Another informative and thought provoking treatise from my good friend and our Marine Brother. Thank you Greg.
Holding the bag.
By Greg Maresca
While many Americans would have trouble finding Utah on a map, let alone Ukraine, they would equally struggle with the acronym, NATO, that if we are being truthful means: Not Able To Operate (without the U.S.). They need to drop the “N” and make it ATO – American Treaty Organization, a synonym for American expeditionary forces.
NATO was established in 1949 to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union. Its mission according to the alliance’s first Secretary General, Lord Hastings Ismay, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”
The post-Soviet Union Russia retained its formidable military that includes thousands of nuclear warheads, so disbanding NATO was out of the question. Besides, alliances, like government bureaucracies, rarely disappear. More importantly, peace through strength is no cliché. Tyrants will always exploit weaknesses and it’s naïve to believe otherwise.
In his historic 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington made it clear how he opposed alliances. Defense treaties always work to the advantage of one country and to the disadvantage of another.
The other always being the United States and as the most powerful member we will continue to pay for ensuring its effectiveness.
NATO protects Europeans from having to provide for their own defense. It is a lot easier to let the American taxpayer pick up the tab, while also keeping the sea lanes free and open. Granted, it’s in my interest if my neighbor’s house doesn’t go up in flames. However, that doesn’t mean I must pay his house insurance.
The well-intended but fossilized NATO is more bark than bite when it comes to any support that is not American in origin. Our southern border is under siege but do not count on any NATO member to come to our aid. We can’t even count on some NATO members to vote with us at the United Nations, where we also pay the majority of the U.N.’s bill.
NATO’s first supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure.
Article V of the NATO treaty says any attack on a NATO member will be treated as an attack on all. NATO’s sole Article V intervention was in 2001 in Afghanistan – a long way from Europe and the North Atlantic and its founding objective.
Any member that fails to meet their obligations betrays the alliance by being strategically and ethically negligent and by escalating their dependence on Russian gas and oil only magnifies their irresponsibility.
NATO members prefer to invest in the socialist welfare state than in the necessities of defense where allegiance to the alliance and to one another is debatable. Regarding military contingency, NATO would rather conduct summits where the English would make the reservations, the Germans the strudel and the French hors d’oeuvres. All the while, Uncle Sam does the heavy lifting with the troops, tanks, planes, and ships.
During a Bold Guard/Northern Wedding NATO exercise, the only NATO trooper I interacted with was a drunk Dane who approached our armory of which I was one of two sentries. It is sobering to behold what a sliding bolt can do for the language barrier. I suppose the Carlsberg beer that was three for a dollar was just too good to pass up. The Danes did provide a hot meal in one of their air bases’ chow halls that the salty grunts of the 4th Marine Amphibious Brigade promptly cleaned out to the dismay of our hosts. Without a doubt, Uncle Sam was billed accordingly.
Lack of accountability has bred imprudence like unionized troops throughout NATO. One Air Force captain told of a NATO exercise where he was walking with a couple of Dutch officers when they passed two generals. The Americans saluted, while the Dutch, who were wearing hair nets to cover their shaggy hairdos, waved. The Dutch explained how their union claimed saluting was humiliating.
Yet, historians still debate why it took the Nazi’s four days to eliminate the Dutch from World War II.
If our NATO allies took their defense seriously, they would be a formidable neutralizer to Russia and assuage their reliance upon the U.S., while saving Uncle Sam plenty of money and headaches.
Well, are they over? Who won the most gold? Anyone maimed, kidnapped, or killed? No? Shucks. I have no idea as I did not watch one episode, game, or advertisement, which I hear there were very many of them. I did hear something about not knowing who was going to represent who? Did NBC make any money? I hope not. I watched Netflix and Amazon Prime, they have great movies as well as series. If you haven’t watched Reacher, Ozarks, or 1883, you need to. Anyway, Greg provides somewhat of a recap of the games — should we really be calling them games anymore? Hmm, good question for my watchers.
