New Afghan War: Frontline Correspondent Says Fight Has Morphed – But We Still Can’t Afford to Lose
by Michael Yon6 September 2009
This story was published in the New York Daily News on 6 September 2009.
Photo: Jacobson/AP
Helmand, Afghanistan – The West is losing this war. This has been obvious for more than three years. Less obvious is that in 2009, we are down to the wire. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and others will soon recommend to President Obama the latest treatment for a dying patient.
Meanwhile, allies and Americans are asking themselves why we are here. Some are saying that Al Qaeda is still here or is waiting in the wings to return to its home. Yet Afghanistan was never Al Qaeda’s permanent home to begin with. Al Qaeda was just renting a little space here, just as it was renting space in places like Germany and Florida.
We must face reality: Our reasons for continuing are not the reasons we came for. We are fighting a different war now than the one that began in 2001. Today’s war is about social re-engineering. Given the horrible history of Afghanistan, and the fact that we already are here, the cause is worthy and worthwhile.
The decisions facing us are perilous and immense. On the one hand, we desperately need more troops, while on the other increasing troop levels introduces a host of costs and potential traps.
Yet it seems certain the war will be lost if we do not significantly increase troops. While our enemies grow stronger, years will pass before Afghan forces can replace us. Enemies are gaining ground while we lose the goodwill of the people through disillusionment. In the mostly peaceful Ghor Province, for instance, development is scant and there are no Afghan soldiers.
I just spent more than a month with British combat forces in Helmand. Instead of concentrating on training and operating with Afghan forces, the British are involved in a daily struggle for tiny pieces of real estate.
Last December, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told me in a private discussion while flying back to the U.S. from Afghanistan, Bahrain and Iraq, that his greatest concern is that we will lose the goodwill of the Afghan people. Gates is correct and my confidence in his judgment is high. Gates knows that our stock is still okay here, but clearly it is losing value.
The strongest indicator of progress will come in the form of cooperation from the people. In Iraq, especially in about mid-2007, I witnessed a tidal shift in cooperation from the civilians and largely from that was able to report that the surge was working, long before the statistics would support what might have appeared to be a wild claim.
During 2006 in Afghanistan, I witnessed areas where the population was alienated from Kabul and Western forces. Again, long before the statistics would support what appeared to be wild claims, I published 12 reports saying we were losing here. Analysts cannot feel the pulse through statistics; in this sort of war, statistics lag behind the realities. An observer must be on the ground to sense the pulse.
Pundits who are saying we should pull out of Afghanistan today, to my knowledge, are not here.
Having just spent another month with British forces in Helmand, today I am on my own in the same province. During the last month, our great allies the British lost dozens of soldiers who were killed or wounded. Cooperation from locals is almost nonexistent in many places. Interaction between civilians and British soldiers was nearly zero. The British treat the civilians very well, but being polite and respectful is not enough.
Without significant reinforcements, the British likely will be defeated in Helmand within a couple of years. My respect for British soldiers is immense. I have been in combat with them many times in Iraq and Afghanistan, including during the last couple of weeks and would go into battle with them today. Yet it must be said that the average British soldier has practically no understanding of counterinsurgency.
The enemies here cannot defeat the United States, but they can dissolve the coalition. Some allies are ready to tap out, while others are learning that counterinsurgency is difficult. The Germans, for instance, are losing in their battle space. To avoid watching the coalition melt away, we must show progress before the end of 2010.
Today, the war is still worth fighting, yet the goal to reengineer one of the most backward, violent places on Earth, will require a century before a reasonable person can call Afghanistan “a developing nation.” The war will not take that long – but the effort will.
There are no short-term solutions to fix this place. We are planting acorns. Oak trees grow slowly.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
51 Comments
Tell it like it is Mr. Yon. The picture tells the sad story, and I fear our brave young soldiers will be abandoned by this present administration, I hope I’m wrong.
