“The Afghan people's allegiance is the object of this war. They aren't choosing between the Taliban and the U.S.-NATO coalition but, rather, between the Taliban and the Afghan government on whose behalf the coalition is fighting. As McChrystal's memo puts it, the war's focus, like that of any classic counterinsurgency campaign, is "the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population, by, with, and through the Afghan government."
IMO this is the kind of thinking that will loose this war for the US/NATO.
“The Afghan people's allegiance is the object of this war.”
No, sorry, Mr. McChristal. The object of war is to win. After the victory parades you can engage in the fun stuff…like winning allegiances.
This may come as a shock to everyone but wars are won by breaking the will of your enemy to fight, and not won by winning the people’s “allegiance.” (Whatever that means)
That means killing your enemies until one of two things happens:
A: Your enemy sees no hope for survival, let alone victory, and quits.
B: All of the enemy fighters are dead.
Think about it…according to McChristal and Fred whoever has the Afghan people’s allegiance will rule that nation. So, by that logic, we can assume that, since the Taliban ruled Afghanistan for over 5 years, the Afghan people gave their allegiance (and their asses) to the Taliban. After all, the Taliban were providing Mohamed Six Pack with his “needs” by, with, and through the Taliban/Afghan government of the time, right?
So, we are to believe that The Allies won WWII by winning the allegiance of the German, Italian, and Japanese peoples? Not by blowing their countries back to the Neolithic Age, and killing enemy combatants en mass.
Did the US win the Philippine Insurrection, not by breaking the insurgents will to fight on…but by providing a government who gave the “people” flush toilets, and trains that ran on time?
Horse cookies…
The people follow whoever is in power, and that means the biggest, meanest, badest mother f----r on the block. That means the people who are ready, willing, and able to kill the competition without mercy, thereby wining the war. If the victor wears a NATO hat, fine. If they wear a US Army hat, great. If that person wraps a dishrag around their head, so be it. The side in power calls the tune, and the people dance.
Thinking that the Afghan war can be won by means other than sending more troops, dropping more bombs, and killing more of the enemy is just wishful thinking by over-educated fools, armchair generals, and fat liberal journalists, looking for an excuse for defeat that deflects (with plausible deniability) from the real reason for that defeat. They are looking to blame defeat on “the inability of the Afghan Government to legitimize itself in the eyes of the Afghan people.”
I can hear it now…”the war is un-winnable because the AFGHAN political leaders are corrupt, the toilets don’t flush, and the train is always late.”
What’s the real reason for defeat in Afghanistan?
The leadership in Washington, and NATO are unwilling to make the decision to wage war, and thereby risk their political lives. In other words…they are moral cowards.
So now that the war looks bad for their side, they are looking for excuses to quit.
If the USA/NATO want out of the fight that bad, why don’t they have the balls to just say “We quit.” go home, and stop wasting everyone’s time, and lives, fighting a war they do not have the courage to win.
