With all of the media focus on democratic uprisings across the Middle East these days it’s easy to forget that coalition forces are still bogged down in a misadventure to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore it’s more than a little ironic that no less a person than U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reminded us of this fact by issuing the following warning during an address to West Point cadets on Friday:
In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined….’
(New York Times, February 25, 2011)
Recall that President Bush hired Gates in 2006 to help clean up the mess that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had become. And, evidently, President Obama thought Gates was doing such a terrific job that he retained him.
For the record, I declared from the outset that it was a march of folly to send big American land armies into Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, a few special forces aided by drones and cruise missiles could have exacted all of the retribution Americans could have wanted against the Taliban and al Qaeda for 9/11 in the first instance, and all of the revenge President Bush could have wanted against Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in the second.
But Gates’s stunning opinion begs the question: if he now thinks sending a big land army into the Middle East is insane, why did he advise Obama to send more troops into Afghanistan in 2010? Especially given that, by then, the vietnamization of this war was painfully clear even for a blind man to see.
Obama would be well-advised to cut America’s losses and run ASAP; to let the Afghans govern themselves however they like; and to rely on Special Forces and aerial drones to ‘disrupt and dismantle’ Taliban and al Qaeda operations there.
(‘Without (or even with) more forces, failure in Afghanistan is likely,’ The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)
Frankly, Gates should have his head examined.
The U.S. legacy there will be distinguished either by a terminally wounded national pride as American forces beat a hasty retreat in defeat (following the Russian precedent in Afghanistan), or by tens of thousands of American soldiers being lost in Afghanistan’s “graveyard of empires” as they continue fighting this unwinnable war (following America’s own precedent in Vietnam) … more troops only mean more sitting ducks for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.
Never mind the folly of announcing that he’ll begin bringing troops home in 18 months and have them all out in seven years to make sure the Afghan government gets the message that he’s “not giving them a blank check.” After all, this not only encourages the Taliban to simply lie in wait, it also defies the common sense of conveying this message privately.
Meanwhile, I do not see how Obama can possibly justify the loss of life and waste of money that will occur over this period just for him to end up doing in seven years what he should have done in one (and what President Nixon did way too belatedly in Vietnam): i.e., declaring victory and going home….
(Obama escalates Afghan war: the die is cast…, The iPINIONS Journal, December 2, 2009)
Related commentaries:
Obama escalates Afghan war…
Without (or even with) more forces…