Summary: Now that we see the end of our war in Afghanistan, this article by Chuck Spinney asks an important question. What happens to our vets when they come home? The demobilization process might be painful, for these Vets and for America. Spinney suggests that we plan now, rather than wait for problems and then react. That’s good advice.
“The Afghan Disaster – Wait Till the War Really Comes Home”
By Franklin C. Spinney (see his bio below),
Originally published in CounterPunch on 6-8 April 2012.
Reposted with his generous permission,
At the end are links to more information about the issues he raises.
The PR disasters over the last 3 months — including pictures of American troops urinating on Afghan corpses, the burning of Qurans, and the massacre of Afghan civilians, including women and children, by at least one deranged American soldier — have morphed into a grand strategic debacle. From the perspective of the Afghan insurgency, these are gifts that will keep on giving.
Why do I use the modifier grand strategic? Because these incidents have…
- increased the moral strength of the Afghan insurgents by handing them a coup to rally supporters and attract the uncommitted to their cause. They also widen the existing rift between the United States military and the Karzai government, which in any case is viewed by many Afghans as a corrupt, illegitimate, quisling lapdog of the US. And
- they are visibly weakening the rapidly crumbling solidarity at home. Recent polls in America, for example, suggest the already overwhelming majority of Americans who now think it is time to exit the Afghan enterprise is growing again. Moreover, an increasing number of politicians and editorial boards are now beginning to reflect the views of the majority of American people. These incidents have magnified the already widespread perceptions among Afghans of a grotesque mismatch between the ideals we profess uphold and what we do.
Readers unfamiliar with the idea of grand strategy and the central importance of moral effects in any kind of conflict will find brief introduction to the criteria of a sensible grand strategy here. Use these criteria to judge for yourself whether or not our dismissal of these incidents as isolated occurrences and apologies will counter the damage described above.
You will see that these shifts at the moral level of conflict are about as bad as it gets when it comes to grand strategy. The emerging moral asymmetries between the US and its insurgent adversaries go well beyond trite comments about staying the war weariness and make a mockery of Defense Secretary Panetta’s wildly optimistic claim that we reached a turning point thanks to the 2011 surge. The US is leaving Afghanistan, the only questions left are how soon and how messy the departure will be?
Two recent essays help one grapple with some implications of these questions.
(1) “Why the Military needs to leave Afghanistan, and Soon,” by Phil Sparrow in the Sydney Morning Herald, 3 April 2012
Sparrow explains why people who argue we should remain in Afghanistan, because the Afghan people don’t want us to leave, simply don’t know what they are talking about. Certainly, the one per cent living in fortified compounds who have profited from the corruption unleashed by the torrent money we have poured into that impoverished country have been enriched by our presence, but what about the other 99 per cent?
In addressing this question, Sparrow demolishes the argument for staying the course. Bear in mind, it is written by a man who has lived in Afghanistan in local housing since 1999. He explains why the time to leave has arrived, and the sooner we depart the better. Sparrow’s op-ed was emailed to me by a highly educated Afghan friend from a distinguished Pashtun family, a man who is working for the restoration of a multicultural neutral Afghanistan, sans warlords and kleptocrats, whatever their ethnicity. He prefaced it by saying, “Finally, the truth.”
Bear in mind, the individual making this comment is a longtime admirer of America, going back to our aid in the Helmand River irrigation project during the Eisenhower Administration. Read Sparrow’s essay and make your own judgement … then compare it to other points of view which can be found here and here, and ask yourself who is making the strongest argument.
(2) “Afghanistan: A Gathering Menace” by Neil Shea, The American Scholar, Spring 2012 — “Traveling with U.S. troops gives insights into the recent massacre”
This is a deeply troubling essay. Shea has been writing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2006, where he has been spent most of his time embedded with NATO units.
He paints a grim portrait of how the confrontation dynamics of the Afghan guerrilla war are evolving violent psyches in some of the American troops who are being tasked to carry out the endless patrols and night raids. These search-and-destroy operations have morphed the aim of winning hearts and minds into a futile attrition strategy aimed at of killing insurgents faster than the local population can replace them. And according to Shea, the unfocused violence emerging from this strategy is having frightening side effects on the psychology of some of our soldiers.
If Shea is close to being right, the reality at the pointy end of the spear is very different from that perceived by the lounge lizards and neoconmen inside the beltway think tanks who calling for more time because our strategy is slowing winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people
Left hanging, but implicit in the title of his essay, is the question of what this menacing acculturation implies for the future of America. That is … what will happen when those afflicted return home, with no wars to expend their aggressive energies on? Add in the numbers of returning American mercenaries laid off by American contractors as their Afghan honey pot dries up, and the prospect becomes ominous indeed.
To be sure, Shea is only one observer at the microscopic level of organization, but he has been around, and if his observations are close to being right, the leaders of our military and government, who are debating when to leave, had better start thinking about how to contend with the kinds of post-combat stress problems posed by acculturation Shea describes, whatever its magnitude.
