Afghan Lessons

As Donald Rumsfeld keeps telling us, the war on terror is far from over. But as its initial phase in Afghanistan winds down with notable success, it's a good time to consider what we've learned and how that should inform what comes next.

As good a place as any to start is with all of the dire predictions that were wrong. As in the Gulf War and in Kosovo, the pessimists blew it. So only three weeks into the Afghan campaign, the New York Times dispatched one of its esteemed correspondents to rehearse the Vietnam "quagmire." Our friends at the Weekly Standard also predicted doom, albeit in an attempt to be helpful, but as if they thought Bill Clinton were still President.

In their partial defense, we'd say that just about everybody was wrong about one large war lesson--which is that U.S. military power is now more dominant than any the world has seen since the British Empire. As in Kosovo, the combination of precision bombing guided by special forces on the ground has proved to be remarkably lethal. The decision to deploy the two together, urged on the military by Mr. Rumsfeld, was the turning point of the war. This doesn't mean that the U.S. will never have to deploy large ground forces again. But it does allow for the application of military power with far fewer casualties, which gives a U.S. President many more policy options. In Afghanistan, it allowed the U.S. to topple the Taliban in only two months in a landlocked country half a world away, and with only a handful of U.S. casualties so far. It's a remarkable achievement.

A second lesson is that if the U.S. leads, the rest of the world will follow, whatever its public misgivings. The main diplomatic fact of the Afghan campaign is that nearly every serious country decided it was in its own interest to cooperate with the U.S. rather than resist it.

China decided not to meddle in Taiwan and helped with Pakistan. Russian President Putin moved closer to the West. India offered the U.S. its bases, while even Europe put aside its crocodile whine about American "unilateralism" to join the war effort. Europe seems to understand that the U.S. is the final guarantor of world order and so when America is committed to pursuing a goal as a matter of its own national security, Europe has little choice but to agree.

This has obvious implications for the war's next phase, especially action against Iraq. Two months ago the U.S. was said to be fated to pursue any campaign against Saddam Hussein by itself. Not anymore. Burned by the Gulf War, the Turks were saying never again only last month. But this week their Defense Minister told the Times that "We don't wish an operation in Iraq, but new conditions would bring new evaluations to our agenda." The indispensable new condition would be an American President serious about the job. The signs of Mr. Bush's growing seriousness has even moved the Saudis on the Iraq question; at least now they'd support a U.S.-led coup in Baghdad, if not yet a free election.

Which brings us to the mirage of the "Arab street." Osama bin Laden's avowed goal was to provoke a U.S. response that would in turn provoke an Arab eruption. Nearly the opposite has happened. U.S. success has quieted public protests and there is little talk any more of radical coups in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The more likely eruption now is an anti-clerical revolt in Iran.

As Princeton's noted Mideast scholar Bernard Lewis points out, Islamic terror is less a function of hatred for America than of lack of respect. Where we have seen ourselves acting with restraint or compassion (ending the Gulf War early), the bin Ladens have perceived weakness. And of course sometimes they have been right about Western lack of resolve, as in Somalia and the Clinton responses to terror in the 1990s. But the way to win friends in the Mideast is not by appeasement or solving the endless riddle of Palestine. It is by showing we have the will to wield force on behalf of our values and interests.

None of the above means there aren't many risks to come. The al Qaeda network has been pounded but not broken up, bin Laden remains uncaptured, and Iraq and other terror havens continue to operate undeterred. Above all, we still read blind quotes coming from our own State Department and intelligence agencies that Iraq can't be liberated without deploying two Army corps, that the "coalition" will melt away or that the American people will lose their patience--the same conventional wisdom that was preached about Afghanistan a few weeks ago. Mr. Bush will have to mute those voices with his own resolve.

No doubt there will be some dark days to come. But the early success in Afghanistan has turned a moment of tragedy into one of great political and diplomatic promise. President Bush has a chance rare in history to bring both new peace and stability to the Mideast and new security to the United States. The key now is keeping up the momentum until the war is finished.

