March 23, 2004
Our Failure in Afghanistan
The 9/11 Hearings are again focusing attention on the events that led up to the terrorist attacks. Equal attention needs to be focused on the Administration’s handling of the war on terrorism after 9/11, and particularly the invasion of Afghanistan. With the passage of time, it is increasingly apparent that the U.S. did not achieve a victory in Afghanistan, but instead missed what was probably a one-time chance to largely destroy Al Qaeda. Arguably, the Administration’s decision to limit U.S. troop deployment to 5,000 troops was a critical tactical mistake, and has caused a significant setback in the war against terrorism.
The first battle in the war against terrorism was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Afghanistan offered the U.S. a unique opportunity. Concentrated in this one country were as many as several thousand hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists, as well as Osama bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership and operational infrastructure. The United States had an opportunity to possibly strike a decisive blow against Al Qaeda, – we could have almost entirely destroyed its leadership and organization. And striking that blow, destroying Al Qaeda and killing bin Laden, would have been an unmistakable message to terrorists the world over – state or non-state, if you attack the United States you will be destroyed. This would have been a clear victory in the first and most important battle in the war against terrorism. We had one chance to possibly destroy Pandora’s box.
Unfortunately this wasn’t the outcome. We disrupted their operational base in Afghanistan and certainly caused casualties, but we didn’t capture or kill bin Laden and we came nowhere near destroying Al Qaeda. As CIA Director George Tenet’s recent testimony to Congress noted, Al Qaeda has regenerated and evolved, becoming more decentralized and widespread. When we do finally capture or kill bin Laden, it will have a significantly smaller impact on the war against terror; bin Laden and his followers have spent the last two years building an organization that will live beyond him. By any definition, letting bin Laden and Al Qaeda get away were terrible setbacks in the war against terrorism. We allowed the terrorists to attack our country and largely get away with it. We didn’t destroy Pandora’s box; we kicked it open, and scattered its contents around the world.
What is frustrating, and reflects poorly on the Administration, is how the U.S. lost this critical first battle. Sometimes things don’t always work out as planned. Sometimes you can take very precaution, try to allow for every possibility, and sometimes it just doesn’t work out. But this isn’t why we failed in Afghanistan - we didn’t take every precaution, or for that matter hardly any precautions. Instead, we failed because the Administration, for some reason, refused to deploy the massive, overwhelming force of our U.S. Military. Killing or capturing bin Laden and destroying Al Qaeda was primarily left to the Afghani fighters of the Northern Alliance, the very same force that had been defeated by the Taliban. Only 5,000 U.S. troops were used in Afghanistan, inserted at the very end of the campaign. U.S. troops were outnumbered by the Taliban, and barely surpassed the force level of Al Qaeda. We deployed about 1% of our available military resources for what was arguably the most important task our military has undertaken in fifty years, and kept 99% sitting on the sidelines.
To my knowledge, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld hasn’t directly answered the question of why he limited the deployment of U.S. troops to 5,000. I think there is a strong argument to be made that he was trying to use the Afghanistan campaign to prove-out Neo Conservative theories; achieving a victory in Afghanistan with U.S. technology and airpower instead of U.S troops would prove our ability to fight inexpensive wars with few casualties, and so allow us to fight more wars. Perhaps, even after 9/11, the Administration still believed Iraq to be a larger threat than Al Qaeda, and so limited the resources committed to Afghanistan to make sure the 150,000 troops needing for the eventual invasion of Iraq would be available. Maybe Rumsfeld just miscalculated, and really did think 5,000 U.S. troops in conjunction with the Northern Alliance would be more than enough to insure we killed or captured bin Laden and destroyed Al Qaeda.
Regardless of why the decision was made, it didn’t work – we didn’t kill bin Laden or by any means destroy Al Qaeda. There was a time when Republican Presidents were known for their prudence and caution, particularly when it came to the security of the United States; they recognized that particularly with national security, you only get one chance to get it right, and if you get it wrong our country could be at risk for years. Only deploying 5,000 troops to try to kill or capture the man that had just killed 3,000 Americans wasn’t prudence or caution – it was madness, a huge gamble which failed. This Administration’s handling of the invasion of Afghanistan will go down in U.S. military history as one of the greatest and most damaging tactical calculations of all times. Understanding this failure surely deserves a commission of its own.
“To my knowledge, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld hasn’t directly answered the question of why he limited the deployment of U.S. troops to 5,000.”
Indeed. So why isn’t that question being asked by some of these commission members?
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 23, 2004 04:33 PMGaelen, for what it’s worth the 9/11 commission’s mandate doesn’t concern the events following 9/11. What you are talking about was, and is, the press’s job. Maybe someday they’ll step up and do it.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 23, 2004 07:50 PMAhhh… quite right. I stand corrected.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 23, 2004 08:44 PMWell spoken, Blake, and I find myself in agreement with your conclusions. Will there be an objective review and alteration of future policy in light of what happened? The answer to that may lie in whom is elected or reelected in November, and perhaps, not even then.
I am sure though Joint Chiefs of Staff have learned a lesson from it and will have a stronger stance if such a hesitant and weak incursion is ever attempted again in the future.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 23, 2004 09:26 PMAs much as Rumsfeld has damaged operations not only in Afganistan and Iraq I do find it hard to believe that bin Ladin would have been in the country at the time. He is by no means dumb and would have probably have left the country before the main troops landed.
Posted by: Adam at March 24, 2004 01:07 AMActually the one good thing Bush has done is Afghanistan. Finishing off the taliban and forcing Pakistan to stop supporting Terror has helped alot in Afghanistan. Life is slowing getting back to normal. Read for yourself’s if you don’t believe what I am say. Go to www.afghan-web.com what the Afghans are saying.
Posted by: Mariam at March 24, 2004 01:58 AMThat’s an interesting perspective, Mariam. As far as I can tell from the international news, the Taliban are still operating in Iraq and tribal warlords are still refusing to recognize the government in Kabul.
Herat, which is about 75 miles from the Iranian border, has been largely peaceful, not least because Mr. Khan, with a large private army and extensive intelligence network, has kept tight control over dissidents and potential enemies.
His firm hold on power and unwillingness to permit free political activity have been seen in Kabul as obstacles to free and fair elections, and his refusal to submit fully to the rule of the central government has been viewed as a barrier to rebuilding.
But it is nice to know that things are getting better. Thank you.
I notice the mailing address for the afghan-web site is, P.O. Box 11604 Pleasanton, CA 94588.
Do you have any idea what the motives (if any) of the site operator are? I’m sure it’s a fine representation of life in Afghanistan, but being an online pundit I’m just naturally curious about the souce of any news and commentary I see.
I’m glad Bush is in office and not you Blake, cause you don’t seem to understand a few things. Al Qaida is wide spread because under Clinton’s reign THOUSANDS of terrorists got trained at the Afghan camp. After their training they scattered all over the world to form sleeper cells like the 9-11 and the Spanish perpetrators did. Killing Bin Laden is good, but it is not a strategy. A strategy to destroy terrorism at the roots is democratizing the Middle East and taking away young Arab men’s frustrations about living in a hopelessly corrupt and failed state. Killing Bin Laden kills one terrorist. Invading Iraq and taking out Saddam the butcher kills thousands of possible, almost certain terrorists to be.
Posted by: Ricky Vandal at March 24, 2004 08:52 AMBlake:
Its important to understand the functioning of government, and how its difficult to “win” anything. Had Bush sent more troops into AFghanistan, and suffered casualties, we would have heard howls from the anti war crowd about the loss of American lives. Since Bush did NOT do that, we now hear howls from the anti war crowd about how we did not send the right amount of troops in. This also misses the idea that fighting a war in the Hindu Kush mountain region is not a normal war—and traditional methods do not work well.