The indifferent games
By: G. Maresca
The television audience for the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games resembled a Joe Biden rally. This is no surprise as the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games made for the worst ratings since NBC first began broadcasting them in 1988.
Running counter to the Olympic spirit, the games have been politically hijacked. The Olympics lost its way after the 1972 Summer Games in Munich, West Germany with the Israeli massacre. The governing body is corruption personified, while half the competing countries use their doped-up athletes as nothing more than public relations fodder.
The latest version provided an international stage for the unholy tripartite of NBC, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and China’s Communist Party (CCP). NBC is a left-wing political subdivision of the Democrat Party. The IOC followed the playbook of the World Health Organization that refused to hold the CCP accountable in the COVID pandemic by allowing them to host the games and ignore their competition rules.
U.S. citizens Eileen Gu and those 16 Americans who played hockey for China is such a violation. Americans competing for any country other than the U.S. is patriotic sacrilege. Perhaps they all need to live the rest of their lives in the Middle Kingdom.
Then there is the 15-year-old Russian skater Kamila Valieva, who was permitted to compete after she failed a drug test. How much was the IOC bribed to award China the games?
China is about slave labor, authoritarian rule, who gave the world COVID-19, while they lied, covered up, and blocked any investigation of the pandemic. Not to mention their repugnant disregard for human rights and international law, while being the foundation of the Biden family fortune. This malfeasance runs counter to good ratings.
Lousy television, debauched politics, cheating in events you have never heard of where officials judge on politics rather than athletic ability sounds like a new Netflix series?
What’s not to like?
The opposite of love is not necessarily hate but indifference. Such indifference was reflected in a poll conducted by the News-Item when nearly two-thirds said they didn’t watch any of the games.
Once upon a time in America, the Olympics were a must watch event where compelling amateurs battled for patriotic glory like in 1980, when the U.S. hockey team prevailed over the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.
Today, multimillion-dollar pro athletes and corporate sponsorships rule the games that are immersed in politics and propaganda and are no longer a welcomed distraction, but a blatant manifestation of them.
Without American broadcast revenue and commercial investment there are no Olympics. All those American woke companies and their media allies dismissed China’s ongoing ethnic genocide.
Moreover, given the assorted internet platforms, it is easier to watch the games piecemeal and at your convenience. That is, if you really care. One friend who actually watched some summarized the games saying, “NBC: Nothing But Commercials.” He also said there was no truth about the U.S. bobsled team naming their sled “Biden” as nothing has gone downhill faster. He admitted that there is only so much curling, skiing and team skating that resembles a roller derby that one can watch that included more than its share of political messaging.
Seeking political direction from athletes and Hollywood is like panning for gold in a dumpster. They need to stay in their lane and entertain and cease the lecturing.
Tonya Harding encouraging our Olympians to “break a leg” was in poor taste but what did you expect? The most telling quote belonged to another skater in 17-year-old Russian Alexandra Trusova, who won silver saying: “I hate this sport!”
She should be awarded gold for most honest.
Why not give the next winter games to Russia who could host them in Siberia where the skiers could do their thing between the gulags. What about having the Mexican drug cartels host? At least, the cartels’ body count is less than the CCP and they have more money.
It is long past time for the Olympics to find a permanent site for the summer and winter games where random and independent supervised drug testing is the norm.
Until then, you can continue to spell Olympics: C-O-R-R-U-P-T.
Another good one from my good friend Greg, thanks Greg, this one is very fitting and timely BUT, I have one that will follow along on this one and be a barn burner for many, especially we Marines. Be sure to read when I post it tomorrow. Trust me, you will be sick Marines. .
By Greg Maresca
Not knowing why Veteran’s Day was on a Thursday and not part of a three-day weekend was somewhat perplexing to a recently minted government employee. There is a historic tradition why some holidays like Christmas, New Year’s Day and the 4th of July are standalone celebrations.