But that kind of contingency planning is not going to happen any time soon. The politicians and generals are too busy scrambling to save their reputations by devising some kind of face-saving exit strategy from a quagmire of their own making. (Shades of Nixon’s promise of ‘Peace with Honor’ in Vietnam?)
No one in Versailles on the Potomac is thinking about how to ameliorate the potentially explosive domestic blowback from the targeted killing strategy that landed America in this pickle. What will have happen, for example, to our demobilized young veterans, after they are downsized the milcrats in the Pentagon to make budget room for cold-war inspired turkeys like the $500 billion F-35 fighter program?
Many of these soldiers and marines joined the all-volunteer professional military, because they needed a job — this is their profession. What skills can be transferred to the private sector? Guarding gated communities or serving in private armies owned by the super rich banksters, speculators, and globalization titans who helped so much to reduce their job prospects to begin with? What does this dilemma tell us about the wisdom of maintaining a large professional all-volunteer military in a democratic republic?
History has seen this peculiar kind of unemployment affliction before — for example, the unemployed hoplites in ancient Greece, selling their killing services to the highest bidder, or the unemployed German soldiers after World War I donning the brownshirts — and the results are never pretty.
About the author
Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon and a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press.
Other posts by Spinney on the FM website:
- The Taliban Rope-a-Dome, 19 July 2009
- Can Obama, or anyone else, outmaneuver the war advocates?, 2 October 2010
For more information about the issues raised by Spinney
(1) About the last point Spinney makes, what happens to our vets after the war:
(2) About bloodlust:
- How will the Long War affect America? Will it make us stronger or weaker? Crazy? Unleash our dark side?, 4 August 2009
- Bloodlust – a natural by-product of a long war?, 11 August 2009
- No longer a danger, but a reality: bloodlust in our minds, an inevitable side-effect of a long war., 25 October 2011
- Bleak news, but vital for us to understand: American Morlocks: Another Civilian Massacre and the Savagery of Our Soldiers, 17 March 2012
(3) About the Afghanistan War:
- On Strategy (specifically in Afghanistan), 1 September 2010
- More experts pan our Af-Pak war. When will this show close?, 18 September 2010
- Presidential decision-making about Vietnam and Afghanistan: “You have 3 choices, sir”, 5 October 2010
- Kubler-Ross gives us a good perspective on the evolution of the Afghanistan War,19 October 2010
- Another echo in Afghanistan of the Vietnam War. Will we hear it, and learn?, 8 February 2012
- Rolling Stone releases Colonel Davis’ blockbuster report about Afghanistan – and our senior generals!, 12 February 2012
- 450 Bases and It’s Not Over Yet – The Pentagon’s Afghan Basing Plans for Prisons, Drones, and Black Ops, 14 February 2012
- The end nears for our expedition to Afghanistan. Time to reflect on what went wrong., 29 February 2012
(4) About Grand Strategy:
- The Myth of Grand Strategy, 31 January 2006
- America’s Most Dangerous Enemy, 1 March 2006
- One step beyond Lind: What is America’s geopolitical strategy?, 28 October 2007
- ABCDs for today: About Blitzkrieg, COIN, and Diplomacy, 21 February 2008
- How America can survive and even prosper in the 21st Century – part I, 19 March 2007; revised 7 June 2008
- How America can survive and even prosper in the 21st Century – part II, 14 June 2008
- America’s grand strategy: lessons from our past, 30 June 2008 – chapter 1 in a series of notes
- President Grant warns us about the dangers of national hubris, 1 July 2008 – chapter 2
- America’s grand strategy, now in shambles, 2 July 2008 — chapter 3
- America’s grand strategy, insanity at work, 7 July 2008 — chapter 4
- The King of Brobdingnag comments on America’s grand strategy, 18 November 2008
- Realism and Realpolitik – Setting the Conditions for America’s Survival in the 21st Century, 23 February 2012
5 thoughts on “Chuck Spinney describes the next phases of the Afghan War: defeat, retreat, & demobilization”
While I agree with the facts you’ve presented, I suspect that there won’t be a reduction in the total people employed in the armed forces after we retreat from the Afghan war. The full might of armed forces will just be deployed to the next unwinnable conflict.
At the moment I’m trying to figure out whether the conflict will be Syria (unlikely), Iran, or some other place.
From the American Scholar article.
[quote]“Yeah, we definitely made some Taliban out here,” he said. “It was like a week-long Taliban recruiting drive. And we had fun doing it. I love recruiting for the Taliban. It’s called job security.”[/quote]
At least these guys are honest about what they’re trying to do over there. I think this, in a nutshell, is the war on terror — job security.
Hate to be so obvious and cynical, but the answer is elsewhere on this site. The VA and Big Pharma are going to drug them.
Clearly and obviously, the Iraq war vets are going to become police officers. Where they’ll do exactly what they did in Iraq: kick in doors with no-knock warrants and kill everyone inside, blast away and riddle people reaching for their wallets with 52 bullets, beat and brutalize peaceful anti-war demonstrators…und so weiter.
That’s a powerful insight. Police departments actively recruit veterans; many give preference when hiring to veterans.