But the main point is that I see people like you thwarting plans on the front end (“don’t suffer casualties etc.), and then complaining on the back end that things should have been done differently, and often in a manner precisely with what you protested about initially.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 24, 2004 10:30 AM“Only deploying 5,000 troops to try to kill or capture the man that had just killed 3,000 Americans wasn’t prudence or caution – it was madness, a huge gamble which failed. “
I was nodding my head here and there until I read this. Why would you insert (comment deleted by WatchBlog Manager) rhetoric like this into what seemed to be an intelligent article? First off, that one man didn’t push a button and instantly kill 3000 people as if lighting shot from his hands; he bravely convinced some manipulated a few into giving their own life for a cause that he hypocritically will not sacrifice his life for.
This statement is just .. take it out and you have a smart piece there.
Posted by: Mike at March 24, 2004 03:18 PMYou know something, Joe, I think you underestimate the liberals in this country. Especially me. I would have gone, had Bush enacted a draft and started building an Army right then and there. Of course, I might have been rejected for my flat feet, but I’d have enjoyed the chance.
It mystified me to no end why he didn’t send in our army, why he let an obvious subpar fighting force do the work, and why we didn’t hang and end this thing once and for all.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2004 03:53 PMBlake,
Perhaps the Bush administration chose to learn from history and planned accordingly. The Russians did exactly what you suppose Bush should have done.
The US military strategy from the start was predicated on minimizing civilian casualties and gaining the trust and participation of the people of Afghanistan. Sure we could have gone in with massive bombardment and 100,000 troops, where incidentally there is even less infrastructure and more difficult terrain than in Iraq. But the participation of some portion of Afghan fighters is essential for long term stability.
With the cooperation and support of this coalition and the integration of virtually every agency of the US government, CENTCOM had executed multiple “Lines of Operation,” attacking simultaneously on several fronts. The intention from the outset was to seize the initiative and reinforce success, while keeping in mind the lessons of previous campaigns in Afghanistan — avoid “invading,” and work with (rather than against) the people. A critical enabler of the strategy was the coordination of basing, staging, and over-flight rights. This political-military coordination set (and maintained) the conditions necessary to execute and support sustained combat. -GlobalSecurity.org
Essentially, what you are claiming Bush should have done is use a sledge hammer to bludgeon the entire populace, rather than destroying the enemy who’s military capabilities were practically non-existent.
The current problems in Afghanistan are not due to the number of troops used in Operation Enduring Freedom. It would be more correct to say that the mistake of the Bush Administration is in supporting a strong central government for Afghanistan rather than a more decentralized model. The makeup and history of Afghanistan is one of civil war and blood fueds between tribal groups.
U.S. objectives for ensuring a pro-American, anti-terrorist moderate Afghan government have been undermined by its policy supporting a strong, centralized Afghan state. The current system does not permit local or regional political leadership to be elected or local governmental structures to be formed. Rather, exclusive effort has been placed on forging and reinforcing national political structures. While this approach suits the desires of the Kabul administration, it has led in fact to the overall weakening of the Afghan state. -CenterForSecurityPolicy.org
The military effort has been more successful than you are willing to admit. The fact that Al Qaeda members ‘escaped’ to regroup and fight another day is not proof that we needed a 100,000 troop invasion. Even with 100,000 troops how would we know which Afghan’s were Al Qaeda and which were civilians? The Taliban and Al Qaeda ‘army’ is an irregular army which drives civilian vehicles and wears no uniforms distinguishable from the civilian population.
A massive invasion would have ensured that more Al Qaeda would have chose not to fight directly, but go underground and use the strategy which was used against the Russian invasion. Massive invasion also has it’s drawbacks in supply and operational security. Given the size and terrain of Afghanistan we do not have enough troops to blanket the country nor are large numbers of troops helpful in the mountainous areas where ambush is certain.