Veteran’s Day is one of them.
Given its history and place on the Gregorian calendar, why couldn’t the Great War have ended in June, July, or August? It just so happens that World War I, the war to end all wars, ceased on the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month in 1918. For some it must be frustrating having a holiday in early November when the days are short, the skies overcast and the mercury doing a daily descent.
To take a society’s emotional temperature, listen to what folks complain about. As we approach this Veteran’s Day many who served in the nation’s armed forces are concerned about the trajectory of where our military, and thus the nation, is headed.
As the Chinese fly dozens of sorties into Taiwanese airspace probing their defenses, the Biden administration counters by naming Rachel Levine an honorary four-star admiral of the U.S. Public Health Services Commissioned Corps, the first “woman” to reach that rank. “Rachel” is Richard, a biological male and father, who never served in any branch of the military.
Where is that army of ardent feminists as a male living under the aberration of being a female is bestowed such a title?
Do you believe the Russians and Chinese play pretend like we do?
Hoist that rainbow flag to let the enemy know we mean business as soon as they pick the right dress for war.
Such a dubious sideshow draws attention away from the folly of the Biden administration that recognizes global warming and COVID as more tactical enemies than communism and the piecemeal dismantling of the Constitution by American Marxists.
Besides developing viruses, the Chinese are working diligently on weapons’ systems that include their recent launch of a hypersonic nuclear missile which flies below radar, expanding their navy from a green water fleet to a blue water one, while enlarging their nuclear arsenal and learning to fight the next generation of war: cyberspace.
Provided our armed forces continue to serve more as a social experiment than a fighting force, it is guaranteed we will pay an immense price in blood and treasure on a future battlefield.
Rather we counter with “Rachel” Levine, Critical Race Theory, a bungled Afghanistan defeat and forced vaccinations.
If Afghanistan was a “logistical success,” as Gen. Milley defined it, then what retreat wasn’t? The top brass are a bunch of trick or treaters with more ribbons than brains. What would have been the result had the U.S. squared off against the Axis powers in World War II with a woke president and military joint chiefs where social justice is priority one?
The only thing our military is working at hypersonic speed is the implementation of wokeism.
Recently, the navy failed to execute basic shipboard firefighting aboard USS Bonhomme Richard and lost a ship with 15 years of service left. However, they did plant some trees as carbon offsets, so award those humanitarian service medals.
Navy SEALs seeking a vaccine religious exemption are being coerced into compliance. Not only does such harassment intrude upon their First Amendment rights that they swore to uphold, but it is detrimental to our national security.
Global warming and social change are not the military’s mission.
Our military superiority will cease provided we continue to politicize the armed forces, while discharging those who do not adhere to the woke policies of the Biden administration.
There are about two billion people residing in freedom thanks to the sacrifice of the U.S. military over the last 241 years. That is as noble an achievement as any in history and November 11 has been set aside to honor those who have made and continue to make that sacrifice.
Those who have honorably served make up only seven percent of the population.
For them, take a few minutes to right our ship by contacting your Congressional representatives and urging them to act and what better time than Veteran’s Day.
I fly out tomorrow to be the guest speaker for a group of Marines in Mesa, AZ for their Birthday Ball. I have been perplexed now for weeks trying to come up with something to talk about, and am stymied. Now today, I read an article that saddens me to no end about my beloved Corps. Now I am really baffled as to what to say to the Marines Saturday night. Lord, I need your help. I will post the article tomorrow a.m. before I depart for the airport. STANDBY MARINES!!!!
Sorry for the lack of posts gang. I wonder what keeps a so-called retired Marine of 80 so damn busy all the time? When I figure it out I’ll let you know. Anyway, sort of tiring writing about Joe the idiot and all his clowns, it actually gets boring after a while. I mean no one knows what they will do next. I’m done with him and his puppet handlers. This particular post intrigued me because it talks about Ms. Milley, who as we all know does not have a clue what he is supposed to be doing as CJCS. Now he is attempting to show concern for China, but can’t get his arms around it since he is to wrapped up in more important things like diversity, and ridding the military of extremists, which we all know I am one of them. What a flaming idiot this guy is.
