One of the best of writers and observers of the war in Afghanistan, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, writes:
"The coming battle for control of this ancient crossroad city [Kandahar] will be the toughest challenge of the war in Afghanistan - not because it will be bloody, necessarily, but because it will require the hardest item for U. S. commanders to deliver, which is an improvement in governance."
Question: Are we to ask GIs to lay down their lives for "an improvement in governance?" Is this kind of war necessary? After eight years of trying?
I was "a hard charger" on the war in Vietnam. In fact, the motion for the last $500 million that went into the Vietnam War was made by me on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I thought the Vietnamese were willing to fight and die for democracy. Some were, but a lot more were willing to give up their lives over ten years for communism. Now I have learned that people want other types of government other than democracy. I've been to Hanoi; visited John McCain's prison, and the people of Vietnam are happy.
In 1966, I was off shore Hanoi on the aircraft carrier, Kitty Hawk - as our brave pilots bombed POL supplies in Hanoi, only to precariously land back on the carrier and be court-martialed if they strayed to other targets. I felt the strategy of "build and destroy" at the same time was wrong. In World War II we cleared the area and kept it cleared. In Vietnam, we cleared the area in the daytime and let the Viet Cong come in at night. Are we to spend another eight years force feeding democracy in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan didn't start the war on terror. Sixteen of the nineteen that attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden escaped Afghanistan with his supporters within weeks to Pakistan. We didn't make war with Pakistan. The drones fired on targets in Pakistan created more terrorists than they eliminated. Pakistan now puts on a show on the Afghanistan border for United States military and domestic aid. But Pakistan doesn't trust the United States because we are better friends with India. The one thing we learned in Charlie Wilson's War is that Afghans don't like or trust foreigners. President Karzai in the morning news is campaigning against the UN and all foreigners because he knows this makes him popular with the Afghans.
I don't know where we got the idea that Afghans want a democracy. I helped liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, sixty-seven years ago, and they have yet to opt for democracy. In the Muslim world, more important than freedom and democracy is tribe and religion. I don't think we can teach the warlords in Afghanistan to stop growing poppies and start growing wheat. In fact, the recent headlines indicate we've already given up on "stop growing poppies." Victory in Afghanistan, at best, will be a warlord narco-democracy with a corrupt president.
General McCrystal is a brave soldier with a flawed strategy. He has fine-tuned the policy of "build and destroy," to kill and make friends - all in countries where you can't tell who is the enemy. Marines are taught to fight and kill, not occupy.
Afghanistan and Pakistan were getting along well until the U. S. came along with our "war on terror." Neither country inflicted terror on the United States, and the peoples of both were enjoying a culture different than democracy. After eight years of putting their countries in turmoil with thousands of their neighbors killed, they resent and resist the foreign attempt to change their way of life.
A poll in both countries would show that they wished the U. S. "be gone." Our allies in Afghanistan have put us on notice that they're pulling out - Afghanistan is not necessary. With the President of Afghanistan campaigning against us, it is time we learn that Afghanistan is not necessary - that it's necessary to "be gone."
Learn about Senator Hollings and read more of his commentary at www.CitizensForACompetitiveAmerica.com.