Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rally in Baghdad, the day before he extended his militia's cease-fire six months.
Graphic source: Wathiq Khuzaie--Getty Images Photo.
The Washington Post ran a story from Anthony H. Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who recently returned from the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cordesman's perspective is not the one discussed in the major political campaigns, nor are the ones I hear at the water cooler, however, he is correct. If you follow the military accounts carefully, the U.S. military is doing an admirable job. As he perceptively continues though, the will to follow-up the remarkable military effort with a corresponding application of American interest is lacking. In this, I fault the average American who not only lapsed in the citizen's duty to be engaged by the debate to enter the war, but also now the rhetoric on how to win successfully is submerged in the political detritus that we call Campaign 2008.
To provide just one example, in the terms of the change agents--you pick your poison, Obama or Hillary--both of whom seem to want a vaguely termed `change' but who advocate greater use of diplomacy and involvement by allies. In the case of Afghanistan, Cordesman observes that the war there is winnable, premised on international interest and NATO support. Yet, neither candidate, both Senators who serve the country in the capacity of "advise and consent" to the President, have engaged international opinion and support. They are both playing politics instead. This is dishonest and disrespectable towards our armed forces.
The best guess in order to develop the necessary infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan is 2012 - 2020. The military is soundly and roundly chasing al-Qaeda out of every province and it is being reduced to a losing struggle for control of Nineveh and Mosul. In addition, the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's announcement Friday to extend his militia's cease-fire six months is another positive factor to consider. In spite of these positive developments, Americans continue their hand-ringing and lamenting of a situation that they do not understand or follow very closely.
Cordesman echoes my feeling that Americans are not really paying attention nor realizing that the struggle is longer and harder than they would like to know about. The candidates too are doing a major disservice to the Presidential debates by not being upfront and honest with the American people. War takes a long time and this needs to stated clearly and upfront, so that it becomes a part of the Presidential debates.
Cordesman states:
If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.
The wars are for the long haul.
Cordesman concludes:
Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any Congress that insists on instant victory or success will do the same. We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience -- or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves.
Posts