And of course he is supposed to be the military advisor to the bigger idiot, Sleepy Joe, who also does not have a clue even where he is at anytime. Oh dear, I can just imagine how hard the world is laughing at us dumb ass Americans.
Pentagon Rattled by Chinese Military Push on Multiple Fronts
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, outgoing commander of US Strategic Command, speaks during a change of command ceremony at Offutt AFB in Nebraska, Monday, Nov. 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)
1 Nov 2021
Associated Press | By Robert Burns
WASHINGTON — China’s growing military muscle and its drive to end America predominance in the Asia-Pacific is rattling the U.S. defense establishment. American officials see trouble quickly accumulating on multiple fronts — Beijing’s expanding nuclear arsenal, its advances in space, cyber and missile technologies, and threats to Taiwan.
“The pace at which China is moving is stunning,” says Gen. John Hyten, the No. 2-ranking U.S. military officer, who previously commanded U.S. nuclear forces and oversaw Air Force space operations.
At stake is a potential shift in the global balance of power that has favored the United States for decades. A realignment more favorable to China does not pose a direct threat to the United States but could complicate U.S. alliances in Asia. New signs of how the Pentagon intends to deal with the China challenge may emerge in coming weeks from Biden administration policy reviews on nuclear weapons, global troop basing and overall defense strategy.
For now, officials marvel at how Beijing is marshaling the resources, technology and political will to make rapid gains — so rapid that the Biden administration is attempting to reorient all aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy.
The latest example of surprising speed was China’s test of a hypersonic weapon capable of partially orbiting Earth before reentering the atmosphere and gliding on a maneuverable path to its target. The weapon system’s design is meant to evade U.S. missile defenses, and although Beijing insisted it was testing a reusable space vehicle, not a missile, the test appeared to have startled U.S. officials.
Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the test was “very close” to being a Sputnik moment, akin to the 1957 launching by the Soviet Union of the world’s first space satellite, which caught the world by surprise and fed fears the United States had fallen behind technologically. What followed was a nuclear arms and space race that ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union.
Milley and other U.S. officials have declined to discuss details of the Chinese test, saying they are secret. He called it “very concerning” for the United States but added that problems posed by China’s military modernization run far deeper.
“That’s just one weapon system,” he said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The Chinese military capabilities are much greater than that. They’re expanding rapidly in space, in cyber and then in the traditional domains of land, sea and air.” Meanwhile you have other more important eggs to fry dealing with diversity, transgenders, gays, and of course getting rid of all those mean, bad constitutionalists in the military.
On the nuclear front, private satellite imagery in recent months has revealed large additions of launch silos that suggest the possibility that China plans to increase its fleet of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.
Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, says China appears to have about 250 ICBM silos under construction, which he says is more than 10 times the number in operation today. The U.S. military, by comparison, has 400 active ICBM silos and 50 in reserve.
Pentagon officials and defense hawks on Capitol Hill point to China’s modernization as a key justification for rebuilding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a project expected to cost more than $1 billion over 30 years, including sustainment costs.
Fiona Cunningham, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and a specialist in Chinese military strategy, says a key driver of Beijing’s nuclear push is its concerns about U.S. intentions. Really? Oh Okay that suits Ms. Milley as she can go back to the really important stuff.
“I don’t think China’s nuclear modernization is giving it a capability to pre-emptively strike the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and that was a really important generator of competition during the Cold War,” Cunningham said in an online forum sponsored by Georgetown University. “But what it does do is to limit the effectiveness of U.S. attempts to pre-emptively strike the Chinese arsenal.”
