Warlogs
 

So the [URL="http://wikileaks.org"]Wikileaks[/URL]' release of over 90,000 classified documents happened yesterday. They released this material to the [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jul/26/n.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs"]Guardian[/URL], the [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html"]New York Times[/URL] and the German news magazine [URL="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html"]Der Spiegel[/URL] a few weeks ago and all three have published the logs and commentary on them. It is interesting that the reporting slant of the three organizations differs so much. NYT focusses on the role of Pakistan, The Guardian on the extra-judicial killings, the murder of civilians and the general lawlessness with which the war continues to be conducted by Obama as with Bush before and Der Spiegel on how badly the war is going and the difference between reality and US propaganda which the MSM is swallowing whole. But one thing is clear from all the reporting: The whole thing is a disaster.

From the Guardian (note they disagree with me on where the emphasis of their reporting is):
[quote]Each of the news organisations has a slightly different take on the files.
For the Guardian the files [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-guardian-editorial"]reveal the futility of the conflict and the current strategy[/URL].[INDENT] However you cut it, this is not an Afghanistan that either the US or Britain is about to hand over gift-wrapped with pink ribbons to a sovereign national government in Kabul. Quite the contrary. After nine years of warfare, the chaos threatens to overwhelm. A war fought ostensibly for the hearts and minds of Afghans cannot be won like this.
[/INDENT][URL="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html"]Der Spiegel [/URL]says: "Never before has it been possible to compare the reality on the battlefield in such a detailed manner with what the US Army propaganda machinery is propagating."
It adds that they show "The German army was clueless and naïve when it stumbled into the conflict."
The New York Times focuses on what the documents reveal about the role of Pakistan's security service in directing the Afghan insurgency.
"The documents suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders," its top stoy on the leaks says.
[/quote]PS: The Obama administration is out with its usual rubbish of how the release of documents is illegal and terrible and anyway we have changed our strategy. Like it is going to make any difference!

Great commentary from Jay Rosen at NYU school of journalism.
[url]http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html[/url]

[QUOTE]The [URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40204.html"]initial response[/URL] from the White House was extremely unimpressive: [LIST][*]This leak will harm national security. (As if those words still had some kind of magical power, after all the abuse they have been party to.)[/LIST] [LIST][*]There’s nothing new here. (Then how could the release harm national security?)[/LIST] [LIST][*]Wikileaks is irresponsible; they didn’t even try to contact us! (Hold on: [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-10/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-hunted-by-pentagon-over-massive-leak/"]you’re hunting the guy down[/URL] and you’re outraged that he didn’t contact you?)[/LIST] [LIST][*]Wikileaks is against the war in Afghanistan; they’re not an objective news source. (So does that mean the documents they published are fake?)[/LIST] [LIST][*]“The period of time covered in these documents… is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.” (Okay, so now we too know the basis for the President’s decision: and that’s a bad thing?)[/LIST][/QUOTE]

I'll tell you the one thing most truly harmful to national security, and it ain't leaked wartime writings, memos and videos: It's fighting a neverending series of [1] poorly defined, [2] trumped-up or [3] flat-out unwinnable wars all over the globe.

Afghanistan is likely [1] and possibly also [2], but I have become convinced that it is unwinnable, for the combination of the following reasons:

1. You are fighting a diffuse religious/political/military movement which specializes in guerrilla tactics, destabilization and intimidation rather than a standing army;

2. Said movement has substantial support among much of the country`s populace;

3. Said movement consists of loose-knit bands of local militias and foreign fighters who have joined the cause - most of these folks can easily blend into the local populace at a moment's notice;

4. Said movement is not limited by any rules of engagement - the only practical restraint is to not do anything so unbelievably atrocious to the local populations that would engender mass odium against your cause [and even when you do such, most of the time you can deflect criticism by blaming the Americans].

5. Said movement is also keenly aware of the limitations of the coalition forces in this regard, and knows that the coalition is unwilling to bring to bear the kind of overwhelming military force (and to suffer the kinds of casualties that would accompany such escalation) which would be needed to give a chance - only a chance, mind you - of winning. ["Winning" here defined as "finishing said movement as a political and fighting force for the foreseeable future"];

6. Said movement has a more-or-less permanent safe haven across the border in Pakistan;

7. We are fighting far from our home base, in a cultural milieu which is radically different from ours, on the enemy's home turf, home turf which is ideal for fighting guerrilla wars of attrition against invaders;

8. Our "allies" in the region are so feckless and corrupt that militarily they are at best useless, and our continuing support for them makes it impossible to win the crucial "hearts and minds" aspect of the conflict;

9. Being unable to win hearts and minds, the coalition has resorted to trying to "buy rifles", and much of the resulting flood of money is finding its way to the very folks it is intended to help defeat;

10. Our enemies know - in no small part because we have told them - that our effort is highly time-limited, whereas they have all the time in the world. They just need to hold out a few years longer and victory will be theirs.

In the long history of organized warfare, no military power has *ever* succeeded against such odds.

Time to cut our losses, folks - yes of course we need to do it in such a way that does not simply abandon the country to its fate (as we did after the Soviets pulled out - the ensuing debacle is one of the big reasons no one there trusts the U.S.) - but we need to find some reasonable way to semi-plausibly declare "mission accomplished" and get out. If that means some unsavory alliances with local tribal leaders (say by assuring them that their poppy harvest is safe) which will induce them to keep the Taliban in check and allow foreign aid organizations to operate in relative safety (thus preserving some non-atrocious level of human rights,especially for Afghan girls and women), so be it. Better to support the local crooks and profiteers (who at least have some power over what goes on in their respective back yards) than a mega-corrupt and completely useless central government.

