President Obama's Speech - "The New Strategy"
Posted by Glenn SR | | Posted on 5:40 AM
By LeNora Bowels December 2, 2009 at 9:14am
“How do you fight an enemy who’s not afraid to die?” Is the objective to “win’ this war, or ‘to end the war?” As the words flowing from the lips of President Obama “we must end the war,” weighed heavy on my mind, I could not initially grasp the concept, neither did I have any alternatives. Perhaps because of thinking that U.S. troops currently within Afghanistan, face this so-called ghost of insurgence daily. Further, many of the troops already occupying Afghanistan (approximately 65,000 troops) do not know the lay of the land, which creates somewhat of a handicap for them, lending itself to having to rely more on Afghan allies. From my standpoint, the surge of 30,000 troops, speaks to higher numbers, yet, the numbers in terms of the Taliban/Al-Qaida, (insurgence) speaks to possibilities of higher casualties within the ranks, which saddens me.
The deployment next year in the fastest pace possible is clear to me; however, I question the pull-out within the 18 month window, in terms of how the pull-out will systematically flow. Further, issues surrounding insurgence in terms of the Taliban, and all of the ramifications surrounding the reasons why more troops are needed in Afghanistan i.e. the dismantling of Al-Qaida within 18 months is in my opine giving the enemy far too much information. As I think more about the strategy, my thinking is those insurgences will more than likely press harder against U.S. troops already occupying Afghanistan, which may require U.S. troops having to be deployed sooner. Now these are just my opinions, no expert opinion, or 'fact' just what I meditated over on last evening, as I had to research and write a paper on the Taliban a year ago!
In hindsight, I recall the Bush administration and hearing the term “shock and awe!” the mantra was that our U.S. troops will go in and come out within a few months, however, a few months culminated into a continuum of warring factions. On a realistic level, “is it truly possible to deploy 30,000 U.S. forces ‘to go in and come out’ within the span of 18 months?” How does this happen, or how would this be strategically done when faced with daily insurgence, in other words, a time-frame against a Jihad could be infinite! Again, I ask one of the most perplexing questions I have come across, “How do you fight an enemy, who is not afraid to die!” A holy war as many of the Afghan people look upon as martyrdom.
Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and not necessarily the views and opinions of friends in my network! I would appreciate feedback, as I appreciate hearing your perspectives.
LeNora : - )
Look for LeNora on facebook!
After watching President Obama's speech I wanted to respond to this question
on last evening, but thought it best that I ponder further over my response. My
knee-jerk reaction was filled with much emotion surrounding President
Obama’s speech in terms of increasing stability within Afghanistan. I walked
away from the speech with many questions, although an excellent orator, the
President's, speech created somewhat of a premise for me to ask within my own asking...
“How do you fight an enemy who’s not afraid to die?” Is the objective to “win’ this war, or ‘to end the war?” As the words flowing from the lips of President Obama “we must end the war,” weighed heavy on my mind, I could not initially grasp the concept, neither did I have any alternatives. Perhaps because of thinking that U.S. troops currently within Afghanistan, face this so-called ghost of insurgence daily. Further, many of the troops already occupying Afghanistan (approximately 65,000 troops) do not know the lay of the land, which creates somewhat of a handicap for them, lending itself to having to rely more on Afghan allies. From my standpoint, the surge of 30,000 troops, speaks to higher numbers, yet, the numbers in terms of the Taliban/Al-Qaida, (insurgence) speaks to possibilities of higher casualties within the ranks, which saddens me.
The deployment next year in the fastest pace possible is clear to me; however, I question the pull-out within the 18 month window, in terms of how the pull-out will systematically flow. Further, issues surrounding insurgence in terms of the Taliban, and all of the ramifications surrounding the reasons why more troops are needed in Afghanistan i.e. the dismantling of Al-Qaida within 18 months is in my opine giving the enemy far too much information. As I think more about the strategy, my thinking is those insurgences will more than likely press harder against U.S. troops already occupying Afghanistan, which may require U.S. troops having to be deployed sooner. Now these are just my opinions, no expert opinion, or 'fact' just what I meditated over on last evening, as I had to research and write a paper on the Taliban a year ago!
In hindsight, I recall the Bush administration and hearing the term “shock and awe!” the mantra was that our U.S. troops will go in and come out within a few months, however, a few months culminated into a continuum of warring factions. On a realistic level, “is it truly possible to deploy 30,000 U.S. forces ‘to go in and come out’ within the span of 18 months?” How does this happen, or how would this be strategically done when faced with daily insurgence, in other words, a time-frame against a Jihad could be infinite! Again, I ask one of the most perplexing questions I have come across, “How do you fight an enemy, who is not afraid to die!” A holy war as many of the Afghan people look upon as martyrdom.
Disclaimer: These are my thoughts and not necessarily the views and opinions of friends in my network! I would appreciate feedback, as I appreciate hearing your perspectives.
LeNora : - )
Look for LeNora on facebook!
