How a good paper went bad
Stories like this one in the NY Times appear to be reading from the DNC talking points on Afghanistan while ignoring the fact that the Taliban continue to bet their but kicked and have had to change their tactics to to kidnapping and extortion in an attempt to survive and try to recruit some of their former fighters out of prison.
They have to do this because it is getting hard to recruit for an organization that cannot even run an ambush without being wiped out. For awhile they kept trying to run the same old tactics that have worked historically in Afghanistan but they keep getting pounded by US and NATO air power every time they try to mass for an attack. Their latest tactic to try to stop the air attacks is to claim that civilians are being killed. If that sometimes happens it is because they use human shields in an attempt to avoid destruction.
The local Afghans understand their game and have turned on them on several occasions. The story suggest that the Afghans would have liked a larger presence of US forces but offers little in the war of evidence to support that. It also suggest that more resources should have been devoted to nation building, but that would hve just given the Taliban more resources for kidnapping. The nation building has to come after the fighting stops.
The Afghan army has made good progress. Its troops are aggressive and seem to be adapting to counterinsurgency warfare. The Taliban have had some success in isolated locations, but it is not something they can sustain or maintain.
This story in the NY Times and others in the liberal media appear to be the start of a new theme for Democrats and anti war liberals. Since the surge is working and al Qaeda is now being defeated in Iraq, they are going to turn their anti Bush anti war venom on the war in Afghanistan where it would have been all along if we had never gone into Iraq. These people are willfully ignorant of the dynamics of the battlefield or war fare in general. They look at events on the battlefield as another excuse to criticize the administration than as part of an evolving and dynamic process with a thinking enemy. If our enemies were as thoughtless as these critics are, war would be easy.
They have to do this because it is getting hard to recruit for an organization that cannot even run an ambush without being wiped out. For awhile they kept trying to run the same old tactics that have worked historically in Afghanistan but they keep getting pounded by US and NATO air power every time they try to mass for an attack. Their latest tactic to try to stop the air attacks is to claim that civilians are being killed. If that sometimes happens it is because they use human shields in an attempt to avoid destruction.
The local Afghans understand their game and have turned on them on several occasions. The story suggest that the Afghans would have liked a larger presence of US forces but offers little in the war of evidence to support that. It also suggest that more resources should have been devoted to nation building, but that would hve just given the Taliban more resources for kidnapping. The nation building has to come after the fighting stops.
The Afghan army has made good progress. Its troops are aggressive and seem to be adapting to counterinsurgency warfare. The Taliban have had some success in isolated locations, but it is not something they can sustain or maintain.
This story in the NY Times and others in the liberal media appear to be the start of a new theme for Democrats and anti war liberals. Since the surge is working and al Qaeda is now being defeated in Iraq, they are going to turn their anti Bush anti war venom on the war in Afghanistan where it would have been all along if we had never gone into Iraq. These people are willfully ignorant of the dynamics of the battlefield or war fare in general. They look at events on the battlefield as another excuse to criticize the administration than as part of an evolving and dynamic process with a thinking enemy. If our enemies were as thoughtless as these critics are, war would be easy.
Comments
Post a Comment