IMO, letting Karzai steal the last election was the beginning of the end.

[quote=ewmayer;222908]In the long history of organized warfare, no military power has *ever* succeeded against such odds.[/quote]Not true, IMAO.

Counterexample: Rome.

The countries of the over-developed world simply do not have the ruthlessness the Romans showed to the like of the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes.

Carthago delenda erat...

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;222922]Not true, IMAO.

Counterexample: Rome.

The countries of the over-developed world simply do not have the ruthlessness the Romans showed to the like of the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes[/QUOTE]

Re-read my point [5] ... I meant that once "absolute ruthlessness" is ruled out as an option, the odds against winning a conflict against a foe who is not similarly constrained go up substantially.

----------------

Not sure if Garo has posted it elsewhere, but back in June [i]The New Yorker[/i] ran a nice piece on the people behind WikiLeaks:

[url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian]No Secrets[/url]: [i]Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency.[/i]

[QUOTE=garo;222895]Great commentary from Jay Rosen at NYU school of journalism.
[url]http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html[/url][/QUOTE]

How many here remember Tricky Dick's grossly illegal bombing of Cambodia
while lying about it to the American public???

The worst threat to America is a bureaucratic secrecy. When governments
keep secrets from its own populace, especially embarassing secrets, the
result is criminal behavior and tyranny from our leaders.

The leaking of these documents is surely an excellent thing for true
democracy. Maybe the American public will demand accountability for
the running of the wars. Maybe we will demand that we get the hell
out of there. And I don't care a rat's ass for what happens to the
citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's their country! Let them solve
their own problems. My concern is for the lives of our soldiers who
are fighting a hopeless cause and for the resources and money we are wasting.

[QUOTE=xilman;222922]Not true, IMAO.

Counterexample: Rome.

The countries of the over-developed world simply do not have the ruthlessness the Romans showed to the like of the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic tribes.

Carthago delenda erat...

Paul[/QUOTE]

Sure, we could win a war against Iraq and Afghanistan. But only by
behaving like total barbarians. Such a war would cost the lives of
millions of civilians. Think 'Dresden'. 'Hamburg', etc.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;222950] Maybe we will demand that we get the hell
out of there. And I don't care a rat's ass for what happens to the
citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's their country! Let them solve
their own problems. [/QUOTE]

Seems like they attempted before. Which caused similar embitterment as with Germany after WWI.

[QUOTE=ewmayer]Time to cut our losses, folks - yes of course we need to do it in such a way that does not simply abandon the country to its fate (as we did after the Soviets pulled out - the ensuing debacle is one of the big reasons no one there trusts the U.S.) [/QUOTE]

Also R.D. Silverman when does intervention need to take place when a country tries to solve their own problems? E.g. Dafur, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda, and sadly the list goes on.

I agree that the war is unwinnable. But it needn't have been that. The returns for the blood and treasure put in have been really really bad. The reasons in no particular order are:

1. The standard US cold-war model of uprooting one ruler and replacing him with a compliant puppet could not have worked in Afghanistan. The country was utterly fragmented after 15 years of civil war. There was way too much weaponry floating about.

2. Utter disregard for civilian casualties. If your objective is to win hearts and minds you don't go about casually lobbing bombs and rockets at groups of 100+ civilians. Poorly trained and undisciplined soldiers (yeah I know I know, don't give me the bull about world class training and best trained soldiers. If anything the logs clearly show that soldiers are as fallible as the rest of us) who committed many atrocities out of revenge, fear or just plain sadism.

3. Use of airpower and drones as a short cut. Yes it reduces casualties on your side but it alienates the local population like nothing else. There are literally thousands of families in Afghanistan today who had an innocent relative murdered by the ISAF. They are not going to like you and not going to help you. Many of them will actively try their best to defeat you by helping kill your soldiers.

4. Pakistan.

5. The creeping privatization and contracting out of combat and espionage work. Private mercenaries are out there to make money. They are not out there to help win the war quickly. Because once the war is won, their job is finished.

BTW, note that I am not singling out US troops here. All ISAF troops have behaved badly, be they Polish soldiers who mortared a weddng party in revenge or French troops who strafed a bus carrying school girls for no apparent reason or British troops who allegedly targeted a governer's son. Certain section in the US and UK are claiming that our troops are the best trained and don't indulge in this kind of stuff but the sad truth is that troops from all countries have done horrible stuff to innocent Afghans.

[QUOTE=garo;222980]but the sad truth is that troops from all countries have done horrible stuff to innocent Afghans.[/QUOTE]

Would these be the same "innocents" who cheered when 9/11 happened?

[QUOTE=Mathew Steine;222979]Seems like they attempted before. Which caused similar embitterment as with Germany after WWI.



Also R.D. Silverman when does intervention need to take place when a country tries to solve their own problems? E.g. Dafur, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda, and sadly the list goes on.[/QUOTE]

The U.S. can not be the world's policeman and it is about time that we
stopped trying.

Intervention, when it needs to happen, needs to be done under the
fully unified backing of the U.N. And I mean including participation
by all.


I have yet to even hear a cogent objective for the Afghanistan war.
Expecting that a fully humane internal government can be set up is
fantasy.