Taken a page from history, this is not the 1st time the US faced an enemy who wasn't afraid to die. Japanese Kamikazes pilots would load their planes full of fuel, bombs, explosives & torpedoes knowing full well that this would be a one way trip as they would fly their planes directly into US & ships. Japanese soldiers would often strap bombs to their backs vowing to fight to the death with no surrender. The Pacific War during WWII was very bloody for the US & her Allies Ultimate victory for the US came with a heavy price in high casualties on both sides causalities. This strategy is certainly nothing new and can be defeated but the question is are we willing to pay the price and even a more important question why are we there in the 1st place?
Glenn, your feedback is well worth the read! Further, in my posing the question, "How do you fight and enemy not afraid to die?" which by the way is a rhetorical question, however, not to infer that any type war is something new, rather, my thoughts surrounding this 'war' could be best defined as "psychological warfare" appearing to situate itself deep within psyche of those willing to step within the realm of death for a cause, Jihad, or Holy War. In terms of the Japanese, I am all too familiar with the Kamikaze, however, I posed the question to bring about a thought process, which would hopefully stir more discussion surrounding the implications, or ramifications of waging a psychological war within a political, and often hostile climate. When asking are 'we' willing to pay the price, how does one put a price on life? The fighting of an enemy not afraid to die, wages itself with the psyche of those who only know war. Case in point: A year or so ago, I would read an article about the Afgan children, in the photo, Afgan youth (little boys), were running as bombs were exploding in the background. There were smiles on their faces, as they were photographed running from the explosions. I stood staring within each of their young and impressionable faces, their ages appearing to be six to eight years old. I looked over at my son, who is now fourteen, realizing that he would not have been smiling, for fear of his life. On the contrary, my son would more than likely been have feared for his life! In contrast, this is all the little Afgan youth know; this is normal to them, no fear, simply a way of life. The act of war is Psychological and indelibly engrained within each of the little boys thinking, as a means of survival. For every first in history there is a last, who will be the last man standing in a war that seems to rage on? A war that must end, however, when?
LeNora : - )
LeNora I certainly agree with Fernando about you, which is rare, that you do ask some valid questions. There are two parts of a war as you noted. One is the physical and psychological. The psychological war is every bit as important as the one fought with bullets (it has always been so). There are at least six military tactics plus more that are classified, used by "Psychological Operations" (United States). Strategies ranging but not limited to, the use of pamphlets, propaganda radio stations and the military strategey of "shock n awe". Probably the best tactic use with the Afagan people is to when over the hearts and minds of Islam in which Obama is attempting to do even so characterize by the far right as showing weakness to our enemies. Let me point out that al-Qaida and Taliban are doing a fine job of using psychological warfare on the west. Case and point, the Afagan children, in the photo, had a psychological affect on you, as a fearless nation of seasoned warriors afraid of nothing, not even their children and are gleefully willing to give their lives unto death to defeat their enemies.
I remember back in 2006 the Israelis used the psychological strategy similar to "shock n awe" against the Hezbollah. A strategy that somewhat backfired in the eyes of the world when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert prematurely claimed victory (sounds familiar?). By failing to destroy Hezbollah, 90% of the Israeli public, French, the US gov. and even the Saudis, were deeply disappointed that they failed to do so. As a result Israel had the tables turned on them and suffered the worst public relations defeat in their history. A defeat that made the US as well look bad. How do you defeat an enemy that is not afraid to die? As you put it...
Israel had hope that the world would see an enemy crossing their border (unprovoked) kidnapping their soldiers, using innocent citizens as human sheilds, targeting defenseless civilians-- would have provoked world wide revulsion. Hezbollah, with a large assist from the Reuters news agency, boldly and blatantly falsified photographs and other news from Lebanon -- strategically posing human beings (dead and alive), stuffed animals and weeping women for world media consumption (see www.aish.com/movies/JP/PhotoFraud.asp). The blood shed of an innocent Lebanese would have been shamefully blamed at the feet of Hezbollah. Instead smyphathy and wining the hearts and minds of the world and Muslims everywhere including those in the US, held the US at fault instead of Israel. Go figure.
Again, I think that the best Afghan strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim people somehow while simultaneously seeking out the Taliban and al-Qaida and destroying them.
Glenn, in stating "the best Afgan strategy is to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim people somehow, while simultaneously seeking out the Taliban and al-Qaida and destroying them," is that psychological warfare that is deeply entrenched within the soil in which the Afgan people live and breathe! This type of strategy is not only intense, it will be the defining factor, which will involve a willingness to change the course of history within a historical war! Further, this strategy requires understanding a people for what and who they represent! A strategy which requires asking the right questions, and knowing the best moves, which should not be hasty or filled with the presumption that the United States knows what the people need, rather than what they expect, or desire. As you and I both know, that psychological aspect of war runs deep, as bullets, explosives, weapons destroy a people, the psychological remnants of war, is the type of battle that strikes without provocation at any time, day, or place, at the hands of those who are willing to stand up for his or her belief for the cause of what they are seeking to protect!
Your feedback is most definitely encompassed with aspects of valid historical data, which some individuals lack in writing, as they speak from emotion, rather, than fact. I truly enjoyed reading your post, and can appreciate you for being such an enlightened individual!
LeNora, I am 100% with you how intense this strategy is and demand's careful planing as such President Obama drew criticism for taking time to think through his decision. The job ahead is certainly difficult and there are no easy answers.
As to your last paragraph the same regarding you.
Touché
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill