Fractious Factions and the Cost of Waging War

Starting with the Vietnam War, the United States has had a perilous time when it has committed serious troops to conflicts where some semblances of civil war or fractious and seemingly irreconcilable groups occupy the national stage. This is more particularly evident in countries where the elements are driven by philosophical or religious “purity” and are willing to fight generations if necessary to stake their claim. Tribalism doesn’t help either. We literally got blown away in Vietnam as the communist insurgency (the Viet Cong) – backed heavily by North Vietnamese regulars – tangled with the pro-Western, anti-communist and profoundly corrupt forces backed by the United States… ultimately making the war a lose-lose for “our side.”

Iraq was no better as we stepped into a nation with Western-imposed artificial boundaries that shoved Kurds, Shiites (the majority) and Sunnis into a hateful mix that was further complicated by the distribution of plump oil fields in often difficult strategic regions. The constant news about car bombs and other malevolent explosions in places like Baghdad, attacks across religious boundaries and the like… well, if you think we “liberated” an oppressed people and placed them into a functional and harmonious nation-state, think again. Iraq, as our troops extract, is a mess.

Afghanistan is another mess that we literally cannot win. For starters, this is a regional conflict with much of the negative fuel coming from places where are troops cannot operate – like our purported ally, Pakistan, where the electorate equates American policies to a mandate from hell. If you haven’t noticed, not only are there language differences within this central Asian “country,” but there is severe tribalism, with various districts literally owing their allegiance to warlords and strong-men who love weapons, power and money. The U.S. set up a government, now festering under the notorious and mega-corrupt Hamid Karzai regime, which has itself lost faith in the NATO (read: U.S.) military support that continues to suck dollars out of our seriously impaired economy with absolutely no sign of meaningful progress.

Reading the writing on the wall, Karzai is sending feelers (with the aid of Pakistan) to the profoundly anti-American Taliban just as our new military commander in the region, General David Petraeus , is arming locals to defend against Taliban incursions. Just what the region needs: more guns. Indeed, NATO leaders are even coming to the belief that a power-sharing arrangement between the Taliban and Karzai may actually be the only solution (trust me, there are no solutions) to a peaceful future in the country.

And exactly what kind of a reaction would you expect from local tribal leaders to this potential challenge to their local autonomy? Exactly. “The man [Amarullah Saleh] who served as President Hamid Karzai's top intelligence official for six years has launched an urgent campaign to warn Afghans that their leader has lost conviction in the fight against the Taliban and is recklessly pursuing a political deal with insurgents… That view is shared by a growing number of Afghan minority leaders who once participated fully in Karzai's government, but now feel alienated from it. Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek politicians have expressed increasing concern that they are being marginalized by Karzai and his efforts to strike a peace deal with his fellow Pashtuns in the insurgency.” Washington Post (July 23^rd)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is becoming increasingly clear that the United States simply cannot afford such prolonged and unwinnable wars… or the military budget required to wage them. It would be much cheaper to spend money on history books so that our “deciders” can actually see how history has punished other “foreign” incursions into these very same regions in the past before they commit to defy the lessons of such struggles. Blank checks to the military are no longer sustainable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is looking for ways to trim his budget, but the elephant in the room is the massive deployment of U.S. forces in interminable overseas campaigns that cannot be won.

“[I]n the longer term, with concern mounting about the government’s $13 trillion debt, a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission is warning that cuts in military spending could be needed to help the nation dig out of its financial hole… ‘We’re going to have to take a hard look at defense if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction,’ said Erskine B. Bowles, a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton who is a co-chairman of the deficit commission. Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire who is also on the debt commission, said that if the panel pushes for cuts in discretionary spending, ‘defense should be looked at,’ perhaps through another base-closing commission.” New York Times (July 23^rd). Hit the “easy button,” Mr. Gregg; stop fighting wars history tells you clearly cannot be won.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the lack of leadership in Washington is abundantly clear as our elected officials now seem always to defy common sense to appeal to the momentary emotionalism of their electorate.