As America's longest war drags on, and on, and on.... the two operative phrases seem to be " still a long way to go" and "taking longer than expected." In Marja (McChrystal's "bleeding ulcer") :
In the time President Obama has given them or ever, it appears.
In Kandahar:
There's also some backpedaling on the importance of Kandahar. In March:
"Only one part of the equation?" Derrick Crowe at Newshoggers has this chart from the Pentagon's most recent Afghanistan report to Congress:
So which is it? Meanwhile the casualties mount, 23 Americans killed so far this month. And suicide and attempted suicide rates in every branch of the military are at all-time highs.
How much longer? How much more blood and treasure are we going to pour into this Graveyard of Empires? How long before we realize that this country that's not really a country but just an area on the map with lines drawn around it is an unwinnable, unfixable quagmire? How long before we stop repeating history and learn from it?
Nobody seems to know.
"Residents of this onetime Taliban sanctuary see signs that the insurgents have regained momentum in recent weeks, despite early claims of success by U.S. Marines. The longer-than-expected effort to secure Marja is prompting alarm among top American commanders that they will not be able to change the course of the war in the time President Obama has given them."
In the time President Obama has given them or ever, it appears.
"We've come a long way," said Lt. Col. Cal Worth, the commander of one of the two Marine infantry battalions in Marja. "But there's still a long way to go."
In Kandahar:
"On Thursday, during a visit to NATO headquarters here, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal admitted that preparations for perhaps the most critical operation of the war -- the campaign to take control of Kandahar, the Taliban's birthplace -- weren't going as planned. He said winning support from local leaders, some of whom see the Taliban fighters not as oppressors but as their Muslim brothers, was proving tougher than expected. The military side of the campaign, originally scheduled to surge in June and finish by August, is now likely to extend into the fall."
There's also some backpedaling on the importance of Kandahar. In March:
"Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, described Kandahar as Afghanistan's "center of gravity" and the key to reversing the Taliban's momentum this year, Obama's goal when he ordered the troop surge in December.
But Gates on Wednesday made clear he believed Kandahar was one part of the equation.
"Kandahar and Helmand are important but they are not the only provinces in Afghanistan that matter in terms of the outcome of this struggle," he said."
"Only one part of the equation?" Derrick Crowe at Newshoggers has this chart from the Pentagon's most recent Afghanistan report to Congress:
So which is it? Meanwhile the casualties mount, 23 Americans killed so far this month. And suicide and attempted suicide rates in every branch of the military are at all-time highs.
How much longer? How much more blood and treasure are we going to pour into this Graveyard of Empires? How long before we realize that this country that's not really a country but just an area on the map with lines drawn around it is an unwinnable, unfixable quagmire? How long before we stop repeating history and learn from it?
Nobody seems to know.
The real issue is that military forces are not the stuff of political resolutions. An international "police force" needs to be implemented with the intent to "police" countries that do not conform to international etiquette. The military's main focus should be to "kick ass" take names and move out. In case one should wonder, no, I'm not a hawk, but reality is reality and nuclear armed countries with unstable leaders have to be "managed".
On the first point, it's important to recognize that the training, expertise, and methods used by the two organizations are by necessity very different.
Hey Carguy,
Forgive me for going off topic, but...what's up with Scott. Is he just taking a break or what? I can't believe that folks took youse two's running joke so seriously?
We could have won the war and destroyed the Taliban when we initially went in. We had the support of the world and we could have revitalized the economy and gotten the farmers to grow crops other than opium poppies. That time has long vanished.
The Afghan by Frederick Forsyth is fiction but it does a great job of laying out the Taliban's emergence in Afghanistan and what happened during the initial invasion.
Thank Rugsi for this little "jewell":
www.slate.com/id/2253934/
10-2-2 is looking unavoidable.
As always, you're right. Apparently, the U.S. mililtary has got a prety steep "learning curve" to deal with when it comes to these small, regional wars.
I, for one, have totally lost faith in McChrystal. The disaster these two wars have become is galactic in nature. Especially Afghanistan. Two deaths from the Houston area this week. Both soldiers left families behind.
Afghanistan: Where super powers go to die.
From day 1 the operation in Afghanistan was under funded and never took on any importance. NOW that the Taliban have engaged our troops a number of times, and learned everything they need to learn, they are going to be tougher than ever. Until we do something about the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan, they will just keep getting stronger.
Face it Afghanistan doesn't have any natural resources the warmongers want. Other than opium, and I think that just isn't enough. They will never commit to winning in Afghanistan.
Besides, what makes you think they want to win? War is a business to some in this country, and Afghanistan is the perfect war for these people. No clear objectives, resilient enemy, in a place most don't care about.
I am afraid that I have to agree with you. This, IMO, is a lose - lose situation. If we pull out, the hawks will say we are not keeping America safe for not fighting until the "end" (whatever the "end" is), and if we stay we lose more young lives and throw billions of more dollars into the fight and nothing will change.
I would hope that we had learned something from Vietnam, but apparently not.
We should have learned our lesson in Vietnam. It's futile to go to war when the people you're trying to protect have no particular interest in being protected. We can't want their freedom more than they do. However, I suspect the main reason we are there is to have the capability of a quick response when Pakistan finally blows up. Not a good situation.
Desperado---thanks for the commentary. In speaking with my employees and co-workers, many of whom state that their kids with aspirations of military service have put that service on hold (or nixed it) until the crazy war situation is over. Well, the kids are getting older and as you indicate, this war rages on and on.
We should have stayed focused on Afghanistan.