For decades, George Will has been one of the most thoughtful voices in the conservative movement. In his column today, however, he shows a surprisingly lack of prudence by calling for the withdrawal of troops from the mainland of Afghanistan to the coastline, a flawed strategy and a complete repudiation of counterinsurgency doctrine:
U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000 to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
At Commentary magazine’s blog, Peter Werner notes that Will’s change of heart on Afghanistan and Iraq appears to be based more on emotion and war-weariness than on actual events or national security interests:
Here is a disturbing fact to ponder: If George Will were commander in chief, we would, under his leadership, have begun and lost two wars of enormous consequence. The damage to America — militarily, geopolitically, and morally — would be staggering. The boon to militant Islam — militarily, geopolitically, and in terms of morale — would be incalculable. Yet nowhere in his most recent column does Will even begin to grapple with what surrender in Afghanistan would mean — to that country, to Pakistan, to jihadists around the world, to confidence in America’s word and will, and to our national-security interests. And while Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a very difficult undertaking, declaring defeat at this stage is unwarranted and terribly unwise. If General David Petraeus thinks the task is hopeless, then I will take a hard second look at the war. But if George Will declares it hopeless, I will simply take a hard second look at his record.
As the Marine Corps manual on Warfighting (pg. 3) states, “The essence of war is a violent struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other.” The war in Afghanistan is being fought not because the U.S. wanted to arbitrarily impose our will upon another country but because a radical religious faction believes that our way of life is evil and that the best approach to our destruction is asymmetric warfare against innocent civilians. Though we didn’t ask for this war, the only way we can win it is to impose our will upon the enemy—an enemy whose strategic timeline is based on decades and centuries rather than months and years.
How long can our nation stand when even men like George Will lack the fortitude to outlast such enemies?
September 1st, 2009 | 10:58 am
Mr. Carter must remember that our own American fight for independence from Britain was a conflict of irregular warfare in which the army of the Continental Congress wore down the will of its enemy. In no way am I comparing our struggle with that of the Taliban, but the tactics are very similar; maybe someone in Afghanistan knows American history as well as, or maybe even better, than we do. Mr. Will is an intelligent person; he has a valid point.
September 1st, 2009 | 11:20 am
A minor quibble: Afghanistan is landlocked and therefore has no coastline. I think Will means to say we should get out and make relatively minor ad hoc reinsertions from whatever location.
To your major point: You ask “How long can our nation stand when even men like George Will lack the fortitude to outlast such enemies? You put your finger on the fundamental problem of democracy. The great mass of people want to avoid pain at all costs and cannot see beyond the end of their noses. If our leaders hook our foreign policy onto that attitude, you will get the actions advocated by Will in his column.
This nation’s founders recognized this problem and did they best they could to de-couple policy from the whims of the masses by means such as longer terms in the Senate, indirect election of senators (until the misguided 17th amendment was ratified), indirect to the point of oblique election of the executive (which never really worked as planned), etc.
Most of these devices worked to some extent to insulate our leaders from the passions of the electorate (except in the House, which was always intended to be the people’s body). But nowadays we have permanent campaigns in the House, semi-permanent campaigns in the Senate, daily polls, a 24/7 news cycle, and government by focus group in the White House, all of which erode our leaders’ ability to resist those passions.
Another example: Everyone paying attention knows this nation is heading for a financial train wreck. The strain on social security and Medicare brought about by the retirement of the boomers combined with the multi-trillion dollar deficits predicted as far as the eye can see will, within the next 10 to 15 years, cause a financial crisis in this country that will make 2008 and even 1929 look like a walk in the park. But our leaders stand paralyzed like a deer in the headlights watching the crisis come are unable/unwilling to make the most feeble effort to aver it.
The answer to your question: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
September 1st, 2009 | 11:20 am
Just war theory requires that one have a reasonable probability of victory, otherwise you are just throwing away lives. We need more data to determine this rather than some inspirational words about “willpower”. Willpower alone will not suspend the laws of physics if I chose to bash my way through a brick wall with my forehead.
Similarly, the willpower of American pundits– whether for or against any given war–will not somehow make it easier for those actually dying in a conflict in a region that has seen chronic warfare for decades, and which harbors grudges that may predate the founding of our republic.
So let’s get beyond these ad hominem considerations and address the meat of Mr. Will’s column: what do we want to achieve in Afghanistan? They just had an election–was that good enough for us to go, or do they have to elect the right people before we can withdraw? Who are these people, and do they have to accomplish anything before we can call it a victory and go home?
Is a conventional military deployment the best method available for us? Would a more unconventional approach, perhaps even using the constitutional powers to write letters of marque and reprisal to outfit units better capable of blending in and selectively targeting Taliban and Al-Qaeda elite?
September 1st, 2009 | 11:23 am
William: Mr. Carter must remember that our own American fight for independence from Britain was a conflict of irregular warfare in which the army of the Continental Congress wore down the will of its enemy.
There are two clear lessons of history that apply here: (1) It almost always takes at least 15 years to defeat an insurgency, and (2) America’s loss of will dives considerably after four years of war.
Sadly, the take away is that any country that is willing to go to war with us for more than five years will likely win in the end.
September 1st, 2009 | 8:34 pm
“How long can our nation stand when even men like George Will lack the fortitude to outlast such enemies?”
You may be over-estimating the caliber of “even men like George Will,” but even so, the lack of fortitude you decry may prove the undoing of the West. The jihad overpowered Gothic Iberia ina blitzkrieg; but the Spanish and Portuguese had the fortitude to reconquer their country over 7 centuries — more than twice as long as our Nation has existed. Yet today, the Spanish are falling over themselves in their rush to surrender and abase themselves before terrorists who make the re-enslavement of Iberia one of the main war aims of their ideal Caliphate.
The first foreign war fought by the United States was against jihadi terrorists — the “Barbary pirates” of Tripoli. Let us pray that we Americans will show as much resolution now as Stephen Decatur did then.
September 2nd, 2009 | 10:55 am
Mr. Carter: “Sadly, the take away is that any country that is willing to go to war with us for more than five years will likely win in the end.”
I do not understand why you consider the Taliban at war with “us.” Have they declared war against the US? Did I miss that somewhere? It seems to me that we inserted ourselves into a conflict that was not against “us.” They are fighting “us” only because we are there. Vietnam, anyone?
It seems that we could become perpetually fighting an insurgeny somewhere in the world. When would it ever end? Must we settle for our troops being engaged “somewhere” forever. Are we at 1984 yet?
September 2nd, 2009 | 12:46 pm
[...] Carter has already commented on George’s Will’s “lack of will” on Afghanistan. On the whole Joe is right: Will’s proposal would amount to nothing less [...]
September 6th, 2009 | 3:17 pm
The 31st Commandant has read that column and has seen fit to comment on it in a letter written to Mr George Will. In it he states “I am in total agreement with you”. Here is the letter and let’s see who now will be first to step up and call the Commandant of the USMC
a coward
http://abcnews.go.com/images/ThisWeek/Krulak_letter2.pdf
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact