Winning in Afghanistan is a costly illusion

Bill Moyers interview with Andrew Bacevich, on the Afghanistan War, our failed approach, and alternatives - 4-9-10

I’ve identified main themes from the interview in bold type, and then paraphrased or directly quoted (in italics) from the transcribed text. The full transcription is available at the Bill Moyers Journal Internet site at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04092010/transcript3.html The interview is worth considering because of Bacevich’s experience in the military and his insightful and critical writing on the US militarized foreign policy (e.g., The Limits of Power.) He is emphatic that "winning" through military force is a costly illusion.

The counterinsurgency war called for by the US general staff in Afghanistan is undermined by senseless killing of Afghan civilians by American soldiers

American soldiers and special operations forces continue to be responsible for all too frequent civilian casualties. They undermine one of the essential aspects of counterinsurgency, namely, to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population, all the while protecting them.

Moyers adds, “General McChrystal himself has said that we’ve shot – and this is his words not mine – an amazing number of people over there who did not seem to be a threat to this troops.”

This pattern of killing calls into question either the sincerity of the strategy or the “extent to which McChrystal is actually in control of the forces that he commands.” How therefore can Afghans believe that US troops are in their country to help them.

The problem is in part related to the fact that the Special Forces operate in secret and have no timely accountability to the regular army chain of command.

The top US generals have acknowledged many times that there can be no military victory in Afghanistan.

Bacevich emphasizes that both General Petraeus and General McChrystal are on record numerous times saying “that we will not win a military victory, that the only solution to be gained, if there is one, is through bringing success to this project of national-building.”
But how long? The US military is now in its ninth year in Afghanistan and “there is no end in sight.” There appear to be no benefits for either the Afghan people or the US citizenry. No strategic purpose. Meanwhile, the US military has spent appalling amount of money and to no satisfactory end.

What then are better approaches?

One, reconstruction, rebuilding -

If there is no military victory in sight, we need a different approach. “Why not put a legion of social reformers” in the country.

Two, in order to change Afghan society, we need an effective partner in the form of the country’s President and government.

This is not the case. It is another corrupt government.

Obama’s stated purpose for increasing troops in Afghanistan is that it is the only way to prevent Al Qaeda or the Taliban from turning the country into a rogue state and safe haven for terrorists.

President Obama identifies a purpose for why we spend huge sums of money and increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He wants to prevent the Taliban “from creating another rogue state.”

Obama’s views on this matter are misconceived.

Bacevich thinks that this conception of a centralized terrorist force, making plans for terrorist acts and having them implemented helter skelter around the world is incorrect. From his perspective, we are not facing “a transnational movement.” And the desired, but absurdly conceived transformation of Aghanistan, even if successful, would not guarantee that there would not be other 9/11 events in the US.

Three, the jihadist threat requires an internationally coordinated police effort.

The best we can do against jihadist threats from different parts of the world and from within our own country is to treat the problem as an “international criminal conspiracy,” requiring “a ruthless, sustained, international police effort to identify the thugs, root out the networks and destroy it.”

Four, American military leaders should plan for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

We should get out of this war and there is a simple way to do it. It is time for General McChrystal “to organize an orderly extrication of US forces.”

In response to a later question from Moyers, Bacevich repeats that we should bring the troops out of Afghanistan in some orderly, planned way. “…the perpetuation of the war in Afghanistan is not good for this country and for our people.”

BILL MOYERS: Why?

ANDREW BACEVICH: “Because we are squandering our treasure. We are losing lives for no purpose. And ultimately, the perpetuation of this unnecessary war does, I think, serve to exacerbate the problems within the Islamic world, rather than reducing those problems.”

Unfortunately, US leaders are not planning for an orderly withdrawal of troops and so the senseless war not only continues but is buttressed with additional troops.

We em to be in a situation “where permanent war” has “become the norm. And we don’t know what to do about it.”

Obama and the top generals do not want to lose this war after putting so much money, troops, and American credibility on the line.

President Obama is committed to increasing the number of American troops there and doesn’t want to quit in failure. But, Bacevich notes, we have pulled the military out of places where the costs and opposition from American citizens had become too high, namely, from Somalia and from South Vietnam.