I apologize up front for the language in the title. I abbreviated the last word and it just didn’t “sing”. Let me begin by agreeing -in limited concept- with Mr. West in regards to his emphasis on modified battalions and advisors rather than -in the words of Sun Tsu- “killing a fly on our forehead with a sledgehammer” like Junior and Obama have done. I disagree with just about everything else he says. The first surprise was he included four-plus pages of accolades from various journalistic media for his book right behind the front cover. . After reading the book and reflecting on the idolizing adoration I couldn’t help but be reminded of Roman citizens sitting in the Colliseum watching the mayhem below. The repetitious praise was overkill….which is basically “BS Bing’s” answer to winning our latest adventures. He’s wrong. The irony is he himself tells us why killing more of them than they do of us won’t work in just about every page of the book. I believe it was Robert Kaplan (Balkan Ghosts) who said that in order to learn from history one must study it in depth and context. Rather than applying military history to a country with plenty of contextual examples, Bing flippantly discounts Afghans fighting a guerrilla war against Alexander the Great by claiming “they wouldn’t survive the winter”. Amazing. I’ve seen examples of ethnocentricity in my military career …..and this is certainly one. According to Mr. West’s Wikipedia bio (and we know efficiency reports are never embellished!) he should know better than to spout the litany of wrong-headed thinking contained in this book – especially after having worked at RAND. I’m reminded of something a two-star general told us captains at the advance course -as the RIF of the ’90s was beginning: “One day a 3-star general walked into the first day of class at the Command & General Staff College (Ft. Leavenworth, KS). Looking around he told the attentive, newly promoted Lieutenant Colonels: ‘Just about every one of you knows you didn’t get here by merit.’ The stunned egos jaws dropped as he continued “You all know you got here because you either “know someone” or you failed to tell truth to power.” As I read Mr. West’s cheerleading journalistic effort I understood how he became Assistant SecDef. By the way, a good place to start reducing the national debt would be to eliminate every “assistant to….” and “deputy to….” position within the Department of Defense.
Page xii: “Preventing a terrorist takeover in Afghanistan is a sound goal. It would severely damage America’s credibility if the Taliban reseized Kabul. Well, Bing, ‘ol buddy, in my opinion, America’s credibility was irreparably damaged after the Pentagon Papers revealed Johnson and MacNamara knew we were losing the Vietnam war and kept sending American troops over there. My comrades-in-arms continued dying for five more years after Kissinger did an “Obama-Putin” wink-and-a-nod” with the NVA rep in Paris in 1968 agreeing to an eventual withdrawal “with honor”. Excuse me but that is BULLSHIT to an infantryman. Not to mention how we deserted the South Vietnamese people and the real warrior tribes in the mountains. So this “credibility” crap makes me want to vomit.
Page xiii: par.3: “Like war in general, counterinsurgency is an incoherent body of thought, with history providing lessons that contradict one another.” Really? I have studied and conducted counterinsurgency as a Special Forces team member and commander and as an intelligence officer supporting special operations for many years (Central America, Africa and the Middle East). I have read over 200 books on the topic and taught case studies at the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School “of Excellence”. Most of the latest books on the topic re-word principles contained in those of the ’50s and ’60s. I find a very coherent body of thought. There is a difference between writing books and reading them. I guess Mr. West hasn’t had the time climbing the ladder of success for reading Mao’s Little Red Book, Marighella’s “Mini-manual for the Urban Guerrilla”, Lenin’s “What Is to Be Done?” not to mention the free-world soldiers/authors who defeated them, i.e. Thompson, Galula – even 21st century authors like “P.X” Hammes (a Marine) “The Sling and the Stone” and “Fighting the War of Ideas Like a Real War” by Zeyno Baran. The problem is there has been no one in the White House since Reagan who understood how to use the military to keep low intensity conflict from conflagrating into a major war. In fact, as Mr. West should know having been in Vietnam AND worked at RAND, Sir Robert K. Thompson, the world’s premier original thinker on COIN left Vietnam in disgust after “Westy” et. al. ignored his expertise obtained in Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. The RAND corporation’s own History of Vietnam blows galactic-sized, black holes in Mr. West’s premises.
