Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
If we are at war, all of us are at war I’m no expert on Afghanistan, but I’ll give you something to ponder as you watch the news unfold. Last week’s big story was the confidential report from President Obama’s appointed commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, candidly warning of possible failure in Afghanistan if we don’t switch now from a counter-terrorism strategy to a counter-insurgency strategy, and that substantially more troops are needed immediately to carry out that new strategy. The difference is, briefly, that counter-terrorism prioritizes finding and destroying the enemy, while counter-insurgency prioritizes gaining the trust of the population so that the enemy is denied the one thing they must have – sanctuary and support from the population. The general’s confidential report was leaked to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, appearing to some to be either an attempt to publicly force the president’s hand to comply with the request, or to give the president cover with the anti-war contingent in his base should he choose to do as the general has requested. Oh, what tangled webs we weave. Unfortunately, there is jeopardy in not only the leak, but in the public agonizing currently going on as the president and his supporters argue that they need time to carefully consider all options before such a major commitment. A counter-insurgency strategy not only requires more boots on the ground, but it implies added layers of caution in war-fighting that will increase our casualties. Let’s speak plainly; that means more U.S. troops wounded and killed. When attacking an enemy with brute force, civilian collateral damage is inevitable. As the priority shifts to protecting the civilian population, extra caution might mean when U.S. troops in a firefight call desperately for artillery or air support, the answer might be, “No!” Sometimes the price is that our enemy, who knows our rules of engagement as soon as they are printed, will hide and attack from amidst civilians, helping the international media point the atrocity finger in our direction, if and when we shoot back. Protecting non-combatants sounds virtuous enough to be a good thing. But try to imagine yourself, or your son, with a rifle in a losing firefight with a superior force, and consider these rules: no air or artillery support unless our troops are certain that no civilians are present, and if any civilians are present when our troops are in contact with the enemy, they are to break contact, retreat. Does it sound like we’re following the basic principle of overwhelming our enemy? Forgetting about the added risk to our troops for a moment, gaining the trust and allegiance of the Afghan population will not be easy. It will require bridging severe, perhaps insurmountable, barriers of language, culture, religion and fears. Theirs are foreign to us, and ours to them. For the Afghan people to turn away from the Taliban, to risk their wrath to inform on them, to help us defeat them, the Afghans have to know we are committed to protect them for the long haul, that they have an Afghan government they can trust. Otherwise, why would they ally with us and risk themselves, their family, their village? Ask yourself what the Afghan people now see? They know they have a corrupt government in their capitol that serves only itself and a favored few, and they only have to turn on TV news to witness the U.S. dithering about what to do in that country; they certainly don’t see the steadfast commitment the Afghans require to confidently turn to us and away from the Taliban. Don’t mistake my criticism to be an argument for a long-term commitment in that country, I don’t know what we should do there, and I’m only raising food for deeper thought. But while our troops are in the danger zone, leaked reports and public dithering in the administration works directly against us, and might get some of our own killed. I don’t have the answers, but I do know if President Obama asked me, I would choose in a heartbeat a strategy that makes protection of our own troops the highest priority, even at the cost of civilian collateral damage. And I know one other thing. If I had the bully pulpit of national TV, I would inform and remind the American people that it is not just the U.S. volunteer military that is at war in Afghanistan, never mind our incidental allies; it is all of us who are at war, you and me, until all of our troops are out of harm’s way. [Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City. His email is tgarlock@mindspring.com.] login to post comments | Terry Garlock's blog
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