Afghanistan has not changed a lot since Churchill wrote his "Malakind Field Force". England solved the Scottish highlands problem by slaughter at Culloden and then mass emigration throughout its Empire.
The current war depends upon the US. And the US's leader is a community organizer with no guts for the long haul, let alone the short term. As a Canadian, I hope OUR guys are pulled out soon: I can see a modern Dunkirk looming.
Beyond trying to show Afghanistan how to forge itself into a foreign nation, a worthy if somewhat lofty cause, there is also one far more important to our own interests: Keeping Pakistan's weapons out of jihadi hands.
If we don't hold the line, if we pull out and leave a power vacuum for the Taliban or Al-Queda, the only other force liable to step in would be Russia… and that won't be good for anyone but the Russians.
While I agree with your honest assessment of a time line, it gives great concern of reality here in the States. We now have reporters breaking with written agreements of not showing photos of dying Marines on the battlefield. The AP supports and publishes these deaths with film sure to follow. Once again the media has decided what the agenda is going to be.
You Michael have shown honor in and amongst those that serve in battle. There are a few like you that are there to serve both the civilians and our militaries with appropriate reporting. But you are being invaded by the VILE Julie Jacobson's of the press who report the dying words and photos of our fallen, so that they may win Pulitzer prize that will cause more civilian deaths around the world.
God Bless You Michael!
And to the Julie Jacobson's in the press. I hope you rot in HELL!
You cannot force a change that must come from the hearts and minds of every person. In Iraq we fought a bloody tyrant. In Afghanistan we fight centuries-old beliefs, whose strength enabled their people to defeat the Soviets.
Set up outposts of modern civilization. Let the knowledge of who we really are seep into the youth. Perhaps in a generation or two they will be ready to try for something better, to make the change.
But send in more troops now, when this has become little more than Obama's opportunity to show he can be as great a war hero as Bush? It is not worth spending the greatest treasure this nation has.
You cannot force a change that must come from within the hearts and minds of every person. In Iraq we fought a bloody tyrant. In Afghanistan we fight centuries-old beliefs, whose strength enabled their people to defeat the Soviets.
Set up outposts of modern civilization. Let the knowledge of who we really are seep into the youth. Perhaps in a generation or two they will be ready to try for something better, to make the change.
But send in more troops now, when this has become little more than Obama's opportunity to show he can be as great a war hero as Bush? It is not worth spending the greatest treasure this nation has.
The people who defeated the Soviets were not the same ones as seized power afterward. They were the ones who largely sat out the fight, letting the Soviets weaken those the US had armed and trained.
The people who defeated the Soviets were not the same ones as seized power afterward. The Taliban were the ones who largely sat out the fight, letting the Soviets weaken those the US had armed and trained.
Really? From what I recall of the news reports at the time, "The Taliban" was the name of the noble resistance fighters we helped out.
Doesn't matter. Iraq was an unpopular tyrant. The fundamentalist Muslim beliefs that yield the Taliban support have been popular for ages. And as has been long noted, when times are tough people get devout, religiously conservative, and life there will remain hard for a very long time.
To win hearts and minds quickly we would have to provide them a better way of life. Basically we would have to build up the country into something prosperous, from the bottom, and they have far less than even Iraq did. You could blow several hundred billion on basic infrastructure alone, easily.
And then, we would have to see how much gratitude they have. Since it seems obvious they have practically none for what we've done already and are ready to go back to their old ways as soon as possible, I doubt the effort would be worth it. At this time.
I saw just the title of a new book at a bookstore recently, "In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan. That title really has caught more than my attention (I did not buy nor read the book) and made me look further into it and I see many articles on line very similar in context. Mike, I will hold your judgment in high regards since you've been 'there'/done that and not me. I worry now that our progress in prosecuting the war has gone into a more police action mode than fighting a 'war'. What little real press I see, it appears that we're becoming like the Soviets, trying to fight the insurgency from static positions with air conditioning and internet. When we fought the 'Taliban' back in 2001, it was prosecuted as a war, thus the quick victory, but it's the 'rebuilding' that's killing our resolve day by day. By 'our' I mean us back home, who support the troops 100%, but are now questioning the war as it is begin fought. Pakistan, needs to get on board or get out of the way, since that is the Taliban safe haven, much like North Vietnam/Cambodia were for the Viet Cong and NVA. As well, our own politicians need to either back the war or get out of the way, otherwise, this see-saw will continue.
Torn and undecided.
Fight them there or fight them here. We will be fight till the day we Win our we adopt Shari law. You chose! No one likes war except a jihadist mind set. Stop going by feelings and educate yourselves. Do you want women in Burkas?
What happened to "Don't Tread on Me" is 9/11 to far for you to remember? Time for a new Avatar try "Torn and Undecided." Not trying to be demining: there were 343 Police and Fireman murdered there were over 2800 civilians Murdered. That seems like a moment of "Don't Tread on Me" much more important than Health Care.
Oh great, ID is playing "Hide the comment" again.
There is no problem in Afghanistan that a few well aimed nukes wouldn't solve. If we're a hyper-power, then it's time we started acting the part. Bring our guys home, then read these asshats the riot act, and if they don't toe the line it's crispy critters time!
Afghanistan is not worth it. Its like 1984 and we are continuing a perpetual war against an enemy that continualy switches alliances with some puppet government. Meanwhile we are sinking into an economic quagmire back home and the central government ignores the will of the people that want fiscal discipline, they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Global hedgemony is expensive and if our vassal states won't support American Hedgemony, Americans are too broke to support an international as well as s domestic empire. And our global lenders are shying away from the US dollar. When need to pull our troops from everywhere and concentrate on improving domestic production and savings.
Just remember each side stated Goal:
Bin Laden's is Shari Law for All.
George Bush Goal, Wanted Dead or Alive: Bin Laden and Top Commanders.
All this about rebuilding Afghanistan is a distraction. Use the Base land of Al Queda as a staging ground. If Afghan people want to rebuild and some rule of law, then help them as a side project. The Afghans want Liberty as much or more than Americans.
[...] This post was recently mentioned on Twitter by alexa (http://twitter.com/alexakim), who said: RT @bighollywood New Afghan War: Frontline Correspondent Says Fight Has Morphed – But We Still Can’t Afford to Lose http://bit.ly/3yDctv. [...]
I think we have grounds for agreement then.
We are just 2 Liberty fighting Americans. We don't always have to agree on the finer points no big deal to me. We should agree that Liberty for all is towards the top of the list. We have no chance of Liberty till we se Bin Laden head in custody or dead. And Thank You and your family for fighting for it!
As a conservative my opinions don't change easily but if we are not going to properly interrogate the terrorists we catch there.
Then what is the point? NO-BAMA
Michael,
God bless you for all your work.
But I might not have made the parallel with the acorn and oak trees; Obama's "oak tree" re-systeming of the United States is already growing, thanks in very-large part to ACORN.
And those guys are anything but pro-US military.
The British used to be the best in counterinsurgency and guerilla warfare. They taught our guys in the OSS before the deployed to Burma and textbooks have been written about their operations in Malaysia. Instituional memory is a fickle thing.
What do you make of the charge by others that the U.S. Army is fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan? That we are too big army and not enough small unit work?
Please tell me what our objectives are in Afghanistan? What does victory look like and what is our strategy to achieve it?
(Note: I'm not saying this to be offensive. I think a clear problem is that we have lost sight of why we fight and this White House does not seem to want to clarify that vision.)
what the heck is this trash in the middle of a very serious discussion?? Have some class and stop spamming!
Again, the Obama administration is overwhelmingly left wing, which means it is completely isolationist, and anti-military. Afghanistan is only a straw in an appeasing wind. And, you have 3 more years of this hollow man. As a Canadian I am not optimistic. A lot can go very wrong in 3 years.
