National Review Online: Rubble, Trouble
By John Derbyshire
At least one counter-terrorism analyst is with me on the futility of current operations in Afghanistan. This is Bernard Finel at American Security project.
“There was no attack launched from Afghanistan except in the vaguest sense of having been discussed there and approved. Indeed, it is amazing how little of the 9/11 plot actually required a base in Afghanistan at all …
“There is very little evidence that military occupation prevents terrorist plots and networks … In Iraq and Afghanistan … insurgents have been able to build and deploy over 80,000 IEDs while under U.S. occupation …
“The reason that counter-insurgencies rarely win — particularly third party interventions — is structural, not strategic. It has little to do with what the counter-insurgents did, but rather who they were … More generally counter-insurgencies rarely win because it is easier to blow up a school than to build one, and because while government forces are expected to provide a range of services, insurgents get credit for any services they provide. Insurgencies, once established, run downhill. Counter-insurgencies, always, run uphill.”
Etc., etc. Sounds like good sense to me. And Finel isn’t even a withdrawalist:
“The choice is not just between escalation and withdrawal — though withdrawal should be on the table. The debate should include various limited involvement strategies — some including U.S. forces and some not.”
You don’t have to agree with Finel; and defense analyst Stephen Biddle, against whom Finel is arguing, can take care of himself pretty well. This is the kind of argument we should be having, though. Be nice to think that these issues are being chewed over in this kind of depth at White House strategy sessions. You know, in between the president’s TV appearances.
[Thanks to a dot-mil reader for passing on Finel’s piece.]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGI3MTk4YzU1ZmQ1NWQyODhmOTRiNDlmZTcwOGI1ZmE
