The Lessons of Afghanistan?

The interview from General McChrystal, Commander of the US army and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in the magazine Rolling Stone showed his frustration and the gap growing between what the politicians want and what the military commanders want to do. I believe that he fully knew the consequences of such an act and wanted out. It also another sign of the values’ change compared to before, yet people expect the same results. Indeed, the lessons of the decolonisation, Viet-Nam and others have not been learnt. 

Does this gap between the two men shows the limit of the American war machine? It is obvious that if a developed army can win a battle against some partisans is not a trouble, winning the war against them is different. People at home do not want to hear about casualties but they still want to “win” the war. It is really odd because wars invariably involve casualties on both. It seems as if it was paradoxical. Interestingly many political figures such on both side the American political spectrum talk about winning the war and being patriotic and how they believe in freedom. Yet they have no trouble, imposing their own value on a different people leaving thousands of kilometers away from them. Is it the condition of winning the war? That’s not really democratic, it reminds me of the time of colony where western nations would “educate” other nations. The prime intention of letting people being master of their destiny is praiseworthy, however it is really hard to implement, let alone in a country prone to tribal war as it is a conflict between idea where education play a big role. The problem in this war is that the conditions of a victory are blurry. How are the strategists in the field supposed  to meet these requirements?

Then what can be the role of an army, how will it help a wannabe superpower to assert its influence and ambitions: I would think that this army wouldn't retaliate heavily, should be ready to take loss and reacting accordingly: no massive show of firepower, compassionate answer since political correctness is all over the place, rendering everything less natural and genuine. So are we back to Louis XV and the War of the Austrian Succession where France would be the peace maker of Europe while asking for nothing in return bar glory? However nowadays, soldier’s lives are much more valued this day making it hard to continue that kind of enlightened war.

And that is the trend as developed nations or at least western nations are less and less inclined to suffer human losses which make the exercise of war even harder. This will give the opportunity to others developing states to try the same: China in Africa, it is too early to get any lesson from its involvement there but it s not too glorious either, they benefited from an immaculate picture and used their own principles without adapting too much to the locals, it gets the job done but it doesn't make a country live if the workers are foreigners and do not integrate.

In conclusion, the role of an army shifted heavily toward a humanitarian pattern, it should rather defend and develop than attack and destroy, this is a frustrating position for the army now as they are being asked the double tasks of winning the war and bearing the brunt of the casualties while reorganising civil life.

I think that the Afghanistan war was started out of revenge and its goal was poorly designed. I do not put into question its motive and fully agree with it. However, the West and  chiefly the USA should have focused on continually eradicating Taliban leadership and their drug field without trying to get involved too much in the politics of this country not yet suited for democracy, instead they chose to achieve the impossible in spite of the previous lessons. Much easier said than achieved. And would have it been possible from a moral point of view? certainly not. However now, the coalition must go on.

-C