iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Matthew Hoh

GET UPDATES FROM Matthew Hoh

Measuring Quick Sand

Posted: 06/ 9/11 10:51 AM ET

In the Autumn of 2006, in the western part of Iraq's Anbar Province, US Marine and Army units were taking dozens of attacks a day. Leaving one of the many bases we occupied in the Euphrates River Valley seemingly guaranteed a firefight, attack by a sniper or, more likely, a strike from an IED. Cooperation and coordination with local Anbaris, was, to put euphemistically, difficult. When we came on the streets, the people left the streets. Tom Ricks' prize winning account of our war in Iraq, Fiasco, could not have had a better title to account for what we were enduring.

However, visible and evident change in the conflict occurred because of the Anbar Awakening and the transformation of "Anti-Iraqi Forces" into "Sons of Iraq". Those Iraqis that had formed the core of the insurgency in Anbar changed sides. The Anbaris that had been putting bombs in the sides of roads and providing safe shelter for snipers turned on the bomb makers and shooters. Politically, the tribal leaders of Anbar abandoned their previous hospitality towards al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, and reversed their previous rejection of cooperation with the Shia dominated government in Baghdad. For those present, what was most important was that attacks against us, against US Marine and Army units that were operating in the hell that was Anbar Province, were, by early Spring 2007, down to merely a handful. The presence of this change was meaningful and concrete. It was not limited to just certain locations, its rapidity was spooky and the very dramatic drop in our casualties was real proof of its existence.

The change in the Iraq War that began in Anbar in late 2006 was sincere and lasting. In April 2007, one of my replacements lamented his deployment into "a boring area", while by September, General David Petraeus, backed by clearly understandable data and evidence, was testifying to Congress that progress in Iraq, again, best underscored by a very real drop in violence and casualties, was well underway.

Now, similar claims of progress in Afghanistan are being pronounced and accepted despite an absence of evidence to demonstrate such progress. Statements from officials, military or civilian, are swallowed without question and even stalwart critics of the war in Afghanistan caveat their assessments and recommendations with assertions of military progress.

But progress, militarily and on a strategic level, is just not there.

If General Petraeus were to testify today and to use the same forms of data he used in 2007 it would show this past May to have been the deadliest May ever for US and NATO troops; with April and March achieving the same dubious titles. He would note wounded totals on pace for 600 a month, while IED attacks occur over 50 times a day. The General would show that from January-March 2010, the insurgency launched roughly 1800 attacks in Afghanistan, while from January-Mach 2011 they were able to launch nearly 2700. General Petraeus would highlight that attrition in the Afghan Security Forces is so bad that we must recruit three Afghans to fill each space and would acknowledge that currently eight in ten Afghan men believe our operations are bad for their country. All this following 2010, which was the deadliest year of the war for all sides.

Against this, and nearly all other data and evidence, it is clear that the insurgency's momentum and tempo of operations has not been adversely affected by our surge in Afghanistan. Against a great input of American troops and money over the last two years, and by any measurable standard, the insurgency has only gained in its effectiveness and strength, which translates into an increased reluctance to negotiate.

In 2009, the United States had the opportunity to disengage itself from an internal Afghan conflict and to transition its role from one of belligerent to one of mediator. Rather than de-escalate the conflict in an attempt to stabilize Afghanistan and the broader region, we chose to escalate the conflict. We now must accept we have gone from being waist deep to chest deep in someone else's quicksand.

We expect our service members in Afghanistan to do the hard, brutal and savage fighting our policies ask of them without question. They do. Their expectation of those of us in Washington, those of us in air conditioned offices, wearing ties and high heels, who wake each day safe with our families, is that we ask hard questions, examine the reality of the conflict and not accept assertions of success without fact. As we reach an opportunity in July to transition our role in Afghanistan, we must recognize our current policies have proven counter-productive and shift to a policy of de-escalation and negotiation.

Similar to Henry Kissinger's recommendation yesterday, the Afghanistan Study Group recommends ceasefires, large troop reductions (30,000 this year, 40,000 in 2012), reformation of the Afghan government, and political negotiations within Afghanistan and amongst its neighbors to stabilize Afghanistan and the region, and to begin to get the United States out of Afghanistan's quicksand.


You can help by calling your Senators' offices and tell them to sign onto the bi-partisan Merkley-Lee-Udall letter urging President Obama to begin significant and substantial troop reductions from Afghanistan next month. You can also sign this petition.

