Afghanistan: Questioning the Leadership and the Mission

From Jeff Emanuel on RedState.com:
By now, you’ve heard or seen the news: President Obama (D-IL) has accepted the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who had until now been in charge of the coalition’s erstwhile efforts in Afghanistan, and is attempting to demote General David [Betray Us] Petraeus from CENTCOM commander to czar of the eastern front of the [Global War on Terror] Isolated Effort to Diplomatically Prevent Man-Caused, Non-Islam-Related Disasters.




And from the blog of my friend, Scott who is also a professor of Political Science at the University of Maine: World in Motion:

The problem is that planners, both civilian and military, can always dream up a plan that on paper looks like it might work. It’s akin to a football coach putting together a plan for a play that should be able to score a winning touch down. If executed right, if the defense plays as we expect, and if there are no other difficulties encountered, then we should score.

And one last quote:
"I am appalled that Obama did not contact Col. B.S. Lovell to replace McChrystal in Afghanistan!" From Eric Stone, to my facebook wall. What President wouldn't pick a face like this to lead a big and important command?

(Note: this message was removed from my facebook wall somehow. Either Eric changed his mind, or facebook has become involved in the anti-Mookist movement gaining hold here in the U.S.)

Let me be the first to tell you that the Colonel has seriously considered putting his name in contention for the Afghan Post. He has relayed to me, that given the general rules of engagement over there aren't much different than here at the Mookist Compound. He gets to see the enemy all day, but unless he is directly attacked, he is given little latitude to operate as a top notch combat fighting machine. He has informed me that despite all this, he has opened up a can of whoop ass on a particular 6 year old in this household more than once. The Colonel estimates, in his own highly self-important position, that fighting a 1000 fully armed Taliban fighters while weaponless himself would be an easier task than living with the little punk.

The Colonel has decided if these guys can do it, he most certainly could handle the job

That information notwithstanding, the Colonel has decided ultimately against the top posting position in The Afghan Theater. He said he really does have a desire to make it on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine himself, and would have no problems with spewing forth his ideas on how wrong the Commander-in-Chief is on certain issues not having military experience or expertise himself, not on the level the Colonel does anyways. He said he would be forced to resign, or end up in Leavenworth after publicly embarrassing President Obama in a hand-to-hand confrontation. He said if the President, acting as his boss or not, even consdiered not doing exactly what teh Colonel tells him to do, this WOULD happen. I believe the exact words were, "The President would most certainly witness my cat-like reflexes." The Colonel seems to think his use of puns is hilarious.

To drive his point home, he gacked up on the carpet right in front of my feet. Then walked off as though nothing had happened. Clearly the sign of the one master strategist who could win any war deemed unwinnable by humans. Cats are a little too pompous if you ask me, but then again he'd reply that he threw up all over my office and left me, The General, to clean it up my damn self. He could be right.

Thoughts On Memorial Day, 2010

On this Memorial Day 2010, I offer forth some quotes in regards to this subject, along with some narrative.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." — General George S. Patton

Probably the most controversial commander of World War II, Patton was one of the most dedicated commanders to the art of war in modern time. He was a tactical genius whose objective was of one sole purpose: total victory. Often, Patton was considered brash, brazen and arrogant by not only those whom he served, but by those who served him. Even those soldiers who hated the general on a more personal level, as soldiers they respected the man's genius for war. He wasted no efforts with politics or political ramifications of his actions. He made all moves with victory in mind. Not just victory, but complete victory resounding in the crushing of all militaries who might oppose him. He cared not for people skills or political correctness, but despite the demands and sacrifices he made of his soldiers, he cared dearly for all who fought with him. While the first half of this quote leaves room to be misunderstood, one must first understand Patton himself. He made great efforts to know of the men who made the final and ultimate sacrifice, and to personally express the condolences toward those soldiers' families. Yet he also understood the sacrifice that we would all have been made to feel, had these men not answered their call to duty when they did.

"Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations, that we have forgotten, as a people, the cost of a free and undivided Republic." — John A. Logan

While there has always been an element of opposition to war within our country, even since before the War for Independence came about, ultimately we as a nation rallied behind not only our government, but more specifically our soldiers. Our fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends and all loved ones who answered the nations call in a time of war. It was ultimately they that found our support, constant and unwavering. After World War II, the landscape of warfare changed dramatically. No longer were we fighting the wars on the side of a seemingly tangible greater good, but by the winds of everchanging political doctrines. These political doctrines did not merely lead us into a war, but dictated the wagings of war as well. And thus the wars, no matter how far away they may be fought, we're brought directly into our living rooms with more constant and more disturbing footage. Every battle, every move was judged with a political eye by politician and citizen alike. At times, opinion dissident to that of the government was in fact so much that support for our soldiers had changed into acts of blind hatred en masse against soldiers themselves.

