The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

afghanistan

Afghanistan Waits on Health Care Reform

by

Day in and day out, people turn on the news and hear more and more about the proposed health care reform, and how the President wants it done and passed in as little time as possible. True that there are things wrong with the health care system, but there are many more important issues on the table that continue to get brushed aside.

Health care this, health care that. Baucus bill here, Baucus bill there. What about taking a stance on the future of Afghanistan and whether or not to send more troops? This has become more of a game to the current administration. The only downfall to not taking action soon is that more and more American soldiers will continue to die at rediculous rates.

The time is over! It is time to decide on a direction for Afghanistan. Understanding the dificulties of politics, at some point one would question the President on when he would make his next move. Today’s delay comes way of waiting on election outcomes. True, it would be nice to have the backing of the incoming government to support any future steps. However, the major concern comes when the lives of not only Americans are in danger, but the Afghan people.

The pressure on health care has taken front stage before the lives of the American troops. American soldiers are continuing to die, while a new health care bill takes shape. The American troops should always come first! NOT health care reform!

Take a good look at history. How was America so victorious during WW2? The soldiers came first. America was behind it’s troops 100%! There wasn’t a health care bill being shoved through Washington at the time. Global Warming/Cooling wasn’t a hot topic. Failed government policies weren’t debated and blamed on the previous administration. NO! The troops came first. The President listened.

Afghanistan: From Strategy to Comparison

by

Among the most heavily debated issues in Washington, none is more prevalent than what the next steps and actions will be in Afghanistan. From an addition of 40.000 troops, to a slow and deliberate pullout of troops in favor of strategic air strikes, President Obama definitely has to make a difficult decision. A decision that many hope will not take too much longer, and one that will receive more attention than what it has in the last few weeks.

Whatever the decision shall be, Obama has another thing weighing down his shoulders with Afghanistan. That would be the parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam. In commentary at RAND Corporation that originally appeared at The Huffington Post, James Dobbins shares the same concern.

Here are a few things from his commentary that shed some light on this issue:

Beyond that, polls are showing that Americans are increasingly skeptical about this conflict, and citizens of other nations contributing troops, such as Britain, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, are even more negative.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Now that U.S. involvement in Iraq has finally begun to require fewer resources, Afghanistan is the new focus of American and European anti-war sentiment, and increasingly Obama’s critics are drawing on the analogy of Vietnam. They assert that the United States and its allies are bogged down in a long, inconclusive conflict in support of a corrupt and incompetent government against an elusive, popularly based enemy operating out of an untouchable cross-border sanctuary.

In fact, the two societies, Vietnamese and Afghan, and the two insurgencies, Viet Cong and Taliban, could hardly be more different. Yet the conflicts may, in the end, have a similar impact on American public opinion. And that could have a similar impact on their outcomes. The most decisive battles over Vietnam were fought for the heart and minds of the American people and the most decisive defeat was in the U.S. Congress. The contest for Afghanistan is now being conducted over this same terrain.

For years, the war in Iraq diverted resources from Afghanistan. Obama has characterized Afghanistan as a war of necessity, in contrast to Iraq, a war of choice—and a bad one at that. Yet as controversy over Iraq fades, this comparison, perhaps accurate and certainly powerful in its time, has dwindling impact. In its place is a new controversy, Afghanistan as the new Vietnam.

There’s no debate about how that war turned out, but little agreement on why. The insurgency in South Vietnam had been reduced to manageable proportions by the time American troops departed in 1973. Counterinsurgency thus largely succeeded, yet the war was still lost when North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion in 1975. Vietnam thus offers material for both sides in current debate over troop levels in Afghanistan. Those who argue for a better resourced counterinsurgency campaign can point to the tactical and operations successes in Vietnam. Opponents recall the strategic failure.

To read Mr. Dobbins commentary in its entirety, please visit RAND Corporation.

Direction for Afghanistan Becoming Priority with Obama

by

In what President Obama refers to as “his war,” he is definitely taking his time deciding what direction to take the war in Afghanistan. Soon, he will be faced with making a decision that could either be victorious or one of defeat. Either way, one not to be taken lightly.

Someone else not taking the decision lightly is General McChrystal. Hand-picked by Obama, he was asked to deliver an assessment on the situation/progress in Afghanistan. His 66 page assessment was subsequently leaked to the media, and became somewhat of a source of controversy.

The most heat to date would be that didn’t go through the proper chain of command. There are proper measures that are to be taken in military structure. It doesn’t change depending on the amount of stripes you have, or how many stars you have. There is a chain of command that must be followed. However, this argument does nothing on the surface but stall the debate going on behind closed doors.

The debate is whether or not to follow the commanding general on the ground who sees first-hand what is happening, or go with a group of selected Republicans and Democrats who have put their heads together who think they have derived the greatest plan ever. Ask 100 different people on what they would do, and you would likely get 100 different answers. Everything from, “Pave the country” to “Nuke the damn place and show Iran that we mean business” to “Continue this hunt and peck operative that hasn’t proven anything yet.”

More consideration should be shown to Gen. McChrystal and what he proposes. But, Obama doesn’t want to look like the failure. He would rather have McChrystal take the fall. If McChrystal was smart, which he is, he would resign immediately if his demands are not met. Another reason for resignation would be that it would demonstrate Obama’s distrust in anyone, even the person he appointed to be in command.

So, certainly this is a very difficult situation for many. Even the enemy. Either choice would be a victory in their eyes. If troops are decreased, then they will view it as victorious as they did with Russia. If troops are increased, then another victory in that U.S. troops will be stretched so thin they would have a hard time being victorious in any other region if conflict were to escalate. If heavy bombing missions were to take place, then they would see it as a victory because Americans would be killing innocent men, women and children.

Time should be spent dissecting any and every option by the President. However, he should not be out gallivanting around begging for the 2016 Games to be held in Chicago. This, along with other issues plaguing the American people, should be top priority.

General McChrystal’s Assessment In Afghanistan

by

U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal submitted his initial assessment of the rising conflict in Afghanistan to President Barack Obama. Aside from the fact that this certain report was leaked to the media, this is nothing new. Commanders are always submitting their situation report (SITREP), or in this case, initial assessment as Gen. McChrystal has been in current command since June 15, 2009.

Assuming command of an already controversial conflict in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal observed that “The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating.” With a grasp of the overall attitude and direction, his assessment is full of information that would be useful to the administration in determining the future involvement of American forces.

Redefining the Fight

This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex.

Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population.

Not a stranger to desert warfare, as he was part of both Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, his understanding of history and the inner workings of classic counterinsurgency operations, Gen. McChrystal could be treading down a failed path similar to that of Vietnam. The two conflicts are similar in many ways. Both were highly debated conflicts in the start, and heavily contested during. The failed outcome of Vietnam, in many eyes, would not be a path many Americans are willing to go down.

Another commonality, their uniquely complex environments. Where Vietnam was intensely fought in the jungle, Afghanistan is being fought in the mountains and communities. While they are differing terrains, it is how difficult the discernment of friend and foe is that makes the terrain hard to make advancements. Fighting among the population was difficult in Vietnam, and is proving more and more arduous in the Afghan region. The protection of the people is the priority over seizing terrain or destroying insurgents.

Another similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam, are the short and long-term implications:

We face both a short and long-term fight. The long-term fight will require patience and commitment, but I believe the short-term fight will be decisive. Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insugency is no longer possible.

Over the last eight years, the American people has been somewhat patient. However, when defecits mount higher and higher for what seems to be an unending war, their commitment faulters and becomes null. A clear plan must devised to mesh the short-term yet decisive victories with the long-term goal of defeating the insurgency and restoring Afghanistan to its population.

To accomplish this measure, Gen. McChrystal proposes a focus be placed on two principle areas:

  1. Change the operational culture to connect with the people.
  2. Improve unity of effort and command.

Taking care of the people will most definately improve unity effort and command. Without the population focused on the effort to shield and protect them from the insurgents, there cannot be a relationship with the Afghan command and their unifying hand in controlling the violence. Certainly, taking care of the people will ease the burden on the command and their efforts.

Gen. McChrystal outlines that “These concepts are not new. However, implemented aggressivley, they will be revolutionary to our effectiveness.” Correct in that they are not new, but there is some doubt as to its effectiveness. With the majority of both Afghans and Americans in opposition of continuing operations, the outcome of any further actions, however aggressive they may be, would have to not only be sold to the Obama administration, but also to the people of Afghanistan and America. A joint effort on both fronts to combat the insurgents is what could show to be most effective and revolutionary.

General Stanley A. McChrystal’s Initial Assessment

Afghanistan The Next Vietnam

by

The conflict in Afghanistan has proven more difficult to fight recently, even with an increase of American troops. Which has been a cause for conflict among some. For others, they are left wondering whether or not we learned from history, or if we are permitting it to repeat itself.

It is well known that President Barack Obama was in total opposition of the troop surge in Iraq, as well as opposing the republican lead war. Most would agree that it was a war fought along political party lines. Most democrats were against the war in Iraq while republicans were supportive. There is no secret that party officials oppose the other side when it comes to war, unless they are the one leading the effort.

In Vietnam, America was lead to war by a democratic president with opposition coming from the republican party. By the time things began taking a turn for the worst, a republican had taken office and the streets were filled with protesters. They protested everything from the amount of troops that were dying to that it was an unnecessary war.

Either way you look at it, the arguments made a point. There was a large amount of casualties, and it did seem that it was an unnecessary war. Unnecessary in the fact that there seemed to be no true plan. The war wasn’t fought with a clear idea as to what the outcome would be. For many, this rings so true today with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

With things taking course in Afghanistan, it seems that the Vietnam effect is in true form. It also seems that some history seems to be repeating itself along party lines. A war started by a republican administration, and taken over by a democratic administration has proven to be a challenge. In the start, it was obvious there was opposition with entering Afghanistan. However, things changed once the Obama Administration took charge. With a heavy focus on a draw-down of troop levels in Iraq, there was no sign that there would be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. Since the current administration took over, troop levels have doubled in size and there has been an influx of casualties.

The Vietnam effect doesn’t stop there. As in the past, the administration has no real objective. There has been no real objective other than to get the elusive Osama bin Laden. Is the objective to place a centralized government into operation? If so, then the effort is useless. History has shown that the Afghan people reject this proposal. They have never had a centralized government like what is practiced in America, and it appears as though they never will.

In the ’80’s, Russia made a serious attempt to change the way Afghanistan runs itself. As then, things are proving to be more difficult than expected. However, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Russian leader, was accepting to the fact that they would ultimately not win the engagement. Something the Obama administration seems unwilling to accept, defeat.

Gorbachev, and his administration, saw the course and withdrew his troops from a decade of fighting. American troops have been in the region for almost the same time, however they will soon see an infusion of more troops. As in Vietnam, when things seemed against America, efforts were increased. Only to later be withdrawn in haste.

Vietnam was a heavy burden on America that caused a huge political divide. The conflict in Afghanistan seems to be taking the same course. Facing a political divide, and a huge deficit, the war is taking a turn for the worse. Public opinion is not as divided, but the majority is now against the effort. Deficits amount on an already bankrupt nation. Troop levels are on the rise, as well as casualties.

The Obama administration is not willing to accept defeat, at any level. Things could only get worse before they get better. With the majority of the people against the war, and unfavorable poll numbers toward President Obama, many are left questioning what the administration will do next.