 

Follow Matthew Hoh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/matthewhoh

 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
f0rTyLeGz
Everything is falling.
02:46 AM on 06/10/2011
I am an old man, and I have never heard any report from a general saying that any war was going bad. They are ALWAYS making progress.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charlietuna11
09:33 PM on 06/09/2011
there is a good reason that Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires. no one knows how many tens of thousands of russian casualties were wasted. other invaders suffered the same fate. fighting a 15th century nation where the average life span is 42 and where the native afgans have zero fear of death is next to criminal. every american and ally who never return to their nation alive has sacrificed their life to keep our military industrial complex running twenty four seven. president Eisenhower warned us but we paid little attn. the Afghans cannot and will not be defeated. its a shame that those who support this crazy nightmare couldn't be forced to lead this suicide mission...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:05 PM on 06/09/2011
slow wars make alot more money for the people in the war & security-bribing and secret police businesses. they could care less about who gets killed in the process.
02:28 PM on 06/09/2011
Lately some politicians, mostly Democrats, have been harping on the billions we are spending on Afghanistan (and elsewhere). They should keep up the pressure. More Americans are more likely to voice their disapproval if they realize that their tax dollars are being wasted when the money is needed at home. The $$ spent speak louder than statements from our leaders about policy and strategy.
01:44 PM on 06/09/2011
Congressman Norm Dicks from Washington State has decided it is time for the US to get out of Afghanistan. This is good news.

Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates and General Petraeus caused Obama to blunder badly when he trebled the US military presence in Afghanistan, thereby only enlarging the insurgency.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beverlyg
01:16 PM on 06/09/2011
We have made the Military Industrial Complex so wealthy over the last ten years and the Supreme Court ruled that they can spend whatever it takes on our politicians without disclosure that conflict will be continued in at least one country.
The MIC prospers most with profits, careers, etc when we are in small scale conflict (called wars for psychological reasons)
11:21 AM on 06/09/2011
Matthew, your characterization of Anbar is misleading. To begin, until March 2003, there were ZERO insurgent attacks in Anbar; our invasion let loose the killing that you refer to, so it is disengenuous to claim any drop post-march 2003 means much. Second, while paying the Sunnis to stop killing us did temporarily work, as in any situation where you pay the Mafia protection money, it was only a short-term fix (i.e., "The Surge").

But tell me this: how many Americans can walk the streets in Falluja, or even Baghdad, today, unarmed and unescorted and say they are safe? If you want to try it, better top off your life insurance first.

Peter www.wemeantwell.com
photo
ewldest
I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now
02:03 PM on 06/09/2011
I think Mr. Hoh's point is that even if we allow th surge in Iraq to have been effective (which you apparently don't, and frankly neither do I), by those standards, the Afghan surge has been a failure, and I am willing to agree with that. So let's hue to the main point on Afghanistan - the US occupation there has been a costly failure, and needs to wind down as quickly as possible. (Today would be nice.)
06:08 PM on 06/09/2011
Peter, that is extremely disingenous and you should know better. Anbar is still just about the safest region in Iraq for Americans in numbers of attacks, excepting the Kurdish region, and the surge has long since ended. The US presence there is sparse to say the least. This short term fix had staying power. As a matter of fact, Saddam's method for keeping the anbaris from raiding the highway to Syria was similar. He also had to pay them off. They were no more loyal to Baghdad then than they are now. Like the rest of Iraqis, they needed assurance that they would get their cut of the pie.
Depending on when and where, there are places in Iraq that you could walk around safely. In some ways I am more at risk in uniform than you are in civvies. Sure, it's volatile. So is the rest of the ME right now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Joseph Mumford
11:21 AM on 06/09/2011
Political negotiations between Taliban and Karzai? If so, those were criticized by activist and politician Malalai Joya
http://www.truth-out.org/hope-afghanistan-interview-malalai-joya/1306515525
and ann jones
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-jones/why-peace-is-the-business_b_808845.html
photo
modeforjoe
We had the experience, but we missed the meaning
11:07 AM on 06/09/2011
Many average Americans saw this failure coming five or six years ago. Shouldn't some of the higher paid heads--those who are supposed to know a thing or two--roll?
01:49 PM on 06/09/2011
mode -- - As we saw with the catastrophe in Vietnam, vast sums of US taxpayer funds are squandered in ill-considered military adventures, long after the idiocy of that adventure is exposed. Why? To protect the reputations of the leaders that blundered the US into the wars!
photo
TitaniumAvatar
Sinister yet Dexterous
03:34 PM on 06/09/2011
MIC makes more money with a war. This is the only relevant fact to these people.