Left, Right join in: ring the bell on "Obama's War"

"WAR IS THE GREATEST GAMBLE OF ALL"

LXXI

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,

Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,

Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

-The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Eleven days after this was written, the writer altered his conclusions to favor a limited military surge to provide greater security for population centers, provide stable base areas for the war with Al Qaeda and increase the US ability to strike deals with elements of the Taliban.

Critical issues, in his view, are size and length of surge, how wide a geographic area would be occupied and avoidance of mission creep into nation building.

Why the change?

Research and reflection. And a changed moral stance toward war.

*********

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT

At the moment when fateful decisions are being made.

Decisions to escalate "Obama's War" In the wild terrain of Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires."

Decisions to send more troops, to widen their areas of operation, to commit untold resources to political and economic "nation-building."

This is no time to mourn for deaths already done.

When there could be so many more to come.

Even though President Obama has so far shown restraint in dealing with requests for U.S. troop increases.

Centcom Commander David H. Petraeus is clearly lobbying for expanded economic and troop commitments to replicate in Afghanistan an approach similar to the one he used in Iraq.

The August 30, 2009 report by his top U.S. and Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal makes this clear.

To be quiet now could be complicity in hundreds, even thousands of deaths to come.

And risk the economic viability of this country for decades to come.

*********

It is well to keep perspective on the impact of prolonged war on the American economy and society.

War can become a kind of "social safety net."

It is the ultimate "stimulus package."

We can expect that the U.S. policy of extended war may provide solid military jobs for the less privileged.

Benefits for many who are squeezed by outsourcing of jobs, decline of manufacturing, an unreliable health care delivery system, and an often unaffordable higher education system.

Among the benefits:

Job security, "relatively few" combat deaths, generally good health care, affordable on or off-base housing, expense paid transfer, solid pensions after relatively short careers, and constantly improving treatment for war wounds and post traumatic stress disorder.

Corporations supplying the military also benefit -- both at the highest levels and for all those they employ.

We as a nation do reap important benefits from growing bloodshed in Afghanistan.

We should remember that the U.S. Great Depression was not truly ended until World War II stimulated the American economy and brought fuller employment.

*********

Still the U.S. policy of extended war drains its economy, blocks renewal of American infrastructure -- and contributes to the specter of huge, unmanageable government debt ahead.

Cuts (or decrease in the rate of growth) in many services may be necessary to support the people and activities employed by the military, funded by overseas American wars.

Employment and social services would increasingly delivered by the military sector -- rather than by the civilian sector of government funded activities.

So "roll the dice" again.

Decide what is most important to you.

If you wish to contain the risks, to avoid further "militarization" of the U.S. economy, take up the burden to oppose possible escalation by President Obama -- even if he is "your man."

*********

Now is the time to act.

Even though the nation is preoccupied with healthcare reform issues.

Even though Obama supporters may be reluctant to say or do anything implying criticism of the President.

Even though the raucous incivility of today's ideological polarization may build reluctance to produce another controversy.

Both liberals and conservatives "must" join in, speak out, write letters, even organize demonstrations.

Congressional hearings may help.

But they may not be enough to push media into sustained coverage and serious, non-ideological discussion.

The "heat" must be kept on the President.

We can expect media to emerge as much a part of the problem -- as of the solution.

It will be a difficult challenge to spread understanding of the range of choices ahead -- given the screaming and polarization of politicians and media in today's America.

Growing opposition to the war could sharpen the divide.

And make it difficult to find constructive solutions.

***********

We can hope -- but we cannot assume that an inexperienced Obama will make wise choices.

He has a range of options ranging from a full fledged counterinsurgency, nation-building strategy to a holding posture, with minor beef ups of military deployment while leaving open an option for some kind of deal.

We cannot assume that he will not try to appear "tough" -- so as to protect himself from hawkish critics at precisely the moment he needs to build support on health care reform.

So there must be constant public scrutiny -- somehow executed amidst the screaming hysteria of today's politics and media.

This will be difficult to accomplish, for we live in a country which represses, drowns out with noise historical perspective.

Still, It is time for liberals and conservatives to join hands:

To tell the President that if he plans to plunge deeper into Afghanistan, his plans shall not stand.

Ring the bell on "Obama's War."

***********

We know that the greater the American committment of troops and treasure, the greater is the "House of Cards" that can later fall.

