In the wake of the miseries we have inflicted on the people of Afghanistan over the last 10 years, including the recent massacre, President Obama said Tuesday that he met with, and has extraordinary confidence in, General John Allen, the commanding general. We kill Afghanis so routinely that they no longer take to the streets when after a massacre, and we make stupid mistakes, like bombing weddings and insulting their religion and their sense of honor. But, the President trusts the generals in charge.
We don’t know exactly what brought on the most recent tragedy. There has been talk that part of the problem is the refusal of the Army to diagnose Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome in its soldiers because treatment and care are very expensive. I think a more likely explanation comes from retired Major General Robert H. Scales in the Washington Post.
Perhaps the issue might be that no institutional effort can make up for trying over the past 10 years to fight too many wars with too few soldiers?
…
But I think if someone wants to place blame, it should be on a succession of national leaders who fail to recognize that combat units, particularly infantry, just wear out. Lord Moran concluded in his classic about combat stress in World War I, “Anatomy of Courage,” that the reservoir of courage begins to empty after the first shot is fired. The horrors of intimate killing, along with other factors such as fatigue, thirst, hunger, isolation, fear of the unknown and the sight of dead and maimed comrades, all start a process of moral atrophy that cannot be reversed. Lord Moran rightfully concludes that nothing short of permanent withdrawal from the line will bring soldiers back to normalcy.
This sounds right to me, and I hope some of our readers with service backgrounds will chime in. I knew many soldiers during the Viet Nam war, and every one of them said that it was horrible, but that it was bearable because they were only in combat for a few months to a year. One friend, an artillery officer, served as a forward observer, a dangerous job. He did that for four months or so, and then went into a field office where there was little danger. Equally important, none of the people I knew served more than one tour in Viet Nam, with the exception of several guys I knew who were career army and volunteered to go back after receiving promotions, thinking it would enhance their careers.
The New York Times reported yesterday that the administration is considering speeding up our withdrawal. The big problem is that the Generals don’t want to leave.
Any accelerated withdrawal would face stiff opposition from military commanders, who want to keep the bulk of the remaining American troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014, when the NATO mission in Afghanistan is supposed to end.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta concurs:’ “War is hell,” he said. “This is not the first of those events, and probably won’t be the last.” ‘
This is not a decision for generals, or the Secretary of Defense any more. The President is responsible for making this decision. He says that we have a mission in Afghanistan: “protecting our country and responsibly bringing this war to a close.” Keeping troops in Afghanistan is not necessary to protect our country, now that Osama bin Laden is dead, and anyway, we say we have the right to attack pretty much anyone with drones and whatever else we might think useful. As to bringing the war to a responsible end, who are we kidding? They don’t want us, and we have done nothing to show them that they should. A bi-partisan consensus is growing that we should leave, with Republican candidates and legislators beginning to raise questions about the costs and benefits of continued killing.
It’s time for the President to pay attention to the biggest picture. What are we doing to the Armed Services with this constant warfare? General Scales deserves an answer. The armed services deserve an answer. The nation deserves an answer.
The people of Afghanistan deserve an answer to another question: why don’t you go away and let us handle our own destiny as our own culture dictates?
————
Update: The New York Times has a fascinating explanation for the different reactions of Afghanis to massacres of the innocent and dishonor to their religion here.




38 Comments

Mahalo, masaccio…! I don’t trust’em any further than I can throw’em…! 8-(
“Moral Atrophy” describes it so well. I don’t think it is just among our stressed out troops. It would appear that it has taken over quite a few civilians on our home ground. What do those military “leaders” think we can accomplish by the end of 2014 that we cannot accomplish by the end of 2013, or even next week?
Compare and contrast…
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta concurs:’ “War is hell,” he said. “This is not the first of those events, and probably won’t be the last.”