Some analysts fear Washington will worry its way into an arms race with Beijing, frustrated at being unable to draw the Chinese into security talks. Congress also is increasingly focused on China and supports a spending boost for space and cyber operations and hypersonic technologies. There is a push, for example, to put money in the next defense budget to arm guided-missile submarines with hypersonic weapons, a plan initiated by the Trump administration.
For decades, the United States tracked China’s increased defense investment and worried that Beijing was aiming to become a global power. But for at least the last 20 years, Washington was focused more on countering al-Qaida and other terrorist threats in Iraq and Afghanistan. That began to change during the Trump administration, which in 2018 formally elevated China to the top of the list of defense priorities, along with Russia, replacing terrorism as the No. 1 threat.
For now, Russia remains a bigger strategic threat to the United States because its nuclear arsenal far outnumbers China’s. But Milley and others say Beijing is a bigger long-term worry because its economic strength far exceeds that of Russia, and it is rapidly pouring resources into military modernization.
At the current pace of China’s military investment and achievement, Beijing “will surpass Russia and the United States” in overall military power in coming years “if we don’t do something to change it,” said Hyten, who is retiring in November after two years as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “It will happen.” Yessiree!
The Biden administration says it is determined to compete effectively with China, banking on a network of allies in Asia and beyond that are a potential source of strength that Beijing cannot match. That was central to the reasoning behind a Biden decision to share highly sensitive nuclear propulsion technologies with Australia, enabling it to acquire a fleet of conventionally armed submarines to counter China. Although this was a boost for Australia, it was a devastating blow to Washington’s oldest ally, France, (What, our oldest ally? LOL, that’s a joke.) which saw its $66 billion submarine sale to Australia scuttled in the process.
Taiwan is another big worry. Senior U.S. military officers have been warning this year that China is probably accelerating its timetable for capturing control of Taiwan, the island democracy widely seen as the most likely trigger for a potentially catastrophic U.S.-China war.
The United States has long pledged to help Taiwan defend itself, but it has deliberately left unclear how far it would go in response to a Chinese attack. President Joe Biden appeared to abandon that ambiguity when he said Oct. 21 that America would come to Taiwan’s defense if it were attacked by China.
“We have a commitment to do that,” Biden said. The White House later said he was not changing U.S. policy, which does not support Taiwanese independence but is committed to providing defensive arms.
Okay, guys, there you have the rea; scoop straight from all the pseudo sophomoric idiots who have all the answers. But what about helping the transgender’s, gays, diversity, etc. in the military, better get them first.? And Lordy be, got to get rid of those extremists who keep touting the constitution!
Who is Bing West? In case you do not know of him here is a quick rundown from Wikipedia of his early life as a Marine and shortly thereafter:
West was an infantry officer in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. He led the mortar platoon of 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines. Later, he served with a Combined Action Platoon that fought for 385 days in a remote village. He was also a member of the Marine Force Reconnaissance team that initiated “Operation Stingray”: small unit attacks behind enemy lines. He authored a study at the RAND Corporation entitled “The Strike Teams: Tactical Performance and Strategic Potential”. This paper was the featured event at the 1970 Department of Defense Counterinsurgency Research and Development Symposium. The RAND Military Systems Simulations Group implemented a classified model of West’s concept. This doctrinal innovation was directly opposed by Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), which favored the Army’s concept of Air-Mobility “Fire and Thunder Operations”. By way of rebuttal, West wrote The Village, chronicling the daily lives of 15 Marines who protected Vietnamese villagers by living among them in their hamlets. The book became a classic of practical counterinsurgency and has been on the Marine Corps Commandant’s Required Reading List for five decades. (One of only three books I have ever read about the Vietnam War – great read if you’ve not).
Our disaster in brief
By Bing West
Following 9/11, a bit of wreckage from the Twin Towers was buried at the American embassy in Kabul, with the inscription: “Never Again.” Now Again has come. On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the Taliban flag will fly over the abandoned American embassy and al-Qaeda will be operating inside Afghanistan. Fifty years from now, Americans will stare in sad disbelief at the photo of an American Marine plucking a baby to safety over barbed wire at Kabul airport. What a shameful, wretched way to quit a war.
