Quote:
|
Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the war against the Taliban cannot be won. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban.
|
He thinks that because he is completely worthless and has no understanding of warfare besides what he was taught by some idiot that has never been to war. Typical officer.
Only a complete idiot would say
“We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency.”
As if insurgency was in some kind of immediately finite supply
The U.S. military believes that counter-insurgency operations involve having enough troops to prevent illegal activity via a constant military presence and a "show of force", and it does work, for a short time.
That's all well and good in the short term, which is what most officers look at. All they have to consider is whether or not their command is seen as effective by Washington bean-counters.
But in the long-term that policy doesn't work. Insurgents just go underground until the military presence eventually abates. Then they make their move.
Time and time again, the U.S. military has made the mistake of underestimating the insurgents. And yes, they (the insurgents) generally ARE stupid. Their marksmanship is terrible, and they frequently bypass real tactical opportunities in favor of making suicidal attacks. But they aren't so stupid that they can't do some damage.
Proper policy would be utilizing pro-coalition Arabs and Iraqi or Afghan Americans as a sort of "neo-KGB". They could use the insurgents' advantages against them; Blending in with the populace, striking when the enemy does not expect them, a total understanding of Islamic culture, the willingness to fight for their country. Terror would be their weapon against terror.
Now, the General does have a point if you apply what he says to worldwide terrorism, specifically in the realm of Islamic extremism. The War on Terror will fail because it does not address the problem, it only addresses the sypmtoms. IMO, the best thing the U.S. could do at this point is to simply get out altogether and return to an isolationist policy that focuses on domestic issues and limited government. Split Iraq into 3 countries. One for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shiites. Iraq never should have been a country in the first place. The Brits created it out of thin air after WW1. It's like Czechoslovakia. Who in their right mind would put the Czechs and the Slovaks together in the same country? Whatever. Mistakes were made, the Brits are our friends, the Iraqis are not. Once Iraq is divided into three nations, they will be so busy fighting for their own survival (against each other and neighboring nations) they won't have the time or the wherewithall to conduct any insurgent activities.
As far as Afghanistan goes, I don't really know. I have no experience in that theatre. I'm pretty sure that we could somehow take advantage of the tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or maybe Pakistan and India, but I don't know how, specifically.
The important thing is that the U.S. should pursue an isolationist policy devoid of foreign intervention and foreign aid. It should pursue a domestic policy of economic and personal freedom. The resultant worldwide economic dominance would give us a lot of power and make us nigh untouchable, since our economic welfare would be so integral to the economies of other nations.
In this fashion, we would at least have the money to pursue a limited policy of domestic welfare and foreign aid to nations that we like, should we want that.
In any case, conventional military presence is not the solution to an insurgency. In fact, it is one of the worst responses possible. It just gives them targets.