Disconnects, Dithering and Decisions

It's difficult being here and hearing the news about here. This was no less true in 2004-2005, when I was in Iraq. I saw clearly how the war was being won, yet all of the media nay-sayers predicted doom and gloom. "Quagmire" was the catch-word back then and, despite how surface-level the analogies were, Viet Nam was uttered repeatedly as a comparison base-line. Now I hear only "Deadliest Day in Afghanistan" repeated over and over, with more predictions of doom and gloom. Of course, the comparisons with Iraq are often no better than those made with Viet Nam previously, but the possibilities are very similar. What ended up working in Iraq, namely a troop surge, could work here, as well.

We have an embed reporter with us, Dianna Cahn, who has written a great article (here) on the "diconnect" between the leadership at home and the war-fighters here in country. Her movement around the country with our leadership and her travels in the field with our troops brought forth an understanding I have had for many months now and that I have heard voiced repeatedly from the troop level. This war can be won, but not when it is hamstrung by political wrangling and indecision based on political posturing. The leadership (I must say above the level of Gen. McChrystal) seem to misunderstand the strategic needs, preferring a LIC (low-intensity conflict) approach, with an emphasis on "hearts and minds," in an arena where we do not yet have basic security established on the ground. Liberal bedfellows that don't want war of any kind, regardless of the impact on future American security concerns, seem to be gutting resolve for decisive action to bring about the security needed on the ground before winning of hearts and minds can be accomplished.

Former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, wrote an excellent Op-Ed piece (here) that excoriated the Obama Administration for "dithering" on the decision-making process concerning many foreign relation points, but particularly about the strategy for Afghanistan. Two months now since the study was handed to the Administration - an Administration, by the way, that campaigned on the Afghan war being the "good war" - and there is still indecision as to what to do with the war. How long does it take to evaluate a strategy, especially when this was your platform over a year ago? Troops on the ground need a strategy. In the meantime, they simply play out an old strategy, one that is clearly lacking in forces on the ground to complete the job of securing the nation's infrastructure from insurgent disruptions.

Put simply: A delay in showing Afghans, allies and troops exactly how much resolve we have in winning this country's freedom from terror translates directly into lives lost. So, if the news media want to play with phrases like "deadliest month in Afghanistan," let's make sure they put the pressure where it belongs - on a leadership that is failing to give clear, immediate and well-thought-0ut direction at a critical juncture in this war. We MUST get a direction or things will get worse. Waiting for the inevitable slow-down in action that winter often brings to this country is not a method. Taking the ground now, decisively, and showing all parties that we are in this to win, is the only strategy that will ultimately reduce American casualties and produce a peace that will endure in this country. Pakistan is on board. NATO is on board. The Afghan government (despite its troubles) is on board. The better part of the Afghan people WANT to be on board. When will the Administration get on board?