But are our interests really that narrow? Who determines what is a vital national interest? Is Oil? Economic Stability? Preventing Genocide? Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons? Promoting regional stability? Preventing a country from being used as a virtual safe haven for the enemies of the US? On those and a dozen other scenarios, good competing arguments can be made that they either are or are not vital US National interests. Similarly, he also postulated that we should only go into a conflict with Clear cut national support . But in the US- what does that mean? On 9/11 I guarantee you that there was OVERWHELMING national support to go into anywhere in the Middle East or AFPAC region. As far as clearly defined objectives- while unconditional surrender and total occupation of the enemy territory ala WW2 are pretty easy to define, they are pretty unique in history. If we were constrained by scenarios like that- we would not have a South Korea today because we would not have ever intervened there.
All I can say is that it doesn't matter if the entire world supported US military action in the middle east. Today, its a different story and our leaders continue to turn a blind eye to the opinions of most Americans.
Everything you have mentioned are American foreign policy concerns. They are all related to each other and do not see a way to clearly prioritize them. The efforts we are making in the middle east are for the purposes you have listed and I don't see how it is any different to waging WWII. Our mission back then was to defeat the enemy and stabilize Europe. Our mission now is to defeat the enemy and stabilize the region, although we are obviously nowhere near the success we saw in western Europe.
I certainly can and do fault the previous administration for the strategy that it followed in Iraq until 2007 as well as the neglect that it showed in Afghanistan- but those spewing talking points about "it's their war" (Well it was South Korea's war too - would be a sad thing today if we had listened to the folks saying the same thing in 1950) or "we should be using our resources here at home" (talk about blowing money- the "War on Poverty" has been waged since I was 9 years old and we have as much poverty today as we did in 1965 -how many more resources do we devote on that one? ) really know very little about history or the world IMO.
As far as the real lessons we should have gotten from Vietnam- well- I'm not sure, but we expended 58,000 soldiers in that effort- that seems like pretty overwhelming resourcing to me, but maybe we just had a really lousy strategic and operational approach and wasted American soldiers lives with misguided strategy and tactics until the American public finally grew sick of all of those casualties so that by the time we did adopt a sustainable and supportable approach (which I think that Gen Abrams brought about in conjunction with "vietnamization") the US public was no longer willing to support any level of effort and we lost in a straight forward convention invasion from the North. So from my perspective the lesson should have been DO THE JOB Right and don't apply a strategic/Operational/Tactical template that doesn't fit the circumstances. Gen Petraeous (and Gen Matis as Centcom Cdr) seems to me to have a solid appreciation of what needs to be done and how to do it- certainly much better than those parroting a few politicians talking points.
I don't think its fair to compare Afghanistan to South Korea. Yes, we've been stationed in Korea for the past half century. So what? We have not been waging a war for 60 years in Korea. We have merely sat and ensured things did not get out of hand. Since the end of the Korean War, I don't think the number of American casualties in South Korea have numbered more than 10. And coming to South Korea's defense in 1950 was a no brainer. It WAS our war. We have made almost every conflict during the Cold War our war, to different extents. The war lasted less than 3 years and it ended with success, if not complete victory. Preventing a communist takeover resulted in clear, tangible outcomes in our favor. We now serve as a successful counterweight an deterrent to Chinese and NK aggression. Our being in South Korea for 60 years has done more good for our national security than has waging perpetual war in Afghanistan for 9.
I also disagree with measuring our success/failure in our wars by counting the American dead. It doesn't matter if it takes one or a thousand deaths - if it wasn't worth it, it wasn't worth it. We "expended" roughly the same amount in Korea, but they are two different wars we entered for the same purpose and one was a (half) success, and one was a failure.
To respond to your mention of the War on Poverty - simply because the level of poverty in 2010 is the same as it was in 1965 does not mean our government's efforts were a failure. What about all the years in between? I don't read about poverty in America in my free time but I can bet that our poverty level has dropped several times during those 45 years. Your logic also implies that since any effort at reform at home has been and will be a failure, we should spend the money on other things. Yes, we have turned into a nation that cannot live without spending - we spent ourselves to death with the housing market and now this.