Another terrific bit of analysis from the WSJ. Adults are definitely back in charge. The naysayeres keep trying to nip around the heels, but the extraordinary difficulties of 9-11 have presented extraordinary opportunities for positive change in a world drifting after 8 years of aimless US leadership. The changes in Middle East freedom and democracy could be as great after Bush II as they were in the old Soviet empire after Ronald Reagan.

I went to a Channukah party at a neighbor's house a few evenings ago, and had a long talk with a retired Protestant minister who happened to be in New York on September 18 and ended up taking charge of training and coordinating the chaplains of various faiths at the World Trade Center. I think he's a very smart and capable man.

He seemed to agree with me that the big question is resolve, and also that we are very lucky to have Bush, and not the likes of Gore and Daschle, in charge at this time.

I said that polls show that the American people expect a long and difficult war, and that I thought it might last 50 or 100 years.

He answered that he thought Bush had FOUR YEARS to break the back of the war, that is, until the next election. The Dems will undoubtedly try to undermine him every chance they get, without looking too unpatriotic. I think I agree with his assessment. Bush must keep the momentum going for the next three or four years. After that, the war against Muslim aggression may spring up again at some point--as it has repeatedly for more than 1,500 years. But this phase of it will be over. The next few years are absolutely critical for the future of our country.

Nonsense. The British Empire was never dominant militarily. It merely controlled the seas.

Which has, of course, huge military implications. But it's not like they could walk all over Germany, France or Russia anytime they felt like it during the 1800s. Each of those countries could have easily defeated a British invasion. Throughout history British military adventures on the continent of Europe have always been as part of a coalition, with the Continental members providing most of the ground force muscle.

British military dominance was only in comparison to colonial resistance. And other European powers had exactly similar experience when fighting "natives."

BTW, recent and future military technology developments may have us heading back towards a disproportion of military power between advanced and 3rd-world countries not seen since the days when "We have got the Maxim gun, and they have not."

The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal hit the bullseye! They are right on target! This is an excellent article.

The results of the 2000 election were a gift from God--a matter of grace.

If the September 11 tragedy galvanizes American public opinion into a unified national resolve, then these dead shall not have died in vain, and the American Dream, the miracle that is the United States, will live on.

There can be a Second American Century--and a Third--it is a question of national resolve.

or that the American people will lose their patience

I think there's a lot of unnecessary concern about American "patience" in war. The only war where the country became impatient was Vietnam, and that, I believe, is because the country perceived that the leadership was not fighting it to win. Had there been a strategy to hunt down the enemy, cut off its supplies, and kill them, Americans would have gone along. Leaving our soldiers there in the jungle to hunt down an enemy that could escape into nearby havens was a loser from the start. We won all the battles, but could not destroy the enemy, like we have in Afghanistan.

Other than that, I can think of no impatience, except to have the boys home as soon as possible when the war is over, which hurt us after WW2.

And you and the minister are absolutely right. The next few years are absolutely critical for the future of our country--and the future of the world.

Anyone who considers voting for a Democrat candidate should keep this in mind. The United States is still in mortal danger and will be in the forseeable future.

The greatest threat to the United States, to liberty, and to world peace is American decadence--manifest as Liberalism and and functioning as the Democrat Party.

The American newsmedia has been complicit in encouraging this decadence.

A vote for a Democrat is a vote for decadence and for the decline and destruction of the United States. This message could not be more clear.

America has had two close calls: the 2000 election and the September 11 massacre.

The 2000 election was close. It was a referendum to the American people. The results were uncertain.

The response of the American people to the September 11 massacre was magnificent, the leadership of President Bush brilliant. There was no uncertainty.

However the greatest challenge is still ahead.

The world is watching to see which path the American people will take.

Good points. I read this statement about the British Empire, and had the same reaction. I think we are stronger relative to the rest of the world than any state/empire in the history of the world. Rome and Greece were regional powers, and, as you noted, the first world powers arose when Europeans became able to sail the globe. Britain became dominant in the 1700s, but was still subject to challenge. They never had the ability to project land AND sea power that the US has now.

France under Napolean dominated Europe for a few years, but never had a world empire. In fact, he had to sell off Louisiana because he was too busy in Europe. Had he been able to consolidate in Europe, he could have built a world power, which is why Britain fought so hard.

