- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Why Washington Can’t ‘Stand Up’ Foreign Militaries

First came Fallujah [1], then Mosul [2], and later Ramadi [3] in Iraq.  Now, there is Kunduz [4], a provincial capital in northern Afghanistan. In all four places, the same story has played out: in cities that newspaper reporters like to call “strategically important,” security forces trained and equipped by the U.S. military at great expense simply folded, abandoning their posts (and much of their U.S.-supplied weaponry) without even mounting serious resistance. Called upon to fight, they fled. In each case, the defending forces gave way before substantially outnumbered attackers, making the outcomes all the more ignominious.

Together, these setbacks have rendered a verdict on the now more-or-less nameless Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Successive blitzkriegs by ISIS and the Taliban respectively did more than simply breach Iraqi and Afghan defenses. They also punched gaping holes in the strategy to which the United States had reverted in hopes of stemming the further erosion of its position in the Greater Middle East.

Recall that, when the United States launched its GWOT soon after 9/11, it did so pursuant to a grandiose agenda. U.S. forces were going to imprint onto others a specific and exalted set of values. During President George W. Bush’s first term, this “freedom agenda” formed the foundation, or at least the rationale, for U.S. policy.

The shooting would stop, Bush vowed, only when countries like Afghanistan had ceased to harbor anti-American terrorists and countries like Iraq had ceased to encourage them. Achieving this goal meant that the inhabitants of those countries would have to change. Afghans and Iraqis, followed in due course by Syrians, Libyans, Iranians, and sundry others would embrace democracy, respect human rights, and abide by the rule of law, or else. Through the concerted application of American power, they would become different—more like us and therefore more inclined to get along with us. A bit less Mecca and Medina, a bit more “we hold these truths” and “of the people, by the people.”

So Bush and others in his inner circle professed to believe. At least some of them, probably including Bush himself, may actually have done so.

History, at least the bits and pieces to which Americans attend, seemed to endow such expectations with a modicum of plausibility. Had not such a transfer of values occurred after World War II when the defeated Axis Powers had hastily thrown in with the winning side? Had it not recurred as the Cold War was winding down, when previously committed communists succumbed to the allure of consumer goods and quarterly profit statements?

If the appropriate mix of coaching and coercion were administered, Afghans and Iraqis, too, would surely take the path once followed by good Germans and nimble Japanese, and subsequently by Czechs tired of repression and Chinese tired of want. Once liberated, grateful Afghans and Iraqis would align themselves with a conception of modernity that the United States had pioneered and now exemplified. For this transformation to occur, however, the accumulated debris of retrograde social conventions and political arrangements that had long retarded progress would have to be cleared away. This was what the invasions of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom!) and Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom!) were meant to accomplish in one fell swoop by a military the likes of which had (to hear Washington tell it [5]) never been seen in history. POW!

Standing Them Up As We Stand Down


Concealed within that oft-cited “freedom”—the all-purpose justification for deploying American power—were several shades of meaning. The term, in fact, requires decoding. Yet within the upper reaches of the American national security apparatus, one definition takes precedence over all others. In Washington, freedom has become a euphemism for dominion. Spreading freedom means positioning the United States to call the shots. Seen in this context, Washington’s expected victories in both Afghanistan and Iraq were meant to affirm and broaden its preeminence by incorporating large parts of the Islamic world into the American imperium. They would benefit, of course, but to an even greater extent, so would we.

Alas, liberating Afghans and Iraqis turned out to be a tad more complicated than the architects of Bush’s freedom (or dominion) agenda anticipated. Well before Barack Obama succeeded Bush in January 2009, few observers—apart from a handful of ideologues and militarists—clung to the fairy tale of U.S. military might whipping the Greater Middle East into shape. Brutally but efficiently, war had educated the educable. As for the uneducable, they persisted in taking their cues from Fox News and The Weekly Standard.

Yet if the strategy of transformation via invasion and “nation building” had failed, there was a fallback position that seemed to be dictated by the logic of events. Together, Bush and Obama would lower expectations as to what the United States was going to achieve, even as they imposed new demands on the U.S. military, America’s go-to outfit in foreign policy, to get on with the job.