The root cause was extreme partisanship in Congress. By default, this bequeathed to the presidency the powers of a medieval king. The Afghanistan tragedy unfolded in four phases, culminating in the whimsy of one man consigning millions to misery.
Phase One. 2001–2007. After 9/11, America unleashed a swift aerial blitzkrieg that shattered the Taliban forces. Inside three months, al-Qaeda’s core unit was trapped inside the Tora Bora caves in the snowbound Speen Ghar mountains. A force of American Marines and multinational special forces commanded by Brigadier General James Mattis (later secretary of defense) was poised to cut off the mountain passes and systematically destroy al-Qaeda. Instead, General Tommy Franks, the overall commander, sent in the undisciplined troops of Afghan warlords, who allowed al-Qaeda to escape into Pakistan. Thus was lost the golden opportunity to win a fast, decisive war and leave.
Acting upon his Evangelical beliefs, President George W. Bush then made the fateful decision to change the mission from killing terrorists to creating a democratic nation comprising 40 million mostly illiterate tribesmen. Nation-building was a White House decision made without gaining true congressional commitment. Worse, there was no strategy specifying the time horizon, resources, and security measures. This off-handed smugness was expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney early in 2002 when he remarked, “The Taliban is out of business, permanently.”
On the assumption that there was no threat, a scant 5,000 Afghan soldiers were trained each year. But the fractured Taliban could not be tracked down and defeated in detail because their sponsor, Pakistan, was sheltering them. Pakistan was also providing the U.S.–NATO supply line into landlocked Afghanistan, thus limiting our leverage to object to the sanctuary extended to the Taliban.
In 2003, the Bush administration, concerned about the threat of Saddam’s presumed weapons of mass destruction, invaded Iraq. This sparked a bitter insurgency, provoked by Islamist terrorists, that required heavy U.S. military resources. Iraq stabilized in 2007, but by that time the Taliban had regrouped inside Pakistan and were attacking in eastern Afghanistan, where the dominant tribe was Pashtun, their own.
Phase Two. 2008–2013. For years, the Democratic leadership had been battering the Republicans about the Iraq War, claiming that it was unnecessary. By default, Afghanistan became the “right war” for the Democrats. Once elected, President Obama, who said that Afghanistan was the war we could not afford to lose, had no way out. With manifest reluctance, in 2010 he ordered a “surge” of 30,000 U.S. troops, bringing the total to 100,000 U.S. soldiers plus 30,000 allied soldiers. The goal was to implement a counterinsurgency strategy, yet Obama pledged to begin withdrawing troops in 2011, an impossibly short time frame.
The strategy aimed to clear villages of the Taliban, then leave Afghan soldiers — askaris — to hold them and to build infrastructure and governance linked to the Kabul central government. In a 2011 book titled “The Wrong War,” I described why this strategy could not succeed. In Vietnam, I had served in a combined-action platoon of 15 Marines and 40 local Vietnamese. It had taken 385 days of constant patrolling to bring security to one village of 5,000. In Afghanistan, there were 7,000 Pashtun villages to be cleared by fewer than a thousand U.S. platoons, an insurmountable mismatch. Counterinsurgency would have required dedicated troops inserted for years. President Obama offered a political gesture, not a credible strategy.
My experience was different. In trips to Afghanistan over ten years, I embedded with dozens of U.S. platoons. When accompanying our grunts, the askaris did indeed fight. But ten years later, it remains a mystery to me why our generals refused to acknowledge what our grunts knew: namely, that the Afghan soldiers would not hold the villages once our troops left.
This wasn’t due to the structure of their army. The fault went deeper. The askaris lacked faith in the steadfastness of their own chain of command. Afghan president Hamid Karzai reigned erratically from 2004 through 2014, ranting against the American government while treating the Taliban with deference. His successor, Ashraf Ghani, a technocrat devoid of leadership skills, antagonized both his political partners and tribal chieftains. Neither man instituted promotion based upon merit or imbued confidence in the security forces. Familial and tribal patronage pervaded.
