Is the US on the brink of a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?

[aesop081]

"Selection and maintenance of the aim" is not the only principle of war we didn't deliver on.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Our problem is that even though we called it nation building, it was more forced culture change.  You cannot force liberal democratic values on a society which has no history of it.  The only way this would have even been remotely possible is if on day 2 of the invasion is the "re-education" of the next generation of afghani leaders.  Basically a copy of the residental school program that Canada had, and we all know how history treated that one.  As a western society we do not have the stomac for the systematic re-education and cultural genocide needed to bring in the core values that are needed for a democracy.

Otherwise we will just a repeat of what happened in egypt where the muslim brotherhood won the election as best case, or what I fear Iraq is going to turn into within the next 4 years and have a new saddam and we end up with gulf war 3.

Even then I think you are underestimating the time it takes for a culture to change itself. It happens, of course, but it is, generally a long, slow, process.

We like to point to Germany and Japan and to suggest that, in 1945 to, say, 1955, we changed them ... but that's a historical fallacy. Germany and Japan were both highly enlightened cultures, albeit of vastly different traditions, in which ideas like "rule of law" were well founded and easily replanted; ditto representative democracy, independent judiciary and so on. There was nothing, for example, in the Japanese cultural or religious traditions that suggested that the emperor, divine though he might be, needed to have exclusive political power.

Consider China: the names have changed but the current government of China looks remarkably like its imperial predecessors - the Standing Committee of the Politburo is very, very like an imperial household in almost any of the dynasties going back 3,000 years. The Chinese Communist Party has simply grafted a new branch on to an ancient tree.

But not all of the world is like that. While some cultures, the Anglo-American one, for example, accept, even welcome constant, gradual social, religious and political evolution others find it harder to manage. The role of religion in culture matters - it is not always the most important factor but it is rarely unimportant. In islam, for example, one finds a religion which is rooted, firmly, in 8th century Arabia; it accepts the societal norms of that day as being good and, even, suitable for our day; it suggests to its adherents the the Quran provides all the social, economic and political guidance that is necessary - consequently change is very difficult because the base of 8th century Arab culture and a culturally attuned religion reinforce one another. Although the Christian Church did (still does) dabble in politics, sometimes with some success, it was easy for Europeans, especially Northern Europeans to reshape the religin to suit their social and political aspirations.

Cultures can and do change - but they do so from within. Sometimes they change in response to outside influence and interference but only a people can change their own culture; we cannot do it for them or to them.

 

[ArmyRick]

I will get char broiled for my comments but here goes...

Before we can effectively enable something to happen overseas, we need to sort out our own priorities. My issues with how this country is not running
-Over regulated and over controlled laws
-Our economy is in the dumps and we base it on the wrong things
-Certain companies and corporations get bail outs and blind eyes to the overall negligence
-Canadians as a whole, have developed too much on an entitlement society
-Politicians rarely represent their people's interest (But they didn't in 1867 either, so no change I guess)
-Agricultural handling/operation/management is a mess (I am directly involved in agriculutre, i speak from expirience)
-This is more religous view but its how I feel, too many people literally "worship" money or are obsessed with making more or exploiting what they can (I feel Canadians have become more greedy and less compromising in the last 10 years or so)
-Aboriginal handling is a nightmare (ignoring them is not on but throwing money at them and wishing the problem away doesn't work either)
-Health (Sick care?) system is a mess

Basically, I feel we need to sort out our own issues at home before we get carried away with sorting out forein nations. No, I am not a hippy but I am not a total right winger either. I beleive in shades of gray in most cases (rarely is something black or white).

I have specifics solutions or suggestions for agriculture but not everything else. Let those who know the other areas best, come up with the solutions.

 

[ballz]

it suggests to its adherents the the Quran provides all the social, economic and political guidance that is necessary

Don't forget scientific... kinda hard to change anyone's mind when they won't believe it even if they witness it with their own eyes (aka... the Qu'ran teaches that salt and fresh water don't mix, and Muslims are taught that the Qu'ran is the highest form of scientific evidence... that's a tough one to crack).

I agree with you fully that cultures have to change within... in many cases "outside influence and interference" might only strengthen it's resolve to stay the same... I do not know if this is the case of Afghanistan or not obviously.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Even then I think you are underestimating the time it takes for a culture to change itself. It happens, of course, but it is, generally a long, slow, process.

In islam, for example, one finds a religion which is rooted, firmly, in 8th century Arabia; it accepts the societal norms of that day as being good and, even, suitable for our day; it suggests directs to its adherents the the Quran provides all the social, economic and political guidance that is necessary - consequently change is very difficult because the base of 8th century Arab culture and a culturally attuned religion reinforce one another. Although the Christian Church did (still does) dabble in politics, sometimes with some success, it was easy for Europeans, especially Northern Europeans to reshape the religin to suit their social and political aspirations.

Cultures can and do change - but they do so from within. Sometimes they change in response to outside influence and interference but only a people can change their own culture; we cannot do it for them or to them.  (yellow and strikeout mine-jj)

And therein lies the problem.  As was explained to me the Archangel Gabriel came to the Prophet Mohammed and gave him word for word exactly how Allah (God) wished people to conduct their lives in all matters, physical, moral, spiritually etc etc.  Seeing as this is the direct word from God, how can they change?  Unless God makes an attempt to modify his last instructions, which would be a problem as the Prophet is believed to be THE Prophet it would be blasphemy to make any changes or suggest ad hoc things need to change.  Everything that they base their lives on would be shaken to the core, much as I expect the creation of Christianity was to everyday life 2000 years ago (and it's subsequent changes and turmoils since then).  We here in the West have not lived as closely to our religion(s) as they do in Islam for many hundreds of years now and perhaps we cannot appreciate just how big a part of everyday life such observance plays in it.

I'm not sure what would happen if all the Muslims had their feet swept out from under them all once.  Would be ugly to say the least.  I don't have a dog in that fight so to speak and so I cannot even begin to suggest what or how or who could change things to bring it into the 21st Century and beyond.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Technoviking may have to help us here - he studied philosophy - but this is a problem that bedeviled the early Christians. They used Aristotle, I think as their guide and he posited (I think, yet again) that a god who (which?) is all powerful must be perfect and need never amend his words or deeds. Now, clearly, the Greek gods were imperfect, and Greek mythology let them be so, but the Christian god was (is, if you wish) "all powerful and ever living" and so (s)he (it?) also need never change a single thing ~ hence predestination, John Calvin and all that.

We, the West, had a long period, several centuries, of intelectual and, indeed, physical strife while we rediscovered ancient philosophy and science (the renaissance) and rethought our religious doctrine (the reformation) and social systems (the enlightenment); a lot of heated debates took place, a lot of books were written and a few wars were fought before we got the basics settled and none of that prevented two world wars, which might be described, in many ways, as European civil wars.

The Islamic world, for the most part, didn't need a renaissance but it may be due, after over 1,200 years, for a reformation and that might lead to an enlightenment.

 

[vonGarvin]

It's true that the church (eg: the Latin Church, aka "Roman Catholic" church) used and continues to refer to Aristotle for a variety of reasons.  Though no person could sum up his influence in a single post on the internet, he also was a major influence on Jewish and Islamic religions as well. 

Now, to put into perspective, Aristotle predates Jesus of Nazareth by over 300 years.  He was Alexander the Great's instructor, and he came just after Plato and Socrates.  He didn't just talk about divinity, but about physics and metaphysics.  He talked ethics, he talked science, and he talked this and that.

(This is a photo of a statue of Aristotle in Thessaloniki, Greece, that I took last September)​

But I would offer that the main reason why the Roman Catholic Church refers to him even now is his views on natural law theory.  (EG: there is a natural order of things, or how things ought to be). 

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I will give one assignment: read Nicomachean Ethics.  ("Ethics" is a term he helped to develop, and he furthered Socrates' work by taking it from the theoretical to the practical). 

 

[The Anti-Royal]

(And note that the words "Operational Level" and "Operational Art" do not appear here.  Neither does the tooth fairy or the easter bunny - two other things that don't exist)

And upon what, good sir, do you base that assertion?

 

[frank1515]

Read parts the Nicomachean Ethics in my Political Philosophy class.  Recommend whoever decides to read this massive work, do so with a notion that it is a translated work, and the terms used by Aristotle may have a completely different meaning back then as to how these terms are used today. Like TV said, he helped developed and shape the definition of the word "Ethic" and was not the only one to do so.

