Afghanistan Taught Us Nothing

So let’s have an honest discussion…

We are at point where we can say the United States has been involved in the War on Terrorism for 20 years, at least formally named. In that time a lot has changed in opinions and it’s ok to acknowledge that. It was expected to have occurred and lessons have been learned? But what if I tell you we’ve learned absolutely nothing.

Once upon a time in the not too distant past, we had a President Trump tout his date to be out of Afghanistan and the Right loved “ending forever wars”; heck, part of Trump’s appeal as a candidate was the willingness to call out the “love of war” that existed on the Right politically (and Left too). You saw him in debates get praises from the audience as he took on the perceived (but very real) military industrial complex. It makes it all the funnier now that he and his allies critique President Biden for doing just that.

When President Trump had the U.S. to be “out” by May 31st, it was so well received that it was placed on the Republican page. Trump, even one month ago, bragged how he set the wheels in motion that even if President Biden wanted to stay, he couldn’t now. However, the day the Taliban seized Kabul, suddenly the Republican website was “routinely updated” for convenience. President Biden, who caught faux backlash for extending the May 31st deadline, suddenly “incompetently withdrew” and should have taken just a little longer. But here’s the best part, this critique isn’t just for the Right. Jake Tapper did his best to drive the point home on CNN, liberal announcers feigned tears for the possible human rights violations to come (that’s another topic that’s used only for convenience). My personal favorite is Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado though. In February, she tweeted, “We’ve been in Afghanistan for more than half my life. We need to end the endless wars.” … Only to now tweet, “Joe has a 48 year history of making bad decisions. Add this weekend’s foreign policy decision to the list.”

To his credit, then Vice President Biden advised President Obama against a surge that only delayed the inevitable. Even more to his credit, President Biden took it upon himself to be “the guy” who said no more (now his press conferences leading to this day have aged TERRIBLY in fairness with the swift fall) and no more could be done from us. He took this position when even those on the Left critiqued it finally being done.

Now why do I say we’ve learned nothing?

The answer is simple, politically for three presidents, it was convenient to run on ending wars, but two failed to follow through, and the one who finally did is abandoned by “friendly media” and the opposition media and party suddenly have pivoted. This shows in a moment’s notice, if deemed politically advantageous, they’d keep us in a “forever war” for whatever reason that could be drafted and that is a prospect that after 20 years, should scare you. Our politicians, our media, and even the public at large has not learned anything but to look for political points. Next time you read an article on how we “abandoned” Afghanistan, look closely, you may see a Lockheed Martin notice on the byline as well (yes they really do this).

One last note, President Ford was the Commander-in-Chief when Saigon fell, his approval rating went up 10% within a month, far different from the narrative we are sold today with the end of Vietnam.

Now stay tuned, and I’ll be sure to explain why Dick Cheney (of all people) has been proven right years later based on Afghanistan and Iraq… I know, I can’t believe it either.

A Trillion Dollars in Afghanistan… So How Did We Fix This?

On December 9, 2019, the Washington Post published documents detailing how for nearly two decades the US spent nearly a trillion dollars in Afghanistan (please note, this doesn’t include Iraq). So how do we fix this?

Let’s not use this piece to discuss current political fights on being unable to afford health care for all of us or why we cant relieve student debt or the current reduction to SNAP recipients.

Today we will look at talks that have gone on in the military since the conflict began. Once, Afghanistan was referred to as America’s forgotten war as Iraq stole the headlines. In the year 2004, I was preparing to be a military officer by 2006. The concern of classmates then was, “how can we lead and train troops who saw combat while we are only studying now and the wars would be done?” Little did we know…

Since the wars have gone on, the talk was always this isn’t a single war, but the explanation you would get in honest informal talk was these were 6, 9, 12, 15 or God forbid 18-month wars. Once a new unit came in, they had their way of doing operations and what was previously done would be forgotten. And if I’m being totally honest, I was guilty of it to. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, in both places I was apart of “our predecessors are jacked up and our replacements don’t get it yet.“

In combat, you have three fights. In simple terms, there is the tactical fight, the operational fight and the strategic fight. Tactically, force vs force and owning a geographical area, I bet on us any day. Even operationally, our military will is undeniable. Then you get to this thing called the strategic fight and this is where it gets murky.

So how do we fix this?

