When the US began its surge in Iraq, Lex opined that what the troops were allowed to do was as important as how many troops were sent. So we dropped 30,000 additional troops into a country the size of California and presto - problem solved. I still argue that the 30,000 troops were not the turning point. Letting the troops do their job was probably at least as effective as adding 30,000 troops to the 140,000 already in place in a country the size of Iraq with nasty borders with neighbors like Syria and Iran.
So now we’re told that we need an additional 40,000 troops in Afghanistan. The first question I’d ask as Commander in Chief is, “OK let me see your rules of engagement (ROE).” If those rules are not structured to allow our forces to freely kill the enemy, I’d deny the request. We don’t need to send in more targets for the enemy to shoot at.
Four Marines were recently killed in Afghanistan due in part to ROE that would not allow artillery and other supporting arms fire to be used against an enemy dug into a mountain side with a few civilian huts around. This is idiocy of the highest order. Commanders who denied the Marines supporting fires ought to be ashamed.
Military force is supposed to be an extension of foreign policy that promotes OUR national interests. I’d tell NATO, the UN, the Afghan government, and Pakistan that our troops are going to kill the enemy with or without their help. Further, until the others get on board with a “win the war” mentality, far from increasing troop numbers, the US is going to withdraw forces. Those forces remaining will only be used were they are free to kill the enemy. Afghan forces can provide security for the Afghan people – ha! That’s a joke.
For now we will exercise our right to act in our national interest by killing Taliban and al Qaeda where we find them with the minimal number of troops required to get that job done. We will worry about “Afghan security” and increase our troop strength commensurate with others will to win. Absent that will to win and an ROE that supports it, I would not commit more troops to act as targets for an enemy that we are not allowed to engage.
1 comment:
I hear the nut jobs may have run into Pakistan. I want to hear that we are after them in Pakistan. If they go Botswana I want to hear we after them in Botswana. If they go to Venus let's go to Venus. If a country cannot keep them out then let's get them. If a country let's them in because they are sympathetic to them then let's go get them. Other countries have to know that there is no safe haven. The Dear Dope should stop the BS hand wringing. Unfortunately I have little confidence in him to do anything in a practical way. The Griffin.
Post a Comment