I see us in a bind on Afganistan and Iraqnam, even, which I'm not convinced we are going to get out of cleanly. It appears to me that even in Iraq, the Iraqis are being killed with impunity. (I want to keep my remarks away from politics except where necessary for clarification. I don't think it is helpful for us to couch things in terms of politics). For instance, the Republicans play to a hawkish philosophy, as I see it mainly to appear to take a position different than the Democrats, whether right or wrong or good or bad. Ordinarily as of late, the Democrats since Vietnam have somewhat stayed on the sidelines, other than Bill throwing a missile or two somewhere. But, George W with 9-11 as a backdrop got us into two wars Obama has actually been as hawkish and in some areas more. See what I mean and the above, although from my perspective, accurate, the fact is: "it is what it is."
And, unfortunately, Afghanistan is not going to be a political issue. The vast majority of Americans have "no skin" in the game and as long as the wars are not affecting them personally, not on the radar screen.
But, to me, it is a major issue because unlike politicians, I feel it is Vietnam revisited. For instance, the other night after the president's announcement, some Republican type, Rogers, I think was his name, was talking about withdrawal and how bad it was, sending a signal of being soft, etc. Very hawkish. Lindsay Graham, John McCain trying to outhawk the president who has been led down the primrose pass with ideas like, "get the job done", winning, support the troops". And, so now you have the president and generals' and the "talking heads" all painting this rosy picture of Afghanistan, "Can't give up the great progress" they say, when in fact, those of us who are out here listening to the news, reading the books, trying to find credible evidence cannot find one single thing about Afghanistan that offers any hope if we stay there a hundred years.
Where does this rosy view come from? I've thought for some time that the generals live in some parrellel universe. What they see is not what I see. Afghanistan is a country where loyalty to a village, a clan, a tribe with no sense of a central government, is simply a fact. Even if they had a president who wasn't corrupt, it wouldn't be happening. We've implemented a war philosophy of counter insurgency which is short hand for "nation building." Now, here's one thing you have to give the president, in his speech the other night he said something like "it is time for nation building in our own country."
This is a statement that really got me, "President Obama on Thursday told U.S. troops who have fought in Afghanistan that the U.S. has turned a corner after nearly 10 years of war, and it's time for their comrades still in that country to start coming home."
WHAT CORNER IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Reminds me a bit of Westmoreland telling President Johnson during the Vietnam war, "send me more troops and we'll be home for Christmas." What we didn't nail down was what Christmas. As it turned out, the Christmas was five or 6 years later.
In the last few days or so, I've listened to three NPR programs which have more or less had to do with troop reduction and politics; one of the programs were three civilians. One of them was this guy John Nagl, retired LTC, smart guy as I've heard him before and has some good ideas like conventional troops out and only Special Ops troops staying but still involves being in Afghanistan for years. For most of these like Nagl or Petreaus or Gates--it is more like having a position and refusing to back down. How often have you heard someone say, (us included) "I made a mistake or changed my mind." One in ten million.
The smartest "talking head" I heard was this female, she laid out exactly what the real scene is: not the things that are so obvious: corruption, billions of dollars, drugs, tribe loyalty, the Taliban--simple fact, if we make it out of Afghanistan with the withdrawal of 33,000, still, our footprint in Afghanistan is going to be gigantic for years to come.
Another program was called "Talk of The Nation" and Afghan vets were asked to call in and give their views. About six or eight called in. Not a one supported staying in Afghanistan with basically no faith in the Afghans' ability to take over from us. Plus, a couple of Vietnam vets called In and both related Afghanistan and the futility of it to Vietnam and our sacrifices meaning nothing. I basically see it that way.
In all of this, I never hear a single advocate of returning to the military draft or anything that would move us to some kind of shared sacrifice for all Americans. It ain't never going to happen. As long as we have a volunteer force that can do the job with all the inherent problems to come, if we ever get out of these two sorry wars, we will muddle along. The volunteer force is a moral issue all it's own. By in large, poor kids or at least those with few options are fighting America's wars. Pretty sad. I only know personally about a half dozen kids who are presently in the military. Every single one of them are youngsters on the margins, mostly from homes that are terribly dysfunctional or kids who have no real options other than joining up. Amd, they are good soldiers: that is not an issue. The moral failure to me is simply that most Americans are willing to let other people's kids fight our wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment