Could the Navy win the war in Afghanistan?
September 1st, 2009 | Aviation Ships The Middle East Washington | Posted by Phil Ewing
Columnist George Will thinks the U.S. should rely on "offshore" assets to fight the war in Afghanistan. That could include cruise missile strikes fired from ships like the cruiser Cape St. George, which launched a Tomahawk against Iraq in 2003 // Navy
The big conversation this week inside the Beltway is about Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s report to the Pentagon about the situation in Afghanistan, and the big conversation today is about WaPo columnist George Will’s take on the situation. The Bow-Tied Bandit was unflinching: the U.S. military can’t build a Western democracy out of a very poor, badly governed, highly diffuse mountain nation.
The U.S. strategy is “clear, hold and build.” Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state.
He continues later:
[Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike] Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan’s “culture of poverty.” But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many “accidental guerrillas” to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases — evidently there are none now — must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?
Of particular interest to the Navy — although there are thousands of sailors on the ground in Afghanistan even now — are Will’s recommendations for how to prosecute the war in the future:
America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
That sounds to Scoop Deck like the onus would shift to the Navy and the Air Force, supporting Tomahawk missile strikes and air support from submarines, cruisers, destroyers and carriers in the Gulf of Oman. Navy SEAL units on the ground would continue their work against the bad guys.
Information Dissemination has an interesting take on this “offshore balance” notion. But what do you think? Is the war in Afghanistan impossibly stalemated? Could the Navy take over fighting from afar, supporting NATO with missile strikes and air support?
Comments
-
Cap'n Bill Says:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pmOffhand I suspect the cost of relying solely on “offshore weaponrey” would be prohibitive. The necessity of maintaining large numbers of expensive platforms offshore at a great distance from homeport and a need for resupply would tarnish any initial shine to this idea. Boots on the ground have a history of effectiveness in such matters.
Don’t do anything if you can’t/won’t do it right. -
Bob Says:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pmHaving served in the Navy, I certainly think that the capability of Naval Forces and their armament would make a significant contribution to ending the war in Afghanistan. The world could certainly use a new parking lot.
“Fire when ready Gridley !!!!” -
Mike Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 9:16 amForget Afganistan, find and kill Bin Laden,
isn’t/wasn’t that our primary purpose to begin
with. The Taliban and the other insurgencies
cannot be overcome and become “Westernized”.
Ask the Russians how they made out! -
bullet proof vest Says:
November 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pmI really pray that President Obama focuses more on convincing Congress to provide vital money to purchase the bullet proof vests our boys fighting overseas need to complete their mission