Especially now with our wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, no move is made without great speculation from pundits, politicians, and citizens alike. Everyone has their opinions, which in their minds are almost as good as facts. Why a soldier chose to serve his or her country, or what propels them to continue that duty optionally in the face of constant danger and without end in sight, against an essentially faceless enemy can be found in reasons as varied as the soldiers themselves. Many question the soldiers reasons based on their own take, without ever having asked one who has done or is doing their duty. And they have every right to assert their freedom of expression and speech. I just caution them to remember that those rights were granted because of soldiers who answered the call of duty to first allow us to put those freedoms in place and later to help maintain them.

"In the midst of battle, all plans, all thoughts of freedom, and of those back at home go out the window. For in that moment we fight not for any of that but for our brothers next to us. That one day we might be able to remember the battle we fought together rather than being remembered." - Unknown

Today we remember those that gave their lives in battle for us and our country, and each other. Come Veterans' Day, we'll remember those among us who lived through those battles. Why we designate one day here and one day there for the strong warriors among us I will never know. Every day I give thanks for those who have both lived and died in the defense of America.

I was a member of the United States Army back in the late 90s. when some people find this out they thank me for my service. I don't know how to respond to such statements. I never found myself in some great war to define my service. Not that I relish the idea of going into combat. I just don't feel that I ever did anything worthy of being thanked for, no sacrifice to be made by me. I don't want to brush someone off, but I'm always at a lack for words when these moments occasionally come about.

When 9/11 occurred, I was fully entrenched in civilian life, married with one son. When I saw the footage, I as overcome with a lot of emotion. Not outwardly mind you, but there was something welling up inside of me telling me that I should go back and vounteer to fight those who wreaked havoc upon our soil and our citizens. After a talk with my wife, I chose to stay where I was, safe here at home. A part of me was glad to stay here with my family, another voice in my head was talking of my cowardice, that I would let others go fight and die in my stead. It really bothered me for a long time, to the point on a couple occasions where I almost left the house with full plans to re-enlist without my wife's knowledge or permission, the consequences be damned.

I wanted the adventure that would in my own eyes define my entrance into manhood, as well as the camaraderie and the structure the Army would offer me again. Today, an old Army buddy of mine and I ran up to the Post Exchange at Camp Dodge, the Iowa National Guard Headquarters. We grabbed some random supplies for ourselves, and on the way back home we discussed how we missed the life. And how, if we didn't have so much responsibility here at home with children and bills that would surely go unpaid with Army pay, we'd certainly go see a recruiter about getting signed back up, even in our early 30s. It seemed a nice justification, but again part of me saw the reasons as nothing more than hollow excuses we choose to hide behind. Surely there are many serving overseas with the same excuses and more who still answered the call of their country. For better or worse Duty, Honor and Commitment run through their blood to a higher degree than it seems to run through mine. I have a couple old buddies who were killed in action, some wounded, some serving in their respective theaters of war, and others serving stateside who will deploy later this year. Some of them read this, and they know which group they fit in.

All I can do is be thankful for those who made their sacrifice. No matter how small, big or final their sacrifice may be, or what manner they are serving: I thank you.

Short History of Warfare and Its Contemporary Failure

I'm looking at what should be a pretty complex issue, however as usual I will most likely ovrsimplify things, for easier writing and easier comprehension of the basic points I'll be making (a tactic that can often be mistaken-sometimes correctly- for me not wanting to melt my brain with hard thinking) today.

"War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war, there is no substitute for victory" --General Douglas MacArthur

The quote seems simple enough, as it should be. Most things in this world are simple, until someone with a more than just an ounce of intelligence starts scrutinizing them and pondering enough scenarios to fill a library, along with those who choose to counter with their own thoughts. The human mind is capable of a lot, which has led to much good, much bad, and much ugly things in our world.

