6/16/13

Afghanistan's Social-Military Development; Michael Hastings & 'The Operators'

When a reporter working for Rolling Stone magazine did a story on then commander of U.S. and ISAF troops in Afghanistan four-star general Stan McCrystal in 2010 the die was cast for revealing the V.P. 'Bite-me' appellation heard round the world, and General McCrystal's resignation was accepted when the pdf report was leaked. The reporter Michael Hastings wrote a fine book on the in-depth development of the story with interviews with the general and his staff in Europe and Afghanistan as well as a wealth of information about the war, the effect on the people of Afghanistan and the costs. The booked is named 'The Operators' after McCrystal's Special Forces and JSOC personal history. Operators are what Delta force personnel are called. Instead of being another truth-better-than fiction action adventure tale one might expect, The Operators is a high-level view of how politicians and generals got it wrong.


The Huffington Post blog today has a story on the soon to be announced transition of Afghan security forces taking the lead from American and ISAF forces in Afghanistan, and it seems about time. Hasting's book provides some detail about the Afghan security forces and American political-military management of the war that are a little disturbing. The war for one thing just didn't seem necessary. We sent a conventional Army to fight against a non-existent insurgency. Initially the C.I.A. supported the Northern Alliances efforts to take down the Taliban successfully helped with a few Blue-72 bombs, Special Forces and bucket loads of cash. Only then did the large military build-up begin to take out an Al-Qae'da that were mostly gone and that had been Arabs and international terrorists doing guest training in country.

Hastings writes that the majority of Afghan soldiers and security forces smoke hashish, as does President Karzai. Homosexual exploitation of boys by Afghan security forces is also common. They have a phrase 'boys are for fun and girls are for children' in Afghanistan. We do not need to support such a Muslim society that is implicitly corrupt perhaps through the effects of decades of foreign intervention.

In my opinion the United States can't get anything right economically and uses military power instead of defensible ecospheric economic intervention that survives anyone's terror attacks. There is just no green economic genius in the U.S. military and politicians tend to be clueless about foreign intelligence before intervention militarily.


There are plans to build-up warlords to persist regionally after the U.S. drawdown and let the corrupt at least offset development of a Taliban-led fundamentalist state. In such a political climate U.S. Special Forces might interpolate to attack incipient international terrorist training bases theoretically. Billions being spent tends to be the first congressional response to international terrorism defense even if there isn't any good reason for it. It's as if students with the flunking math scores are running the U.S. government and that isn't very helpful to the economic bottom line or dead civilians.

Accuracy is important in chess, and it's important in economics and war as well. U.S. generals like Stan McCrystal don't have the authority to just win the war, and civilian political leaders haven't the competence to run the war if it isn't conventional at least.  That is one present problem for the American democracy. Wrong political choices and management mean wars are badly addressed. Not even the counter-insurgency techniques of General Petraeus (COIN) derived from Galula's doctrine were meaningful for Afghanistan. Insurgent recruitment increased to resist the foreign invaders (U.S.) whenever we killed an insurgent or two. The 'insurgency' was that of natives at home defending against aloof, wealthy killers spending money on defense items like drunken sailors-maybe to find Bin Laden, who was probably allowed to escape from Torah Borah to Pakistan years before.


No comments:

Mr. Trump and the Retainer Paid to a Journalist

 So far as I have learned Donald Trump is on trial for 34 counts of paying a journalist not to publish bad news about him. Trump's attor...