I am not sure the prize of winning in Afghanistan is worth the price…
It really hurts to see a report about another American soldier giving up his or her life !!!!
The same pain is felt when our allies, especially British who also pay that final sacrifice.
Every single person that dies in that God-forsaken place has loved ones who mourn their passing.
I just not sure that Afghanistan is worth another single drop of American, British, German and so on blood….
How can we combat thousands of years of hate and a tradition of oppression ?
Fair questions, all of them. Of course I have not forgotten, I have a son who has served six combat tours in the last twelve years, and I am retired Law Enforcement. Perhaps that is the torn part. The undecided part comes from, that neither party is willing fight unrestricted warfare and if Afghanistan's 1000 plus year history does not prove that diplomacy and restricted warfare will not work there, then why dance around? And I do disagree that Afghanistan is more important than defeating this health care bill. Hence my avatar.
Fight them there or fight them here. We will be in the fight till the day we Win our we adopt Shari law. You chose! No one likes war except a jihadist mind set. Stop going by feelings and educate yourselves. Do you want women here in Burkas?
please learn your history and facts by being correctly informed, why would the Russians who basically saw the downfall of the Soviet Union happen because of this exact place, Afghanistan. If anything, they want us to continue being there and being bogged down. In fact, they are facilitating us with fly overs and supplies coming out of Russia. Now that is good for Russia. Believe it or not, Russia and us are on the same side on this issue. More radical islamists in Afghanistan fuel Russian domestic radicals. WIthout the lightning rod for islamist that Afghanistan is, other foreign fighters from near by republics will focus in on the fringes of Russia, like Chechnya. And finally another reason why Russia won't step in, is because their army is just not up to snuff to handle any external fight beyond their own borders. Even though they won against Georgia, the loses they incurred for the size of the battle was sheer incompetence.
the foley of the belief that we're the exception to the rule, will bring us to ruin.
Reread my message.
I was stating that IF we pulled out, the only other nation liable to do anything to keep Pakistan's nukes out the hands of Islamists would be Russia. Chechnya is the reason why. If they were to intervene on their own behalf, they would do so with all the ruthlessness and savagery the far-left anti-war crowd could only wish the US engaged in.
heather myour anti opbabam sentaments have led you to post rubbish.
It has laways been understood that democrats like a small military and want to senf it everwhere, republicans on the other hand want a big militray and want to send it nowhere.
what are you wantiong from an afagn policy? or were you just making a cheap dig at obama?
A modern Dunkirk ?
We are fighting a insurgent war, not a highly militarised state the most technologically advanced army of the time, probably with the best generals of the time.
Your a million miles off the mark !
The only ones who can keep Pakistani nukes from the radicals is Pakistan. If their military gets compromised, a nuke will be just another shipment through their porous border. Russia is not going to go gung-ho in the area either, if they move then India will get irritated, China is right there etc, and Pakistan is (technically) a US ally as well as there being other US interests in the area.
The nuke issue is slipping away. No one is making the hard calls to stop other nations from getting them, the technology and even the material is proliferating. Russia's defense is intelligence and border security, keeping them out. Hopefully we will soon get rid of that Socialist in Chief who'd rather look inward for "right-wing extremists" and "fishy" commentary so we can concentrate on doing the same. It's only a matter of time until a terrorist uses a nuke, the best thing going for us is it'll be highly likely it will happen over there so we have some warning to step up our vigilance in time.
The objective is a repeat of Iraq, establish a sustainable democracy that (hopefully) will look favorably on US interests. "Victory" would be a clean democratic government we can walk away from and expect it to continue, as they will be fighting the extremists to ensure their own survival.
Our strategy, such as it is, involves purging the country of the radicals while seeing to it they have strong defenses against them.
The biological equivalent, cancer treatment. Remove the masses you can, ravage the body with chemotherapy that ideally would only target the cancer cells, then make sure there is a working immune system before ceasing treatment. I doubt this patient would make it to the five year mark before the cancer returned.