Words like "ethics" "good" "justice" and "morality" have different meanings to different philosophers, and therefore, different meanings all together in 2012.

Anyways, food for thought.

 

[Kalatzi]

Is the US on the brink of a humiliating defeat in Vietnam Afghanistan?

I respectfully say No.

Many of us will recall the images of Choppers lifting off the roof of the US Embassy. This time I think things are different.

I do not sense the virulent anti-miltary biases that plagued western  societies at that time. I think that most people feel that the military did as well as it could in trying to attain unachievable goals.  Hence no humiliation. More about that in a minute.

I've long wondered when we were going to start hearing the military "F" word again. BTW that word is "Frag" The military has retained its professionalism and most of its morale.

One of the quotes that stood out in Bob Woodwards book "The Commanders" on GW1, involved Dick Cheney  and Colin Powell. I don't recall the speaker but the quote was "If we screw up this time, the military is finished as a force in our society"

Hence no humiliation.

What about our allies? Most of them are of a similar mind. Hence no humiliation.

What of our foes? OBL's main strategy, in my opinion  was to draw the West into morale sapping, resource draining war of attrition with the Muslim world.  This campaign is not ending well.

It is also having a debilitating effect on western societies finances and allocation of resources

I also feel that one of the main beneficiaries of our involvement is China.

Hopefully lessons can be learned and resources reallocated for the next campaign. 

Reinforce success, not failure.

I note with interest I have seen no mention "The Abrams - Weinberger - Powell Doctrine" . It may be time for it to be amended. Other are better qualified to speak on this than  I.

Finally, my favourite author is Barbara Tuchmann, "The guns of August", "The march of folly", of which the last chapter deals with Vietnam. If she were still with us I think she might find a good market for an amended  version with this as its subject.

We may be on the brink of a defeat in this campaign.  We live in interesting times. Best wishes to our friends, confusion to our enemies.

 

[Zartan]

Humiliating? No. The Americans have demonstrated a remarkable capability for rationalizing, if not forgetting, defeat. To the rest of the world, the hypothetical "humiliation" already happened (Iraq). No one will be shocked to see what happens to Afghanistan when the Americans inevitably lead. Nation building is something we don't seem to respect. The Americans, depending upon how one defines it, have proven in the past to be rather capable at it, when they choose to be. They rebuilt Germany and Japan - more relevantly, they turned Italy and Saudi Arabia into developed countries in a shockingly short time. However, if there ever was a tough nut to crack, it was Afghanistan, and to do it at war, no less... simply a bold move. Nation building at it's very essence: were it not for the sense of nationalism that permeates them, there is otherwise no reason for Afghanistan to exist. There was certainly no infrastructure or economy to support a state. It would have to be built, from the ground up: educating the population, developing the economy, fixing infrastructure, and where I think we have screwed up the very most: a stable, Afghan sort of government. With this in mind, the mission was one that could only last decades, regardless of whether the spearpoint was economics or the military. We have made a lot of bad decisions since we arrived there. Generally, I think we were a (temporary) force for good. As it stands, I foresee the west leaving in a few years time, and everything that has been done will collapse. Afghanistan will go back to the way it was one hundred years ago, and again be forgotten. But that's just what I think.

As an aside, the Philosopher who ruined Islamic civilization was Al-Ghazali (math is satanic!)

 

[dapaterson]

And upon what, good sir, do you base that assertion?

The assertion that the tooth fairy and easter bunny don't exist?

Or the assertion that the "operational" level of warfare is an unnecessary distraction in military planning, invented by American doctrine writers looking to create full employment for staff officers to disastrous effect, contributing to modern staff churn, producing little of value but serving to delay direction to subordinates and lengthening the OODA loop?


To paraphrase a military historian and analyst, the complexity of modern warfare is largely self-inflicted by oversized staffs.  As always, the Germans put it best: Je grösser die Stäbe, desto schlecter die Führung.

 

[Robert0288]

Even then I think you are underestimating the time it takes for a culture to change itself. It happens, of course, but it is, generally a long, slow, process.