Kinda reminds me of Robert McNamara…
…Military victory against the total war waged by North Vietnam was only attainable with US economic and military mobilization, but the decision was taken instead to sell the war in small increments. To minimize the political fallout, the National Guard was not engaged (except to put down domestic disorders) and the children of the influential were exempted from conscription. Secretary of Defense McNamara devised a process of feeding troops in and rotating them out again as individuals, directly attacking unit cohesion and esprit de corps, while the military high command devalued the honour of combat medals by awarding them to non-combatants, and put careerism ahead of combat effectiveness by allowing senior officers to ‘ticket punch’, that is to rotate in and out of combat commands too quickly to bond with their men or to lead them effectively. The impact of the media was twofold, at once feeding domestic outrage at what was being done and demoralizing the troops in Vietnam by showing them the contempt with which veterans were being treated back in ‘the world’. In particular, the effect of live TV coverage of the race riots in the late 1960s on African-American troops was devastating. And, as always, the promises of the air power enthusiasts proved over-optimistic. Bombing the jungle is possibly the least cost-effective form of warfare ever devised by man…
Bombing the jungle is possibly the least cost-effective form of warfare ever devised by man…
Well, pounding the Hindu Kush/Himalayas seems just as cost-effective…!
As Rudyard Kipling said so many years ago…
“When you’re wounded out on Afghanistan’s plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And die like a good British soldier!”
Hell, our fearless leaders don’t even trust their hired Marine killers — oh, excuse me, their patriotic countrymen.
Dayam… “All I know is I was told to get the weapons out,” Sergeant Major Brandon Hall told The New York Times. Asked why, he replied, “Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust.”
Hall said he was acting on orders from superiors, the Times reported.
Mighty Itchy trigger fingers…!
Hopefully the soldiers will figure it out.
The statement that this is the first time a SecDef had troops disarmed in theater is completely false, I witnessed it with Rumsfeld in 2003 at Baghdad Airport.
I think that’s what they were afraid of…! 8-(
Isn’t this but a subset of the larger question of “When will our society quit being subservient to the MIC (actually it should now be the “FMIC”)
Who ever trusted the generals? Careerists, the lot of them.
If these “vaunted generals’ can’t win in ten years maybe their talents would be better used cleaning the enlisted men’s toilets, scraping those tough stains with their little gold stars.
I say that ended around at least the time of the Wars of the Diodochi.
I’m sure the glad the Democrats have been so enthusiastic about austerity /s
Rhetorical Q.
When was the last time any general was trustworthy.
Another rhetorical Q.
Sounds like Panetta & Co. are very well aware of what Gen Scales describes. It’s one thing to have armed, over-deployed & overstressed marines continuously stationed amongst Afghanis, but we need to think about that more when one of the world’s most important persons chooses to enter a marine base.
I don’t care if I ever hear another word from or news report about Panetta. I guess my sense of who is/is not important is out of whack.
Of course the Generals don’t want to leave any war zone. It’s too good for bidness. The need a combat theater for the butt boy up and comer young lieutenants they are mentoring. They need to sign off on the procurement contracts so they can get a good job in the private sector after retirement. None of that happens so well except in the fertile ground of a combat zone.
Of course, the enlisted troops do 90% of the dying as per SOP. And if they are crazy as a result of all the killing, they get to retire in a homeless shelter or under a freeway bridge back in the city on the hill.
Been going on since Babylon.
“…the administration is considering speeding up withdrawal…”
“the big problem…” is that Barack Obama is poll-watching very carefully, and the string of bloody fuckups in Afghanistan is accumulating fast enough to force him to TALK about drawing down, as we head into the election campaign. He has caved to the warbots so many times, that anything he says should be suspect.
As Jane accurately pointed out, he wanted to keep substantial numbers of troops in Iraq, but Maliki couldn’t/wouldn’t yield on the issue of giving the american military immunity for any crimes they might commit, and with SOFA running out, he had no choice but to pull most of our troops out of there.
