[Nettime-bold] Scary stuff from the WSJ

["Steve McAlexander" <mcalexander@veriomail.com>]

>
>Wall Street Journal Opinion, November 14, 2001
>
>This Victory May Haunt Us
>
>By Max Boot, the Journal's editorial features editor.
>
>How quickly the fortunes of war shift. Last week gloomy commentators
spoke
>of a "quagmire" and invoked Vietnam analogies. This week, following the
>liberation of Kabul, giddy commentators will no doubt be talking of
>bringing our boys home by Thanksgiving, Christmas at the latest. It may
>seem churlish in this hour of victory to raise doubts about how the
>triumphs of the past few days have been achieved, but the manner in
which
>we have fought the war in Afghanistan may yet come back to haunt us.
>
>This is not a war being won with American blood and guts. It is being
won
>with the blood and guts of the Northern Alliance, helped by copious
>quantities of American ordnance and a handful of American advisers.
After
>Sept. 11, President Bush promised that this would not be another
bloodless,
>push-button war, but that is precisely what it has been.
>
>From the American standpoint, this is Kosovo Redux: American pilots
bombing
>from 15,000 feet, while our local allies (in this case, the Northern
>Alliance, not the Kosovo Liberation Army) do the fighting on the
ground.
>This may seem like a sound strategy -- why send American boys to die
when
>Afghan boys will do our dying for us? -- but it poses two major
problems,
>one short-term, one long-term.
>
>Shape the Peace
>
>The short-term problem is that it will be hard to shape a peace in
>Afghanistan without having forces on the ground. The administration
hoped
>in vain that the Northern Alliance would not enter Kabul, but who was
going
>to keep them out, once the Taliban collapsed like a punch-drunk
fighter? In
>the Spanish-American War, the Philippine and Cuban insurrectos were
kept
>out of Manila and Havana, respectively, by American armies of
occupation.
>But 100 Special Forces troopers cannot occupy Kabul.
>
>The hope in Washington is that we can send Muslim peacekeepers --
Turks,
>Bangladeshis, Indonesians -- into the Afghan capital. Perhaps this will
>work, but the precedents are not auspicious.
>
>Remember Somalia? The clans were awed by the presence of some 26,000
U.S.
>soldiers and Marines. But as soon as the bulk of the Americans left,
>turning over their duties to a United Nations force drawn from
Pakistan,
>Malaysia and other states not renowned for their military prowess, the
>local warlords were emboldened to cause trouble. The spiraling violence
led
>to the deaths of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers, and then 18 American
Rangers
>and Delta Force commandos. So much for United Nations "peacekeeping."
>Pretty soon, all the foreigners had pulled up stakes, and Somalia had
>reverted to a state of Hobbesian nature.
>
>It would be a gross dereliction of our imperial responsibilities if we
>allowed something similar to happen in Afghanistan. Worse, it would be
>dangerous: It would risk turning Afghanistan once again into a den of
>terrorists driven by homicidal hatred of the West.
>
>The longer term danger is that the war in Afghanistan will do nothing
to
>dispel the widespread impression that Americans are fat, indolent, and
>unwilling to fight the barbarians on their own terms. We got into this
mess
>in the first place because of the widespread impression -- born in
Beirut
>in 1983, seemingly confirmed in Mogadishu in 1993 -- that Americans are
>incapable of suffering casualties stoically. This "bodybag syndrome" is
our
>greatest strategic weakness; it is no doubt why Osama bin Laden dared
to
>send his holy warriors to our shores to kill thousands of our
countrymen.
>
>If his goal, as stated, was to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East,
he
>has demonstrably failed. But perhaps bin Laden can take some small
comfort,
>in whatever cave he is now hiding in, to see President Bush and
Secretary
>of State Colin Powell talking in recent days of Palestinian statehood.
It
>may be an egregious distortion to claim that the events of Sept. 11
have
>brought the Palestinians' agenda closer to realization, but that is no
>doubt how it will be interpreted by many in the Arab world.
>
>The low-risk manner in which we have conducted the Afghan campaign so
far
>can only add credence to this "bodybag" myth. It is, of course, a
rightful
>cause for celebration that not a single American life has been lost to
>enemy fire on the road to Kabul, but it can only be a cause of worry
that
>we have not shown a willingness to conduct ground operations in
earnest.
>Our bombing campaign reveals great technical and logistical prowess,
but it
>does not show that we have the determination to stick a bayonet in the
guts
>of our enemy.
>
>The point is not that we should suffer casualties; our commanders
should do
>everything they responsibly can to safeguard their men's lives. World
War
>I-style bloodlettings are worse than criminal; they are stupid. But the
>military's highest goal in planning a campaign should not be to avoid
any
>casualties. Yet this appears to be what Gen. Tommy Franks has done in
>Afghanistan, as his predecessors did in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.
>
>It is still not too late to dispel the illusion of American weakness;
in
>fact, we may have no choice in the weeks ahead. The Taliban, still
>shielding Osama bin Laden, remain holed up in southern Afghanistan, a
land
>where the Northern Alliance is unlikely to venture. U.S. forces may
still
>have to strike some hard blows, if only to encourage more defections
among
>the Pashtuns. As we have seen in the past few days, the imminence of
defeat
>concentrates the mind wonderfully; it does far more to encourage
surrender
>than any amount of propaganda.
>
>Of course the Taliban in the south may complete their collapse within a
>matter of days. But if they do not, U.S. forces may still have to go
>cave-to-cave, as U.S. Marines once went cave-to-cave on Tarawa, Saipan
and
>Okinawa, incinerating the enemy in their redoubts. America should show
no
>mercy. Preferably Osama bin Laden will be killed. If by some remote
chance
>he is captured, he should get not a criminal trial, but instead a
military
>tribunal followed, like the Nazi and Japanese war criminals, by a quick
>trip to the gallows.
>
>Iraq
>
>Beyond Afghanistan lies the challenge of Iraq -- a menace whose defeat
will
>in all likelihood require large-scale U.S. ground operations in
conjunction
>with our allies.
>
>It is not a pleasant thing to contemplate more battles, greater
bloodshed.
>It would be nice if our troops could simply come home and enjoy the
>holidays. But if we do not show soon that American soldiers can wage
>sustained ground combat -- that we can practice the cruel art of
warfare as
>relentlessly as our ancestors did -- we may pay a heavy price later on.




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold