Time is Not on Our Side
A little over a week ago, a bomb rocked the city of Kabul. As of April 25th, 64 are dead and over 300 were injured. Despite the fact that the target of the attacks was a security team that protects government VIPs, the majority of the victims are reportedly women and children.
In response to the attack, The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, stated:
“Today’s attack shows the insurgents are unable to meet Afghan forces on the battlefield and must resort to these terrorist attacks,”
Similarly, Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack and tweeted this.
“Today’s terrorist attack…clearly shows the enemy’s defeat in face-to-face battle.”
Finally, to further “control” the narrative, the U.S. Embassy in Kabul released the following statement:
“Afghanistan deserves peace and security, not attacks that victimize parents taking their children to school, workers on their morning commute, and people who have stepped forward to help defend their fellow citizens,”
With the continued withdraw of a military presence from Afghanistan, no one should be surprised that soft targets, which used to take the form of military supply convoys in rural Afghanistan, are now Afghan security units inside the Afghan Capital.
The attack came a week after the official start to “Operation Omari” (named after the late Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar) which also coincided with the annual spring offensive AKA the fighting season.
The Taliban described the operation as “[employing] all means at our disposal to bog the enemy down in a war of attrition that lowers the morale of the foreign invaders and their internal armed militias.”
I think this statement perfectly defines what this war, from the Taliban’s perspective, has always been about.
From the very beginning, as U.S. aircraft bombed the hell out of the Taliban, the enemy knew they could never defeat a Western military on the field of battle. Instead, they adopted a strategy that focused on bogging us down, attrition and lowering morale.
Afghan history taught the Taliban that whether it was the Brits, Soviets or Americans, foreign invaders would eventually tire of war and leave.
As an American who has both a reverence for war and military history, I can appreciate the commitment to the enemy’s strategy because it is the same one General George Washington implemented to defeat the British Army during The American Revolutionary War.
The strategy employed by both the Taliban and American revolutionaries is very reminiscent of the approach that Fabius Maximus utilized to defeat Carthaginian general Hannibal during the Second Punic War—dubbed The Fabian Strategy. The Fabian strategy avoided decisive engagements, utilized terrain to nullify the enemy’s superior Cavalry, and focused on softer targets like foraging units.
Of course, I’m not arguing that there was a moral equivalency between American revolutionary soldiers and the Taliban. On the contrary, the Taliban has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no qualms about killing innocent civilians while fighting their war. However, both insurgencies were determined to endure and banked on the enemy’s weariness of battle. I also realize outside support from the French (for American insurgents) and Iran, Pakistan, and foreign Jihadists (for the Taliban) also facilitated in both insurgency’s ability to “go the distance.”
My main point is to highlight that after 15 years, we have the NATO commander in Afghanistan—an American Army General—attempting to underscore that the Taliban’s terrorist attacks are a sign of weakness.
No, it does, however, demonstrate that the insurgency is launching attacks inside an area that was previously considered a hard target and inaccessible in earlier stages of the war.
With all due respect sir, the Taliban is not “unable” to meet Afghan forces on the field of battle; they simply are—strategically—choosing not to. Americans are beyond exhausted with the Afghan war, and the enemy knows it.
Like the British before us, time has become our greatest enemy and their greatest commodity.
Category: Foreign Policy
Very well written, AK… and your closing statement is the truth.
How does one combat an ideology? That is the real dilemma.
I don’t think you can combat an ideology. IMO it can only be embraced or rejected by those who are subjugated to it.
One combats an ideology by rendering its adherents dead.
That would require the subjugated to rise up and fight for their freedom. Don’t see that happening.
This is the precise and only answer. Targeted, unrelenting, and well publicized assassinations, and a zero tolerance policy towards radical Islam.
They want 7th century isolation? Give it to them. Then shrink their safe zones generation by generation, until they’ve nothing left but irradiated dirt.
Sadly, ain’t gonna happen. They’re repopulating Europe and will be a majority there in 2 generations. Europe is dead, Scandinavia will fall next (if not sooner). Russia and China will be there to pick up the pieces and the trade, the US will be arguing over LGBT and lamenting the high cost of fair trade coffee.
I don’t care how many Muslims are wiped out by other Muslims. I’m of the VOV school of thought in that regard. And, of course, the fact that the enemy employs terrorism as its preferred method of warring speaks much more to common sense than to weakness. Even David, when he faced Goliath, was smart enough not to go head up against the big guy. I guess he cheated. No sword. No armor. And the Philistine never saw the one that dropped him.
VOV?
VOV (Veritas Omnia Vincit) is a regular in the comments here, and always worth reading even if you ultimately disagree with his position.
Oh, thanks.
That’s okay. I have no idea who American Kestrel is.
Good article. IMO this war is not worth another American life. I fear the end result will be the same if we left today or stayed 50 years.
And when they get sufficient numbers here, they will use the same strategy here. I hope we have the strength to deal with that, when our time comes.
Time is never a democracy’s ally in war. We should have learned that lesson in Korea and Vietnam.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the “American way of war”–relearning our solutions from previous wars.
The Marines developed a “Small Wars Journal” prior to WWII. A lot of the information the Marines included in that Journal has been rebranded as COIN doctrine and considered “revolutionary.”
http://www.mccdc.marines.mil/Portals/172/Docs/SWCIWID/COIN/Doctrine/FMFRP%2012-15%20Small%20Wars%20Manual.pdf
When I first heard that “a military prepares to fight the war that they just finished” I thought it was funny – then realized it is sadly true, no matter where you go (look at the Russians getting ready for a new Cold War!)If anyone ever come up with a genuinely new way to conduct war-fighting, they will rule the world.
David, history is littered with examples of how tactics and technology have evolved to change the face of conflict in a way that causes existing plans and training to be thrown out the window. Just a few examples include the infantry phalanx, the English longbow, the tank, the machine gun, strategic bombing, and so on.
Somewhere today, there probably actually is an evil genius sitting around trying to figure out how to train sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their frickin’ heads, and just as soon as those shark squadrons are deployed, some other guy will be trying to figure out how to train dolphins to carry shark-seeking torpedoes…
Sure, but sometimes you say things for effect rather than to simply speak truth. If calling them cowards diminishes their ability to recruit, especially among foreign fighters seeking glory, surely this statement is still helpful, even if technically inaccurate?
I agree in principle time (nor politics) is not on our side here, but I’ll give GEN Nicholson a pass for the time being.
That said, what do you feel he should have said instead?
“A great power cannot wait forever.” A paraphrase from the following article. Read the whole thing™
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/how-to-deal-with-hostage-takers-soviet-lessons/
I’ve read that before, actually. For better or worse (better and worse?), though, we operate by different rules than the Soviets did.
I’ll rephrase my question – in terms of what General Nicholson could say with the backing of the US government, what would have been a better option?
I’m all ears, I just don’t think sticking to a message that aims to diminish this notion of rebels fighting bravely for glory is inherently a bad thing.
What is the point – that his comments were going to influence any number of young Afghans/Pakistanis? Collateral deaths from IEDs were going on 12 years ago when I first went to Iraq, were going strong 7 years ago when I went back, and continued in Afghanistan 4 years ago when I signed up for that vacation. To me the general’s comment is sounding an awful lot like COL Summer’s comment about never be defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam, and the response of his counterpart from the NVA. Whistling past the graveyard – apparently we didn’t learn anything from the past 50 years.
Ha, but it’s much easier to be critical of a flag officer than to offer any alternate solutions.
I think a GO probably has to respond to such an event. However, if pressed for clarification, I would add two points:
First, only crazy people believe that the ANSF can offer the Taliban a good fight. So, I would disagree with his claim that the Taliban is “unable to meet Afghan forces on the battlefield.”
Second, if every Afghan civilian, military member, government official, NATO military member, and foreign government worker knows the ANSF is hot garbage, who exactly is this statement meant for?
I doubt the GO was seeking to discourage recruitment efforts of future suicidal maniacs.
I suppose the GO’s audience was low-information Americans, and he was attempting to put a positive spin on the war–which is currently circling the drain.
Ha, time to trade your cynicism for my own:
I don’t think most Americans will ever hear his words or care to listen, not in any large numbers at any rate. Not when they can instead tune in to the latest about the Kardashians, get angry on both sides about restroom laws, etc.
I guess until we get to ask him, and he’s retired and can speak freely, we can only speculate. For me, trying to put a positive spin on a war most Americans don’t pay any attention to is less likely than insulting terrorists to diminish recruitment capability (every bit helps!) and, possibly, encourage them towards direct-action where, ANSF foibles aside, we typically have a strong advantage.
“Delay in the use of force, and hesitation to accept responsibility for its employment when the situation clearly demands it, will always be interpreted as a weakness. Such indecision will encourage further
disorder, and will eventually necessitate measures more severe than those which would have sufficed in the first instance.”
We have a current government and I believe population that will not kill the enemy. Half measures will avail us nothing. We have allowed a predictable chain of events to go on.
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. – George Washington
“Today’s attack shows the insurgents are unable to meet Afghan forces on the battlefield and must resort to these terrorist attacks,”
A U.S. four star actually said that? Guess so. That must be great comfort to the nearly 400 dead or wounded.
Yes, VOV has it right. Kill them all and then kill their adulterous goat.
Am I the only one tired of ‘Twitter-Leadership’?