The recent slaughter of the 16 unarmed Afghan men, women, and children was a wretched exclamation point on just how pointless our being there has become. It’s worth noting that the Pentagon (with Obama’s approval) has quickly spirited the suspect out of Afghanistan, while saying that it’s possible that he could be returned for an Afghan trial there, pending the results of the investigations into the shooting.
I have my doubts about that happening. It would mean that Obama has gone dead square against the wishes of the military, and other than the largely cosmetic removal of McChrystal for publicly farting in his face, just as with the congressional conservatives, Barack Obama has shown no stomach for confronting our military.
That he would do anything more than talk about doing it (to try to lessen the growing disgust of american voters…) as we get into the thick of his effort to be re-elected,
is par-for-the-course for this don’t-rock-the-boat! president.
Clearly, Leon Panetta would have been perfectly comfortable serving as SecDef in the Bush administration…which speaks volumes about Barack Obama.
The Afghan adventure is starting to look a lot like Stalingrad: a relentless and pointless chewing up of an entire army.
WW II.
Rommel, Montgomery, Eisenhower.
Twas ever thus:
http://pinetreeweb.com/roberts-bio.htm
And the Banksters, and the Republicans, and the Medical and Insurance Industry, and the….
But, he has has confronted the DFHs. Fucking Retards.
The general is avoiding responsibility by blaming “national leaders” for all the ills that affect enlisted men (and not generals).
After accomplishing the mission, the chief responsibility of an army officer is to love and care for his people. Army officers at the highest level have not done that. Instead they have used people like they use machines, over and over, and they are worn out. The concern of the generals with the mission is admirable, but not to the point where it ruins people.
The “command climate” these days involves too many officers promoting themselves and deceiving the country, as detailed in Colonel Yingling’s “A failure in generalship” and Lt. Colonel Davis’s “Truth, lies and Afghanistan.”
Duty, Honor, Country has been replaced, by many senior officers (who later become Beltway Bandits) by Lie, Cheat and Steal. Shame on them for violating the trust they were given.
So let’s put the blame where it belongs, on the generals who care nothing for their troops. Where’s Harry Truman when we need him?
“I didn’t fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail.” — Harry Truman
I recall a quote, I think it was from Rowan and Martin’s “Laugh-In”. Dan Rowan would dress up like a 6 star general. And his line concerning Vietnam was: “Yes, it’s a dirty little war. But, it’s the only one we’ve got.”
And yes, we need Harry Truman NOW more than ever.
DO I have to say I agree with you?
I didn’t think so.
I hear Panetta would have been a pperfect fit. He LOVES Nacho Cheese Doritos and knows the “Heimlich maneuver”.
Thank you Masccio for picking up on this topic. I for one hope the discussion can expand into the mainstream arena. The old men thirsting for empire and the generals always get it wrong in their understanding of the human capacities and limits, especially the limits on ability to return to what most of us enjoy as normal life and relations. This Reagan/movie vision of a warrior culture in place of the civilian army added to the Neo-con thirst for empire has given us what we have.
Personally I think it is a tragic situation that actually leaves us more vulnerable, than perhaps at any other time in our history.
And yet we are being “prepared for another war”, this time with Iran — The window of opportunity (for negotiation) is closing” – Obama I see no option If we are to continue on this course of endless war to the inevitable call for a draft by the government.. The public is fatigued also or war. Knee jerk support may not be as easy to elicit.
Somebody up above runs through the complete conventional wisdom bullshit about Vietnam, including how the “Troops” were so disrespected back in the States. It wasn’t that way at all. I came home from my first tour early in ’67 and people couldn’t have been nicer to me. Every single person I met from the time we hit the States at El Toro through my leave back home in Missouri treated me with more respect than they had before I ever joined the service.
All that changed about the middle of ’68. And it wasn’t the “Hippies” who changed. It was the solid citizen types you met bon any Main Street in the U.S. They weren’t openly hostile, but you could tell they weren’t happy to see a uniform.
What airpower couldn’t do was more political than technical.