Rather than midwifing fundamental political and cultural change, the Pentagon was instead ordered to ramp up its already gargantuan efforts to create local militaries (and police forces) capable of maintaining order and national unity. President Bush provided a concise formulation [6] of the new strategy: “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Under Obama, after his own stab at a “surge [7],” the dictum applied to Afghanistan as well. Nation-building had flopped. Building armies and police forces able to keep a lid on things now became the prevailing definition of success.

The United States had, of course, attempted this approach once before, with unhappy results. This was in Vietnam. There, efforts to destroy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces intent on unifying their divided country had exhausted both the U.S. military and the patience of the American people. Responding to the logic of events, Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had a tacitly agreed upon fallback position. As the prospects of American forces successfully eliminating threats to South Vietnamese security faded, the training and equipping of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves became priority number one.

Dubbed “Vietnamization,” this enterprise ended in abject failure with the fall of Saigon in 1975. Yet that failure raised important questions to which members of the national security elite might have attended: Given a weak state with dubious legitimacy, how feasible is it to expect outsiders to invest indigenous forces with genuine fighting power? How do differences in culture or history or religion affect the prospects for doing so? Can skill ever make up for a deficit of will? Can hardware replace cohesion? Above all, if tasked with giving some version of Vietnamization another go, what did U.S. forces need to do differently to ensure a different result?

At the time, with general officers and civilian officials more inclined to forget Vietnam than contemplate its implications, these questions attracted little attention. Instead, military professionals devoted themselves to gearing up for the next fight, which they resolved would be different. No more Vietnams—and therefore no more Vietnamization.

After the Gulf War of 1991, basking in the ostensible success of Operation Desert Storm, the officer corps persuaded itself that it had once and for all banished its Vietnam-induced bad memories. As Commander-in-Chief George H.W. Bush so memorably put it, “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

In short, the Pentagon now had war figured out. Victory had become a foregone conclusion. As it happened, this self-congratulatory evaluation left U.S. troops ill-prepared for the difficulties awaiting them after 9/11 when interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq departed from the expected script, which posited short wars by a force beyond compare ending in decisive victories. What the troops got were two very long wars with no decision whatsoever. It was Vietnam on a smaller scale all over again—times two.

Vietnamization 2.0

For Bush in Iraq and Obama after a brief, half-hearted flirtation with counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, opting for a variant of Vietnamization proved to be a no-brainer. Doing so offered the prospect of an escape from all complexities. True enough, Plan A—we export freedom and democracy—had fallen short. But Plan B—they (with our help) restore some semblance of stability—could enable Washington to salvage at least partial success in both places. With the bar suitably lowered, a version of “Mission Accomplished” might still be within reach.

If Plan A had looked to U.S. troops to vanquish their adversaries outright, Plan B focused on prepping besieged allies to take over the fight. Winning outright was no longer the aim—given the inability of U.S. forces to do so, this was self-evidently not in the cards—but holding the enemy at bay was.

Although allied with the United States, only in the loosest sense did either Iraq or Afghanistan qualify as a nation-state. Only nominally and intermittently did governments in Baghdad and Kabul exercise a writ of authority commanding respect from the people known as Iraqis and Afghans. Yet in the Washington of George Bush and Barack Obama, a willing suspension of disbelief became the basis for policy. In distant lands where the concept of nationhood barely existed, the Pentagon set out to create a full-fledged national security apparatus capable of defending that aspiration as if it represented reality. From day one, this was a faith-based undertaking.

As with any Pentagon project undertaken on a crash basis, this one consumed resources on a gargantuan scale—$25 billion [8] in Iraq and an even more staggering $65 billion [9] in Afghanistan. “Standing up” the requisite forces involved the transfer of vast quantities of equipment and the creation of elaborate U.S. training missions. Iraqi and Afghan forces acquired all the paraphernalia of modern war—attack aircraft or helicopters, artillery and armored vehicles [10], night vision devices and drones [11]. Needless to say, stateside defense contractors lined up [12] in droves to cash in.

Based on their performance, the security forces on which the Pentagon has lavished years of attention remain visibly not up to the job. Meanwhile, ISIS warriors, without the benefit of expensive third-party mentoring, appear plenty willing to fight and die for their cause. Ditto Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The beneficiaries of U.S. assistance? Not so much. Based on partial but considerable returns, Vietnamization 2.0 seems to be following an eerily familiar trajectory that should remind anyone of Vietnamization 1.0. Meanwhile, the questions that ought to have been addressed back when our South Vietnamese ally went down to defeat have returned with a vengeance.

