Understanding Afghanistan

Posted by Grant Muioc on 09.12.2009

The Spook steps out of the shadows and joins 411mania. President Obama's next big problem is the War on Terror. Find out why Iraq is important, and Afghanistan is becoming a problem. It's time to understand Afghanistan. Click the button and join the debate.

I'll save introductions for a later post, but I am the guy who is known as "The Spook"- thanks Ashish for letting me on the team. We can get real political next time, for now let's talk about why we are at war. To all the commenters- Bring your worst.

I've been out of the military less then a year.

9/11 has come again and with it the memories of the events that changed the United States. Once again we have dipshits like Charlie Sheen who think that our own government had something to do with those events- like the same government that can't have a simple debate about healthcare somehow kept 9/11 a secret and they all agreed on it. I was in college when 9/11 happened, and I joined the military within a month to kick someone's ass. I never got the chance to go and fight the Taliban right away, instead another war kicked off while I was in training. A few months later I went to Iraq instead. It never clicked why- the reasons why we went made little sense at the time, but they do now.

When I was in Iraq in 2004 I understood why I was there: To stabilize the fledgling government. In 2005, it was to ensure a peaceful election. Then it was to train Iraqi military and police officers to take my job so that I don't ever have to come back; these are just some of the reasons why US warfighters are still in Iraq. These are objectives that can be reached, that have been reached- and that is why that war will be won.

I've only been to Afghanistan to wage war. There was no other objective at the time.

The problem with Afghanistan is that it is what Richard N. Haass called a "War of Necessity". The only reason why we went to that country was to kill people in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Iraq is different: It's a "War of Choice" (Haass). It has been planned, executed, and run like a long-term mission. It has not always been run to the best of the government or the military's ability, but it has been run with clear purpose. We went to establish a Democracy inside the Middle-East. Not for oil, not for profit, not for revenge, but to stabilize a region of the world that is home to those who hate us. The same reasons why we turned Japan, Germany, and Italy into Democracies, we did it for security. Democracies don't usually attack other Democracies. If anyone wants to argue that point then look throughout the history of warfare, it rarely happens.

For nearly eight years the war in Iraq has been prepped, and conditioned for that purpose. It has been built upon for decades earlier during the Gulf War by President George H. W. Bush in the early 90's, further by Clinton with the Desert Fox operation of the late 90's, and fully realized under the Presidency of George W. Bush. Since the latest invasion eight years ago, not a single day has been wasted towards realizing this goal.

From a strategic standpoint Iraq is the key to the entire Middle-East. We would have been fools not to invade when the opportunity presented itself. The oil alone makes the whole ordeal worth it, considering that oil will be the next thing the world fights over (outside of water, but that is another story). Iraq borders the Kingdom of Saud, longtime potential adversaries Iran and Syria, it is within striking distance of Yemen, Egypt and Palestine should the need arise. Iraq also shares a border with an important US/NATO ally, Turkey. It also borders allies Jordon, UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait.

The people are even more complicated, but I always liked Iraqis. Iraqis always stuck me as capitalist more than religious zealots. They understood how they fit in within the world. Iraq up until they decided to invade Kuwait was a modern country and in many ways they still are. Find me an Iraqi without a cell phone or internet connection and I'll give you fifty cents. Iraq has always been more about substance over religion, a perfect fit for any western takeover. Just simply pay all the sides to stay on the sidelines and focus on killing the insurgents- that's just what we did and it has won the war. The surge helped, but the real weapon of mass destruction is money. In ten years Americans will be thankful that Iraq was taken down and replaced with something more closely representing a 51st state located in the heart of Islamic lands. But all of this only happened because Iraq was a "War of Choice".

Afghanistan on the other hand is the complete opposite. It has never existed as anything other than a piece of land to be conquered or fought over. It has nothing of value outside of being a gateway into the Middle-East or Southern Asia. There is no real reason to be there. Hell, Afghans don't even know why they are there half the time.