The air power enthusiasts were fortunately not allowed to do the worst stuff at a level which early on they thought would shut down N Vietnam. — i.e., bombing dikes and dams, runways, railroads, harbors, utilities, etc. with a goal of destroying the economy there for a long time going forward.
There were schemes that way though. They were unthinkable because NV never had posed any threat to the US, and we shouldn’t have been in SE Asia the first place. Everyone knew that from the gitgo, I think.
I think the generals don’t want to be tagged with the losing-the-war label, so they want to press on and Obama is looking for a way to plausibly call withdrawal a victory.
All of them are lost in bullshit as the killing goes on and on.
From what I’ve read, the low causality numbers compared to Vietnam are deceptive because the intensity of combat in Iraq and some places in Afghanistan has been high – our side has better body armor (e.g. bullet proof helmets) this time.
Add to that the stress of deployments up to 15 months, and the problem of being exposed to an unknown enemy that fights from ambush. Not to mention all the atrocity-producing situations in which innocent civilians are killed at checkpoints, and with air strikes.
The Army and Marines as institutions have somehow handled these wars for a decade, but let’s not be surprised at the cost in terms of a high PTSD and suicide rate.
This bunch of soldiers is a whole different lot compared to the citizen soldiers of the Viet Nam era. From the classes they are recruited to the indoctrination and extreme over deployment in combat of the current group. The Viet Nam vets had/have in the majority a support structure in the mainstream civil culture. The professional military provides its own version of support and appropriate lifestyle. It has its own theories of everything including family life and child rearing as well as governing, justice and authoritarian down organization. Now I think they are showing signs that the troops are burning out and on on the edge of losing efficiency for another war and my prediction is they will also find integrating back into ordinary life, especially in the current economic situation, very difficult.
When Obama kept picking Clinton retreads to fill out his administration, it was the handwriting on the wall for sustaining all of this misery and incompetence.
He could have grabbed some bright, honorable, non-beltway people, and if he’d have supported them in their pursuit of real solutions to our problems they would have busted tail for him, and so would the people who gave him an historic win in 2008.
Now? As the saying goes…if were out in my driveway on fire…
I updated the post with a link to an article in today’s New York Times explaining the different reaction of Afghanis to the massacres of innocent people and dishonor to their religion. The article is a fascinating explanation of cultural differences.
Two thoughts.
1. Obama likes to surround himself with testosterone fueled intelligent men. They may have bad policies and be leading us down the wrong road, but hey. I have noticed that very few articles talk about how dumb Obama’s advisors are (unlike Bush who had many).
2. In every war, the generals calculated the peak efficiency of the men. During World War II, new units of US troops reached their peak after 90 days of combat. After 140 days of continuous combat, they became “ineffective.” After 180 days, generals said they were effectively useless.
Are “mission creep” and “no mission” equivalent?
It seems like the war has become nothing more than a digitized military weapon staging area where soldiers play shooter video games with live ammo and real people.
It sickens me to hear Obama denouncing the loss of innocent civilians in the recent massacre while he as President continues to orchestrate similar massacres on an institutional level. “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
And Panetta on down trying to make sure the incident is branded a single event perpetrated by a rogue individual. The unnamed soldier was off the rails, but so is the most of the leadership that is perpetuating this dysfunctional war machine. Yes Mr. President, it IS time to “rush for the exits.”
You can swap a name here and there going back to McNamara, plenty to choose from. Cut and paste into much the same text and there you are.
I have no doubt Obama, too, is sickened by what is going on. He’s probably also disbelieving as if it were all a UFO sighting.
There’s always too much hubris in talented leaders, who honestly believe they can navigate through a Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan without consequences similar to what was brought by their predecessors. Those consequences end up being far more dire than they can imagine.
When O is very old, along with the rest of his generation, I wonder if he’ll be writing and speaking regretfully about the past, “if only. . .”
Smedley Butler, but he wasn’t a general at the time