Will’s Loss of Will on Afghanistan

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?