March 29, 2009

Afghanistan Bananistan: The 10 Point Plan


Richard at The Belmont Club is taking a hard look at the Obama Effort in Afghanistan and wondering if the President realizes what he's getting himself into. I think he does.

I think he realizes what his needs are in Afghanistan. What he needs to do is end a war in an American defeat while being seen as "trying for a victory." To do that he has to engineer an American defeat. Iraq is already, in the public mind at least, in the win column. So how do we engineer an American defeat? It is simplicity itself. You begin, not with a "surge" but a ripple.

1) Ripple: Reinforce, but only lightly.
 After all, it's not really a "surge."
2) Raise the body count: Tighten the Rules of Engagement on US forces. This loosens the Rules of Engagement for the Taliban which increases the casualties for the US.

3) Look rational: Set “goals” and a “timetable” going in. Make sure these goals cannot be achieved with the resources available in the time allowed.

4) Short Pakistan: Alienate the land power that control the supply routes. Make protecting logistics consume most of the “reinforcements.”
5) Grandstand: When the land supply routes go down, make a valiant “Kennedyesque” resupply “effort” with an airlift for a short period.

5) Look "realistic:" When your goals are not met and airlift fails, announce that you’ve given it the old college try and must regretfully withdraw.

6) Give a history lesson: Make sure you withdraw using plenty of airpower, with lots of large helicopters at the end taking off from Kabul.
 The media will be more than happy to compare and contrast the fall of Saigon.
7) Triumphantly involve the UN: Announce at around the same time that your soft diplomacy has born fruit in Iran, and that Hans Blix and the Mullahs have agreed to UN-type weapons inspections of 20 square blocks of the downtown shopping district of Tehran.

8) Be heroic: Announce that the US remains committed to Afghan democracy and get the Congress to agree to fund the Afghan forces and political establishment for "as long as it takes." This can be easily rescinded at a later date as it was for the South Vietnamese.
9) Mission accomplished : Just in time for, say, a 2012 September surprise: "I brought your boys home, and we'll have enough troops for government to fill your sandbags in Fargo this spring!" Make the defeated army "your" helpful-at-home army.
10) Reallocate funding: Once you transform the army into something that fights natural disasters and not enemies, you can slash their budget to the bone. The Navy's next since there won't be any American power to project or protect. But, hey, you've just funded National Health Care so you don't care. Make sure you've got a lot of burn units near major cities. You can name them after Saul Alinsky.

Posted by Vanderleun at March 29, 2009 10:02 AM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Yep. John Kennedy derided and ultimately allowed the assassination of Diem & Ky, allied leaders in Viet Nam. Lyndon Johnson, with the help and advice of his "insider" Republican Secretary of Defense, McNamara--than whom there has been no more stupid and vicious SecDef (see Project 100,000)to date--incrementally reinforced troops in Viet Nam, always with too few to get the job done, just as BO and his "insider" Republican SecDef, Gates,are doing now.

The perpetual sophomore from Occidental who thinks he the smartest person in the entire world because he was able to transfer through affirmative action to Columbia, the most anti-American, leftist school in the Ivy League,is doing in foreign policy what he is doing in domestic policy--following universally failed ideas and procedures from the past.

If SecDef Gates has any sense of pride, he will resign now so that he won't be looked on as the loser McNamara--father of the Edsel and retreat in Viet Nam--is.

Posted by: St. Thor at March 29, 2009 11:12 AM

See what I saying about schaden was out offreude, Gates always seemed to be more the Clark Clifford type, the establishment's proxy, pro Iran,skeptical of the counterinsurgency strategy, Petraeus will probably be forced out first, and a more compliant officer will be put in at CENTCOM, more like AdmiraL Fallon. The precedent is not the fall of Saigon, but the eminently more bloody retreat from Kabul in 1841, which claimed everyone but Dr. Dryden

Posted by: narciso at March 29, 2009 5:34 PM

That's truly plausible thinking and also truly evil. I'm a Canadian supporter of this war. Surely Obama wouldn't do that? Just thinking and shaking my head. All things are possible..... Yeah, he would screw our soldiers over. Unprintable.

Posted by: Circe at March 29, 2009 5:58 PM

Seems reasonable. It is against his principles to win a war that is not a civil war.

Let us remember, too, he believes his great vulnerability is a vital military. It is. Weakening them requires more than cutting funding. Defeat and demoralization would be accelerants.

The Russian military was greatly weakened by the First World War and so was not an impediment to Lenin.

Adolf, though, had the same military problem as the Obama. He dealt with it through loyalty oaths and popular public support.

I do not yet see where the Obama will be successful in neutralizing or winning over military and police. But he has a plan, I've no doubt.

Posted by: james wilson at March 29, 2009 7:21 PM

On #10:

Seems they're working in reverse (normal for gov't.).

">> Link

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate defense committee chairman says Pentagon budget will include large, painful cuts. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Tuesday that major program cuts will not be pushed off until the 2011 budget, but will be included when Defense Secretary Robert Gates sends his spending plan to the president later this month."

Feel safer yet?

Posted by: JD at April 2, 2009 7:23 AM

Sounds like a plan. Linked.

Posted by: Hector Owen at April 4, 2009 1:19 PM