We are many years—and thousands of casualties—late in bringing our troops and those of allied nations home from Afghanistan. We won the war in Afghanistan eight years ago, in the first few months of our military action there, when we unseated the Taliban and sent them running for the hills. Since then, we have just been banging our head against the bamboo (an organic metaphor I use with purpose).
My appreciation for the troops who have served, suffered or died in Afghanistan knows no bounds. I have nephews who have, are and will be serving there; I am as proud as I can be when they call me Uncle Genie. They are among the tens of thousands of (mostly young) men and women who are willing to give that last full measure of devotion in demonstrating American resolve in advancing freedom and human rights and in protecting us and defending our constitution. There is no greater love of country.
Those troops are living to their oaths and doing what we send them to do. They are not the dummies.
The dummies are the national leaders who pay no attention to the lesson of decades of French and U.S. failures in Vietnam. To the failure of the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan, of France in Algeria and of Turkey in Greece. To the failure of the Philippines to eradicate communist partisanship, of Israel to defeat Hamas, of Spain to wipe out Basque separatism, of England and Northern Ireland to unilaterally control the Irish resistance, of nearly every second country in South and Central America to contain internal armed opposition, of many African nations to end decades-long civil wars, of the never-ending murderous civil unrest in southern Asia and the Indian subcontinent and the continuing internal conflicts in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, the Balkans, Mexico, eastern Europe and elsewhere. I mean, lets face it: our leaders haven’t even learned anything from eight years in Afghanistan. Wake up and smell the frustration.
The obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, clear-as-day, glaring, unmistakable point is this:
guerilla wars cannot be won—except by the guerillas.
Guerilla insurgencies can, after a fashion, be suppressed, but only by an overwhelmingly brutal, oppressive and cruel campaign that ignores human rights, has no concern for collateral damage and expects no positive outcomes other than the goal of suppression. But that’s not really our style, is it?
And even so, eventually the embers are once more excited and the armed resistance flares up again.
Why can’t they be defeated? Why do they always rise to fight again?
Because these movements are not infrastructure based. They are organic, like the bamboo. They are rooted in ideas, or beliefs, or desires. Infrastructure can be captured or destroyed, thoughts and feelings can’t. They can move or be reborn in other times and places.
When people are willing to die for those thoughts or feelings, any war is likely already lost.
Especially when those willing fighters are mostly young—meaning virtually oblivious to their own mortality and newly awash in their own naturally-occurring, rousing steroidal hormones. This age group is typical of an insurgency and creates a nearly endless resource of eager soldiers even when the movement is not enthusiastically supported by the general population. That’s why
we depend on them for our armed forces.
The solution? Isn’t it obvious?
Don’t wage counter-insurgent wars. They never work anyway, except in wishful planning and fanciful propaganda. And have you noticed? President Obama does seem enthusiastic about the making of ever-newer plans and strategies for Afghanistan, doesn’t he?
Now maybe Mr. Obama didn’t see enough of the Vietnam War, so perhaps he’s just misguided. Or maybe he has a hidden agenda (to be speculated upon elsewhere). Hopefully he’s not just one more standard–issue pol willing to trade the lives of American service people for his own re-election. But it’s starting to smell that way.
So, is there anything to do besides fight on the losing side of a guerilla war? There are several alternatives. Tune in next time.
Notable among other increasing costs is the rising price of free speech. The recent Supreme Court decision which struck down certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending, coupled with a 2006 decision which denied the validity of state campaign finance restrictions, are among the latest pressures contributing to this inflationary trend. In both cases the narrow court majorities proposed a connection between free spending and free speech. Problem is, as the charges for free speech go up, poorer folks are getting priced out of the market.
Well then, what sort of free speech costs are we talking about here? Taller soap boxes? Bigger water bottles? No; for the most part, I reckon we’re talking about transmissions via electromagnetic waves—television and radio, that is.