From the Kabul capital to province to district, from an Afghan general to a lieutenant, positions and rank depended upon paying bribes upward and extorting payments downward. We were caught on the horns of a dilemma caused by our political philosophy. Because we wanted to create a democracy, we chose not to impose slates of our preferred leaders. On the other hand, the askaris had no faith in the durability or tenacity of their own chain of command.
In contrast, the Taliban promoted upward from the subtribes in the different provinces. While decentralized, they were united in a blazing belief in their Islamist cause and encouraged by Pakistan. The Afghan army and district, provincial, and Kabul officials lacked a comparable spirit and vision of victory.
Phase Three. 2014–2020. From 2001 to 2013, one group of generals — many of them household names — held sway in the corridors of power, convinced they could succeed in counterinsurgency and nation-building. That effort, while laudable, failed.
But that did not mean that a Taliban victory was inevitable. Quite the opposite. A second group of generals came forward, beginning with General Joseph Dunford. The mission changed from counterinsurgency to supporting the Afghan army with intelligence, air assets, and trainers. President Obama lowered expectations about the end state, saying Afghanistan was “not going to be a source of terrorist attacks again.” U.S. troop strength dropped from 100,000 in 2011 to 16,000 in 2014. With the exception of Special Forces raids, we were not in ground combat, so there were few American casualties.
Battlefield tactics shifted to what the Afghan army could do: play defense and prevent the Taliban from consolidating. By 2018, U.S. troop strength was lower than 10,000. Nonetheless, General Scott Miller orchestrated an effective campaign to keep control of Afghanistan’s cities. Afghan soldiers, not Americans or allies, did the fighting and dying. The last U.S. combat death occurred in February of 2020.
Nevertheless, narcissistic President Trump, desperate to leave, promised the Taliban that America would depart by mid 2021. He cut the number of American troops in country to 2,500. With those few troops, General Miller nonetheless held the line. The U.S. military presence, albeit tiny, motivated the beleaguered Afghan soldiers. When the Taliban massed to hit the defenses of a city, the askaris defended their positions and the U.S. air pounced on targets. In addition, our presence provided a massive spy network and electronic listening post in central Asia, able to monitor Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran. At a cost of no American lives and 5 percent of the defense budget, Afghanistan had reached a stalemate sustainable indefinitely at modest cost.
Phase Four. Bug-out in 2021. President Biden broke that stalemate in April of 2021, when he surprised our allies and delighted the Taliban by declaring that all U.S. troops would leave by 9/11, a singularly inappropriate date. As our military packed up, the miasma of abandonment settled into the Afghan psyche. In early July, our military sneaked away from Bagram Air Base in the middle of the night, which triggered a cascading collapse. Once Afghan units across the country grasped that they were being abandoned, they dissolved. What followed was a chaotic evacuation from the Kabul airport, with the Taliban triumphantly entering the city.
Asked why he had pulled out entirely, President Biden said, “What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point, with al-Qaeda gone?” That stunning fabrication was a denial of reality: Al-Qaeda are commingled with the Taliban in Kabul. As the world watched, America had to rely upon Taliban forbearance to flee. President Biden had handed America a crushing defeat without precedent.
Evacuees wait to board a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, August 23, 2021.
President Biden has claimed that the ongoing evacuation occurred because the Afghan army ran away instead of fighting. In truth, the Afghan soldiers did fight, suffering 60,000 killed in the war. Their talisman was the American military. No matter how tough the conditions, somehow an American voice crackled over the radio, followed by thunder from the air. Those few Americans were the steel rods in the concrete. When that steel was pulled out, the concrete crumbled. The spirit of the Afghan army was broken.
