigo's comment was best, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

See you at the other thread.

[JMA]

Has anyone proposed a clear, coherent, realistic strategy to make it work... not just another strategy for suppressing the Taliban, but a strategy for putting together a self-sustaining Afghan state that fits American preferences? If they have, it's a well-kept secret.

Who selected that aim? .... ("putting together a self-sustaining Afghan state")

You?

The military - in this case the US military - have have to attempt to operate in an ever changing strategic environment (like shifting pack ice) due to political, whim, fancy and vacillation.

Why do you keep asking outsiders to do the thinking you elected politicians to do? After four years in office the buck stops with the Obama Administration. Go ask them what the strategy is.

USians elected Bush for a second term, now you put this guy back in the Whitehouse for "four more years". In a democracy you get the government you deserve.

[Dayuhan]

Who selected that aim? .... ("putting together a self-sustaining Afghan state")

You?

That would have been the Bush administration. I don't and didn't agree with that policy. I thought it was stupid, as I've said many times. I don't make policy, for better or worse.

After four years in office the buck stops with the Obama Administration. Go ask them what the strategy is.

The strategy now appears to be to get out with all deliberate speed. It won't be an entirely gracious or graceful exit, but that was a given once the deranged policy of install-a-democracy "nation building" was adopted. Jump in a sewer, you ain't gonna come out smelling like roses. That's not a consequence of how you climbed out of the sewer, it's a consequence of jumping in.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Thought I would throw out a thought and argue that the problem is in the gap between what the Army is expected to do (the ultimate political solution, i.e. a democratic Afghanistan) and what it is capable of doing (destroy enemy military capabilities). The U.S. Army does not have the capability, nor the will, to accomplish this political objective. It does not matter if the objective is the right one. Not for us to argue. It is the objective. If we do not have the capability and we are not interested in creating that capability (we currently pay lip service to it with things like Advise and Assist Brigades), who should fill the gap between capability and requirement ... what is commonly referred to as "mission creep". It is not mission creep, it is the mission, the Army just can't do it as configured.

Not for the Navy to do, they sink Ships. The Air Force drops bombs. Maybe the Marine can help, since they are the only other ground force, but they are spread pretty thin. They certainly have more experience. None the less, it is the Army who is stuck with occupation duty in large scale conflicts. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...dpower/2012/09