An American presence in Afghanistan can remain to help make future deals. There are many possible choices.

But expanding that presence into major nation-building with expanded military operations defies the lessons of history.

An appearance of long term American occupation can sustain and strengthen Afghan Pashtun/Taliban tribal and nationalist resistance.

And will help squander the future prosperity and health of the the American people.

To be quiet now is to risk complicity in hundreds, thousands of deaths to come.

And watch America's strength and vitality sink into the rocky terrain of an Afghan wasteland.

Again, it is time for liberals and conservatives to unite:

To tell the President that if he plans to plunge deeper into Afghanistan, his plans shall not stand.

Ring the bell.

***********

Frederic A. Moritz has studied the outbreak of war since 1956. He is the author of Predicting Unexpected Attack, based on reporting as Asia Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor.

For a comprehensive critique of the Obama strategy, see Graham E. Fuller, former CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Ring the bell that can still ring...

they're going to hear from me"

Pick off an occupying army: update an old story

Today's AK-47 is yesterday's Jezail

*************

A scrimmage at a border station -

A canter down some dark defile

Two thousand pounds of education

Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,

Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

-Rudyard Kipling

*************

Click here for another trip through the Khyber Pass,

including the poetry of Rudyard Kipling

Travel with me through the winding narrow 28 mile Khyber pass from Pakistan into Afghanistan....onward to the capital, Kabul.

To the land where Pashtun tribesmen have been fighting invaders for hundreds of years.

Into the valleys where American and other NATO forces fight Taliban Pashtun tribesmen....

Into the same valleys where Afghan tribesmen forced withdrawal of Soviet occupiers in a ten year war ending in 1989.

Where Pashtun tribesmen battled British invaders in three Afghan wars.

*************

Today's Pashtun Taliban battle high tech helicopters, satellite guided weapons, drones and all the computerized power of seasoned global American military, "inheritors" of Britain's world dominance.

Fierce, familiar with the rugged Afghan terrain, they use improvised explosive devices (IED's) and the ubiguitous AK-47.

The nations of the former "Soviet Block" have made some 100 million of these cheap, automatic, rapid fire "spray and pray" rifles.

They are perhaps the world's most popular military weapon.

This omnipresent gun is known for toughness, simplicty -- although its aimed range is limited to 350 yards.

That short range makes the AK-47 weak for sniping. The IED set in ambush for NATO patrols and convoys is a more lethal modern equivalent of long distance sniping.

Word is out that to supplement the short range AK-47, Taliban fighters are once again turning to the Lee Enfield for sniping.

That venerable and widely available British World War I fast bolt action rifle has a practical range of 650 yards extending out to still deadly at 2000.

As supplied by the CIA to the Mujahideen, this rifle played an important part in undermining the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Some 17 million have been made.

*************

The AK-47: today's powerhouse Jezail

With Lee Enfield for sniping as in days of old

The AK-47 is today's Jezail -- that ancient muzzle loading flintlock or matchlock musket which Åfghan soldiers used to kill hundreds of British soldiers back in the last century.

During Britain's First Afghan War of 1839 to 1844, the Jezail was a strong match for the British smoothbore flintlock muzzle loading "Brown Bess" musket.

The highly inaccurate Brown Bess had a practical aimed range of some 50 yards and a maximum effective range of 100 to 200 yards.

The "Brown Bess" tried and true -- the very same musket the British used against American rebels in 1775.

*************

The Jezail gave Afghans an important advantage over the British.

It was sometimes was rifled for accuracy and range -- which could extend up to 500 yards.

This is not to say it was the only reason the Pashtuns defeated the British in the First Afghan War.

Rugged terrain, weak British leadership, fierce Pashtun fighting skills, poor roads, extended supply lines, freezing winter, and a hostile population all were extremely important.

Still the short range Brown Bess musket was ill adapted to irregular warfare in rough terrain.

Effectiveness of the Brown Bess also required an enemy marching bunched together so that its inaccurate fire would be more likely to hit a target.

The British musket could have a tough time hitting wildly charging Afghans not in close formation.

The slow loading weapon had limited power against a mounted, fast charging Afghan tribesman. It could only kill a tribesman or his horse at relatively close range.

Once enemies got within that range, a British soldier would have little time to reload for more volleys.

Soldiers carrying the Brown Bess could be especially vulnerable to being outnumbered by tribesmen charging in fast on foot.

