Posted on 02/12/2016 10:45:07 AM PST by Kaslin
If you believed America's longest war, in Afghanistan, was coming to an end, be advised: It is not.
Departing U.S. commander Gen. John Campbell says there will need to be U.S. boots on the ground "for years to come." Making good on President Obama's commitment to remove all U.S. forces by next January, said Campbell, "would put the whole mission at risk."
"Afghanistan has not achieved an enduring level of security and stability that justifies a reduction of our support. ... 2016 could be no better and possibly worse than 2015."
Translation: A U.S. withdrawal would risk a Taliban takeover with Kabul becoming the new Saigon and our Afghan friends massacred.
Fifteen years in, and we are stuck.
Nor is America about to end the next longest war in its history: Iraq. Defense Secretary Ash Carter plans to send units of the 101st Airborne back to Iraq to join the 4,000 Americans now fighting there,
"ISIS is a cancer," says Carter. After we cut out the "parent tumor" in Mosul and Raqqa, we will go after the smaller tumors across the Islamic world.
When can Mosul be retaken? "Certainly not this year," says the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart.
Vladimir Putin's plunge into the Syrian civil war with air power appears to have turned the tide in favor of Bashar Assad.
The "moderate" rebels are being driven out of Aleppo and tens of thousands of refugees are streaming toward the Turkish border.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to be enraged with the U.S. for collaborating with Syrian Kurds against ISIS and with Obama's failure to follow through on his dictate -- "Assad must go!"
There is thus no end in sight to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, nor to the U.S.-backed Saudi war in Yemen, where ISIS and al-Qaida have re-arisen in the chaos.
Indeed, the West is mulling over military intervention in Libya to crush ISIS there and halt the refugee flood into Europe.
Yet, despite America's being tied down in wars from the Maghreb to Afghanistan, not one of these wars were among the three greatest threats identified last summer by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
"Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security" said Dunford, "If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia ... if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming."
Dunford agreed with John McCain that we ought to provide anti-tank weapons and artillery to Ukraine, for, without it, "they're not going to be able to protect themselves against Russian aggression."
But what would we do if Putin responded by sending Russian troops to occupy Mariupol and build a land bridge to Crimea? Send U.S. troops to retake Mariupol? Are we really ready to fight Russia?
The new forces NATO is moving into the Baltic suggests we are.
Undeniably, disputes have arisen between Russia, and Ukraine and Georgia which seceded in 1991, over territory. But, also undeniably, many Russians in the 14 nations that seceded, including the Baltic states, never wanted to leave and wish to rejoin Mother Russia.
How do these tribal and territorial conflicts in the far east of Europe so threaten us that U.S. generals are declaring that "Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security"?
Asked to name other threats to the United States, Gen. Dunford listed them in this order: China, North Korea, ISIS.
But while Beijing is involved in disputes with Hanoi over the Paracels, with the Philippines over the Spratlys, with Japan over the Senkakus -- almost all of these being uninhabited rocks and reefs -- how does China threaten the United States?
America is creeping ever closer to war with the other two great nuclear powers because we have made their quarrels our quarrels, though at issue are tracts and bits of land of no vital interest to us.
North Korea, which just tested another atomic device and long-range missile, is indeed a threat to us.
But why are U.S. forces still up the DMZ, 62 years after the Korean War? Is South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of the North and twice the population, incapable of defending itself?
Apparently slipping in the rankings as a threat to the United States is that runaway favorite of recent years, Iran.
Last fall, though, Sen. Ted Cruz reassured us that "the single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran."
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded," wrote James Madison, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Perhaps Madison was wrong.
Otherwise, with no end to war on America's horizon, the prospect of this free republic enduring is, well, doubtful.
Or they vote Trump. One of the two.
In before someone smears Trump or Cruz.... aw damn.
“Sen. Ted Cruz reassured us that “the single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran.””
I think our biggest security threat are the Washington elites by far!
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."It's the liberals that insist on prolonged warfare in order to weaken the military prior to their violent takeover at home. The patriots insist on swift victory using military might unfettered with absurd rules of engagement that tie the soldiers' hands.
— The Art Of War, II:6
Under an agreement the Taliban and child rapists are our friends according to Obama.
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. / Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. / Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. / Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. / There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ...Sound familiar? Perhaps engineered by the liberals in charge of the military?
This was known from the Start.
Some argued, just go in, kick ass, take the loot and run.
Others argued, this is a long term operation and we should eminent domain some strategic real estate for Military bases and Airfields for a very long presence.
I guess they chose: Run in, destroy everything. Rebuild it for them for free, prop up a dysfunctional government, declare victory and leave.
I wonder if we went in as in war, traditionaly, kill and maim, loot and destroy and then just pulled out wasn’t just the best answer.
Give our fighting men/women full release to engage the enemy at any place and any time and the war would be over in relatively short order. Simply “fire at will” should be the order of EVERY DAY.
We were right to go into Afghanistan. We were wrong to stay any longer than necessary to kill as many bad people as we could. Three months, tops.
We won WWII 71 years ago, and we still have 53,000 troops stationed there.
There are two correct ways to continue after a successful military action: Plan for a very long stay to enforce the changes (Europe, Japan), or leave immediately and warn the new government to be good or they get toppled too. Intermediate options, staying for just a few years (Iraq, Afghanistan), are a complete waste.
What about Islam? Seems like they are indeed taking the road of the “long siege”, over 1400 years.
Each and every day they kill on average another 25 or so (large standard-deviation) infidels, each day of the week, each week of the month, each month of the year, each year of the century, each century of the millenia, for the last 1400 years... since Medina.
By the sword, they now claim 1/5 of the earth’s population.
We still have troops in Korea with only a cease fire in place.
Making good on President Obama’s commitment to remove all U.S. forces by next January, said Campbell, “would put the whole mission at risk.”
Which is exactly what Obama wants and why he will follow through with it, just like he did in Iraq. Get ready for the caliphate to take over Afghanistan next year.
True, but technically, that was a UN “police action”. We never declared war on North Korea, did we? The cease fire is between the north and the south.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. / If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. / If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. / If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. / Attack him where he is unprepared; appear where you are not expected. ... — I:20-24Now do many of those things sound like tactics our enemies have been using?
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. / Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. ... — III:1-3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.