Views » August 3, 2010
Why WikiLeaks Won’t Stop the War
The War Logs, released by WikiLeaks, may contribute to the unfortunate and prevailing doctrine that wars are wrong only if they aren't successful.
The War Logs–a six-year archive of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan, released on the Internet by the organization WikiLeaks–documents a grim struggle becoming grimmer, from the U.S. perspective. And for the Afghans, a mounting horror.
The War Logs, however valuable, may contribute to the unfortunate and prevailing doctrine that wars are wrong only if they aren’t successful–rather like the Nazis felt after Stalingrad.
Last month came the fiasco of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, forced to retire as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and replaced by his superior, Gen. David H. Petraeus.
A plausible consequence is a relaxation of the rules of engagement so that it becomes easier to kill civilians, and an extension of the war well into the future as Petraeus uses his clout in Congress to achieve this result.
Afghanistan is President Obama’s principal current war. The official goal is to protect ourselves from al-Qaida, a virtual organization, with no specific base – a “network of networks” and “leaderless resistance,” as it’s been called in the professional literature. Now, even more so than before, al-Qaida consists of relatively independent factions, loosely associated throughout the world.
The CIA estimates that 50 to 100 al-Qaeda activists may now be in Afghanistan, and there is no indication that the Taliban want to repeat the mistake of offering sanctuary to al-Qaeda.
By contrast, the Taliban appear to be well-established in their vast forbidding landscape, a large part of the Pashtun territories.
In February, in the first exercise of Obama’s new strategy, U.S. Marines conquered Marja, a minor district in Helmand province, the main center of the insurgency.
There, reported The New York Times’ Richard A. Oppel Jr., “The Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more akin to the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone.”
“‘We’ve got to re-evaluate our definition of the word `enemy,’ said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. `Most people here identify themselves as Taliban. We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out.’”
The Marines are facing a problem that has always bedeviled conquerors, one that is very familiar to the U.S. from Vietnam. In 1969, Douglas Pike, the leading U.S. government scholar on Vietnam, lamented that the enemy–the National Liberation Front–was the only “truly mass-based political party in South Vietnam.”
Any effort to compete with that enemy politically would be like a conflict between a minnow and a whale, Pike recognized. We therefore had to overcome the NLF’s political force by using our comparative advantage, violence–with horrifying results.
Others have faced similar problems: for example, the Russians in Afghanistan during the 1980s, where they won every battle but lost the war.
Writing of another U.S. invasion–the Philippines in 1898–Bruce Cumings, an Asia historian at the University of Chicago, made an observation that applies all too aptly to Afghanistan today: “When a sailor sees that his heading is disastrous he changes course, but imperial armies sink their boots in quicksand and keep marching, if only in a circle, while the politicians plum the phrase book of American ideals.”
After the Marja triumph, the U.S.-led forces were expected to assault the major city of Kandahar, where, according to a U.S. Army poll in April, the military operation is opposed by 95 percent of the population, and 5 out of 6 regard the Taliban as “our Afghan brothers”–again, echoes of earlier conquests. The Kandahar plans were delayed, part of the background for McChrystal’s leavetaking.
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that U.S. authorities are concerned that public support for the war in Afghanistan may erode even further.
In May, WikiLeaks released a March CIA memorandum about how to sustain Western Europe’s support for the war. The memorandum’s subtitle: “Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.”
“The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force,” the memorandum states.
“Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments.” It is therefore necessary to “tailor messaging” to “forestall or at least contain backlash.”
The CIA memorandum should remind us that states have an internal enemy: their own population, which must be controlled when state policy is opposed by the public.
Democratic societies rely not on force but on propaganda, engineering consent by “necessary illusion” and “emotionally potent oversimplication,” to quote Obama’s favorite philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr.
The battle to control the internal enemy, then, remains highly pertinent–indeed, the future of the war in Afghanistan may hinge on it.
© The New York Times Syndicate
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. He writes a monthly column for The New York Times News Service/Syndicate.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
Obama, as usual, is making his decisions solely based on political criteria. (Change HE can believe in.)
He has set a date of departure from Iraq, but has been increasing US involvement in Afghanistan.
He should in fact be doing just the opposite.
After years of sacrificing American lives and $billions Iraq may have some feeble chance at self-government and self-defense. To leave too soon leaves those costs in danger of gaining nothing.
Afghanistan is even less a nation than Iraq and is nothing more than a collection of corrupt, drug-dealing warlords demanding ever more payoffs from us.
Without a clear, workable objective we are indeed making the same mistake as we did in Viet Nam.
Just say, “Mission Accomplished” and leave there now.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 3, 2010 at 7:35 AM
I can only speculate, but I think Obama’s plan is to withdraw from Afghanistan before his projected time with some sort of treaty or accord. McChrystal’s statements threw a monkey wrench into it all. But I believe that there are still talks underway with Taliban leaders with this goal in sight.