British soldiers had no ability to reload a muzzle loading musket at close quarters.

A soldier outnumbered and surrounded was quickly hacked to death.

*************

The Jezail smoothbore musket, with a long barrel and a tight-fitting ball, often had longer range, greater accuracy than the Brown Bess.

Because of this advantage in range, protected Afghan tribesmen often used the Jezail against the British during ambushes from the tops of cliffs, along valleys and defiles.

Afghans with Jezails could creep up close to British forts and snipe at British soldiers while out of musket range.

Thus primitive tribesmen with the right weapon and the ability to exploit remote terrain were able to defeat an army of the world's greatest military power.

Afghan snipers poured devastating fire on British soldiers and civilians retreating from Kabul through the Khyber pass in January 1842.

Thousands died from Jezail balls, attacks by tribal horsemen, and from freezing in the snows.

*************

Martini-Henry: killing Afghans at a distance

By 1878 the Martini-Henry breech loading single shot rifled carbine and full length rifle was in British service -- in time for hard use in Britain's Second Afghan War of 1878 to 1880.

With a range of up to 1500 yards.

It seemed a revolution in high tech weaponry.

Its long range and speed of single shot reload meant advancing Afghan horsemen could be cut down before hacking to death British troops.

But in the end Pushtun tribesmen held their own.

The British won many battles, but that was not enough to fully vanquish the Pashtun.

The British negotiated a deal, kept control over Afghanistan's external affairs to keep out Russia -- but granted internal Afghan autonomy.

Could this be a precedent for today?

*************

Britain was a global colonial power when Pashtuns loaded up their Jezails to pick off and massacre English and Indian troops in the First Afghan War.

It could swagger and huff after finally defeating Napoleon 's empire in 1815.

As could the Americans after defeating the Axis in 1945 and the Soviet Union in 1989,

But under the Jezails of Afghan tribes, the Pax Britannia was sorely tried

The British Raj sought to control Afghan tribesmen, to prevent Russian inroads towards British India.

Like the American colonial rebels of 1775 the tribesmen of David took on the British Goliath.

The tribesmen had terrain on their side. They knew it, could retreat to it, sally forth to ambush and snipe at British invaders so far from their bases across the Hindu Kush in India.

Here is how the British poet Rudyard Kipling described guerrilla war and the power of the Jezail in "Arithmetic on the Frontier."

*************

A scrimmage in a Border Station-

A canter down some dark defile

Two thousand pounds of education

Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,

Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

No proposition Euclid wrote
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow.
Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can
The odds are on the cheaper man.

*************

From Kipling's "The Young British Soldier"

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

*************

By the Second Afghan War, the Afghan Jerzail was clearly bested by the rifled breech loading Martini-Henry.

Despite the advanced rifle technology, tribal ferocity and difficult terrain required the British to ultimately make accommodations with the Pashtuns -- even though they were not massacred as in 1842.

Check out this 1925 video of a Persion hunter firing "sniper style." My guess is that his gun has a rifled barrel for accuracy and has the more reliable percussion caplock -- as opposed to the flintlock on many of the jezails used against the British.

Jezail: yesterday's AK-47 picks off an empire

"Brown Bess:" killing Afghans and Americans



The Jezail was a style of musket common in Muslim lands. Because the flintlock lock mechanism was complicated, many were just removed from captured Brown Bess muskets.

The distinctive curved butt must have been clenched between the right arm and side, not braced up against the shoulder.

The stock was hand-carved, the long barrel hand-wrought, and sometimes rifled.

Many Jezails were ornately engraved to mirror the beauty and lethality tribal warriors felt they possessed themselves.

It was the perfect weapon for a guerrilla who could move in to snipe on British troops from cliffs and roadside.

Much as American riflemen did at British troops during the battle for Lexington and Concord.

Circling the carcass with a Bamboo Curtain dead

China and the U.S.

They are no longer opposites on two sides of a bamboo curtain.

They share many similarities and challenges, although their cultures and ideologies are vastly different.

Now they hold hands a bit, as happy partners -- while on the darker side nuclear powers circle in a "game" around the dead carcass of an Afghanistan devastated by thirty years of war.

A "game" that can both suck in and spill over.

***********

Bridging the nations: a Chinese Walmart

China and the U.S. Both come from extremely moralistic traditions. Both are culturally somewhat insular.

A major difference is that the US has been able to protect itself from the devastation of war fought on its own soil.

The only real traumatic, major incidence of war on U.S. home soil was the Civil War of 1861 to 1865.

China still recovers from the trauma of more than a century of bitter, violent war, both invasion and civil war. Where millions and millions have died, been uprooted, exiled, humbled into unpredictable positions in unpredictable times.

***********

Dancing in new times:

Another great difference is that China comes from the longest of histories. The US from the shortest. This impacts both in myriad indescribable ways.

China now has numerous challenges in its border regions, problems of possible separatism. How to balance the restiveness of more "backward" minorities such as Islamic Uighur and Buddhist Tibetan with the superiority claims of the Han?

The US lacks a separatist problem, but it is in the midst of a racial backlash after electing its first Afro-American president.

Once Obama made clear he would not merely be a smiling figurehead, the fear of a Black man in power has returned, echoing the deep insecurities the South felt after the Civil War --- when northern armies put blacks in charge of government.

This internal conflict, vast ideological polarization, fear and paranoia have important implications for America's interaction with the outside world.

The two countries have in common a growing polarization between poor and wealthy, a decline of meaningful guidance and regulation by government.

Both have highly unreliable social safety nets -- and sometimes dysfunctional political systems.

***********

In both countries localism, vested interest, bureaucracy and "bribery" sometimes make it difficult to enforce national policies, even where there is agreement on national policies.

Where America suffers in relation to China is its vast debt, its tendency toward bankruptcy at all levels of both private and public economy, its massive borrowing and trade deficit.

The mortgaging of future to dependence on consumer profligacy to keep the American economy going. With little left for renewal of a crumbling infrastructure.

A mixed blessing for China is its dependence on America's hunger for Chinese exports. And its dependence on interest income on American national debt.

The U.S. is an increasingly fragile nation which can put China at risk.

By emerging as number one, targeted by Al Qaeda, the United States feels compelled to continue the vast military expenditures which guarantee that funds will go into external occupation -- rather than renewal of American infrastructure.

China is freer to focus on building internal strength.

Being number one for the U.S. means, perhaps, there is little place to go but down.

China, by contrast, steers clear of moralistic expensive crusades, limits its military expenditures, keeps its belt a little tight as it gears for the future.

As the new guy on the block -- it can bypass many American problems.

Unless it crumbles under the weight of population, pollution, resource scarcity, polarized social classes, and/or political chaos, upheaval, fragmentation. How can it keep its many kinds of peoples and provinces in line?

***********

Now for the Afghan carcass:

BBC interview, Helmand Province, 2006

The BBC interview above is a classic illustration of how the Pashtun Taliban operate, recruit, and thrive off of resentment against foreign occupiers. See David Rohde, "Held by the Taliban," NYT, Oct. 17, 2009 for an account of how occupation and bombing reinforces anti-American feeling.

Over all this hangs the deepening swamp of Afghanistan, where America, Europe, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia, Iran, just to name a few, now are involved in a an increasingly violent "game."

A game that can both suck in and spill over.

China may be an American junior partner in Afghanistan, extending some economic aid -- while avoiding direct commitments.

Pakistan refrains from backing Islamic separatists in Xinjiang so long as China does not get too close to India.

China cozies up to Pakistan to limit its support for those who might stir up Islamic separatism in China.

Russian military analyst: U.S. can "win" in Afghanistan
because of China and Russia, February 2009

***********

China plays ball a bit with the US in Afghanistan hoping the US will tone down its human rights positions and its military backing for Taiwan.

Pakistan bends to Washington a bit to restrain Washington's support for India, but its intelligence agencies sometimes support the Taliban in Afghanistan to keep India from getting a toe hold there.

A very complicated world -- and one in which the Chinese can have a bright future.

But both China and the US walk tight ropes of potential internal political instability ---and a possible international tinderbox involving many countries with nuclear weapons.

A tinderbox which takes great care -- lest it drain the coffers of numerous nations.

India, Pakistan, the US, China, Iran, Russia --- all nuclear (or soon to be) powers circling on the dead carcass of a devastated Afghanistan.

How will this all impact the great international dance? Can regional and great power involvement be limited? Or will this Afghan abyss spiral upward and onward and outward as a defining morass for a host of nations?