Honor Among Enemies
According to the July 3 Cleveland Plain Dealer, President Barack Obama said something very interesting last week. He told the AP that he has “a very narrow definition of success when it comes to our national security interests” in Afghanistan. “And that is that al-Qaida and its affiliates cannot set up safe havens from which to attack Americans.”
Well. If his words were reported accurately and he really means them, President Obama may have built the golden bridge we need to get out. That definition of success may be attainable.
But here’s the rub. Adoption of a realistic strategic goal in Afghanistan means reversing a decision the administration reportedly made last March, at Hillary’s insistence. Hillary demanded, and reportedly got, a commitment to the opium dream of a “secular, democratic, peaceful” Afghanistan.
Has President Obama already figured out he was had by the Clintons? Will he dare assert his authority over Hillary? How long will he stick to his guns when the Clintons ramp up a guerilla campaign against him among Democratic activists?
As I said in my last column, problems in court politics are often more difficult than problems on the battlefield. Dumping the Clinton’s dreamy-eyed idealism in foreign policy in favor of realistic strategic objectives promises a battle royal at court. Of course, Obama may have just been musing aloud, in which case Hillary will soon set the record straight. But if the President really meant what he said and sticks to it, it would represent a major step forward.
Unfortunately, the July 4 Plain Dealer reported another step back. In a story on the Marine Corps’ “big push” in Helmand province, the paper said that
The stiffest resistance occurred in the district of Garmser, where Taliban fighters holed up in a walled housing compound engaged in an eight-hour gunbattle with troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 8th Marine Regiment. The Marines eventually requested a Harrier fighter jet to drop a 500-pound bomb on the compound, which was believed to have killed all fighters inside.
This time, the problem was not Americans failing to understand that in 4GW, airstrikes work to our defeat. The PD continued,
The commanders directing the huge Marine security operation here had said they hoped not to rely on airstrikes…Officers here noted with pride that they had not used bombs or artillery in the first 24 hours of the mission.
But they were left with little choice after the insurgents refused to surrender.
It is hard to question the details of a tactical situation from half a world away, based on a press report. There may be reasons I cannot see from here why the airstrike was unavoidable. But from what was reported, it seems to have resulted from an all-too-frequent problem with American infantry, a narrow tactical repertoire that offers few options.
Anybody out there ever hear of a siege? That housing compound might not have had infinite supplies of food or water. Must we be in such a hurry to resolve every situation that sieges are not an option? They are, after all, one of the oldest techniques in war (read the Iliad).
Just how sure are we that the guys we killed were Taliban? Yes, they were shooting at us. But lots of Afghans do that. Local Pashtuns will fight us just because we’re there. If we kill locals in an airstrike, we create a blood feud with all their relatives.
Did anyone try to talk to those guys? A siege opens that opportunity. It also gives us a chance to talk to other locals and try to find out who we are fighting. Remember, the Taliban (if they were Taliban) is not a monolithic organization. Like almost all 4GW forces, it is a militia. Militia will often deal.
Ah, the Marines will reply, we told you they refused to surrender. Should surrender or death be our opponents’ only options? Whoever it was we were fighting put up what one Marine commander called “a hell of a fight.” No Americans were killed in the process. So why not let them march out with the honors of war? That would tell the Pashtun that we are men of honor who respect other men of honor. Not a bad message to send when going into a new 4GW neighborhood.
I know many Marines will sniff at this, quoting their favorite line, “No better friend, no worse enemy.” In response, I suggest a modification for 4GW: we should add the option, “No better enemy.” “Better” in this context does not mean “easy.” Rather, it means “honorable.” Against an opponent such as the Pashtun, whose culture puts a high value on honor, being an honorable enemy may be important when it comes time to talk.
In turn, if Marines are to be seen by the Pashtun as an honorable enemy, we may want to reconsider slaughtering those who have fought bravely with weapons such as airstrikes against which they have no defense. “Better enemies” respect their enemies, and themselves, too much to do that sort of thing.
Mr. Lind, I think you are reading Obama’s words too closely in seeing him talking only about Afghanistan.
Here’s his quote that got you so excited and which you said would be a “major step forward” if he “sticks to it.”:
“‘[I have] a very narrow definition of success when it comes to our national security interests’ in Afghanistan. “And that is that al-Qaida and its affiliates cannot set up safe havens from which to attack Americans.’”
But Bill, he’s never even come *close* to pursuing that in its categorical sense. And he gives no indication of *ever* sticking to it. This is just a matter of a politician repeating a line that sounded so good and worked for him when he was campaigning but is not following it categorically in the least because he really means something else not so palatable. After all he just got done hugely and dramatically *increasing* the number of our military boots on the ground in Afghanistan, didn’t he? And now of course he’s wants lots more civies there too.
But if all he meant to talk about was Afghanistan then we could accomplish what he said with damn near *no* American boots on the ground, right? After all if we withdrew those boots would something happen to our satellites and planes and drones that monitor the place? Would something happen to utterly destroy our other intelligence assets that keep an eye on it otherwise? Would something happen to the multi-trillion-dollar weapon systems we have so that they wouldn’t work if we found that al Qaida *was* starting to set up bases there and we attacked? Would we be afraid of a Taliban air-force?
Seems to me the *only* way to interpret Obama’s talk is to see that he means no safe havens for al Qaida in EITHER Afghanistan OR Pakistan. And thus it is Pakistan that is the main reason we have our boots on the ground in Afghanistan: In a sense, trying to keep al Qaida in somewhat of a pincer between what we are doing and what the Pakistan gov’t is doing, as well as putting ourselves in a position of strength should things go seriously South in Pakistan.
Seems to me it’s hard to say there’s not at least some sense to this, and at the very least I think one simply can’t talk about or policy “Afghanistan” because it is just totally and inextricably linked with the Pakistan situation. Indeed of course one can even see Afghanistan as being sort of the side-show to the much much bigger and more important and scary main issue of Pakistan.
I also wouldn’t discount the idea that when it comes to Obama considering how to get and fix Iran’s attention it doesn’t hurt in his mind for us to have a few honking big bases on its right flank. Not that we’d need ‘em, but I bet our military is telling Obama that if he does ever want to whack Iran seriously it would be very nice in conducting the sustained operations necessary to do so right next door on solid ground instead of trying to do so completely off of heaving carrier decks or via round-the-globe B-52 flights. Nuts, if we used Afghanistan we could be putting bombs on Iranian targets practically round the clock for weeks I’d bet. (And all the while sparing the Iraqi government from fighting us for using *their* territory to do so.)
Not since WWII have we had any success killing our way out of our problems. Doesn’t look likely to work any time soon, either. Keeps republicrats employed , though.