Those Who Forget Will Be Destined to Remember

On the 8 year anniversary of 9/11, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Democrat Carl Levin, declared his resistance to sending any more troops to Afghanistan, and instead believes that our troops should only focus on training more Afghans to fight. This puts him not only at odds with the military generals on the ground, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and President Obama, but also at odds with history. Recent history, at that.

Shortly after Levin's statement, Senator John McCain, the architect of the successful Iraq Surge strategy, rightly chided his friend with the following statement. "The lesson of Iraq - one that General McChrystal wants to put into place in Afghanistan - is that we make little progress merely by putting individuals through a training course and releasing them into combat. In fact, when precisely this approach was tried in Iraq, Iraqi units collapsed repeatedly in the face of attacks. It took mentorship at every level - including partnership in joint operations with U.S. forces - that built a capable Iraqi security force. Similarly, mentorship at all levels is required to build a robust and capable Afghan military and pave the way for our eventual, successful exit in Afghanistan. To do this, we will need more U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan, not less or the same amount as we have today.In addition, vital areas in Afghanistan are controlled by the Taliban and its allies today. It will require U.S. military force to shape, clear, hold and build in these areas. If we await the day when the Afghan National Army is increased in size and capable of carrying out all of these operations fully on its own, it may well be too late.

We are reaching a decisive moment in Afghan history, and our own. I believe that the United States must commit the decisive force levels to bring about a significant change in the security environment in Afghanistan, with the aim of seeing real change over the next 12 to 18 months."

Bottom line, to train more Afghan forces so that they can control their own country will require more troops than we currently have. If Levin bothered to pay as much attention to the situation in Afghanistan as he does to his approval rating, he would understand that with each passing day the situation is getting worse there. It's impossible for U.S. troops to train the number of Afghan troops required to maintain the country's security, quickly enough, with the current troop levels in Afghanistan. Everyone knows this. As a result, on average 3.5 soldiers are being killed each day in Afghanistan according to icasualties.org, and rather than focusing on training Afghan troops, U.S. forces are instead having to use their troop strength for defensive purposes, rather than offensive purposes. There just isn't enough troops to designate to training, while also providing sufficient security and operations against the Taliban. Currently, U.S. troops are 16 times more likely to get killed or wounded in Afghanistan than in Iraq, according to analysis done by the Huffington Post.

Only 2 short years ago, that statistic was completely reversed. Undeniably, the surge worked in Iraq, and whether or not you supported the Iraq war, you can't argue with results. A similar strategy being implemented in Afghanistan is a no brainer. And yet here we are, with a President who says he's willing to do what needs to be done; with a Defense Department led by Robert Gates and the U.S. Central Command led by General Patraeus that are arguably in the best hands in our country's history; with a disintegrating war that has been waged to help prevent a day like 9/11 from ever happening again. Politicians are once again screwing with our country's future in order to be politically expedient, otherwise they simply choose to be ignorant to the events of history. Either way, it's a dangerous miscalculation by the liberal wing of the Democratic party. I would love to ask Senator Levin, Speaker Pelosi, and all the other left-wingers in congress "when the last time your war strategy actually won a war?" Never by my count, and I'm guessing they would be too vapid to even respond, however I would still jump in with another damning question; "when was the last time the war strategy of McCain and Petraeus won a war, or have you completely removed Iraq from your collective memory/talking points since it no longer benefits you politically?" Afghanistan is far to important to be lost to idealogues and those more concerned with their poll numbers than the brave men and women dying everyday trying to win this war. If we forget why we went to Afghanistan, and why we must win in Afghanistan, then I fear we will eventually be destined to remember.

Sources:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=aa29f718-f6b8-22f9-3eac-8d76a86e8d82&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/overall-afghanistan-more_n_319194.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124741046100128361.html