The discussions may include the rejection of Al Qaeda by the Taliban, which wouldn’t seem as far fetched as it sounds. I believe that Al Qaeda is too radical for even them. And when the war does end, regardless of the outcome, the Taliban will have to deal with Al Qaeda. It would be advantageous for Taliban leaders to distance themselves from Al Qaeda while there is still a strong American presence in Afghanistan.
The most devastating aspect of war is the lives lost. And the most difficult decision a president has to make is when to put an end to this tragedy. He must weigh the consequences, determine the progress, if any, and take the bold steps to implement his decision of whether or not to continue. All the while, his critics and political foes are making their opinions known, setting him up for a ‘lose/lose scenario.’
And then our so-called ‘interests’ come into play, where big business and finance flaunt their influence, insinuating that a mass withdrawal of our weary troops from the area would lead to a crippling of our already weakened economy.
I’d like to tell them, in a nice way of course, that I don’t give a rat’s ass about their interests. Let them shift their precious interests back here where they belong…along with the jobs! And any time an ‘interest’ outweighs the life of an American soldier, it’s time to re-evaluate your greedy interest, and ask yourself, “What the hell have I become?”
There are those who think that our exiting the Middle East would lessen the hero status of our fallen soldiers. But they are so wrong. Each one of these brave men and women gave their lives to the United States of America. They will never be forgotten
.
In the most difficult of times, they stood tall and lived up to their reputation. They were often under-equipped and at times did not even know how to recognize the enemy. They were led to believe that their service in this area would only be needed for five or six months, by an administration which grossly underestimated the resolve of its opponent. No soldier has ever died in vain, never. In America, there is no such thing.
Some people still don’t realize the complete mess our president inherited. Bush and company deceived the world and then left with their pockets full. Did you notice how he opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants, then late in his second term sent troops to stop the influx?
Did you notice how the price of gasoline was hitting $5.00 per gallon, then suddenly dropped as he was about to leave office? Did you notice how he convinced the nation that if the government didn’t bail out the large banks the country wouldn’t survive? The Bush administration manipulated our country into entering the Middle East and set up the next president to fail. But Barack Obama is not failing.
Posted by Eugene Connolly on Aug 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Eugene Connolly,
I hope your expectations of an earlier withdrawal are correct.
I am no fan of either of the Bushes, but cannot say “Obama is not failing”.
What if he had made good on his campaign “exit promises” during his first hundred days honeymoon by beginning the Afghanistan draw-down. Instead he has increased our presence there.
He chose instead to continue the bailouts, did not “begrudge” their huge bonuses paid with tax dollars, spent his political capital on the health care bill and has done nothing constructive to protect our borders.
To me these are clearly in the failure column.
IMO, Bush was not very bright and behaved as a programable figurehead allowing strong and influential individuals to work their own schemes for eight years.
Obama is bright and a pure political animal, but like a typical Chicago school politician, talks a big game and does his own thing for his own benefit. (I voted for him as my senator — one of my deepest regrets — I should have known better.)
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 4, 2010 at 4:53 AM
Leaks about the conduct of war redundantly accord with historical fact: war is hell involving every imaginable atrocity, lie, and misrepresentation. It will not stop until people refuse to perpetuate it. The invasion of Afghanistan was sold on the notion of bringing to justice the alleged perpetrators of 911, subsequently abandoned in deference to the patently false pretext for invading another country; the supposed original villain remains at-large. In a saner world where justifiable wars might actually occur, this one would have been concluded long ago. Leaks will not stop war. Only the people fighting it can do so.
Posted by wesgordon on Aug 11, 2010 at 6:27 PM
There is no war in Afghanistan, only the attempt to back a regime, an effort supported by US allies.
“The War Logs, however valuable, may contribute to the unfortunate and prevailing doctrine that wars are wrong only if they aren’t successful…”
Look, there is a fundamental difference. The US can withdraw anytime and Afghanistan or Iraq won’t affect them. It is the same with Iraq, the US military could have afforded to carry out two invasions and focus on regime change. The US are capable to remove the Iranian government but occupation is a waste of time. Vietnam is a safe place today. I am not sure that would be the case when us troops were still around.
Concerning the US effort in Afghanistan the matter is not lives but costs. Look how few US military persons died. It does not even come close to a war. But they didn’t carry out the most basic and simple mission, namely to convert the population to Christianity. We know why 911 was chosen as a date, the battle at zenta which saved Europe from oriental supremacy. 911 is a religious struggle and I am unsure a secular approach can win it. Either you show the will to convert the Taliban to Christians (which does not suit modern secularized states well) or you will not be taken serious by them. But when you take the struggle to religious level and follow a templar approach you lose domestic suppport, as simple as that.
Posted by Kurt Erb on Aug 12, 2010 at 2:12 AM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 14 posts.