It's Counterrevolution, Not Counterinsurgency Options

[Danielet]

Jessica Lynch was McChrystal's first cow paddy; then there was his sacrilegious submersion of Pat Tillman's death into BS. Now Operation Moshtarak in Marjah is put before as a people to people build-not-destroy operation. But in fact, McChrystal's whole song is a big lie because we do not have the troop density needed to secure ANY of the countryside. As a result it can be seen that McChrystal is a typical bang-em-up kinetic guy out for ops that maximize body count (theirs) and minimize casualties (ours).

So where's the fraud this time?

Well, recalling Vietnam, it is clear that what McChrystal won't admit is that we're not supposed to be doing counter-insurgency but rather, once again, counter-revolution. So what "revolution" does McChrystal offer as an alternative to the Radical Islamic one the Taliban offers? His Aug09 report promises a bloodless "security" campaign for civilians. But does anyone doubt that if forced to choose between what Americans have been doing to Afghanistan for the last near decade and what the Taliban has to offer in a plebiscite they would chose the Taliban's offer? Why?

To answer this question, imagine how you would feel if you went to a surgeon for a belly ache and he insists that it's your gallbladder and it must come out. Then he tries to get to it from the back instead of from the front. He finds a kidney in the way and tells your family he has to remove it. Reluctantly they consent but after removing the kidney he gets so tangled in guts that he closes up and decides he’d better study more anatomy before going back in. Luckily you survive and insist that he never step near you. But he insists that his reputation as a surgeon is at stake so you must allow him to try again or he’ll slap you with a lawsuit for damage to his professional status. Would you put your life again in his hands? Would you give in if he reported that, with a gun to their heads, he got the majority of your family to agree to let him go back in?

Obama's moral character is dubious indeed, given his submission to Petraeus/McChrystal hooey because he's stuck with having said that the real war is in Afghanistan in order not to look dovish when insisting in the presidential campaign that we should leave Iraq. But fact is that we can't hold any nation hostage because alQaeda had been near there. In fact, our goal in Afghanistan is not to stop alQaeda but to run pipelines from the oil&gas rich "stans" above Afghanistan to Pakistani ports and on to market. As with Iraq, once again, it's blood for oil. I'd gladly debate Exum and the "scholarly" peanut gallery around Petraeus that so deifies him like a rock star's groupie fan club. There are far more knowledgeable European sources—that don’t classify even the toilet paper "top secret"-- which have shown that we can't control 2000 years old tribal conflicts in Afghanistan. Yet McChrystal claims to "secure" the countryside with 1/10th the men that the army's own COIN Manual insists he’d need for even the least theoretical chance of success. Exum et.al like to pretend they are honest by admitting that "we're losing." But then they insist that "we can win." How, when you don't have the troop density to secure the countryside?

If we really wanted to beat Taliban’s revolution we would remember how we beat the Viet Cong's. Though we had far more troops density we mercilessly pounded the countryside with ordnance, killing millions because we didn’t know better, yet. But the millions that survived took refuge in the cities where the VC had no infrastructure. Westmoreland murderously turned South Vietnam from 85% rural to 75% urban. What happened is that the guerrilla "fish" were left high and dry by the peasant "sea" that took refuge in the cities and with help from CORDS, in the words of Radio Hanoi, "became petites bourgeois?" That's why Hanoi had to resort to a hopeless Tet Offensive.

Not that we should resort to the kind of mass murder the US military is famous for in order to keep down its casualties, but we could create from scratch NATO-run cities in Northwest Afghanistan. There we would attract the youth with housing, education and real jobs in a manufacturing economy that would support the nation when we leave. Urban modernization would thus be our revolution in response to the Taliban's. The money young Afghans send to their families would speak louder than the Taliban Koran verses. We have more than enough troop density to secure a few NATO-made cities, even if we give up on our oil&gas pipe-dreams.

From Petraeus's PhD thesis to McChrystal's report to Obama we have much evidence of the cognitive dullness of our "yes sir" military command. Their kind of brawny soldiers are made to kill using simple tactics to do it and it shows in their writings-- as well as in the babble of their peanut gallery of "scholars." Never facing debate they are too used to making fraudulent affirmations and then hiding their errors as military secrets. They have much to pay for their crime of negligence sending our mom and dad soldiers to war intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb. The only thing our troops were given is lots of is bullets so for McChrystal to now say that they're going to stop the killing of civilians is more of the stuff from which is made his Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman cover-ups for incompetent "friendly fire" killing of our own. It's time for Obama to decide on a counter-revolutionary goal rather than hide behind a plagiarized COIN Manuel. Our Chicken-manure academics ought to earn their status demanding MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE and responsible debate in which to apply their famous “critical judgment” and expertise as they did in the 1960s Vietnam War teach-ins. Only through meaningful dialogue can we save our nation from Rumsfeldian psychobabble and Bush-it, in which Petraeus/McChrystal learned to swim dazzling the media. Obama is a new breed and he better open the debate to public scrutiny if he wants public support and patience without ending up as a one term president. We must end our "ain't my kid going to war" disconnect syndrome. Americans are too willing to send OUR mom and dad soldiers in repeated tour until they die and should show their patriotism by not allowing incompetent media-oriented commanders to do to OUR kids what Americans wouldn't allow the Pentagon to do with their biological kids just so we can fill-er-up our SUVs cheap.

[nobody]

Well, recalling Vietnam, it is clear that what McChrystal won't admit is that we're not supposed to be doing counter-insurgency but rather, once again, counter-revolution

i always find the Vietnam methaphor wanting when applied to Afghanistan. Perhaps it would have been better to say "Well, recalling Iraq, it is clear that we are doing counter-insurgency rather than counter-terrorism. thus the quote ""clear, hold, build" strategy".

this statement: "But in fact, McChrystal's whole song is a big lie because we do not have the troop density needed to secure ANY of the countryside" is arguably untrue, since indeed some of the country-side has indeed be secured. in fact the truth/untruth is yet to be realized, thus the accusation of "big lie" must wait its appointed time in history.

then one gets this self-serving argument: "....., imagine how you would feel if you went to a surgeon for a belly ache and he insists that it's your gallbladder and it must come out. Then he tries to get to it from the back instead of from the front. He finds a kidney in the way and tells your family he has to remove it." when indeed there is no reason that many other metaphorical arguments might be used demonstrating different results.


are we dealing with a soothsayer enamored in alimentary interests when he would better employ his time immersed in scatology to get the real scoop on historical poop