Is sendign troops to Afghanistan irresponsible?

More Troops in Afghanistan Irresponsible?

By Pat Bertroche, D.O.
3rd Congressional District Candidate

As Pres. Obama ponders whether to listen to his hand picked (hen pecked?) general, Gen. McChrystal, there is a lot of very heated, and needed, debate. The elections in Afghanistan are, in large part, fraudulent. As I write this article, Pres. Karzai and his opponent are negotiating a power sharing agreement. There is talk among the Afghani government of inviting the Taliban back into the fold. Pres. Obama has talked about inviting the Taliban back into Afghani government. The idea of inviting the Taliban back is the philosophy that if you give them power, they will have a vested interest in maintaining peace.

The debate about the troops comes down to two philosophies: Either win this war and prop up the Afghani Democracy, however fraudulent and corrupt it may be, or to pull out and leave the Afghan’s to their own fate. Either way, the US doesn’t really win.

However, the most important part of the debate is missing, and that is the Rules of Engagement for our military.

Historically, in America, the incoming President has had a disadvantage when inheriting a war or conflict. The new President must define what he wants to gain in the conflict, and then try to make that happen.

The problem really is, do you follow the preceding President’s doctrine and goals, and commit yourself to the outcome? Or do you change the doctrine and set your own goals? Both strategies carry a great deal of risk. I would like to take a look at historical precedent.

WWII was a great success overall for us, because we had one President, and one goal and one doctrine, throughout most of the war. WWI was a success for America, basically due to the fact that Pres. Wilson led throughout, and we had one goal and one doctrine.

The Korean War, though, had several different doctrines and goals. First, Pres. Truman wanted to contain Communist influence, and we committed our troops to the Korean War. As the war progressed, the attitudes within the Truman Administration changed, and the goal became to avoid embarrassment, and our doctrine changed. Then the goal became to win the Korean War, but not if it meant war with China. The doctrine changed again. We all know how that turned out.

Then Viet Nam. Our first War of Defeat. Pres. Kennedy started it, Pres. Johnson expanded it, and Pres. Nixon finished it. Why was Viet Nam so disastrous? There are many factors, but the number one factor is explained by Gen. George Patton, who said “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”. We did not have a strategy to win, therefore Americans turned against the war. Since there were many goals throughout Viet Nam, and none of the goals included winning, the doctrine therefore did not include winning. We would like to win, but not if Cambodia was invaded, or China became more involved, or not if we can’t win the hearts and minds of the people. As doctrine goes, so go the Rules of Engagement.

When the Rules of Engagement (ROE) change from winning to containing, you’ve gone from winning to not winning. It is important to understand how ROE impacts troop discipline, morale, and functionality. The Marines in Viet Nam weren’t potheads and opiate fiends because they were in combat. They developed drug problems because ROE made them impotent targets of the enemy. By that time the Marines got clearance to fire, call in air strikes, or artillery, the enemy had fled leaving the devastated Marines to carry their dead and wounded back. The VC used villages as bases, and utilized women and children as human shields, and some of those women and children carried weapons and ammunition for the VC. We had ROE that went along with the goal of “winning hearts and minds”, not winning, so our Marines suffered terrific casualties as a result, and horrendous drug use because of rightly perceived impotence on the part of their leadership.

This sounds very close to what is happening in Afghanistan. We have had a change in the Presidency, from one ideologue to another, but Pres. Bush wanted to win and had clearly defined goals. But Pres. Obama has changed our goals from ridding the world of Taliban and Al Qaeda, to winning the hearts and minds of Afghani’s. ROE now in Afghanistan denies our Marines air strikes and artillery support. If our Marines are being fired upon by women and children, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using civilians as human shields, right now their only option is to die and hope enough survive the ambushes that they can make it back safely to the base. The UN has defined targeting civilians as a war crime. And rightly so. But if the “civilians” are loading weapons for the Taliban, carrying ammunition for Al Qaeda, and giving material support, then they are now combatants. The Geneva Convention spells out that using human shields is a war crime, and that countries that attack those human shields and the combatants that give material support are therefore not committing ” war crimes, and the “civilians” are not granted “civilian” protection. But Pres. Obama has decided that terrorist lives are just as important, and valuable, as our Marine lives, because the ROE puts Marine lives in danger far more than they need to be. By terrorists using human shields, and Pres. Obama creating a ROE that focuses on limiting “civilian” casualties, even if the “civilians” are actively engaging in firefights with our troops, we have gone from winning the war, to maintaining the war. I don’t want any war maintained, I want it won.

I will tell you this unequivocally: My Marine is more valuable than all the terrorists put together. And if we do not have ROE that will support our Marines being able to fight and defend themselves, we need to bring them home. It is irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan if Pres. Obama does not have the ROE to support them.