Yup, I think it's the strongest power, by far, in world history. Yay for us!

As for the disparity between 3d world and developed world, it's high, but I think it was higher when Cortez showed up with horses, muskets, armor and 300 men, and defeated several million Mexicans. It was higher still when Europeans in the 1800s faced natives with spears using repeating rifles. Yet somehow Sitting Bull and the Zulus got the occasional victory. Let's keep that in mind.

I definitely feel a lot safer now than I did on September 12, and have to agree that Bush must continue on with his promise to eradicate terrorism from the world for future generations. But I lay awake at night with Ashcroft's recent warning seared in my deepest political instincts, stated on national television in front of a Congressional Committee as if they were no more than recent gossip: those that are whining about losing their civil rights are aiding the terrorists and undermining the morale of the American public. These words are treasonous. Nothing less. They are perhaps the most chilling ever uttered by a modern American politician. And they forebode a dark future for the America that we fight for, and for whom we may well be the generation to finally toll the bell of freedom.

You make excellent points. Your warning is clear and right on target. The greatest immediate threat is from Liberalism. But the threat you have identified may be even greater. Americans cannot afford to relax their vigilance. We have never been in greater danger, and the greatest danger comes from within--in two forms that we have recognized. Thank you for making this so clear. SB

It was higher still when Europeans in the 1800s faced natives with spears using repeating rifles. Yet somehow Sitting Bull and the Zulus got the occasional victory. Let's keep that in mind.

Excellent point. It is interesting that in almost every single case where a colonizing power was defeated by "natives," it was because the colonizers got cocky and underestimated the enemy. The classic case is Custer, who declared that he could ride through the entire Sioux nation with 200 men. He tried it and it didn't work.

Over-confidence, arrogance and under-estimation of the enemy is our greatest threat at this point. One reason the US military is so good right now is because we "lost" in Vietnam. Losing wars is very good for armies. Nobody usually learns anything by winning. Losing requires you to re-examine your preconceptions and military doctrine, which allows at least the possibility of dramatic improvements.

As for the disparity between 3d world and developed world, it's high, but I think it was higher when Cortez showed up with horses, muskets, armor and 300 men, and defeated several million Mexicans.

Don't forget that Cortez brilliantly exploited the rivalries of the Mexican natives. His "Northern Alliance" supplied the vast majority of his manpower.

Also the fact that Mexicans had zero resistance to European (really mostly Asian) diseases was a major plus for him. Native resistance in the Americas was defeated at least as much by (unintentional) biological warfare as it was by more conventional military means.

As for the disparity between 3d world and developed world, it's high, but I think it was higher when Cortez showed up with horses, muskets, armor and 300 men, and defeated several million Mexicans.

Well, I think there's a little more to that story. They were Aztecs for one. Two, Aztec culture had their version of a savior, so-to-speak. A bearded, caucasion, male in white robes who apeared from the east on a boat. I believe they called him Veracoche(sp?) He civilized them in many ways, monogammy, animal husbandry, agriculture, etc... and then left with a promise to return sometime in the future. (sound like anyone we've ever heard of?)

When the Aztecs first saw Cortez and his men (who were caucasion, white and bearded, arriving from the east over the ocean) well, I guess they thought the prophecies of their past were coming true. So they(Cortez & Co.) were not treated as potential enemies would have been. Cortez took advantage of this.

At least that's one theory of how 300 men conqoured a nation of some 2.5~3 million.

Unfrotunatley, much of Aztec history, culture and theology was lost. The spanish monks who considered the Aztec religion to be heathenistic (because they never took the time to actually study and understand it), burned and destroyed, or melted it down because it was written in gold. But some of what survived, that I've read about, could have parallels in Judeo/Christian theology. Didn't Christ say he a flock to the west that he had to tend to?

spanish monks who considered the Aztec religion to be heathenistic (because they never took the time to actually study and understand it)

Well, maybe they considered it heathen because it was. Look up the definition of the word "heathen."

You picked an odd religion to get all defensive for. The Aztec religion made Islam look Buddhist.

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.