Well, I think the writer was looking for a famous military fiasco to compare to Afghanistan.
It wasn't a perfect analogy, but I take his point.
Would Custer's Last Stand or Isandhlawana work better for you?
Good Lord. Another comment sent to the site admin. Not only can't I write "an@lysis", apparently "an@logy" is verboten as well. If any site admin actually reads this, get your silly ass filter fixed.
Already saw that last year. Here I am, central PA, we have a mosque in town, and there on the sidewalk between the city municipal building and the county courthouse was an exasperated-looking darker-skinned guy with two presumably women in full burkas. My comment to myself, what happened, did they just inform him he could only have one wife?
Welcome to the front lines, downtown Middle America.
[...] New Afghan War: Frontline Correspondent Says Fight Has Morphed – But We Still Can’t Afford to Lo… [...]
It all comes down to this…
Are YOU willing to see your son die to pursue whatever passes for "victory" in Afghanistan?
If you're not… then get out now.
[...] they (in theory) must be repaid before any other debts that the property might be collateral for. New Afghan War: Frontline Correspondent Says Fight Has Morphed – But We Still Can’t Afford to Lo… – bighollywood.breitbart.com 09/06/2009 6 September 2009 This story was published in the New [...]
PEOPLE do you not forget the price to be paid by cutting and running? It would be (no-doubt) portrayed as a major victory for Islamic extemism and a humiliating defeat for the US
Yes, Afghanistan may be impossible to subdue..BUT the Taliban are at an advantage fighting a relatively sparse force. We need more personnel. ALOT more. We were suppedly "beaten" in Iraq, right? We CAN do it…esp. if Pakistan continues to put pressure on their side. The Taliban are little more that armed thugs, bloodthirsty criminals. A surge must at least be tried before giving up…which shouldnt even be considered at this point–the offensive has hardly begun.
What parent would be willing to see their son die under ANY circumstance?
You're absurd.
IT DOESNT MATTER. this is not about politics, it's about military strategy and making the right decisions, not just the (apparently" easy ones. Let's get REAL.
Fair question this is this administrations published Objectives and policies.
White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on
U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan
You can get a copy here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Afghan...
They are still working on strategy.
Fair question this is this administrations published Objectives and policies.
White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on
U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan
You can get a copy here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Afghan...
They are still working on strategy. This may or may not clear things up for you. It has more issues than solutions IMHO
Of course the US CAN do it. However, your COMMANDER IN CHIEF must want to do it, and understand why it must be done. Obama is your 'commander in chief'. Enough said.
At what point in time does the American body count coming out of Afghanistan begin to charge against Obama's account, since the majority of his supporters wanted us out of BOTH of "George Bush's Wars" prior to the '08 election?
Now they're suddenly OK with it?
You're missing the obvious. Fight them there from here. There is absolutely ZERO chance of victory in Afghanistan. ZERO. All that is being accomplished is putting the West under a slow-bleed, squandering our resources, our soldiers and our vitality. On the other hand, Afghanistan is just a few short years from being the center of a consolidated Islamo-fascist force that will quickly topple Pakistan and arm itself with nuclear weapons. The only solution is for the West to redirect its resources now before our war chests are empty. Developing next generation weapons, technologies that sterilize vast areas with minimal lasting impact and penetrate through to the earth's core if needed, is imperative. Implementing the Rods of the Gods might be a good first start.
.Counterinsurgency may not be enough I am afraid, not enough to win hearts and minds that have endured cruel and unusual punishment and have developed deep apathy for all foreigners over many centuries. Nor for the Afghan people to be swayed to "winning" any war nor even dilapidating support at home to lose it for that matter.. We can no more alter any of that than we can make the moon an attractive place for a McDonald's restaurant. The only thing that will save Afghanistan is the realisation that it has innate value. The "Taliban" know what that value is, Opium and a mostly apathetic population
You must be logged in to post a comment.