par.4: Mr. West, in true infantryman fashion, gives the mission statement up front: “In seeking to answer these questions, this book describes the fighting, the objectives, the interaction with the tribes, and the different tactics our military has undertaken.” And that’s what he does. The disappointing aspect of his book is the contradiction between the title of his book (The Wrong War”) and his conclusion (“Americans always win – and we will win by – “kicking their asses”” (my words). Mr. West’s last paragraph casts dispersions on the warriors who fought in WW II, Korea and Vietnam by comparing draftees with today’s volunteers. Bullshit. This is myopia in the extreme at worst and a glittering generalization (a public relations technique) at a minimum. A warrior is a fighter regardless of how he came to serve. Omaha Beach, the Chosin Reservoir and LZ X-Ray had plenty of draftee warriors. He asserts that “…..they did not volunteer because the military offered jobs.” Well, to put it mildly -and to not wear out my favorite cuss word- I don’t believe recruiters could “make mission” if they solicited on the basis of killing people. There’s a reason why 98% of Americans haven’t served in the military – and why 98% of them join. And it ain’t to fight by a long shot. Since Mr. West’s repeated book research trips to Iraq and Afghanistan was spent with the infantry I can understand his repeated myopia throughout his book. But it doesn’t explain why Afghanistan is “The Wrong War.” p.xiv: “….our troops are the hunters, not the prey.” This book was published in 2011. Is Mr. West aware of the ravages politically correct rules of engagement (ROEs) have had on our “hunters”? The combat troops -and I have three combat Marine sons- are being castrated into political eunuchs with the ridiculously dangerous ROEs. “…..let the Afghans fight their own war.” If you ask any Afghan they will probably tell you “Hell! (or “Allah”!) we didn’t HAVE a war until you Americans invaded us!” “We learn mainly from our own experiences, or trust books where others write of their experiences.” Again, BS. The last-war-entrenched Department of Defense is infamous for not doing either of those. Heck, it took the prospects of losing the Iraqi war for anyone to listen to Petreaus/Matting, Kilcullen who espouses Thompson, Galula, et.al. of the ’60s – FIVE years into the war! B.W. mentions his book The Village. I’ve read it. I have it. I’ve included it on a reading list for my students for years. But the “parallels” he says are there are trivial compared to the monumental differences. Ho Chi Minh was hoping fervently the U.S. would stay out of the fracas. In Iraq and Afghanistan we lumbered drunken with contract money and glory right into Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy formulated in a Swiss chalet in the ’70s by invading a Muslim country. West concludes his preface with “It is hardiness and grit in battle, not rhetorical debate, that will determine Afghanistan’s future.” I believe if Junior had asked his dad why he didn’t invade Iraq the debate that was never held would have precluded invading any Muslim country. p.xxi: “The enemy, however, wore no uniform, avoided firepower duels with Americans and moved unreported among the farming communities. This nullified the traditional American way of war of destroying the opposing army in decisive battle.” Au contrair, monsieur West! Max Boot argues just the opposite in his excellent, well-researched book “Savage Wars of Peace.” America’s military engagements from pre-Revolution to today have been overwhelmingly against unconventional adversaries. Mr. West touts the party line by referring to Petraeus/Matting’s FM-3-24 Counterinsurgency and Admiral Mullen’s “new, more comprehensive strategy for the region” as a brilliant flash of inspiration when in actuality they were probably reading 21st century author’s books repeating Thompson and Galula, et.al. Nothing like plagiarizing to get promoted. It’s all about bullets on an OER. Mr. West’s rabid reporting of combat throughout his book makes me wonder if it is Freudian. I have known commanders who become more than pre-orgasmic at the thought of combat.
Mr. West’s perception does not appear contextual with history. If it did he would be demanding – as the American public should be demanding- that we pull all our troops out of Afghanistan immediately. “Credibility” be damned. He identifies THE critical node of the problem in that country multiple times throughout his book without including it as justification for a legitimate recommendation (pulling out)- they are Muslims who hate infidels. We would earn international respect more by determining if it is possible to obtain the moral high ground before any military adventure overseas. But in a morally bankrupt beltway I suppose that is too much to ask.