I had a Sergeant Major who I considered a teacher tell me to ask two questions; what’s next, and who needs to know? Tactically and operationally, this is not so difficult, but strategically, that is a bigger problem. Now, I ask you to match that problem with a military system that frowns if you say “I don’t know.” Imagine a system that your evaluations and career depends on producing results and showing gains towards a desired goal. Imagine leaders who are convinced beforehand they know the problem and answer (hint: it leads to cherry-picking data).

So how do we fix this?

In the military, we have this concept we call a self-licking ice cream cone. The data pulled can tell any story you want (and often a favorable progressing story is told); but in Afghanistan, nearing two decades and a trillion dollars, the story told is extremely complicated.

So how do we fix this?

Again, that’s complicated. We all know someone who served but really, only 1% of the population serves, so there is an extreme disconnect and lack of ownership and/or true investment.

Strategically, saying have one strategy and sticking to it sounds good, but in combat, variables are fluid and can change instantly, there is no one size fits all. You need to know your objective and accomplish this BEFORE variables change, BUT the enemy ALWAYS has a vote as does other regional and global actors.

So how do we fix this, and importantly, how do we prevent this you ask? It’ll take a nation as a whole. Not every war is Desert Shield/Desert Storm where ground operations are done in under 100 hours. That is part of the problem.

I want you to think back… When have you ever heard, “this war will be long, operations will be tough, we’re going to spend trillions and your kids not yet born will one day be fighting this same war.” The answer is never… we always here how it will be business as usual and the political proclamations made publicly are held up by the military and championed by the press.

So how do we fix this? Next time conflict arises, don’t cheerlead. Ask those tough questions to leaders and the press. If misled hold those leaders accountable, but also know if our leadership changes, that’s a variable change that also may affect our actions…. so I leave you with one question, so how do we fix this?

Similar Read: Diplomacy and War: Know the Difference

Mexico, Tariffs, and Accountability

Stop me if you heard this before: “POTUS makes a short notice international policy demand that is difficult to achieve and obtain measures of effectiveness or performance.”

As the deadline approaches, he claims a deal is reached and gets “credit for a political win.” Fast forward a few days and we learn the claimed deal was actually achieved months prior.

That’s where we are following the “new migrant policy deal” with Mexico. Our POTUS has claimed an achievement but the chances you’ve heard this is an old deal packaged as new are based on your political leanings only. In a day and time the initial story matters more than truth, it is now more important than ever that media (left, center and right) do the job they signed up for and push back whether it benefits their bias or not.

Take for instance the state of Michigan where a woman (Cathy Garnaat) attending a town hall by Republican Representative Justin Amash. For the first time, she heard there actually was negative information on Trump in the Mueller Report. Had she not been an Amash supporter, to this day (Deontay Wilder voice) she would not know this.

We exist in a bubble now more than ever. Funny in the Information Age, you can isolate yourself from information, but that is where we are. We are in a time where disinformation is standard practice and both parties as well as the media aids an administration that knows as long as they put their spin out first, the facts no longer matter.

My takeaway from the “new deal” with Mexico and the telling signs around it; this is how you sit and watch a system collapse when accountability and truth no longer matters. 

Similar Read: Newspeak

Trump Pulls Troops… Kurds Turn to Assad?

As a result of Trump deciding to pull troops out of Syria, the Kurds have decided to turn to President Bashar Hafez al-Assad and the Syrian government for protection, which only complicates an already complex situation. The Kurds, who were backed by the US, are now relying on Assad for help, which is less than ideal for the US and our allies.

Similar Read: Trump’s December, A Week To Remember 

What could all this possibly mean in the near future…

1. Turkey moves on the Kurds in Syria (meaning they also attack their Kurds), which brings Kurdistan to fight with Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syrian Kurds, and possibly Azerbaijan and Armenia in an extreme case.

2. Syria backs up the Kurds, which means Russia also backs the Kurds.

2a. Syria, in turn, supports a free Kurdistan in order to garner further support, which would ultimately disrupt Turkey, Iraq, and Iran from holding on to their Kurdish population.

2b. Russia still wants a piece of Turkey for shooting down that fighter jet a while back. If confirmed Russia intervention on behalf of Kurds, does Turkey try to activate NATO, which by treaty pulls the US in?

3. Syria, with Russian support, gives the Kurds a new ally and, in turn, means we potentially lose a foothold in the region as we’ve burned the Kurdish population too many times.