America’s Foreign Conflicts Can’t Be Solved By Invasions, High-Tech Military Toys
U.S. needs to look at alternative ways to eliminate threats
After the end of the Vietnam war, the top military brass allegedly promised to never again get bogged down fighting an insurgency. But that’s exactly what happened in Afghanistan, a war we have officially lost. And the cost was more than $2 trillion to U.S. taxpayers.
Afghanistan lived up to its nickname of the “Graveyard of Empires,” and slowed down the world’s most high-tech military force. The Taliban now control more land than during the beginning of the invasion. They managed to defeat U.S. forces by simply waiting them out.
How the Taliban won
Much of this is detailed in an exhaustive May 26 New York Times article that details the Taliban’s war strategy and the U.S. military’s failure to understand the enemy.
“The Taliban have outlasted a superpower through nearly 19 years of grinding war,” wrote Mujib Mashal.
America’s defeat in Afghanistan should raise some pertinent questions. Why do we need a huge, expensive military budget, if our armed forces can’t seem to achieve convincing victories on the battlefield? What’s the point of half a billion-dollar stealth bombers that drop laser-guided missiles on men in $50 tents? Evidently in Afghanistan, it didn’t win the war.
According to The Times article, American military commanders failed to understand the nature of the enemy they were fighting. Military leaders seemed to think if they threw enough men and firepower at the problem, eventually, they would overcome the enemy. But the Taliban didn’t operate like normal military foes. They were motivated by a combination of faith, family loyalty and patriotism, so they were immune to the costs of their losses on the battlefield.
“There has been a constant need for new blood, particularly over the past decade. ‘In our immediate dillagi alone,’ he (Mawlawi Qais) said, referring to a unit of 100 to 150 fighters, ‘we have lost 80 men,’” said Mashal. “Still, fighters keep signing up, he said, in part because of deep loathing for the Western institutions and values the Afghan government has taken up from its allies.”
America’s defeat in Afghanistan should raise some pertinent questions. Why do we need a huge, expensive military budget, if our armed forces can’t seem to achieve convincing victories on the battlefield? What’s the point of half a billion-dollar stealth bombers that drop laser-guided missiles on men in $50 tents? Evidently in Afghanistan, it didn’t win the war.
Losing the Peace
Additionally, the other major war started by President George W. Bush’s War on Terror hasn’t been a resounding success either. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was deposed within a few months, but his removal left chaos in his wake. The U.S. military had to again commit forces to Iraq when the post-Saddam regime was overthrown by the Islamic State, Islamic fundamentalists even worse than the ousted dictator.
According to a 2007 Congressional Budget Office report, the estimated cost of the Iraq war was 2.4 trillion. The Department of Defense stated that casualties from both Iraq and Afghanistan are about 6,700. Also, more than 50,000 servicemen and women were wounded in action. However, according to servicemen I’ve talked to, the Pentagon uses fuzzy logic when it counts the war dead. If you get shot, flown to Germany and die, you’re not counted as part of the Afghanistan war death toll.
American forces seem to be really good at winning on the battlefield but often lose the peace.
The American invasion of Iraq has also strengthened the Islamic Republic of Iran, which now has many political ties to Iraq, so what did we really get out of the war, apart from wealthier defense contractors?
Donald Trump’s presidency has been a disaster, but one good thing he’s done is avoid committing to another foreign conflict — yet. Trump is so cynical that he’s not beyond starting another war just to get jingoistic xenophobes to rally around him. Trump seems to be more intent on unleashing the military on his own citizens.
Are there going to be people who threaten America in the future? Of course, however, I think there are better ways to deal with them — targeted killings, special operations units, intelligence, PR/propaganda campaigns — instead of invasions and high-tech military toys, which apparently can’t do the job.
