WINNABLE WAR?

David Brooks wrote an interesting op-ed (NYT,
3/27/09), "The Winnable War." He is in Afghani-
stan at the moment, and encouraged by the resolve
both of our military people, and the Afghanis he
talked to. He didn't talk to the Taliban, but I ex-
pect he'd find them equally resolved.

Mr. B starts out by admitting "we simply do not
know how to modernize nations." He then goes on
to explain in detail why we'll be able to do exactly
that! In the first place, writes Brooks, "the Afghan
people want what we want." That's undoubtedly
true in the broad sense: we all want peace and se-
curity and prosperity and a better world for our
children. How we get there is the puzzler.

Second, says B., "we're already well through the
screwing up phase of our operation." I doubt that: I
think escalating the violence with 21,000 more troops
is probably screwing up some more! The Taliban
will see our raise and reraise it. Besides, we are still
screwing up with Pakistan, which is even more critical
for us than Afghanistan. Suppose we are completely
successful in the latter; will that get rid of al Qaida in
the former? How? A. Q. is international. They have
bases all over the world, like we do. Brooks mentions
Pakistan without offering any solutions there.

Third, B. says we've finally got our priorities right. No,
how can we if we are still screwing up with Pakistan?
Fourth, the quality of Afghan leadership is improving,
opines Mr. B. I'll give him that one, since I don't know
otherwise. I suspect the enemy's leadership is also im-
proving. So what? That may change the tactical situa-
tion (like the Surge did in Iraq). It won't cure bad stra-
tagy. That has no cure.

Fifth, says B., "the U. S. is finally taking this war seriously.
Up until now, insurgents have had free reign in vast areas
of southern Afghanistan. The infusion of 17,000 (plus
4,000) more U. S. troops will change that." Yes, we'll turn
up the heat several notches. I reject the idea that we
were'nt serious before. But escalating the violence means
more civilian casualties and hence more angry, alienated
civilians. It means more destruction from our air attacks.
And more busting into people's homes in the middle of the
night looking for bad guys. A lot of "collateral damage"
goes with all this! If we turn the population against us, as
in Iraq, we're finished, as we are there, regardless.

Sixth, writes B., "Pakistan is finally on the agenda." That's
new? It has always been very much "on the agenda." We
have poured billions of bucks into Pakistan. And to
what end? Mushariff was overthrown because he was
seen by his people as a lap-dog for the U. S. Benizeer
Bhutto was killed (with the army's permission) because
she was seen as too friendly with the U. S. We pressured
Mushariff to use force against al Qaida in the western
frontier. He did, but his own intel (ISI) tipped them off
when and where the attacks were coming. I'll have more
to say about Pakistan in the next blog. That's it for now.

John Goodwin jgoodwin004@centurytel.net