Afghanistan borders Iran and Pakistan. Both countries are poised to be the next areas we are drawn into, both due to the threat of nuclear proliferation into the hands of people who would actually use them against us. Strategically, Afghanistan is important but there are too many problems. The primary problem is that Iran and Pakistan are not Afghanistan- and if we are not willing to go to those places, then Afghanistan is worthless as a staging area. The second problem is that Afghanistan is poorly conditioned to support any military operations. Logistically, Afghanistan is a nightmare, it has all the security problems of Iraq and none of the major roads, airports, seaports or logistics hubs to support a full campaign.

Tactically Afghanistan poses problems for any commander. Its terrain alone makes staging warfighters nearly impossible- especially armored units, which the US and NATO allies are heavily dependent on to win any major war. The mountains cause communications problems. The uneven terrain provides poor lines of sight for artillery fire or close air support. The problem is with Afghanistan in general. Iraq has always been easy tactically- it's pretty much flat and ideal for mass movements of armor supported by air and artillery, Afghanistan is the complete opposite.

And all of that exposition brings us to the real problem: The people of Afghanistan. A backwaters group of dirty fighters that have no concept of modern government- shit, they don't even realize they are in Afghanistan half the time. The problem that Obama faces is that he is trying to turn a "War of Necessity" into a "War of Choice". Before we send over another 13,000 warfighters it would be important to understand "why". We can continue to kill terrorists without the added help and with fewer casualties by keeping our stake low. There is no reason to build a country from the ground up- I don't think we could do it without sending a few hundred thousand warfighters. Not that any amount of US warfighters matters because there isn't a military to train in Afghanistan, there isn't a State Department or functioning government …nothing exists. Dammit, they don't even understand economics so our biggest, baddest weapon the almighty dollar is practically ineffective.

Afghanistan has always been the start of something much larger. It has never been called the War in Afghanistan; it was the start of the War on Terror. Winning in Afghanistan is not vital to winning that war. The only thing that matters is bombing terrorist training camps and denying them a place to sleep. In Iraq there existed major infrastructure, none of which exist in Afghanistan, and the only export that they have is opium. There is nothing to build on.

If President Obama really wants to make strides in Afghanistan then he should take the chains off the dogs and wage a war. He needs to have a clear goal and large pocket book. Destroy anything that looks opposing, and anything that can be rebuilt. The other option is do continue to do what everyone else in Afghanistan has done- nothing. Find targets, drop a bomb, and then call it a day. Our objectives for the War on Terror sit in other countries- Afghanistan was simply a bitch slap for those who attacked us, but hardly a knock-out blow. Countries like Yemen, Somalia, and Djibouti are growing as threats that nobody recognizes. Iran will have a nuclear bomb soon, and Russian support. The key to the entire Middle-East and the security interests of the United States lie in Iraq, not Afghanistan. At this point killing Osama Bin Laden, while pleasurable, would probably martyr him to his followers.

Obama would be well suited to think rationally about an irrational war. The choice he is currently pursing is not the wisest. History has shown us that the people in Afghanistan can't be convinced to be anything other than the people in Afghanistan. They don't want change. Obama must avoid escalation of commitment just because he thinks it's a good idea- many people within the military probably think otherwise. Most importantly the critics of the war in Iraq have failed to grasp its importance, while hanging tightly to unimportance of Afghanistan, this bias is based out of political hatred for all things Bush- and have no military merit.

9/11 should remind us that we were attacked. The War in Iraq should remind us we can win (despite political disagreements and controversy). Afghanistan that should remind us that winning a war includes more than the number of troops on the battlefield, there needs to be a reason to be there. President Obama needs to be reminded of what that reason is. Obama can't build a country without fighting a real war and I don't know if he wants to do that.

Thanks for reading, next time: Rep. Joe Wilson is he a dick or is he right about Obama?...it's time to let the conservatives loose on 411mania!