Winning a conventional war punches our ticket for the the next problems of defending the battlefield victory--including fighting to establishing rule-of-law governance, ideally with democracy. But those fights are qualitatively different than the major combat operations that got us there and it is folly to pretend they are the same.
Does America think of war as ending when the enemy is dispersed on the battlefield?
In a relatively rapid set of major combat operations the U.S. rid Afghanistan of the Taliban government and routed al Qaeda. When those operations were completed, in the minds of many, the war was over. What followed, by definition, was “not war.” Thus, U.S. strategy and attention lost focus, and the war dragged on. Ultimately, the U.S. withdrew, and the Taliban returned. [emphasis added]
The author has a point that defending the win after major combat operations end doesn't end the struggle. But that misses the point that we really did win the war, with local allies helping us kill jihadis every day. For nearly twenty years!
Don't "yada yada yada" the important prerequisite for the Taliban returning to power of America screwing the pooch and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think the problem isn't so much a lack of strategic "focus" but demanding so much of our actual victories that we redefine them into defeats not worth defending at much lower cost than it took to win on the battlefield.
I mean, I agree with the author's basic point, really. I was pushing for rule of law in Iraq early on. The end of major combat operations was not the end of the fight as far as I was concerned.
But what follows major combat operations is a different job requiring different methods and very different rules of engagement. And pretending that is not true does us no favor in maintaining focus.
But sure, when the Winter War of 2022 "ends," the problem of Russia trying to control Ukraine does not end. We'll need to maintain focus on that.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
