Grave assessment from an old friend:
The "surge" worked in Iraq because and only because it was never designed to produce anything more than a temporary tactical advantage... which it did... but look at what's going on in Iraq now and ask yourself, "What did the surge do for Iraq and the Iraqis?"
However, since it worked so well for Petraeus [4 stars, CINC Centcom, etc.], "surge" seems to have become the current general officer answer to any counterinsurgency conundrum. Awfully reminiscent of the remedies offered by Westmorland to Johnson, ain't it?
1. Stop conflating al Qaeda with the Taliban. Focus on and eliminate al Qaeda. They're still a threat to us. Drones, a battalion of SPECOP soldiers supported by a rapid reaction brigade based in Kandahar, and patience should do the job.
2. Engage and coopt the Taliban. Any strategy that would have us oppose them militarily is a recipe for becoming mired in somebody else's civil war... and will motivate the Taliban to become more active in exporting terrorism. [They've already imported all the terror expertise they need to get their program going as is evident from the rising incidence in Afghanistan of Iraqi insurgent/al Qaeda tactics -- sophisticated roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
My concern is that the Obama administration doesn't have the expertise to formulate effective pol/mil strategy. If I'm right about that, like previous Democratic administrations the Obama administration will either rubber stamp what the generals are telling them to do... or get into a battle of wills with them.
Whatever, soldiers lose... the Army loses... and America loses. More and more blood and treasure lost... for nothing?
Pemberton
No comments:
Post a Comment