The most important of those questions challenges the assumption that has informed U.S. policy in the Greater Middle East since the freedom agenda went south: that Washington has a particular knack for organizing, training, equipping, and motivating foreign armies. Based on the evidence piling up before our eyes, that assumption appears largely false. On this score, retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, a former military commander and U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, has rendered an authoritative judgment. “Our track record at building [foreign] security forces over the past 15 years is miserable,” he recently told [13] the New York Times. Just so.

Fighting the Wrong War

Some might argue that trying harder, investing more billions, sending yet more equipment for perhaps another 15 years will produce more favorable results. But this is akin to believing that, given sufficient time, the fruits of capitalism will ultimately trickle down to benefit the least among us or that the march of technology holds the key to maximizing human happiness. You can believe it if you want, but it’s a mug’s game.

Indeed, the United States would be better served if policymakers abandoned the pretense that the Pentagon possesses any gift whatsoever for “standing up” foreign military forces. Prudence might actually counsel that Washington assume instead, when it comes to organizing, training, equipping, and motivating foreign armies, that the United States is essentially clueless.

Exceptions may exist. For example, U.S. efforts have probably helped boost the fighting power of the Kurdish peshmerga. Yet such exceptions are rare enough to prove the rule. Keep in mind that before American trainers and equipment ever showed up, Iraq’s Kurds already possessed the essential attributes of nationhood. Unlike Afghans and Iraqis, Kurds do not require tutoring in the imperative of collective self-defense.

What are the policy implications of giving up the illusion that the Pentagon knows how to build foreign armies? The largest is this: subletting war no longer figures as a plausible alternative to waging it directly. So where U.S. interests require that fighting be done, like it or not, we’re going to have to do that fighting ourselves. By extension, in circumstances where U.S. forces are demonstrably incapable of winning or where Americans balk at any further expenditure of American blood—today in the Greater Middle East both of these conditions apply—then perhaps we shouldn’t be there. To pretend otherwise is to throw good money after bad or, as a famous American general once put it [14], to wage (even if indirectly) “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy.” This we have been doing now for several decades across much of the Islamic world.

In American politics, we await the officeholder or candidate willing to state the obvious and confront its implications.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular [15], is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country [16], among other works. His new book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East (Random House), is due out in April 2016.

Copyright 2015 Andrew Bacevich

13 Comments (Open | Close)

13 Comments To "Why Washington Can’t ‘Stand Up’ Foreign Militaries"

#1 Comment By SDS On October 13, 2015 @ 12:05 pm

“In American politics, we await the officeholder or candidate willing to state the obvious and confront its implications.”

Unfortunately; too many Americans are NOT awaiting this; they are waiting for who can shout “America’s number one!” and bluster about how great we are the loudest….

The candidates who have (even briefly) mentioned the obvious have been sidelined or worse….

#2 Comment By Brendan Trainor On October 13, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

Strange comments by the author regarding the fruits of capitalism when the World Bank has announced that less than 10% of the world’s population can now be considered desperately poor, and for the first time in history over one half of the world is middle class class. a mug’s game indeed! Does he think that foreign aid accomplished this, or was it—CAPITALISM!

#3 Comment By Hamza On October 13, 2015 @ 1:10 pm

I agree with the Colonel that we are hapless at standing up foreign militias/armies– but why does this always seem to be the case?

#4 Comment By Myron Hudson On October 13, 2015 @ 3:25 pm

Hamza: Perhaps because the foreign armies would never have picked those battles on their own in the first place, and are not motivated to continue ones that we started.

They are motivated only by the idea or perceived promise of us fighting for them or alongside them. Once we’re gone, they’re done.

#5 Comment By Fran Macadam On October 13, 2015 @ 3:42 pm

“the fruits of capitalism when the World Bank has announced that less than 10%”

Oh yeah, you can believe those truthtellers, the banksters who invented all the paraphernalia of international financial collapse. Liars’ Loans, no doubt achieving what Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein calls “doing God’s work.”

#6 Comment By Fran Macadam On October 13, 2015 @ 3:55 pm

It’s not surprising when you topple an indigenous government and set up a puppet regime that’s paid by and is accountable to you, instead of its own people, that as soon as you withdraw the military occupation that is its only support, that it is quickly overthrown. Add to this the “goodwill” of the people gained by protecting and promoting as leaders the likes of warlord pedophiles, apparently among our few willing allies, who prey sexually on their sons. When our soldiers are ordered to act as their bodyguards while they sodomize children, with those who refuse drummed out of the military, it’s a foregone conclusion that we’ve completely lost it. The level of desperation is so great, that beleaguered U.S. forces have resorted to General Sherman’s example of scorched earth policy, where civilian infrastructure is leveled and civilians liquidated, to make sure there’s nothing left worth to occupy by the indigenous enemy, as in the destruction of a hospital, doctors and patients.

#7 Comment By Johann On October 13, 2015 @ 4:15 pm

I think overall the author is correct. In defense of some of the Vietnamese troops, there were some very effective units, namely the South Vietnamese marines and the paratrooper units. I’m not saying the author was disparaging the foreign troops. He was criticizing our policies, not the resultant foreign American trained troops. But some who read the article may not get that. I personally witnessed hard, dedicated, and effective fighting by the South Vietnamese units I mentioned. This fighting took place in 1972 after American ground troops had left. They overcame a massive tank, artillery, and infantry invasion. American air power had remained however. But as we all know, they were overwhelmed three years later by an almost identical invasion. That time there was no American air power.

#8 Comment By Mightypeon On October 13, 2015 @ 4:30 pm

Interestingly enough, Russia apperantly did a pretty good job in training the militia in Donbass.

One can identify several things which work in Russias favor:

1: It is the Russian army equipping Russophone Ukrainians. They get a lot of experience with it.
2: Due to conscription in Ukraine, the majority of the population is already basically trained, and even trained in the current Russian style.
3: Due to the odds involved, abandonment is unlikely.
4: There is a lot more will to fight on the side of the seperatists.

#9 Comment By amspirnational On October 13, 2015 @ 6:58 pm



#10 Comment By bacon On October 13, 2015 @ 7:15 pm

I think it would be useful to include, in the short statement about the author at the end of the article, that Dr. Bacevich is also a retired Army colonel with combat experience. It isn’t always relevant, but in a piece the point of which is to provoke thought about our Army as a foreign policy tool it adds weight to his observations.

#11 Comment By J Harlan On October 13, 2015 @ 7:28 pm

The reasons the west is so bad at creating indigenous armies relates primarily to the organizational culture of the modern army. They are not fit for purpose. They are short service volunteer middle class armies where the threat of putting in ones papers hangs over every mission. Ticket punching is widespread and opportunities to get experience are expected.

Officers and NCOs cycle through theatres rapidly (most NATO tours are six months). They rarely have any language skills. They must work through interpretors who often have no idea of proper vocabulary in their first language let alone English. The interpreter’s aim is always to escape to the west resulting in frequent turnover.

The western staff advise or mentor. They do not command or lead and frankly many appear too afraid of their students to enforce strict discipline.

Any attempt to replicate British success with the Indian Army pre-1947 is delusional. Is there an answer? Not on the Washington time scale for success. We need decades when years are provided.

#12 Comment By Tom On October 13, 2015 @ 11:39 pm

The equipping of the Iraqi military with “all the paraphernalia of modern war” is great for corporate America. It is a disaster for Iraq.

The instant that American support ends, they will find themselves unable to fight. You think they can maintain their M1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighters without American aid? Heck, even the M16 rifle has a reputation for being finicky compared to the AK-47.

#13 Comment By John Dapper On October 15, 2015 @ 6:11 pm

The real problem is naive, sheltered people elected to office, advised by similar people, and supported by even more clones. None of them understanding what war is, how to win or what it takes to train foreign troops, let alone wage war. They ask the advise of military professionals and then ignore it. The politicians institute rules of engagement that kill more of our own people than the enemy.
We have plenty of experienced military, at the moment probably the most experienced military in the world. Those whose job has been to work with foreign troops could do an excellent job if left alone by the politicians. Give them the mission and funding and let them pick the training, equipment and people they will train. Stop all the battlefield restrictions. War is war, not some board game. People have to die, become maimed, or displaced in a war. That is the nature of it. When enough of one side are killed, the war is over. We can have rules, but it serves no purpose to have more restrictive rules than your enemy. They don’t respect kindness, but see it as weakness.
Why suddenly is the Syrian Army gaining ground? Because their Russian backers know what war is.