Font size: 
Partly, it is the liberal politicians and the media back home who stir up public opinion against war. When liberals see war casualties, they chicken out and begin to question the war, although they were party to its initiation. This confuses the warriors on the battlefield who lose heart and morale. Winning soon becomes a dream, and all that the U.S. soldier wants is to return home quickly. This helps the opposition smell victory.
Also, the media portrays battle casualties as if they were the end of the world. The media fails to recognize that in a war somebody would die. That is the very essence of war. During World War II, under the command of the late U.S. General George S. Patton, every battle in Sicily, Italy or Western Europe had more than 5,000 casualties. But the United States still fought and won. Politicians today do not understand war. Rather, if public sentiment against war is vacillating, they feel that they have to respond to it.
Official history does not say that America’s Korean War was a needless war. Rather, it was a war to divide the same people into two parts, with which no right-minded person could agree. But the folly still persists even after 50 years. The United States never learned from history and repeated the same mistake 15 years later in Vietnam. Thanks must go to the Vietnamese people who resisted and won.
Then, one would imagine that the United States would learn from past mistakes, but it seems they did not. They entered the Gulf War on the flimsy grounds of protecting an ally from a marauding bully. At least, that is what they told the public, although the fact is they were after the bully’s oil reserves. The United States never managed to lay hands on the oil reserves then, and so all the sacrifices and war expenses were a waste.
Attacking Iraq in 2001 was completely unnecessary. Although this time around the Americans captured the oil reserves, the locals that U.S. officials had labeled as Al Qaeda terrorists rose in revolt. The next six years became painfully difficult for the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Troop casualties, although not very high, again became a source of concern. Once again, the battle had to be left half done and victory handed over to the opposition. The soldier who spilled his blood was left high and dry.
There are legitimate reasons to fight the war in Afghanistan, since terrorists there plotted and killed around 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001 in a deadly terror attack for an apparently minor grudge. Osama bin Laden and his henchmen had to be dealt with and the initial U.S. campaign against his terror outfit in Afghanistan was a huge success.
The United States was heralded as a liberator. The ancient Islamic law imposed on the people of Afghanistan was set aside. But in the process, the United States made the wrong friends in the Pakistanis, whose objective was to keep the terror regime alive in Afghanistan. This became apparent when the United States took their eyes off of the objective and began a new fight in Iraq. The clever-minded Pakistanis took advantage of the situation. They trained, armed and provided sanctuary to the terrorist masterminds. The American blood spilled earlier was again wasted, and politicians in Washington are responsible for it.
Now, the fog of war in Afghanistan is so thick that no clear-cut policy can be tailored for the situation. Generals at war always believe that wars can be won with greater strength in numbers, even though sane voices keep telling them that this war, like many in the past, is not winnable.
If the U.S. objective is to find and punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks, then democratizing Afghanistan and protecting the shaky regime in Kabul should not be the objective. Bribing Pakistan with aid worth US$7.5 billion to cooperate in this objective is the worst decision. Instead, the Pakistanis should be held responsible for the turmoil in Afghanistan.
While politicians in Washington debate the strategy for Afghanistan, the number of U.S. casualties has hit 774, which is the bulk of the 1,381 coalition forces deaths in Afghanistan. There are 60,000 U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan and 40,000 from other coalition countries that are mostly protecting cities and urban areas for the Afghan government. None are looking for Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders. If any success has been achieved, then it is with the unmanned drones that constantly fly and target terrorist hideouts and leaders.
The Iraq experience has been no different for U.S. servicemen, where an invisible enemy inflicted heavy damage on them. Although the bully was unseated and executed, the oil objective remained elusive, but in the process, an ethnic divide that was dormant for 300 years came to the forefront. This will consume Iraq internally for many generations.
As casualties mounted, U.S. troops were afraid to venture out, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Except in the invisible green zone in Iraq and the relative safety of their heavily defended posts in Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers do not venture out. For this pitiful situation, U.S. generals are responsible, and they in turn listen to politicians that wish to avoid direct battles. Although this has prevented large-scale casualties, it has killed the soldiers’ will to fight and win. Therefore, the great American soldier has been shortchanged.
The past 50 years is riddled with U.S. posturing with missiles, aircraft carriers, F-16s and intimidating troops. But they appear to be only a show. Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong called them “paper tigers,” and that is what they have become.
Somehow, the U.S. should be made to understand that fighting unnecessary wars is not statesman-like. A just war in Afghanistan to find the perpetrators of 9/11 should be fought and won no matter the cost.
Another point to be remembered is to pick friends with care. The war in Afghanistan would have been different today if the double-talking Pakistanis had been kept out. It is them who sweet-talked the U.S. on the one hand and hid the perpetrators of 9/11 on the other. Keeping the Pakistanis out of the war is not difficult. They are a bankrupt country. Deny them oil, spare parts and money, and they will instantly talk sense.
If the United States increases their troop strength in Afghanistan, it will force the Taliban into a defensive mode, while chasing them into Pakistan will kill their offensive initiatives. It may also give the U.S. an opportunity to catch the terrorist leadership.
The Taliban is a Pashtun phenomenon of southern Afghanistan. There are other brave groups in the rest of Afghanistan who fear the Taliban but will fight them with U.S. support and help. They are the United States’ best bets. They can be armed and sent to Pakistan to fight the Taliban. If Pakistan interferes, then they can be told the consequences.
It is U.S. troops who are suffering through the current Pakistani machinations. They deserve U.S. support and not Pakistan’s backing. Cheers for the U.S. soldier, and here’s hoping that sense prevails in Washington.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
