If someone had told me I would be making a statement like this from the time I graduated boot camp at MCRD Parris Island in 1969 until our money-saturated, beltway bandit cycloptic response to Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have knocked that person on their “fourth point of contact” (a self-defining paratrooper term). But here we are being led by politicians who have no concept of the art of war, generals who kowtow to the politicians intent on socially engineering the military, and an apparent passive public content with a mercenary military being destroyed from within by domestic enemies. Anyone who believes there is no comparison between Afghanistan and Vietnam is bought and paid for by the PC Department of Defense or one of it’s bloated defense contractors. The 3rd Marine Division landed on the beaches of Danang, Republic of Vietnam ostensibly in response to two North Vietnamese patrol boats attacking U.S. naval ships off the coast of NORTH Vietnam – who were provocating incursive entries into Haiphong harbor. Talk about using a sledgehammer to kill the fly on one’s own forehead. The well-documented rampant corruption of the South Vietnamese government ensured the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces ten-plus years later with over 58,000 American troops killed. Of course, it was a “withdrawal with dignity”. Anything sound familiar yet?
Of course America should have responded to the 9/11 attacks. But it seems our last presidents after Reagan are ignorant of the multiple responses available to what was once the greatest superpower in the world. There are a lot of things I like about the nation of Israel. First, they don’t send anyone to officer candidate school until they’ve proven themselves in a real battle – or on patrols into hostile areas that are very, very close by. If they don’t pass the real world stress test they don’t become an officer. Secondly, remember the Munich Olympics of 1972? The Black September terrorists who took hostage and eventually killed about 13 Israeli Olympic athletes? The Israeli government didn’t invade another country in revenge. They obtained solid HUMINT and sent the right people out to kill all but one of the terrorists. And it didn’t bankrupt their country in the process. In my opinion, SEAL team 6 could have done the same mission killing OBL without invading Afghanistan. I believe a lot of good, hard intel work was done to find him. But I also believe that OBL had outlived his usefulness to the Pakistani powers-that-be (not necessarily the elected president) and they allowed us to take him out. The interesting thing to me since learning of the mission was the Team received no hostile fire from OUTSIDE the compound -where was the Pakistani QRF?….and the power had been turned off in the area surrounding the compound. That took some coordination with Host Nation parties. I wrote an essay shortly after the OBL mission title “It’s the ECONOMY, STUPID!” meaning the source and amount of funds had apparently changed in the hunt for Osama. In fact, I believe we could have killed OBL a: many times if Clinton had authorized it prior to 9/11; b: several times if authorized by G.W. Bush; and c: if we had NOT invaded, continued SF presence, the CIA had not avoided adopting the armed Predator concept. We, the U.S.A., did have the sources and technology to find and kill OBL but Clinton and Bush refused to let it go forward (read the 9/11 Commission Report).
But the reason for my ire today and the title of this blog is news of the most recent of a series of insane Rules of Engagement imposed on our troops in Afghanistan, to whit: our troops are being briefed that their required immediate action drill when fired upon now is “tactical egress”. For civilians that translates into cutting and running – or basically the same thing. We’ve gone from “don’t fire until you see the white’s of their eyes” by Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812, storming the beaches at Guadalcanal, Normandy, and Inchon to withdrawing in the face of enemy fire. In previous wars (and adminstrations) that conduct would be classified as cowardice in the face of the enemy, the offender would be court-martialed and executed by firing squad. How does the chain of command justify to young, highly motivated and patriotic Marines and army infantry that their mission is no longer “to close with and destroy the enemy”?
This policy of “tactical egress” did not pop up out of nowhere. It grew out of a progression of policies that began with retaliation against Al Qaeda for 9/11. Then the mission was to destroy the Taliban. Then the mission was “nation-building” and “exporting democracies” – both obviously impossible to anyone who has been on the ground in any country with no history of such ideals. Now, as our politicians are “negotiating” with Taliban representatives, our troops have been told “if you kill one insurgent you create ten others” (a gross misinterpretation of Sir Robert K. Thompson’s seminal guidebook on counterinsurgency); then they were told to severely limit their use of indirect weapons – artillery and aerial close air support (CAS). This removed two major weapon systems that protected our ground troops. Then they were told they can not conduct night raids – removing another protective shield – the dark of night which our troops excel in. Then an Air Force colonel working in the command center in Kabul (one of hundreds padding their efficiency reports by creating charts and graphs) suggested a “restraint medal”. And, sure enough, within a few weeks a naive, army lieutenant tried to keep treasonous Afghan soldiers from machine-gunning American Rangers in full moonlight was awarded the “restraint medal”. It was called something else but the message was clear.
And in addition to the “tactical egress” our troops are being told they can not fire on white trucks coming to the aid of dead or wounded Taliban guerrillas. These white trucks (of which almost all trucks in AF are white) is not marked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent as required by the Geneva Conventions. Also in violation of the Conventions these trucks are manned by armed men who are also allowed to collect the weapons of the dead or wounded Taliban! Our ground troops are getting the feeling that there next missions will require them leaving the perimeter with no ammo locked and loaded in their weapons – and the zip ties they carry for prisoners will be put on them!
With a DOD’s counterinsurgency policy graph looking like an massive, angry hornet’s nest (typical bloated government concept), Bing West being the Afghan version of a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, and the DOD telling troops they can fill out and submit their absentee voting ballot – but it won’t be sent in- and that military personnel should not vote any way because it is a conflict of interest, it is way past time to pull our troops out of that miasma. Define “victory” however D.C.’s mental masturbation accepts Worries about “America’s credibility” is a beltway excuse for continuing the financial breastfeeding.
I saw a commercial on TV many times before I realized it perfectly symbolized our foreign policy. The commercial shows a group of obviously very tough bikers (because they were unshaven, long-haired, wearing black with sneers on their faces) exiting a road side cafe. They look toward the gas pumps where a man covered in greenbacks drives his bike up to the gas pump. He pays for his gas by pulling some bills off his person…and shaking his head to get the exact change out of his ear. That is America’s foreign policy. It’s time to quit calling our presence in Afghanistan a war. If the moral argument for removing our treasured next generation from danger doesn’t carry enough weight with the American public, maybe an appeal to their pocket book will. Call it a bad investment for taxpayers. Call your congressmen and demand we get out of Afghanistan.