We like to point to Germany and Japan and to suggest that, in 1945 to, say, 1955, we changed them ... but that's a historical fallacy. Germany and Japan were both highly enlightened cultures, albeit of vastly different traditions, in which ideas like "rule of law" were well founded and easily replanted; ditto representative democracy, independent judiciary and so on. There was nothing, for example, in the Japanese cultural or religious traditions that suggested that the emperor, divine though he might be, needed to have exclusive political power.

Consider China: the names have changed but the current government of China looks remarkably like its imperial predecessors - the Standing Committee of the Politburo is very, very like an imperial household in almost any of the dynasties going back 3,000 years. The Chinese Communist Party has simply grafted a new branch on to an ancient tree.

But not all of the world is like that. While some cultures, the Anglo-American one, for example, accept, even welcome constant, gradual social, religious and political evolution others find it harder to manage. The role of religion in culture matters - it is not always the most important factor but it is rarely unimportant. In islam, for example, one finds a religion which is rooted, firmly, in 8th century Arabia; it accepts the societal norms of that day as being good and, even, suitable for our day; it suggests to its adherents the the Quran provides all the social, economic and political guidance that is necessary - consequently change is very difficult because the base of 8th century Arab culture and a culturally attuned religion reinforce one another. Although the Christian Church did (still does) dabble in politics, sometimes with some success, it was easy for Europeans, especially Northern Europeans to reshape the religin to suit their social and political aspirations.

Cultures can and do change - but they do so from within. Sometimes they change in response to outside influence and interference but only a people can change their own culture; we cannot do it for them or to them.

Germany and Japan are both good examples.  However after the end of WW2 what did we do to Germany?  It was split into 2 parts, and was occupied by all of NATO and the Warsaw pact from 1945/46 until 1989.  Mind you I wasn’t in Germany during any of that time, but I can’t help but to think that occupation (can’t think of a better word for it) by large foreign armies for almost 50 years didn’t have an impact on either east or west Germany’s social or politics views.

Japan after their surrender was dependent on US money to rebuild and in addition the US built multiple bases and staged troops of the Japanese home islands for years.

On your last point that we cannot change culture from the outside.  If you take a look at historical counterinsurgency that actually worked, you pretty much had to destroy the native population/culture or use ‘terror’ to intimidate the local population.  Before I go any farther I have to state plainly that I DO NOT ADVOCATE THIS (before the rage pms show up).  Take a look at the Boer War.  That was won because we isolated the insurgents from their support network.  Mind you that to isolate the support network, the local civilian populace was rounded up, put into camps and subsequently many died.

When Kenghis Khan was faced with an insurgency or even disrespect he massacred entire villages leaving only a few to tell the tale.  The end result was a quelling of unrest everywhere.

History is full of successful methods of counterinsurgency, just none that can be easily applied to a western democracy.

Just a general question to throw out; but has there ever been a case of ‘successful’ nation building by a western democracy while there are ongoing insurgency actions?

 

[GAP]

Exposure to western values and social fashion/images is probably doing more to put a strain on Muslim dictates than anything else.

The younger generations see the freedom, fashion, etc, etc. and wonder why not me too.....this is causing all kinds of conflicts between generations....

 

[Old Sweat]

Germany and Japan are both good examples.  However after the end of WW2 what did we do to Germany?  It was split into 2 parts, and was occupied by all of NATO and the Warsaw pact from 1945/46 until 1989.  Mind you I wasn't in Germany during any of that time, but I can't help but to think that occupation (can't think of a better word for it) by large foreign armies for almost 50 years didn't have an impact on either east or west Germany's social or politics views.

Not quite. After the end of the Second World War Germany was split into four zones of occupation - Soviet, American, British and French. While the Soviets set up the German Democratic Republic which essentially was a "me too" puppet, the other powers allowed the Germans to reestablish their sovereignty in the 50s. NATO came as a counter to the Soviets in 1949 and many of its nations had foreign NATO forces stationed on their own territory. As a further indication that West Germany was not occupied, there was a blanket status of forces agreement and we were subject to German civil and criminal law, although this was often waived.

Now, you are on much firmer ground where you note that the most effective ways of controlling an uprising are so distasteful to western sensibilities that we end up more or less deluding ourselves. With the benefit of hindsight, we might better have considered the Taliban a hostile state and waged war against them on what we deemed hostile territory. Again, we could not because of our ethical compass.

