Following the Soviets to Failure

New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial defeats aside, it looks as if President Barack Obama is leaning towards replicating an American version of the Soviet Union’s policy in Afghanistan that failed so conclusively.

Even if this isn’t his intent, his dithering and delaying on whether to accede to the request for 40,000 more troops by his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, verges on insulting and demeaning – not only to Gen. McChrystal, but to every American and NATO soldier serving in Afghanistan.

What the “advisors” around Obama seem to want – war by committee types – is a policy of defending the big towns and cities and letting the countryside drift to Taliban intimidation – which is what the Russians did, and what guaranteed their defeat.

To some this may seem a compromise. To others it smacks of surrender.

There are few guarantees in war, even fewer in a counter-insurgency war which is what Afghanistan has become. What’s so frustrating about Obama’s indecision or procrastination or whatever it is, is that opportunity is being wasted, frittered away.

The only chance for success, if not outright victory, is sufficient boots on the ground to protect villages and rural areas from Taliban insurgents. This assumes that locals don’t want a return of the Taliban. Evidence is overwhelming that they don’t.

Now that the Pakistani army is launched against the Pakistani Taliban, which is finally seen as an enemy, it would be useful if the Americans were ready at the frontier of Waziristan to be the anvil to the Pakistani army’s hammer, with the Taliban caught between.

Just as Pakistan has been a refuge to Taliban rooted out of Afghanistan, today Afghanistan may become a refuge for Taliban rooted out of Pakistan. More American soldiers would improve chances for success.

Meanwhile, the training of the Afghan National Army and police continues. Most of the country is reasonably secure, if not pacified.

If he truly thinks defending only cities can lead to victory – or forestall defeat – Obama should examine history. When the Marxist MPLA staged a coup to seize Angola after independence from Portugal, they used Soviet and Cuban troops to secure the cities, and left the countryside to the ever-expanding pro-West UNITA forces of Jonas Savimbi. By the time the U.S. and west reneged of their support (mostly psychological) of Savimbi, UNITA controlled the whole country – north, east, south and west – except for the big cities. UNITA won most of the battles.

In Malaya, communists were beaten in the countryside, not the cities.

Mao Zedong won China in the countryside, not the cities.

Holding cities and ignoring  the countryside is an Alamo approach to war – Fort Apache and defensive. One feels its appeal to Obama is that it’s risk averse, and reduces American casualties in the short term.

One wonders, amid his agonizing, why Obama, isn’t more concerned about Afghanistan again becoming a training ground and incubator for al-Qaeda and terrorism?

Gen. McChrystal is certainly aware of the danger – just as President Obama was last March when he declared: “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.”

Nothing has changed – only Obama.