I am not a warmonger. I hate war. I did not support the Viet Nam War, nor the Iraq War. I wish diplomacy would work and I think it can in some instances and should be tried whenever and wherever possible. But on the issue of sending troops to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda NATO is simply and completely wrong. 5000 more "troops" just ain't going to cut it. That's not support, no matter how Obama spins it.
Terrorism as practiced by the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not an American problem. The United States is not and never will be the sole target. The Taliban and Al Qaeda wish to eradicate the West and Western Civilization and that includes Europe and many many other countries around the world. There have been bombings traced to Al Qaeda in Spain, England, France, Italy and India, Bali, and Indonesia, to name a few. There will be more.
We made the huge mistake of supporting the Taliban against the Russians in the 1980s, just as we made the mistake of supporting Saddam Hussein for years. We have made many mistakes like that. We went into Afghanistan right after September 11 and then made the further mistake of dropping the ball and turning our attention to Iraq. We knew that then and we know that now. Had we asked for assistance in 2001 in wiping out Al Qaeda things might be very different. But we did not and now we are paying the price. We have lost our credibility. For that we can thank the past administration.
And Europe and NATO are "punishing" us by refusing to come to our aid. Rather than seeing it is their own best interest to join with us to eradicate the power of Al Qaeda--a gang of terrorists whose sole purpose is to strap bombs to themselves and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people--they are going to sit back and let us police the world once again.
The war on terror will not be won by sending in hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into rocky, mountainous, unfamiliar terrain that the Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers know like the backs of their hands. It will not be won by forcing our young men and women to give up their lives for a cause than cannot be won by conventional means. This is not a conventional battle; it is not a war like any we have ever seen. We are not doing this to "save" the Afghani people so that they can pass laws we do not approve of or live a lifestyle that makes us cringe. We are fighting terrorism pure and simple. We are dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda, amoral power systems with no regard for human life; that see nothing wrong with strapping bombs onto the bodies of young men and young women and sending them into crowded places, buses, airplanes, and detonating them for the glory of their G-d, who, is not a G-d that would ever ask such a horrific thing.
We must have a concerted effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all parties concerned, by specialist troops from all NATO countries who realize that as long as terrorists are allowed to run rampant bombs will go off unexpectedly in countries all around the globe and people will be killed for the glory of an Allah who does not want that glory.
The Americans, the French, and the British have some of the best trained secret forces in the world. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no rules of engagement, so why should we? Thus this war must be fought completely differently from the way it is now.
Forget about the way we fought the Viet Nam war. That didn't work then and it won't work now. Think about this instead: Hundred of small groups of warriors living like the Taliban in the mountains, while large numbers of trained SEAL teams are stationed elsewhere. Each group has its different orders: the SEALs take out Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders, the mountain warrior divisions take out the soldiers. My husband, a SEAL- trained Special Forces soldier during Viet Nam has outlined this particular plan to me and convinced me that it is the only one that would work. I am sure he would be happy to give the Pentagon the dirty details.
If this sounds ruthless, remember our enemy and his ruthlessness.
The second part of the equation is to show our strength against others who might wish to become "involved," in this war on terror: countries like Pakistan or Iran. By amassing hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers along those countries' borders--as a show of solidarity and strength. Once we have broken the back of the terrorists, perhaps then some real diplomacy can begin. And perhaps we can really work with Pakistan and India and Iran and even Iraq and Afghanistan in truly constructive ways.
This is not to say that there will never be terrorism. There will always be people willing to kill themselves and others for a cause: be it their particular god or their particular cause or their particular country. But if the world shows a an equal willingness to band together against evil before it gets to the point it did in World War II then maybe we will actually be able to stop something before it gets so out of hand that millions, hundreds of millions, are dead and dying. Too many people sat on their hands while Hitler rolled through Europe. America finally came to the rescue. We were late, too, but we did come through.
NATO is very very foolish not to see that their best interests lie in coming on board now; it's already late for them, but not too late. Our strategy needs to change and somehow we need to convince them to join us in destroying the power base of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda before things get even uglier. Who knows what the terrorists are planning even at this moment? Or where?
Follow Lisa Solod Warren on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisaswarren
Ahmadinejad's normal swagger has been muted, perhaps with the realization that his days of manipulating Russia against the West have ended.
David Calleo: European Alarm Over Obama
The authors of "An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern Europe" are nervous about recent US efforts to repair relations with Putin's Russia.
Huff Radio: Left, Right & Center: Missiles, Baucus Plan, Financial Reform and Glenn Beck
The Missile Shield: was it an act of pure symbolism? Is dropping it an overture to Russia or an outrageous betrayal of Eastern Europe? Can...
Kal Raustiala: Power in the Post American World
In the 21st century it is no longer enough to wield great military force, as the U.S. itself has learned on recent occasions. Nor is economic wealth alone enough
I'm not a military expert, but on the face of it this sounds more like a movie than a realistic plan.
From what I've read, there are two ways to combat and insurgency like this.
One, the Brits in Malaya, required maybe ten years of patient, multi-layered techniques -- bribery, some co-option, helping local people -- no quick victories, just a slow wearing down of the opposition by giving the local population a sense of security. Limited combat, and only on the basis of solid intelligence, supplied by locals. In other words, hearts and minds. Don't see how anyone but the Pakistanis could do this in Pakistan, which would be required.
The Russian strategy in Chechnya -- total war against the population, much like the Israelis in Gaza, except not stopping until much of the population had been killed or physically subdued. Massive casualties on both sides, total wreckage of the "saved" area. Might produce some peace until the next generation grows up, full of hatred.
I think option one is the only feasible way, and it depends on the Pakistanis mounting a major effort on their side of the border with Afghanistan.
Meantime, we need to focus on thwarting attacks rather than deluding ourselves into believing we can erase hostility to the US with drone-launched missiles.
I suppose that its possible that someone somewhere "wishes" to "eradicate" Western Civilization. But as soon as you stop hyper-ventilating you will realize that its not going to happen. The United States needs to abandon Imperial ambitions. Economic realities dictate that Americans will learn to live within their means and within their borders. Expanding the Af-Pac war is Obama's stupid idea. Europe is saying "good luck with that" and "we will hold your coat". Obama should take this response as a clue that he is pursuing the wrong policy.
The first step is to achieve the existing military objectives in Afghanistan, not the half-hearted occupation of pipeline routes while the rest of the country is neglected.
NATO is a joke, nuff said!
It's time Europe is made to fend for themselves.
The U.S. is pushing for NATO expansion to surrond Russia and take over the world for her empire, don't blame Europe.
It is up to U.S. to loosen the grip and let Europeans take more responsibility for their own defense as well as defense of the Western democracies around the world.
Wrong
"It" has worked in the Balkans, Armenai, Georgia, Ossetia, Russia,Mongolia, Hungary, Austria, India, Israel, Sicily, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania etc.... History-- try it sometime.
Once we have rooted out these two illnesses we can leave cause we are not there to build anything either! Blow the place to hell...sort of like how the Israelis handle the West Bank and Gaza....
The situation as I see it is that, for good or ill, we’re already in the region, we’re committed. Leaving now would only serve to wipe out whatever gains have been made, and to render meaningless the price paid in blood and money by we and our allies. Withdrawing may seem like the sensible thing to do, and in the short term at least would be far easier than staying. Nobody has yet explained how we’re going to win, or even defined victory in a meaningful way, and I’ve got no brilliant suggestions myself as to the best way forward.
To all this though I’d like to add one further thought, and I know many will disagree; the only thing worse than staying in Afghanistan would be leaving it when we’ve fulfilled almost none of the goals we should have had when we first went in.
We as a nation have a long sorry history of intervening in conflicts or crises to "fix" things, and then bailing as soon as it becomes convenient for us to do so. Look at what happened after the Soviets left Afghanistan in ’89. We declared victory and left the Afghani people twisting in the wind, and that decision to disengage, to not live up to our moral and strategic obligations, led ultimately to 9/11. I fail to see how leaving now would have any better consequences.
The sad fact is that in the months after 9/11 America had the sympathy and support of the entire world and could have done and or asked for almost anything they needed to eliminate the few thousand El Qaeda members hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan. But most that sympathy and support was squandered by the Bush administration.
To expect that rest of the world to just give America a “do-over” is not realistic. After all 47% of Americans still support the Republicans, there has not been any accountability for the torture conducted in secret prisons that help recruit so many El Qaeda fighters, and America continues to support corrupt leaders in Afghanistan.
Given this situation it is likely that America is going to have to offer more deeds, than words, before the world once again rallies around its call for support. That is not to say the world is not supportive, it is just that they are going to be cautious about acting until America proves that it has truly changed and has a realist plan for sorting out Afghanistan.