While the healthcare reform debate continues to broil in Washington, another, more serious debate is beginning. That debate is over what is to be done in Afghanistan. In very short order the United States will mark the eight year anniversary of our entering Afghanistan. Eight years. That s three times as long as we were involved in World War Two, and longer than our involvement in Vietnam counting from our major involvement in that conflict starting with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1965. Entering Afghanistan the goals were simple, break the Taliban control of that country, eliminate Al Qaeda, capture Osama Bin Laden, and create a stable democratic government inside Afghanistan.
Eight years on, the results in Afghanistan have been a mixed bag at best. The Taliban has been displaced though not broken, and in some areas of Afghanistan are resurgent. A new government is in place, and while it is far better than the extreme theocracy of the Taliban, the recent election has shown that a fully functioning democratic government that is responsive to the people is still a long way off. Thus far the greatest success we have had has been against Al Qaeda. With Afghanistan no longer a safe haven the terror groups has been forces to operate out of the tribal region of Northwest Pakistan. The groups size and ability to carry out large scale operations has also been highly reduced, and a great many of their high level commanders and planners have been killed or captured. The most glaring failure thus far is that Osama Bin laden, after nine years, remains at large. This is particularly disheartening given the recent revelation by Dalton Fury (a Pseudonym) in his recent account of the Battle of Tora Bora, that the US Army Delta Force, and their counter parts, the British SAS (also under Fury s command), were within several hundred yards of Osama Bin Laden s position yet were repeatedly denied permission to cross into Pakistan, assault Bin Laden s position from the rear and capture or kill the terrorist leader.
The current administration is now left with the task of answering the Afghanistan question. The new commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has requested 40,000 additional troops to bolster the 65,000 currently in country. While comparisons to Vietnam may work for some, in this case the comparison is not apt. While American forces are not loved, and in some parts of Afghanistan certainly are not liked they are, at least for the time being, welcomed and tolerated. While that is not ideal, it is something that works in our favor because, unlike Vietnam, we are not fighting a country wide insurgency backed by the population. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, has said that the United States will not make the same mistakes the Soviet Union made in Afghanistan. One can only hope that this is true. Though it is far removed from its Cold War days, the United States Military, much like that is the Soviet Union that suffered a bloodletting in Afghanistan, is once geared for a land war in Europe or the Middle East. The U.S. Military is highly mechanized, highly mobile, and best suited for operations in countries with wide open terrain or a well established road network.
Afghanistan, outside the cities, is a country with few if any good roads, and made up mostly of rugged backcountry controlled by different tribal groups and warlords. Looking at the U.S. Order of Battle there are several combat units that are well suited to fighting a war in a country like Afghanistan. Among the conventional forces, the Airborne Divisions, the 101st and 82nd are well suited to this type of warfare. They are able to insert by helicopter and are well trained at conduction large unit operations, company sized or larger, far in advance of other conventional units. The same can be said for the 1st Air Cavalry Division. Like the airborne divisions, they are helicopter born light infantry adept at inserting behind enemy lines to carry the fight to the enemy. The 10th Mountain Division of the US Army, along with several mountain trained units of the United States Marine Corps represent the whole of the heavy infantry forces that are trained and well equipped to operate in the terrain that predominates Afghanistan.
The problem that presents itself is that while all of these units are well trained and equipped for combat in the very type of terrain that Afghanistan presents they are all still conventional forces geared towards, and trained for, fighting other conventional forces. Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighters are not conventional forces. They are guerillas in the classic sense that appear quickly from cover, strike American units and melt back into the countryside. The best option then to counter that type of enemy is with unconventional forces of our own, the afore mentioned U.S. Army Delta Force, along with the Army s Green Berets, 75th Ranger Regiment, U.S. Marine Corps Scout Sniper teams, and the U.S. Navy SEAL Teams. Though these forces are numerically many times smaller than what is currently deployed to Afghanistan that are uniquely suited to the type of warfare needed to root out the enemy we are facing. All of the above mentioned Special Forces are highly adept at small unit, platoon sized or smaller, long lasting missions deep in enemy territory. These types of missions are exactly the type that the Soviets had great success with. When the introduces the Spetsnaz, to Afghanistan they found that special forces units were highly effective at fighting the Afghans in the mountains and were highly feared for the ability to fight much in the same manner as these tribal fighters do. This means that we do currently have in the Order of Battle many units of highly skilled soldiers capable of carrying the fight to the enemy.
Carrying the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply is not enough in this instant. Gen. McChrystal is correct in his assessment that while hunting the enemy the U.S. must also ensure the safety and wellbeing of the Afghan people, and work to improve their nation. This would mean we would need to do the kind of nation building that we failed to do after our covert operations against the Soviets in the 1980 s. Failing to rebuild Afghanistan after we had fought a war by proxy in that country left it woefully underdeveloped and ripe to be taken over by extremists of every ilk who flowed into the cities after defeating the Soviets. It is foreseeable that the same type of thing would happen again if the United States were to withdraw now, or were to continue the fight against these extremists without building up the country and the people. It is also conceivable that Al Qaeda specifically, if pressed hard enough, will simply abandon Afghanistan and move its operations to one of the many other impoverished, underdeveloped nations in the region, the Horn of Africa being their most likely destination.
The problem then becomes; how do we improve Afghanistan, while carrying the fight to our enemies in such a way as to destroy them before they can take their operations to another country where we cannot reach them? The most obvious answer is that we must engage the world. Al Qaeda poses as much of a threat to Europe as it does to the United States. We must engage the old allies to help number one, offset the cost, and two, offset the manpower burden of building up Afghanistan. At the same time we must use the forces that they have in their Orders of Battle, the British SAS and Royal Marine Commandos, French Foreign Legion, German GSG-9, to jointly hunt down both the Taliban and Al Qaeda and destroy them in Afghanistan, before they can escape to another nation that is out of our reach. For those that have already moved on, we must work with the Intelligence Services of our allies around the world to fine these people and covertly eliminate them. This is something that the United States simple does not have the money or manpower to do alone. Even if we were to include the 125,000 combat troops currently deployed to Iraq it is doubtful there would be enough weight of men to rebuild Afghanistan. We must make this a global effort if we are to succeed.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The problem as I see it is Pakistan. Instead of taking the fight to the Taliban/Al Queda streaming across their borders they made a truce with them. Instead of letting our Delta Force, and special ops cross over to finish the chase they insist we stop at the border. Now they are paying the price with expanded bombings in their country and losing the Swat valley. Biden has been bending the ear of the President with more Predator strikes not more special ops boots. Pakistan is a nuclear power in the region, and I am sure the insurgents are well aware that taking over Pakistan is an easy path to their ambitions. We give billions in aid to Pakistan to help fight terrorists. Instead of letting us do it, they harbored them and now are seeing the error inherent in doing so. As much as I hate to say it, Pakistan is next to fall to extremism if they don’t get serious. Pakistan’s military isn’t as strong as people think and should it look like they are about to fall who do you think they will ask to assist? However, should they finally grow a pair and push the extremists back to the border we’d be able to squeeze them between us. Thus moving this closer to an end game. Problem is, Pakistan would rather have the insurgents make nice with them, so they can continue to focus on India. Until the insurgents don’t have a place to retreat to, little will happen.
I agree that it should be a global effort, as terrorist activities have propped up all over the world and every civilized country seems to be threatened. The war would be over if Osama bin Laden is captured, simple as that. The fact that the war is eight years long only means that in eight long years the US has not managed to capture bin Laden. There should be a review on the tactics. I do not think it is the U.S.’s responsibilities to counter the Taliban, but it should be the U.S.’s goal to capture the Al Qaida mastermind. The U.S. needs to define its war path.
I agree that it should be a global effort, as terrorist activities have propped up all over the world and every civilized country seems to be threatened. The war would be over if Osama bin Laden is captured, simple as that. The fact that the war is eight years long only means that in eight long years the US has not managed to capture bin Laden. There should be a review on the tactics. I do not think it is the U.S.’s responsibilities to counter the Taliban, but it should be the U.S.’s goal to capture the Al Qaida mastermind. The U.S. needs to define its war path.
We “bombed them into the Stone Age” and still have not beat them after 8 years. Maybe they are on to something…
We introduced guerilla warfare into the modern military vocabulary over 200 years ago. We lost because we adopted it too late against the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. We can’t afford to wait any longer in adapting our tactics here.
This is the only war we are currently fighting that still has any of its original relevance and any solid degree of international support. We need to use that support, do what’s necessary to win with a minimum of civilian casualties and with some dignity, and then show the people of that country that Americans are people of their word that can and should be trusted. We also need to keep our true objective in sight- to promote national security by eradicating the terrorist enemies of the Western world, not to make another forced mini-me from people and a culture that is drastically different from ours.