Four Star GEneral Stanley McChrystal

Friday night Bill Moyers hosted Andrew Bacevich to speak about the war in Afghanistan.  It's likely you've seen other interviews with Bacevich, a West Point graduate who served in the army for 23 years, and is now a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He served in Viet Nam, Germany, and the Persian Gulf, and has written three books: American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005) and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. (2008).

He has been a strong critic of the US occupation of Iraq, and a chief critic of George Bush's doctrine of preventive war, calling it immoral, illicit, and imprudent.

He describes himself as a Catholic Conservative, and avoids the traps of party affiliation, and prefers to see our continual wars as sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans; in other words, he is a realist. Bacevich's son Andrew, Jr. was killed by an IED in Iraq in May, 2007. He just appeared this week at an Army War College Symposium discussing the question, "How do we know when a war is over?"

 Bacevich is a serious man; he's got major game when it comes to war, war history, analysis, and long-term strategy and effectiveness. Moyers ran a clip of the President speaking to the troops on a recent surprise visit to Afghanistan:

Your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to America's safety and security... If this region slides backwards, if the Taliban retakes this country and al Qaeda can operate with impunity, then more American lives will be at stake... You will be backed up by a clear mission and the right strategy to finish the job, to get the job done. And I am confident all of you are going to get the job done right here in Afghanistan... That's why I ordered more troops and civilians here into Afghanistan shortly after taking office. That's why we took a hard look and forged a new strategy and committed more resources in December... Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies... There's going to be setbacks. We face a determined enemy. But we also know this: The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. You don't quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail."

As to Obama's 'never quitting':

Bacevich suggested U.S. military leadership has largely given up on the hope of a traditional military victory and that armed nation-building in Afghanistan is not an appropriate task for our troops:

"One of the most interesting and perplexing things that's happened in the past three, four years is that in many respects, the officer corps itself has given up on the idea of military victory... they say that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, that we will not win a military victory, that the only solution to be gained - if there is one - is through bringing to success this project of armed nation-building. What makes that interesting to a military historian of my Vietnam generation is that the collective purpose of the officer corps after Vietnam, this humiliation that we had experienced, was to demonstrate that war works, that war could be purposeful, that out of collision on the battlefield would come decision [and] victory... The officer corps has, I think, unwittingly forfeited its claim to providing a unique and important service to American society.

Why, if indeed the purpose of the exercise in Afghanistan is - to put it crudely - drag this country into the modern world, why put a four-star general in charge of that? Why not put a successful mayor of a big city? Why not put a legion of social reformers? Because the war in Afghanistan is not a war as the American military traditionally conceives of war."

Moyers: It's costing American taxpayers over three-and-a-half billion dollars every month--a total of some $264 billion so far. But for all that, in the words of one policy analyst quoted by the New York Times this week, "there are no better angels about to descend on Afghanistan." We have two kinds of forces operating in Afghanistan. We have conventional forces, marines and infantry.

Bacevich: Right. And they are accompanied by reporters. We get at least some amount of information about what these forces are doing and how they're doing it. But in a sense, we have a second army. And the second army are the units that comprise Special Operations forces. They exist in secrecy. They operate in secrecy. Clearly there was a violation of some kind in that that killed incident in February the pregnant women. (He does not mention the CIA working in conjunction with JSOC, or Joint Special Operations Command.)

He pointed out that Obama brought General Stanley McChrystal in from Special Forces; these are his boys; and he wonders about the level of accountability of the Special Ops because of that fact. And he spoke of the irony that as McChrytstal's strategy was counter-insurgency, a major part of the plan was to limit civilian casualties, which clearly hasn't happened. Over 2,000 have been killed so far, and there have been numerous cover-ups of the killings. Bacevich opined that had his family been killed by US forces, he would likely join the fight against them.

On the subject of a willing and effective partner in Hamid Karzai, he said that when the President recently gave Hamid Karzai a tongue-lashing over rampant corruption and lack of cooperation, Karzai went rogue, and openly wondered if he were indeed committed to helping US efforts, and according to one member of Parliament, mused aloud about possibly joining the Taliban. (Plus, there's that thing about his drug-lord brother...).

Bacevich reminded us that Karzai was elected in a fraudulent election for another five year term, and does not have the trust of many Afghans. As for the notion that this war is designed to eradicate 'safe havens for Al Qaeda or the Taliban,' Bacevich bristled:

I mean, if we could wave a magic wand tomorrow and achieve in Afghanistan all the purposes that General McChrystal would like us to achieve, would the Jihadist threat be substantially reduced as a consequence? And does anybody think that somehow, Jihadism is centered or headquartered in Afghanistan? When you think about it for three seconds, you say, "Well, of course, it's not. It is a transnational movement." So the notion that somehow, because the 9/11 attacks were concocted in this place, as indeed they were, the notion that therefore, the transformation of Afghanistan will provide some guarantee that there won't be another 9/11 is patently absurd. Quite frankly, the notion that we can prevent another 9/11 by invading and occupying and transforming countries is absurd.

[They can come from Yemen. They can come from--] -Moyers; 'They can come from Brooklyn.' - Bacevich. Moyers asked what can be done to keep us safe from jihadists who want to kill us? 

Bacevich answered:

First of all, we need to assess the threat realistically. Osama bin Laden is not Adolf Hitler. Al-Qaeda is not Nazi Germany. Al-Qaeda poses a threat. It does not pose an existential threat. We should view Al-Qaeda as the equivalent of an international criminal conspiracy. Sort of a mafia that in some way or another draws its energy or legitimacy from a distorted understanding of a particular religious tradition. And as with any other international criminal conspiracy, the proper response is a police effort. I mean, a ruthless, sustained, international police effort to identify the thugs, root out the networks and destroy it. Something that would take a long period of time and would no more succeed fully in eliminating the threat than the NYPD is able to fully eliminate criminality in New York City.

Moyers asked if we should get out of Afghanistan, and Bacevich responded:

I think so. I mean again, I believe that ultimately, a sound foreign policy should be informed by an enlightened understanding of one's own interests. That's what we pay people like President Obama big money to do, to advance our collective interests, what's good for this country, this people. And the perpetuation of the war in Afghanistan is not good for this country and for our people. Because we are squandering our treasure. We are losing lives for no purpose. And ultimately, the perpetuation of this unnecessary war does, I think, serve to exacerbate the problems within the Islamic world, rather than reducing those problems. .................................................................................................................

New civilian casualties are reported today in the NYT. "US Troops Fire on Afghan bus, Killing Civilians"  Protests are beginning...

Yesterday's news on Karzai:  Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, Threatens to Block Nato Offensive

(Concerning Karzai's assurances to leaders in the Kandahar area, where NATO forces plan to unleash a major offensive of the war this summer.  It appears that local Elders are not happy about it.  Uh-oh.  And General McChrystal may not be too happy with Karzai.)

Sunday Beltway pundits assure us (and each other) that the Military and construction corps can "work around Karzai."

Will all this cause the President to reconsider his Summer 2011 'beginning of the withdrawl timetable?