With the fear of setting Kirkhill off, maybe the Duke of Cumberland had it right in 1746.

 

[Remius]

The Romans did.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Technoviking may have to help us here - he studied philosophy - but this is a problem that bedeviled the early Christians. They used Aristotle, I think as their guide and he posited (I think, yet again) that a god who (which?) is all powerful must be perfect and need never amend his words or deeds. Now, clearly, the Greek gods were imperfect, and Greek mythology let them be so, but the Christian god was (is, if you wish) "all powerful and ever living" and so (s)he (it?) also need never change a single thing ~ hence predestination, John Calvin and all that.

We, the West, had a long period, several centuries, of intelectual and, indeed, physical strife while we rediscovered ancient philosophy and science (the renaissance) and rethought our religious doctrine (the reformation) and social systems (the enlightenment); a lot of heated debates took place, a lot of books were written and a few wars were fought before we got the basics settled and none of that prevented two world wars, which might be described, in many ways, as European civil wars.

The Islamic world, for the most part, didn't need a renaissance but it may be due, after over 1,200 years, for a reformation and that might lead to an enlightenment.

Not being a bible reader, but I do recall God being remorseful about flooding the place and saying he/it would not do that again, which would show that God can act on a whim and repent, which would make us very much in his likeness.

 

[The Anti-Royal]

The assertion that the tooth fairy and easter bunny don't exist?

Or the assertion that the "operational" level of warfare is an unnecessary distraction in military planning, invented by American doctrine writers looking to create full employment for staff officers to disastrous effect, contributing to modern staff churn, producing little of value but serving to delay direction to subordinates and lengthening the OODA loop?


To paraphrase a military historian and analyst, the complexity of modern warfare is largely self-inflicted by oversized staffs.  As always, the Germans put it best: Je grösser die Stäbe, desto schlecter die Führung.

I haven't decided if you're trying to be funny or if you really don't understand the concepts and, therefore, consider them valueless.  Maybe it's a combination of both.

You've offered the following opinions:

a.  the operational level of war and the operational art do not exist; and

b.  they are American inventions, mere excuses for keeping the under-employed busy, and are the enemies of efficient decision-making.

The absence of evidence behind these two statements doesn't lend any weight to your argument, and reminds me of something I heard a long time ago.

"It's not much of a cheese shop, is it?"

"Finest in the district, squire."

"Explain the logic underlying that conclusion."

"Well, it's so clean, sir."

"It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese."

What qualifications and experience do you hold, or research have you done, that lead you to hold those opinions on the matter?  I'm keen to know.

I suggest reading a couple of books that may disabuse you of the notion that the operational level of war wasn't around before the big, bloated Yanks dreamed it up.  They're both little-known works, unfortunately - Vom Krieg, and The Art of War by Baron de Jomini.

Next time, try stringing facts together in a logical fashion to formulate a conclusion.  It's fun.

Then again, you're probably a lot smarter than me because you quote from the original German.

P.S.  There's a spelling error in your citation.

 

[dapaterson]

Imagine - opinions expressed on an internet message board without a long, detailed, footnoted collection of arguments.


How about this, instead: the "operational level" is a theoretical construct of limited utility.  Most adherents and practicioners, if challenged, are able to say "It's between strategy and tactics" but not to provide any genuine description nor support for why this construct is superior to a two level model of strategy and tactics.

 

[exabedtech]

Not a humiliating defeat, but a defeat nonetheless. 
As has been stated already by others, a victory could have been declared soon after the Taliban were removed.  Anything we did after that was as pointless in that we have no ability to sustain it after we leave.  Why not?  Because the hate us. 
Could always try supporting them to the tune of billions for the next 40 years and see if that helps, but then it hasn't exactly done wonders for Pakistan.

We were attacked, we did the right thing by going over and kicking their asses.  Should have left the next day.  This hearts and minds crap makes me sick.  Every misplaced bomb, every wrongly kicked in door breeds a new crop of fighters.  Yes, we've done many a great things for those people, but to say that is in any way the reason we fought there is foolishness.  If we cared about human rights, we'd have been in Africa for the past few decades and would still be there.

Are we there to support the Karzai government?  He's been pretty careful to put us down at every opportunity, but even he knows that the day after we leave, his days are numbered.