That’s funny. It’s a natural outflow of the sound bite. The difference is that the tweeter has control of the 16 words.No,
You have two statements that say essentially the same thing: In response to the attack, The commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, stated: “Today’s attack shows the insurgents are unable to meet Afghan forces on the battlefield and must resort to these terrorist attacks.” Similarly, Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani condemned the attack and tweeted this. “Today’s terrorist attack…clearly shows the enemy’s defeat in face-to-face battle.” What does it take for any of you, including those two officials, to understand that the Taliban has no interest in engaging in a shooting war? Never did, in fact. Under another name, they held the Brits at bay in the 19th century in the Khyber Pass. They shoved the Soviets right back where they came from and drove the USSR in to bankruptcy in the process. As has been pointed out, the US engaged in guerrilla warfare against England in the 18th century and pushed the Brits back home – twice. Cornwallis resigned the field out of sheer weariness. The VC did the same thing to the French and the US in what used to be French Indochina when I was in high school, and then became Vietnam. So what does it take to understand that if you want to win against this ragtag polyglot of fanatics who want to own the turf they sit on now, you have to either bomb the shit out of them or use their own tactics against them? How much money are you willing to spend on it? And would constant bombing really have any effect in that terrain? (I don’t think so, personally.) Go bomb the shit out of the Khyber Pass, for Pete’s sake, and make it useless for everyone to use PERMANENTLY. Find the basterds who run the game and bump them off and all of their sycophants and anyone else who lines up with them. Drag their useless corpses through the streets of the cities they try to destroy. Whatever it takes, do to them what they want to do to the rest of the world and make it… Read more »
Kill them and bury them with a pig carcass. Not PC? Yeah, well, this is my facial expression when I don’t give much of a crap about PC. We may end up dragging this crap out for another decade before throwing in the towel and issue a statement claiming victory or ‘peace with honor’ or some such bullshittery.
Cornwallis was beaten like a rented mule at Yorktown. Surrounded by French and American artillery on the land side, and blocked by a French fleet on the water side, he was about to be pounded into rubble that bounces. His being tired didn’t have much to do with it. Nor was it the defeat of the bulk of British forces in America which were still intact under Cornwallis’ boss Henry Clinton in New York City.
If anybody was tired, it was the opposition to the Crown in the British Parliament who saw the war as a financial drain with no reasonable expectation of payback. It might also be pointed out that taxation of the colonials was mostly what started the conflict in the first place. Follow the money.
My own view is that the reason to go war used to be to either acquire or defend stuff. If you were commanding an invading army, the reward you offered your troops was rape, pillage, and plunder. Haul off the hot women, steal the horses, loot the valuables. Now that we live in more civilized times, the reasons for conflict have changed to the extent that it’s not always clear what the goal is. Why, for example, would we ever want Afghanistan? In the past 15 years, has anybody ever said, “Wouldn’t it be cool to have a condo in Kabul?” I don’t think so.
Well, Perry, how many more attacks on American or European soil will it take before people say ‘Enough!’??
As it stands now, the more ‘civilized’ we appear to be, the weaker we also seem to be. It’s not a matter of wanting Afghanistan as much as it is a matter of telling the Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS to back off or suffer the consequences.
They are nothing but bullies, and to them, we are easy pickings. This is why a standard shooting war will not work to stop them, IMHO.
We’re on the same page, Ex. It seems to me, I’ve said it before, that our goal should be to make every Taliban, al Qaeda and ISIS MFer pee his pants whenever he hears the sound of our name. And I’m not talking about just the delusional suicide bombers among the jihadists, but also the mullahs who send them off to do what they do. Things are the way they are because they don’t fear us.
What also doesn’t make sense is that there is no apparent effort to get a financial payback for our blood spilled even when one presents itself. It’s baffling, for example, why the Chinese have a current lock on Afghanistan’s rare earth mineral franchise. Rare earth minerals, you might remember, are a critical component in emergent battery technology which will become even more important as technology moves further away from strict dependence on fossil fuels. It can be seen as a missed opportunity on our part.
In regard to rare earth minerals, China (so far) has the largest proven reserves, although the US is right behind and could supply the tech industry for 280 years if mines in California and Florida were opened.
Proven reserves (USGS):
Rare earth minerals occur in the form of bastnaesite, monazite and xenotime and some other minerals. As shown in the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, February 2014, REE reserves worldwide total 140 million tonnes. They are distributed mainly in China (55 million tonnes), the United States (13 million tonnes), India (3.1 million tonnes), Australia (2.1 million tonnes), Brazil (2.2 million tonnes), Malaysia (30,000 tonnes), Russia, Egypt, Canada, South Africa and other countries.
The original data on reserves is as follows:
REE reserves-USGS-2014
Source:Rare earths-U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, February 2014
The data which appeared in “The Rare Earth Situation and Policy of China” (2012) is different from that of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and it is said the reserves in China account for 23% of the worldwide total, which in 2009 was equivalent to 18.59 million tonnes.
Afghanistan’s reserves are estimated, not proven and are mostly sitting under an extinct volcano. Until or unless the idiocy going in the Middle East in general is resolved, none of what Afghanistan has matters. If that were mined, it would only provide a supply for 10 years. The Chinese have a much larger proven reserve of rare earth minerals than any other country, and they can lock up a deal with Afghanistan, but it’s rather useless if they can’t get to it.
Here’s a link to the entire article.
http://metalpedia.asianmetal.com/metal/rare_earth/resources&production.shtml
There have been so many different ways for us to have engaged this enemy in this conflict and every damn thing we have done has been for not.
Skippy,
Sorry to be the GrammerNazi, but that’s “naught”.
Think of it as improving your vocabulary.
Roger ??
Or maybe Skippy could have said ‘for not engaging the enemy’. Just a suggestion.