The Soviet troops had absolutely no anti-guerrilla training. While the formal mission of the troops was to protect the civilians from the anti-government forces, in reality, Soviet soldiers often found themselves fighting against the civilians they intended to protect, which sometimes led to indiscriminate killing of local people. Operations to pursue and capture rebel formations were often unsuccessful and had to be repeated several times in the same area because the rebels retreated to the mountains and returned to their home villages as soon as the Soviet forces returned to their garrisons. Soviet traditional weaponry and military equipment, especially armored cars and tanks were extremely vulnerable on Afghani terrain. -gwe.edu
In contrast the US ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan relying on local cooperation has direct benefits. Afghans who fight are strengthened and gain experience and training. They, hopefully, will make up a stronger Afghan army for reconstruction. Secondly, the integration and benefits of our new military policies utilizing smarter weapons and greater communications and intelligence results in a huge force multiplier.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 24, 2004 04:58 PMI actually think Bush did about all that was possible in the invasion of Afghanistan, and I think we took the right approach militarily. We helped Afghanis fight to create a democracy.
Contrast that to invading Iraq and saddling the Iraqis with a system of government none of them (except the Kurds who want an independent stae, anyway) were willing to fight for.
I can’t really fault President Bush for anything there except:
A bunch of what-if’s regarding the capture/killing of bin Laden.
And I think we could have done a better job of helping the Afghans and the UN mop up the Taliban and prop up Karzai’s government, and I still think there’s a real opportunity to do something meaningful there if we decide to take the lead in doing so.
No policy, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, is ever 100% correct or without unintended consequences. Decision are seldom made without some compromises. In fact the national security debate of Kerry’s candidacy has been couched in terms of nuance, meaning Kerry will make ‘rational’ compromises.
In fact most policies are taken as a result of a myriad of reasons, all with their own pros and cons. The bottom line question you have to ask is, on balance, is the policy in the interests of the American People, and in the interests of the People of the nation it affects? I don’t think we can throw the baby out with the bathwater in Afghanistan just because some view the military action there as short of perfection.
To think that we would be done in Afghanistan by now if we had sent in every last soldier is not an excercise in political science but paranormal research.
There is such a thing as being hypercritical. I predict that in the next eight months we will see plenty of hypercriticality.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 24, 2004 11:05 PMStephen:
In response to your comments, I never once mentioned “liberals” in my post, yet you apparently have jumped to that conclusion. You’ll note, upon a closer reading, that I did mention the “anti-war crowd”, and I stand by that.
Secondly, I don’t underestimate anyone. My comments pertained to how government works in this day and age, on both sides of the aisle.
A couple examples—-remember how Democrats spun the Lewinsky issue as an issue of Presidential privacy—even though some of the sexual acts occurred while Clinton was on the phone with Alabama Representative Sonny Callahan?
Or how Republicans skewed what Al Gore said about the Internet, and branded Gore as someone who stretched the truth—-and in doing so, negated much of what he had to say?
There are many other examples of how both sides attempt NOT to solve problems, but rather to lay landmines for the other side. This can be seen in how bills are routinely injected with auxiliary clauses—-if you vote down the bill as a result of an obviously bad clause, you nonetheless are branded as being against the entire bill.
Stephen, I rail against those who change their views depending on what party is in the White House. Clinton attacked Iraq militarily, as has Bush, though to different extents. Seems to me that its hypocritical to be for one attack and against the other.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 25, 2004 08:23 AMEric, you are right about human imperfection, but the thing is, your administration is not arguing imperfection and then changing their strategies. It is instead maintaining its original positions- WMDs, terrorists supported by Iraq, and trying to move them beyond the reproach of critics by using the cover of natural human ignorance and fallibility.
My argument would be is that while we’re not perfect, the quality of our choices dictates how close to appropriate they are to the situations we have to deal with. My argument is not that the administration failed to be superhuman, but rather that it failed to take the right choices when advised to.
