Pages

Thursday, June 17, 2010

War is Variable Hell

The chattering classes led by the reports of a journalistic class that still has no clue about warfare are getting jumpy about Afghanistan. They are infecting Congress, too:

Downbeat news reports and second-guessing in Congress about the course of the war in Afghanistan have touched a nerve in the Pentagon, where some worry the negativity is undercutting public sentiment before President Barack Obama's strategy even has a chance to work.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is among those to privately voice concerns about a wave of pessimism that they believe stems partly from embedding journalists solely with military units in Afghanistan's south, where fighting is fiercest. Some officials talk of changes to make embeds go elsewhere too.

They predicted how inevitable our defeat in Iraq was, yet their credibility has not been dented by our victory in Iraq. Go figure. And it happens time and again. I just wish we'd remember one basic thing about our media's coverage of warfare when they move beyond basics of "who, what, when, and where," and try to analyze it for their readers:

When it comes to war and the military, our press couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. Keep that in mind the next time they collectively leap on the chair and yell "EEEK!!"

Unfortunately, we need patience to win the war in Afghanistan. The patience needs to be built up here at home, on the Washington clock, so that the Afghanistan clock doesn't go faster. Battalion commanders on the ground can't buy patience to win the war. They should be the consumers of that patience as they win the war.

As was the case in the Iraq War, our reporters will see and discuss every real and perceived problem our military has in the field. They don't appreciate that this isn't the way to judge progress in the war.

Not that the glare of the press can't provide useful incentives for us to fight better rather than hiding real military problems, there is also a real handicap to having a press corps that doesn't know what war is and what militaries do.

And there is a real problem in that while our press corps may actually see real problems, our press rarely gives insights into the problems of the enemy. This leaves the impression that only we have problems. That is never true in war, and the Afghan War is no exception:

The increased intelligence effort in Afghanistan, largely the result of transferring equipment and experienced personnel from Iraq, has led to a big increase in information about what's going on in Afghanistan. Of most immediate interest is the low morale among captured Taliban. A lot of the cash that used to go to Afghan Taliban (for payroll, weapons and equipment like radios and transport) is now going to the beleaguered Taliban big shots in Pakistan. Some captured Taliban complain of their own leaders keeping cash for themselves, or paying a kinsman way too much for supplies, equipment or services. In other words, the Taliban also have a corruption problem.

If the "resurgent" Taliban are winning, why are they down?

The anti-war side failed in their effort to lose the war in Iraq. They thought Afghanistan was the "good war" only in order to retreat from Iraq.

Now, with Iraq won and our troops there on the way out, the anti-war side is looking for an excuse to run and lose in Afghanistan. It is, after all, the only war they have to protest.

The enemy has more problems than we do. We just don't see their problems as routinely as we see ours.

We can win this war if we have the patience not to over-react with gloom over every enemy success or perceived success when they cause a large boom that they can see and record on film.