Public support for the wars are far below the majority. Like Vietnam, we are losing against an insurgency. We are losing against their people. Even if we did "win" the war and pulled out, how long would our "victory" last to see the light of day? We are trying to pry apart, untangle a fight, culture, a people and a way of thinking that has been built up for centuries. The power of one nation plus decades of effort will not change that. There is no reason why we should have to spill our blood for them.
It pains me greatly to admit it, but history has shown that Afghanistan is truly the country where empires go to die. There has been no exception, and history doesn't lie. It doesn't seem like a coincidence either.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. Nearly 9 years through, with 4 more pledged. If Gen. Petraeus can finish the job before he has to retire, I would congratulate him. "DOING THE JOB RIGHT." Even if someone had the capability to do the job right, do you think still think it would be worth it if it took the US 30 years to set things straight? 30 years of war. We are speaking of "fixing" an
entire country. America is strong and resilient, but not that strong and resilient. Our pockets are the deepest in the world, but its still finite. If we were, child labor and poverty would not exist in this world. 50 years from now as an old dude, I wonder how the future generations will perceive the War in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Very few things in the world are black and white and US national interest is definitely not- and it certainly is not easily reduced to a political bumper sticker. In 2001/2002 the US had plenty of support WORLD WIDE as well as support at home to pursue this course in Afghanistan- the fact that some politicians and the professionally short sighted now argue that the change in public support shows otherwise not withstanding. Personally I think the US is obligated to pursue a course that will leave Afghanistan a stable and reasonably functioning government able to exert a fair amount of control over its borders and internal territories (although undoubtedly it will be one that is not as pure as the driven snow. But if that was a requirement we would have abandoned Detroit and Washington DC municipal Government long ago.)
I cant believe you're comparing Afghanistan to Detroit and our capital. Those are two of our nation's greatest cities, for reasons all Americans should know. That comment irks me too because I am from near Detroit and my dad works in the automotive business. Many of his friends have lost their jobs. Maybe thats why you should reconsider actively supporting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe its because we spend so much treasure, time, BLOOD...on distant lands where it is clearly a hopeless cause. Maybe we should be spending that influence on OUR country and making our country more competitive for the 21st century. I am all for investing in our national security but when it is clearly a lost cause, I really do wonder where the nation is headed. If there was some sort of PREDICTION, or GUARANTEE that we would win, maybe I would think it through again. While waging the war during WWII and in Korea, as hopeless as it seemed sometimes, our leaders KNEW that Allied victory was inevitable. Our enemies would simply be unable to continue fighting after a period of time. As much as I hate to say it, the war is UNWINNABLE. Is there, in fact, even a definition of how to "win" in Afghanistan? How do you "win" against an insurgency that is in hiding, just waiting for America to pull out? How do you establish a stable, democratic government where corruption is an incurable disease?
And besides - who honestly believes that after any number of years we are there that Afghanistan will be able to hold its own against the Taliban? The very fact that our leaders thought we could succeed there baffles me. Afghanistan has zero infrastructure, low literacy, and is plagued by what plagues nearly all Mid-East countries - the degradation of women. As long as that exists, the middle east will continue to be the pathetic failure it is today. Not to mention that corruption is pretty much a way of life there.
Even if we did have the money - if we were assured that China would FOREVER buy our bonds to finance the war, does it mean we should continue? Technically, it would be possible. Our defense expenditures, as enormous as they are, are still a tiny amount compared to the size of our economy. But it still doesn't mean we should continue down this self-destructive path.
Finally- Chockstock you need to be asking yourself- if you clearly believe that the country is on the wrong track fighting the wars it is in today, then are you in the right place right now?
If I am in the wrong place, I wouldn't have applied here at all - never would have even dreamed of being in the military. After a commission, if I get deployed to Afghanistan, I get deployed to Afghanistan and I wont be kicking and screaming the whole way there. I would much prefer not to and I don't see how this is really helping my country at all - but orders are orders and I'll just have to see it as a learning experience. There is no reason why I can't have my own opinions about our country while serving, as long as it doesn't get in my way of getting the job done.
.