Or rather, that they simply were not open-minded about the state of affairs in the world, willing to let the evidence overrule their theories.
If somebody tells them that no country is likely to be able to make ICBMs and fire them without our notice within the next 15 years, they come back with a report that uses loser language and which says it’ll be in 5 years. If somebody tells them there aren’t terrorists training in Iraq, or WMD stockpiles likely to remain, they come back with cherry-picked intelligence from parties with a conflict of interest that says otherwise.
They want a new Cold War to fight. This time, it’s not communism, it’s Islamo-fascisms, or Khalifism, or whatever cute name they bring along to lump a diversity of tenuously connected cultures and factions under one roof as one big threat. It’s Clash of the Civilizations! (sounds like something Ray Harryhausen would animate for.)
Fact is, though, within the last six years, we haven’t been attacked by North Korea, by Iraq or Iran. We have been attacked by terrorists, not once, not twice, but several times. Nobody could predict 9/11, but everybody who knew what was going on in the world, knew that Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden were gunning for us, and worse, were successfully scoring hits on us.
The Cole should have been a dead giveaway to the incoming Bush administration as to what was going seriously wrong in world as far as we were concerned. Instead, from the start, they just picked up where the last Bush left off.
The last Bush, however ended his term not long after the end of the Cold War, when Osama Bin Laden was still just a disgruntled rich boy mujaheddin who resented our presence in Saudi Arabia. The world has changed substantially in the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I don’t really think the Neo-Cons grasp how much.
Their only justification for what they did was Afghanistans fearful reputation as a meat grinder for foreign armies. That said, Iraq has turned out to be a nice little shooting gallery itself, now that we’re not facing down a conventional army anymore.
Fact is, by going after Iraq pre-emptively and failing to find what we were looking for, we made ourselves look like we shrugged off the deaths of the people on 9/11 and simply were using it as an excuse to indulge our imperial impulses in Iraq.
That I believe, is a grave mistake, espeically when you really are trying to manifest American influence in the world. Bush makes it very easy for his opponents to cast themselves as the good guys, because he so blindly casts himself that way, with little rationalization or explanation.
People know what he wants, and therefore, have some idea of what to do to take from him what he wants to keep. A more diplomatic, subtle president might not be so openly bright line about it, and because of that, may be able to effect their policies before their opponents have a chance to oppose it.
It was either you, or the other guy who quoted Sun Tzu as saying that the best way to win a war is to win it before you’ve fought the battle. Bush, unfortunately, wants to win them out in front of everybody. He wants everybody to know his enemies are defeated. Or that he thinks they are.
Bush would be a lot better off if he didn’t give people notice all the time that he considered them his opponents.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 25, 2004 10:02 AMThe timing piece that is always missed when people look back at Afghanistan is the diplomatic work that had to be done in Pakistan prior to the commencement of any real attempt to get Bin Laden. In 2001-2003 Pakistan was on the brink of a nuclear war with India. Although Musharrif pledged his support for the U.S. after 9/11, the majority of his military and his government were allied with the Taliban. Add to this the great nuclear secrets trade going on and you had a real mess. It is just now turning the corner (still a long way to go).
The question is could we have done more in Afghanistan, and could we have entered into Pakistani territory during the 2002-2003 timeframe? I don’t think it was likely, and we are just now getting Pakistani troops in the border territories. The Taliban/Bin Laden knew this and fled Tora Bora for Pakistan. There next stop will be Iran if they are not there already.
My argument is not that the administration failed to be superhuman, but rather that it failed to take the right choices when advised to.
The right choices when advised to? This sounds very much like a political opinion. Just what are the ‘right choices’? Should Bush use the foreign policy advice of Ted Kennedy? Since when must a President accept the advice given to him by the opposing party? Bush made a decision based on conservative geo-political philosophy based on what he and the whole world believed to be true. I understand that the Democratic party and the French had a different view on this, but the American people agreed with him and come November we will find out if they still believe he did the right thing.
They want a new Cold War to fight. This time, it’s not communism, it’s Islamo-fascisms…
I think that Islamo-fascist deftly describes the terror threat. If you read some of the rantings and religious statements of their goals, what they base their decisions on, even the video tape of Osama admitting they planned 9/11, they leave no doubt that their aim is a pan-arabic Islamist state. Could they ever succeed? Not in our lifetime. But they will do alot of damage.
Totalitarianism is inefficient and self destructive. Hitler rose out of a modern western democratic state. I think that even if Hitler had conquered the entire world his empire wouldn’t have lasted long. The entire middle east is a cauldron of discontent, poverty, oppression, and totalitarian ideology. Ripe conditions for the rise of dictators. The war against terror should be directed mainly at this. Afghanistan is only a target because Osama found a weak state ripe for his kind of Islamic revolution. The Taliban had to conquer the rest of the population in Afghanistan. Osama and most of his Al Qaeda recruits came from the mideast. The heart of terror is not Afghanistan, it is in the middle east. And there is where we must ultimately fight terror. In the hearts and minds of the Arab world.
The Cole should have been a dead giveaway to the incoming Bush administration as to what was going seriously wrong in world as far as we were concerned. Instead, from the start, they just picked up where the last Bush left off.
It was a dead giveaway. It was also one of a long line of dead giveaway’s that didn’t seem to motivate the Clinton Administration sufficiently.
Five days after the USS Cole, on October 17, Osama Bin Laden warned the US not to attack Afghanistan.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned the United States not to attack his home in Afghanistan, where fears have grown of a retaliatory strike to the Yemen ship bombing that killed 17 Americans.…No credible claims for the attack on the USS Cole have emerged. But immediate suspicion fell on bin Laden and his organization, al Qaida, which the United States accuses of organizing a worldwide terrorist network. -World News.com, mirrored on Intellnet
The Clinton administration, with Al Gore campaigning for President, decided to study the issue, create a commission. I’m sure Dick Clarke was working feverishly.
There were intelligence warnings of the security risk in Yemen harbor before the USS Cole attack. A former pentagon analyst quit in protest that his warnings that this would happen went unheeded.
Six hours after the USS Cole: “The top-secret National Security Agency report was issued about six hours after the attack. It said that terrorists were engaged in ‘operational planning’ for an attack and had traveled to Dubai and Beirut in preparation.”
Apparently Dick wasn’t working hard enough. Intelligence failures are not something new and exclusive to the Bush administration. There were major security lapses in the gulf region before the attack. Perhaps we should have hearings on this?
Another question raised by the bombing of the USS Cole is why were sailors on duty without ammunition?
“If we had shot those people, we’d have gotten in trouble for it,” said Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick, a sonar technician, in an interview with the Post. “That’s what’s frustrating about it. We would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing 17 American sailors.” -cbsnews.com
The bombing was in October. You’d think that the Clinton administration would want to act decisively.
Fact is, by going after Iraq pre-emptively and failing to find what we were looking for, we made ourselves look like we shrugged off the deaths of the people on 9/11 and simply were using it as an excuse to indulge our imperial impulses in Iraq.
Do we have imperial impulses? The US is not an imperial power.
People know what he wants, and therefore, have some idea of what to do to take from him what he wants to keep. A more diplomatic, subtle president might not be so openly bright line about it, and because of that, may be able to effect their policies before their opponents have a chance to oppose it.
Are you suggesting that we leave open the possibility that we might not recompense every act of terror with a swift and overwhelming retribution? Let’s not mix apples and oranges here. I don’t think that nuance and softness is applicable when you are at war. Let’s defeat the enemy before we negotiate with them.
Posted by: Eric Simonson at March 25, 2004 11:50 PM
