Watching the Pot

President Obama’s announcement this week of a “draw-down” in Afghanistan forces has resulted in a vigorous debate. Too few? Too many? Too soon? Too late? Take your pick...there’s always room for one more.

To call this conflict a war is appropriate, but it is a reflection of what a 21st century war is and is not. This war is not a disagreement with a country and its population. It is a battle with those that owe no allegiance to any particular sovereign state. The enemy wears no uniform and can be found moving about within a given country as well as across neighboring borders or beyond. Unlike most of its predecessors, this war is without boundaries or easily identifiable foes. As such, I do not think it is a war that can be “won”.

Those that we are fighting in Afghanistan, be they Taliban or al Qaida or some other hostile group, are adept at running away so they can live to fight another day. After all, their battle has stretched over eons and a mere ten years for us is but a blip on their timeline. They will shoot and run or perhaps even suspend their fight until the force du jour decides to “draw-down”. Then, when the coast is decidedly clearer, they will re-emerge to continue their quest for dominion.

So how does one “win” such a war? They don’t. The Russians found that out as we are today and precious lives are being risked and lost while we search for a “winning” strategy. Marketing, in other words. Is it so important that the US can declare victory while extricating itself from a hapless situation? Apparently so, at least to those that lead.

We’ve all learned that a watched pot never boils. Drawing a rough parallel, I have no doubt that violence will return to the streets of every Afghan community once US forces vacate them. Are the Afghanis lawless and inherently violent? Probably not, but they are a collection of sects and tribes that do not recognize a central government. Left to their own, historic devices who can be surprised that they will return to what they know? And we simply cannot afford the dollars and personnel to keep a close watch on them.

So let’s agree that, regardless of specific numbers and dates, the sooner is, by far, the better. Chaos will once again reign with only a question of when yet to be decided. And while we draw-down our forces in Afghanistan, how about taking a look at our commitments in other, less volatile countries. Germany, for instance, or Japan or Korea. These are pots that have long since cooled and pose little or threat of boiling over. And modern warfare strategies make the past practice of standing guard on a given line obsolete. It seems to me that our presence provides more economic support than strategic and, if so, let’s bring some more troops back home from less hostile climes.

Einstein opined that insanity is no more than doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Our current involvement in a country that has endured centuries of invasion and conflict is a perfect example. Right or wrong, we ain’t gonna win this thing no matter how distorted the definition. There are those that will speak of strategic advantage or long term stability in support of maintaining a presence. Mere code words, I’d say, for staying a course littered with hidden agendas and lost lives.