War fits the latter two categories. War is very often the result of disagreements over simple things. One man disparages another man's ego, and suddenly a duel is in place for them to settle their differences, no matter how many people are dragged into their conflict, willingly or otherwise. Rhetoric is ratcheted up on both sides, in the hopes of compelling others of their own righteousness, and possible allies in their "fight against evil."

War and Politics have been intertwined with each other since the invention of both. In the beginning, politics often led to war. Then the armies fought it out, with total victory in mind. While politics played a role int he war, it was often mere infighting as to who got to do what, and who gets credit for this or that. But neither side ever deviated from the main goal, which was to dominate and eliminate the enemy until the point of surrendering. Many times, the same war was fought between the same opponents, multiple times, with just a different name assigned to each particular conflict. While armies decimated each other, it was a back and forth of unsettled politics between the foes, with certain stretches of 'peace' between the events.

One example of this would be the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. American authorities and British authorities had squabbles, first resulting in the war for our Independence. Later, political and economic reasons, led us back into war with the British. Since that point, both countries have gotten along for the most part, keeping a more peaceful temperament with each other. There are of course, thousands of other examples, such as European Empires fighting back and forth over the centuries, but I'm not going to muddy the waters by including each and every one of them.

You look at politics even in the Civil War. Politicians shaped the arguments, engaged the people, next thing you know, America is imploding on itself in all out war. Strategy was largely determined by generals. Occasionally the Commanders-in-Chief would step in if a general wasn't doing his job, which was create victories. Lincoln was forced to re-assign, or outright remove many generals for their failures, ineptitudes, or downright unwillingness to take the fight to the enemy on multiple occasions, but we wont get into specifics on that today.

The last "conventional war' that was ever really fought, at least as far as American involvement goes, was World War 2. Armies were identified with clear distinction, and the name of the game was killing the enemy and taking land, chunk by chunk, until the enemy surrendered. Even within this war, political infighting was apparent within the ranks of any given country's military and government, as well as between nations and their allies. But, as I mentioned earlier, in the end, the goal was clear. Tactics and basic strategy may have changed, depending on the situation on the ground, but the overall strategy was simple: Defeat the enemy everywhere you meet him, and drive him back to his home. He can choose die or to surrender. There are NO other underlying circumstances to be optioned. You send out your soldiers to win the war, so they can come home.

Well, World War 2's ending saw something a bit different than that. After victory was declared, many nations' armies occupied enemy territory even as peace was assumed. Two superpowers emerged in the world. First was America, who had helped greatly the efforts of Europe to get out of the Nazi chokehold, while also battling the Japanese on the other side of the world. Second was Russia, who depsite losing tens of millions of soldiers, had kept Germany from expanding its control over them, and helping the allies make headway into Europe by obliging Hitler's attempt at a two front war. Disagreements were rampant between the allies and the Soviets over who got control of where, and a nearly 45 year standoff ensued known as the Cold War.

Enter Politics not only as the decider of when war would be waged, but where it would be engaged, how it would be fought, and to what extent it would be fought. The world was suddenly divided into two camps. You either supported America and Capitalism, or the Soviets and the Communist form of government and economics. True, some countries essentially tried to stay out of the mess, but the majority of countries around the globe found themselves tied more to one side or the other. Again this is a vast oversimplification. If you want a lot more intricate detail, you can find a wealth of knowledge from a fellow blogger, Scott, over at http://scotterb.wordpress.com.

America soon adopted a foreign policy that was designed around the idea of stopping the spread of communism, whereever in the world it may show its face. Our next major conflict found American forces in Korea. The Korean peninsula divided itself up. You had the communist regime controlling the north supported by the Chinese, while leadership in the south attempted to avoid communism, enlisting the help of America to repel communist forces. It was a drawn out conflict, which technically still exists today. Peace is fragile under a truce, as neither side could force the other side to surrender, and technically the two sides remain at war. While militarily the war could have been won, politics played a major role in deciding just how far American forces would go. For all the sabre-rattling America did as a government in response to the "communist threat", she did not wish to fully engage China or Russia into the war. The threat of nuclear war was always there, as the Soviets had developed their own arsenal in response to America's nuclear capabilities (and history of use at the end of WWII), and neither side wanted to test the resolve of the other. Evnetually the 38th parallel was drawn as the dividing line, and the Korean peninsula remains divided to this day.

Years later, after Vietnam had won its independence from France, America had its own advisors in the south of Vietnam, helping fight and train with their armies, while Ho Chi Minh led a communist movement from the north. Minh' splan was to keep Vietnam unified under a communist banner. America and the south Vietnamese were determined to repel the communists.

While guerilla warfare has always been used in conjunction with conventional war tactics, this was the first war in which America found itself on the opposite end of a well sustained guerilla movement. American forces were harassed daily by guerilla forces consisting not only of regular army units, but iregular units as well. And interesting turning of the tables, considering these tactics were used successfully by the Americans in their own war for independence from Britain. While taking massive casualties through this long drawn out war, the American forces had successfully repelled guerilla attacks as well as win every major military engagement during this time. However, politics was playing a heavy hand in this engagement. American Commander of the Army, General William Westmoreland, asked for and received the troops he asked for to fight this war. Militarily we had the ability to engage the enemy and drive them back to Hanoi. Politically, we were not willing to do so, give the possibility of threat from the Chinese and the Soviets, and what that meant as far as possible large scale war again.

And so today we look at current American war zones, Iraq and Afghanistan. Militarily winnable wars. However, we have also engaged a multitude of other objectives, such as the spreading of democracy, stability of the governments and the regions as a whole, and I'm sure a host of other things, that Scott can go into more detail about.

These days, almost no war is winnable under the whole sense. No country seems to be willing to define just what victory is (Hat tip to Classicliberal2 for pointing that out. Note, this link wil take you to his blog, not the specific comment. He's very smart, and write's well thought out commentary. Despite he and I often disagreeing on most things political, its a good conversation and learning experience)
Victory these days, is so multi-sided that we send off our soldiers to go fight battle after battle, usually with no idea what the actual goal is. I mean sure, from the young soldiers perspective, go find and kill the enemy. But the macro scale of what the war is about, or what defines victory is often shielded from or completely incomprehensible to the common soldier.

And to a certain extent, I think that part of the PTSD we see in soldiers these days is the direct result of constant political shifting of the winds in regards the war (and not necessarily our ability to diagnose it better than in the past). A soldier fights small and large battles, but with no clear direction on where to go. The mission changes every day, victory is either not defined very clearly, or defined at all, bsides some vagueries thrown out by the higher ups. And sometimes I wonder if THEY even know what the overall objective is.

There is a lot of conjecture on both sides (pro- and anti-war) as to why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is winding down, we hope. Afghanistan is heating up again, after what seemed to be a long time stuck in a holding pattern. Some wish we'd pull out immediately, which comes with serious political implications. Others say we ought to throw more soldiers (which the President has decided to do on a smaller scale) at the effort there in Afghanistan (which also has serious political implications).

These days, the idea of a pure war do not exist. They are entirely too intertwined with politics, which are often filled with a whole lot of 'what-ifs" to function as they were intended. Which really makes it a disgrace and a show of dishonor to our troops to send them places to do things to which there is no real end game. We send them off to foreign lands to either babysit, or to inflict, view and experience death on a daily basis, only to someday bring the live ones back, and having accomplished nothing but the shedding of some blood. Also to is the concept of fighting a moral war, that somehow we can change the rules of engagement to make it somehow better. This can only be accomplished in the circles of theoretical, but misguided minds.

As a military history buff, and a former member of the military, I make it my official position that unless we can define our goals and just what victory is, our government has no business sending our troops anywhere. Let them stay here in the states and territories with their families, ready to defend our own citizens, until a clear need to dispatch them away to far off lands actually arises, and then, and only then, with a clear plan in place for the military to do what it does best.
If we adhere to such standards, I think that the relatively few wars we would actually engage in would be far more supported by the people here at home, which in turn would make it a less politically divisive issue to tear each other and our leaders at the time down.

Taking Chance

Yesterday, after completing work and filling up the patrol car with gas, I checked the Redbox machine at the gas station to see if there was anything of interest. I picked up a Kevin Bacon movie (yeah yeah yeah, he's in 4 out of every 3 movies made, but still...) called "Taking Chance."

Based on a true story, Bacon plays the role of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Strobl, USMC (ret.) who volunteers to escort the deceased body of Marine PFC Chance R Phelps. Phelps was killed in action in Iraq, and Strobl escorts his body and personal effects from the Dover AFB Mortuary Center (where all military members deceased overseas processes through) to his family, funeral and burial in Wyoming. The story evolved out of the escort trip report LTC. Strobl had to write up, and detailed the thoughts, people, and events he experienced over those few days. It was a really touching story. I almost got choked up a few times, which means it has to be a very personally touching story, since I tend to suppress such reactions.

I would recommend to all my readers to take a look at this movie. Afterwards, in the special features you get to hear from his fellow soldiers and his real family about Chance Phelps as a person, family member, and a Marine. It really is a touching tribute to one of the many of our fallen soldiers, may they rest in peace.

Detaining Youths In The War On Terror

An AP article by Peter James Spielmann I found in today's issue of the Des Moines Register:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. military is holding about 500 juveniles in detention centers in Iraq, and has about 10 detained at the U.S. base at Bagram, Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations.

A total of 2,500 youths under the age of 18 have been detained, almost all in Iraq, for periods up to a year or more in President Bush's anti-terrorism campaign since 2002, the United States reported last week to the U.N.'s Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Civil liberties groups such as the International Justice Network and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced the detentions as abhorrent, and a violation of U.S. treaty obligations.

In the periodic report to the United Nations on U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United States confirmed that "as of April 2008, the United States held about 500 juveniles in Iraq."

"The juveniles that the United States has detained have been captured engaging in anti-coalition activity, such as planting Improvised Explosive Devices, operating as lookouts for insurgents, or actively engaged in fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces," the U.S. report said.

The majority are believed to be 16 or 17 years old. In the United States a 17-year-old can enlist in the U.S. army, with parental consent.

The report said that of the total of 2,500 juveniles jailed since 2002, all but 100 had been picked up in Iraq. Of the remainder, most were swept up in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military says it has held eight juveniles, ages 13-17, at Guantanamo since the detention center opened in 2002.

"It remains uncertain the exact age of these individuals, as most of them did not know their date of birth or even the year they were born," the report says. But U.S. military doctors who evaluated them believed that three were under age 16.

Six were released and two are now adults facing war-crimes charges.

Canadian Omar Khadr, now 21, was captured in July 2002 and is charged with murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. special forces soldier. Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who the military says is about 23, faces charges of attempted murder for a 2002 grenade attack that wounded two U.S. soldiers.

In Afghanistan, "as of April 2008, there are approximately 10 juveniles being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility as unlawful enemy combatants," the report said.

In Bagram, a U.S. military spokesman, Marine 1st Lt. Richard K. Ulsh, told the AP on Sunday: "At any time there are up to 625 detainees being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. There are no detainees being held under the age of 16 and, without getting into specifics due to the frequent fluctuation in the number of detainees being held, we can tell you that there are currently less than 10 detainees being held under the age of 18."

Civil liberties groups were outraged.

"It's shocking to me that the U.S. government has not figured out a way to keep children out of adult prisons. It's outrageous, and it is not making us any safer, I can say that about Afghanistan from personal experience," Tina M. Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, said Sunday.

Her group brought lawsuits on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees in 2006, and has taken on the cases of adult detainees in Bagram. She said the U.S. military does not release the names of juveniles it is holding in Bagram, so her group is trying to learn who they are by finding Afghan relatives.

"It is shocking to know that the U.S. is holding hundreds of juveniles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more disturbing that there is no comprehensive policy in place that will protect their rights as children," Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, said in a statement. "Juveniles and former child soldiers should be treated first and foremost as candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not subjected to further victimization."

"Although age is not a determining factor in whether or not we detain an individual under the law of armed conflict, we go to great lengths to attend to the special needs of juveniles while they are in detention," the U.S. report said.

According to the ACLU, the lack of protections and consideration for the juvenile status of detainees violates the obligations of the U.S. under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that the U.S. ratified in 2002, as well as universally accepted international norms.

The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to question the U.S. delegation on its compliance with its obligations on May 22 in Geneva.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly in 1989, with backing at the time from the U.S. government of President Bill Clinton, and with strong lobbying from then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who now is competing for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with Barack Obama.

---

Associated Press writer Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report from Kabul, Afghanistan.

My personal opinion is that if a teenager wants to participate in war or terrorism, he should be treated as any adult soldier or terrorist would. Would those from the ACLU and other leftist groups presume that we release kids who threw a grenade into a group of our soldiers, just because they are kids and shouldn't have to face consequences? They have argued that Bush is over there to impose Americanization upon Iraqis...given the state of how people raise their kids to operate without consequences until they are adults over here, maybe their opinions actually support this transfer of Americanized "values". Your thoughts?