During the month following the abandonment of Bagram Air Base, the Pentagon remained passive. In contrast, a month before the abrupt fall of Saigon in 1975, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was concerned about the North Vietnamese advances. As a former grunt in Vietnam, I was his special assistant during that turbulent time. He informed State and the White House that he was ordering an air evacuation; 50,000 Vietnamese were rescued before Saigon fell. In the case of Kabul, the Pentagon took no such preemptive action.
Worse, selecting which Afghans can fly to safety has been left to State Department bureaucrats, although State has an abysmal ten-year record, with 18,000 applicants stuck in the queue. Each day approximately 7,000 undocumented immigrants walk into America; about 2,000 Afghans are flown out daily from Kabul. In the midst of an epic foreign-policy catastrophe, the priorities of the Biden administration remain driven by domestic politics and constipated bureaucratic processes.
What comes after the botched evacuation finally ends?
(1) A course correction inside the Pentagon is sorely needed. Our military reputation has been gravely diminished. The 1 percent of American youths who volunteer to serve are heavily influenced by their families. About 70 percent of service members have a relative who served before them. The Afghanistan War spanned an entire generation. What they took away from this defeat will be communicated from father to son, from aunt to niece.
To avoid alienating this small warrior class, the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs must put aside their obsession with alleged racism and diversity in the ranks. Former secretary of defense Mattis said that lethality must be the lodestone of our military. Sooner or later in the next six months, we will be challenged. Instead of again waiting passively for instructions, the Pentagon should recommend swift, decisive action.
(2) President Biden’s image as a foreign-policy expert is indelibly tarnished. As vice president in 2011, he vigorously supported the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. Three years later, U.S. troops were rushed back in to prevent Iraq from falling to the radical Islamists. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote at the time, “he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign-policy and national-security issue over the past four decades.”
President Biden bragged that under his leadership, America was “back.” Instead, while denying that our allies were upset with his performance, he has destroyed his credibility. Perhaps there will be changes in his foreign-policy team, but President Biden himself will not be trusted by our allies as a reliable steward.
(3) In his Farewell Address, Washington wrote, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.”
As Washington warned, due to extreme partisanship, the American presidency has accumulated the powers of a king or a despot. In matters of war, over the past several decades one party in Congress or the other has gone along with whatever the president decided. This tilts power decisively in favor of the White House. Congress has abdicated from providing either oversight or a broad base of public support. The White House as an institution has become regal and aloof — the opposite of the intention of the Founding Fathers.
Afghanistan, from start to finish, was a White House war, subject to the whims and political instincts of our president. The result was an erraticism that drove out strategic consistency and perseverance. A confident President Bush invaded Afghanistan, blithely expanded the mission, and steered a haphazard course from 2001 through 2007. Presidents Obama and Trump were overtly cynical, surging (2010–2013) and reducing (2014–2020) forces while always seeking a way out divorced from any strategic goal. President Biden (2021) was a solipsistic pessimist who ignored the calamitous consequences and quit because that had been his emotional instinct for a decade.
(4) Our Vietnam veterans were proud of their service. The same is true of our Afghanistan veterans. In both wars, they carried out their duty, correctly believing their cause was noble. After nation-building was designated a military mission, our troops both fought the Taliban enemy and improved life for millions of Afghans. With the Taliban now the victors, it hurts to lose the war, especially when the decision rested entirely with one man.
Who are we as a country? Who will fight for us the next time?
This article appears as “Who Will Trust Us the Next Time?” in the September 13, 2021, print edition of National Review.
Postscript. I have not always been a great fan of West. As a Marine in RVN he served courageously, and I loved his book The Village. However, it is always easy to be an armed chair QB and on Monday morning outline everything Tom Brady did wrong, despite his seven Super Bowl rings. He is obviously a good friend of the former Marine about whom I have nothing good to say. I’ll let you decide who that may be, albeit Bing mentions him several times in the diatribe.
Despite all that I do believe and agree with much he says, but then that’s Bing’s way, I mean it is Monday morning right?
