Avatar feed
Responses: 2
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
2
2
0
For what it's worth, here's my heart. 9/11 was two things-a horrific attack on America, and a large-scale capital crime. If it had been perpetrated by a recognized, legal government, with a head of state, national government, infrastructure, clearly defined boundaries, and unambiguous rules of engagement... I think it's safe to say we could've won "that" war within a year, maybe less. If it had been planned, executed, and supported by a limited group of identifiable international criminals...same thing, give or take. The problem, then, as now, is that the enemy is an element operating outside of those parameters; it's an ideology more than an entity...beliefs more than personnel. Their motivations are varied, their ranks hard to isolate, and their tactics adaptable. For whatever tactical, strategic, political, or logical reasons... I assume we can't just selectively drop in teams of unsupported special operations personnel to conduct assassinations and solve that problem. The moment we plant the flag somewhere and begin large-scale operations, things get complicated...fast. My sense of it, sitting on the ground in Afghanistan, was that for better, or worse, we were depriving these enemies from the ability to operate with impunity, challenging their ideological hold on the local populations, and building counter-insurgency forces who (we hoped) would take the fight up once we left. I think of all the elements contributing to any sense of "failure", that last one is key. We assumed once trained and equipped, our Afghan and Iraqi allies would pick up the slack...they didn't, and in all fairness, perhaps couldn't. That's left us with two untenable choices; leave the mess as it stands, or stick around and play whack-a-mole. Neither offers a very conclusive solution. Do I think it was worth it? Actually, yes...I do. Do I think it was done incorrectly? Absolutely. What would I like to see done differently? Well, for starters, I'd like to see the DOD, under Congressional oversight, do an extensive review of fraud, waste, abuse, and profiteering resulting from these conflicts. Figure out whether or not there are indeed decisions being made because of dollars, not "sense"...and if they exist, weed out those responsible. Figure out whether the threat is attacks on American soil, or if we are really trying to "save the world"...if the former, focus on the enemy's support structures here and interdict them. If it's it's the latter, define some clear limits, and what commitments from international partners must be met. Accept the fact that we aren't at war with "Islam"...but a radical, extremist version of it-but ALSO accept that funding, harboring, equipping, or training said radicals is a tacit vote of complicity with them. Stand up local forces...but stand WITH them in FORCE when it counts. The Spaniards did it alongside their Moorish allies in the 11th Century...largely because they followed these principles. For all of the losses, mistakes, and missteps...I honestly feel (a bit of a change in my feelings as a younger man) leaving now would be a worse mistake, and a waste of so many sacrifices to date.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ James Woods
MAJ James Woods
5 y
I agree with your personal assessment. Many of those points I’ve had myself especially the fraud, waste and abuse as I felt we spent more time pushing US corporate connections and products into Afghanistan and forced a style of governance that didn’t fit their culture and lifestyle. Again all great points you made.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Ken Landgren
1
1
0
I support our actions in Afghanistan but not Iraq.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close