Ralph Peters, Mendacity of Hope

8/8/2019 Ralph Peters, Mendacity of Hope

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ralph-peters-mendacity-of-hope 1/5

The mendacity of hopeThe U.S. essentially has four options â from best to worst â going forward in Afghanisn.By Ralph PetersThe conflict in Afghanistan is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of concentrating on the critical mission of keeping Islamist terrorists on the defensive, we've mired ourselves by attempting to modernize a society

that doesn't want to be â and cannot be â transformed.(Marines on patrol: Whatâs needed in Afghanistan is not more U.S. troops or hope./Rafiq Maqbool, AP)In the absence of a strategy, we're doubling our troop commitment, hoping to repeat the success we achieved in the profoundly different environment of Iraq. Unable to describe our ultimate goals with any clarity, we're substituting means for ends.Expending blood and treasure blindly in Afghanistan, we do our best to shut oureyes to the worsening crisis next door in Pakistan, a radicalizing Muslim statewith more than five times the population and a nuclear arsenal. We've turned thehose on the doghouse while letting the mansion burn.Initially, Afghanistan wasn't a war of choice. We had to dislodge and decimate a

l-Qaeda, while punishing the Taliban and strengthening friendlier forces in thecountry. Our great mistake was to stay on in an attempt to build a modernized rule-of-law state in a feudal realm with no common identity.We needed to smash our enemies and leave. Had it proved necessary, we could havereturned later for another punitive mission. Instead, we fell into the great American fallacy of believing ourselves responsible for helping those who've harmed us. This practice was already fodder for mockery 50 years ago, when the novella and film The Mouse That Roared postulated that the best way for a poor countryto get rich was to declare war on America then surrender.Even if we achieved the impossible dream of creating a functioning, unified state in Afghanistan, it would have little effect on the layered crises in the Muslim world. Backward and isolated, Afghanistan is sui generis (only example of itskind). Political polarization in the U.S. precludes an honest assessment, but Ir

aq's the prize from which positive change might flow, while Afghanistan could never inspire neighbors who despise its backwardness.Recalling failures of VietnamEchoing Vietnam, we're pouring wealth into Afghanistan, corrupting those we wishto rally; we're fighting with restrictions against an enemy who enjoys sanctuaries across international borders; and our core enemies are natives, not foreignparties (as al-Qaeda was in Iraq).If the impending surge fails to pacify the country, will we send another increment of troops, then another, as we did in Southeast Asia? As the British learnedthe hard way, Afghanistan can be disciplined, but it can't be profitably occupied or liberalized. It's inconceivable to us, but many Afghans prefer their livesto the lives we envision for them. The lot of women is hideous, and the lives of

nearly all the people are nasty, brutish and short. But the culture is theirs.Even "our man in Kabul," President Hamid Karzai, put his self-interest above anygreater cause. Reborn a populist, he backs every Taliban claim that the U.S. inflicts only civilian casualties in virtually every effort against terrorists. Karzai is convinced that we can't abandon him.We should do just that. Instead of floundering in search of a strategy, we should consider removing the bulk, if not all, of our forces. The alternative is to hope blindly, waste more lives and resources, and, in the worst case, see our vulnerable supply route through Pakistan cut, forcing upon our troops the most ignominious retreat since Korea in 1950 (a massive air evacuation this time around,leaving a wealth of military gear).Ranked from best to worst, here are our four basic options going forward:â¢ Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and t

hose of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and afew satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones,and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions



with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be doneby air, if necessary.Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics.â¢ Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home,

renewing our strategic capabilities.â¢ Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.â¢ Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy.Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge.A reality checkIn any event, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, will determine the future of Islamist extremism in the region. And Pakistan is nearly lost to us â a fact we must accept. Our strategic future lies with India.

President Obama pitched Afghanistan as the good war during his campaign, while rejecting our efforts in Iraq as a sideshow. He got it exactly wrong. Now our newpresident either needs to lay out a coherent, detailed strategy with realisticgoals, or accept that, by mid-2002, we had achieved all that conventional forcescould manage in Afghanistan.We don't need hope. We need the audacity of realism.Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author of Looking For Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World.Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, February 24, 2009 in Foreign Affairs - Middle East - Forum, Forum commentary, Peters PermalinkUSA TODAY welcomes your views and encourages lively -- but civil -- discussion

s. Comments are unedited, but submissions reported as abusive may be removed. Byposting a comment, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in Register

Post this comment to Facebook?Comments: (32)Showing: New: Most recommended!

AlsoNewman (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 6:24:08 AM

... and where was "the arm-chair general" as Bush went into Iraq?

silent?

Recommend 2 Report Abuse

knaug60 (7 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 8:25:10 AMAfghanistan has justly earned its reputation as the graveyard of empires over the millenia. If Pakistan is powerless to stop the Taliban, then we will have trouble succeeding in Afghanistan. One poster yesterday blithely stated that what Russia did in Afghanistan has no bearing on our activities. That couldn't be farther from the truth. If we, as the Russians did, reach a point where we have no clear objective [no, defeating the Taliban is not a clear objective], little localsupport because they don't fear us as much as the other guy, and an ineffective

local/national government, then our time there could be miserable indeed.




knaug60 (7 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 8:33:07 AMIn answer to AlsoNewman's question where Lt. Col-ret. Peters was in 2003:=========================Wikipedia:Peters was a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion and ongoing war in Iraq. Defending the war from critics who claimed that Iraq was descending into civil war,

he authored a March 5, 2006 piece in the New York Post entitled Dude, Where's MyCivil War?, in which he wrote:

I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can'tfind it...The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree.

Claims that Iraq was descending into civil war, he wrote, were the politically motivated claims of "irresponsible journalists" who have "staked their reputations on Iraq's failure", though six months later, in an interview with FrontPageMag.com magazine, He stated that civil war is closer than it was...The leaders squabble, the death squads rule the neighborhoods.

===============================So that is where he was.


Wyoming (7 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 8:47:32 AMPeters is one of the most astute columnists in existence, particularly on war and peace issues. He has been correct far more often than he has been wrong.


BlackRooster (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 9:09:18 AM

Regarding AlsoNewman et al,

I understand some of the emotion; as one who continues to serve with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, beleive you me...I get it. But Ralph gets it too...

He has demonstrated the moral courage to speak up on the issues with clarity inposition, defended our troops by saying what they could not in many instances, and kept constant pressure on those leaders inflicted with the bug of cowardice.

Review the wikipedia input...but if you really want evidence of Ralph's presence, look up "Fighting for The Future" published in 1999, although some of my favorites are the collection of editorials he has captured in "Never Quit The Fight"or "Wars of Blood and Faith" both published during Bush's tenure.

Disagree with Ralph's opinions, challenge his arguments, but there really is noneed to attempt to "call him out". I hope you will find Ralph to be a courageousadvocate and voice of action as many others do and that his greatest contribution in this forum is in spurring debate and critical thinking about the current issues, as we are collectively doing right now.

Respectfully,A veteran


Ottovbvs (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 9:29:04 AMI agree we should leave Afghanistan...it's another lost cause Bush got us into and mismanaged for seven years. The problem is Peters has zero cred as a voice on



this topic and his article is loaded with the usual mix of incorrect statementsand ideological idee fixes. He opens by saying we are doubling troop strength in Afghanistan. We're not. Current troop strength is almost 32,000 and we're sending another approximately 14,000 which is an incremet of around 45%.


arthurl (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 10:04:53 AMthe sad thing is that when Iraq was at a crossroads in mid 2004, Dr Strangeloveand the Foxy boys would run endless articles and shows depicting the soldiers eating out of mess kits, sleeping under stars and stating that anyone that did notwant to continue did not "support the troops" and "wanted them to win". As if that was a valid argument over public policy. Now that there is a new administration, he cant get out quick enough. Bye bye neocons and thanks for nothing


howard lohmuller (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 10:21:37 AMI agree with Ralph Peters " best answer." This Afghan scenario reminds me of Lyn

den Johnson's attemt to claim his Presidentcy from JFK by upgrading Viet Nam from advisors to full scale war. His liberal viewpoint not only convinced him a crisis would get him reelected, but that he could appoint one of his "water walkers" to run the war from the Whitehouse, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defence. I'mworried Obama will take the same path.

Howard Lohmuller


PaulZ (0 friends, send message) wrote: 2/24/2009 10:23:09 AMThe only comment worth listening to here is that of the veteran - BlackRooster.It's fair-minded and shaped by actual experience.

Typically, as they rant and call everyone with whom they disagree an "ideologue", the other posters here don't have any substantive response to the arguments Peters makes in his article. Instead, they offer the usual leftist name-calling: "he's a neo-con, he supported Bush". It makes you wonder: who really are the ideologues?

Recommend 14 Report AbuseMore comments on this story: 1 2 3 4 Next

Subscribe Today: Home Delivery of USA TODAY - Save 35%

USATODAY.com partners: USA WEEKEND Sports Weekly Education Space.com

Home Travel News Money Sports Life Tech Weather

Resources: Mobile news Site map FAQ Contact us E-mail newsJobs with us Internships Terms of service Privacy policy/Your California Privacy RightAdvertise Press Room Media Lounge Electronic print edition Reprints and Permissions

Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds

The Nation's HomepageÂ© Copyright 2010 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Become a member of the USA TODAY community now!Log in Become a member What's this?

Ralph Peters, Mendacity of Hope

Documents

Transcript of Ralph Peters, Mendacity of Hope