Would would Byzantine do? by Edward Luttwak

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/01/what-would-byzantium-do/

Excellent article on Afghanistan strategy.

Pentagon Wargames

The Pentagon recently held two wargames (here’s the link to the article). John Robb said on his blog that it was actually a “PR game aimed at influencing an internal audience.” The war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be about fighting Islam, terrorism, or even about bringing peace and stability to the country (nevermind my opinion on each of those goals for the moment). It has become about Washington politics. People, Americans, are dying in Afghanistan so the politicians in Washington can use it. On the left it’s about Obama not looking like an idiot. On the right it’s about trying to show how Bush doctrine was actually somehow right. I’ve said before that neither side actually has a good strategy, but I’ll take this a step further. Not only do both of them have lousy proposals, but they neither side cares about the consiquences on American troops. It’s about getting re-elected.

William S. Lind’s take on lack of Afghan fire support

Lind has written an interesting article here on light infantry tactics as an answer in Afghanistan.

Graveyard of Empires

The debate over Afghanistan strategy is waxing hotter every day as Obama tries to figure out what’s going on. Democrats say that Obama should take his time, while Republicans are pushing for more troops now. We need to push aside the rhetoric and propaganda for the moment and get to the facts that few people are aware of, for this is the only way we can truly understand what is going on in Afghanistan.

First, what is currently going on. We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 with the goal of ousting the Taliban and going after Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. The conventional war was short and lop sided. We smashed them with our numerous superior weapons. They however did the predictable: they moved to guerrilla war. What ensued was what John Robb refers to as an “Open Source” insurgency. The idea is that many independent groups fight for the same goal with little or no central planning. This makes their reaction time faster and makes them almost impossible to defeat. After we invaded Iraq, little attention was paid to Afghanistan and things deteriorated. After Obama came the the White House he shifted the focus.

Next we need to look at our enemies’ strategy. First, we need to understand that terrorism is a business. Most of the insurgents are in it for the money. Thus their strategy is simply to make more money, and if we disturb them to fight us. The Taliban wants us out, because they want their country back and wish to grow their poppy (money) free from our interference. Al Qaeda wants to destroy the United States. Their plan for this is super power baiting.  They attacked us on 9/11 to bait us into attacking. Then their plan is to fight until we spend so much money on it that our economy topples (just like the Soviet Union). Now Al Qaeda is largely in disorganization, and is completely ineffective, but their allies are carrying out a form of this strategy just the same. The goal of guerilla war is to wear your opponent out. So the long and short of it is, they are trying to tire us.

The question is this: what do we do now? The democrats are saying the president should take his time. This is certainly the worst thing that could be done. Indecision is worse than a bad decision. The Republicans are advocating more troops and taking up a heavier counter-insurgency strategy in an attempt to stabilize the country. This option, although interesting, simply will not work. Modern counter insurgency doctrine was designed to fight communist insurgency, which is centralized. We are not fighting a centralized insurgency but an “open source” insurgency, which is decentralized. Afghanistan is also an ideal place for guerrilla warfare. It’s mountains make conventional operations very difficult. Our counter-insurgency doctrine also takes a long time, and lots of money, and will cause the deaths of many more Americans, all because we wish to build a liberal democracy in a place that doesn’t want it.

So if both liberals and conservatives are wrong, the question is what should we do? There is an answer, and you probably won’t like it. The answer is a controlled violence exit. Hire local militias to fight the Taliban. These paramilitary forces cannot give the country democracy (and I see no possible way of doing that), but they can allow us to leave, and prevent the Taliban regaining control (as long as we keep paying up). They would be loyal to our dollars, not our cause. This would be cheaper, cost no American lives.

This is not very popular however, and I doubt that they will take this approach for a while. However, with public support wanning, and the impossiblilty of staying there for eternity, we will have to take this approach sooner or later. We must not forget history, we are in Afghanistan: the graveyard of empires.