It’s a prediction that looks all too familiar.
Officials are brimming with confidence that the escalation will turn the tables in Afghanistan, but are conceding that the already record levels of violence are going to rise in the “short term.”
Materially the same prediction was made in late 2008 when then-President George Bush approved his escalation strategy. Officials said the same thing yet again in March when President Obama announced his last escalation.
A surer bet does not exist in the Afghanistan conflict, more troops means more casualties. 2008’s record levels of violence fell in mid-August of 2009, and the situation has continued to worsen ever since.
Policy makers are half right, then. The violence will rise in the short term. Their constant claims to the contrary notwithstanding, however, the “short term” never seems to give way to illusory military progress, and the levels aren’t temporary rises but an ever-worsening trend exasperated by repeated escalations of the conflict.
"When the enemy attacks, we withdraw. When the enemy withdraws, we attack." – as recommended by Sun Tsu, the author of 'The Art of War' and a strategy utilized with great success by Mao's Communists against the Chinese Nationalists. 100,000 Russian troops could NOT 'win' in Afghanistan – does anyone seriously think that 100,000 American troops are going to 'win'? – whatever 'winning' is? The 'lessons of history' are always very clear – BUT – it takes arrogance and stupidity NOT to learn them. And of course, Mao correctly observed that: "it is easy to defeat an arrogant enemy." Bring the troops home – send Obama and ALL 535 members of the Congress to Afghanistan!
Well put Vet.