The Inconvenient Truths of History

The other day a television reporter, commenting on the President’s relief of General Stanley McChrystal, said, “Obama’s already done the unprecedented…relieved a commanding general in wartime…” referring to his relief of General David McKiernan a year ago.

Of course that’s stupid. Just off the top of my head, there were McDowell, McClellan, MacArthur, and McKiernan before McChrystal. But so what? Being stupid is routine enough not to require comment.

The real question: “Is such stupidity important?”

In the past two decades, education in the United States has been hell-bent on being “relevant,” as if immediate use is the sole measure of knowledge. Tell Plato. Or Einstein, for that matter. Neither one spent a great deal of time being relevant. As things turned out, what they thought about was important, however.

If you think something is “unprecedented,” you might be easily led to the conclusion it’s wrong. Years ago, in this very blog, I wrote disparagingly about George Bush’s un-nuanced pronouncement that he “trusted the generals.” He couldn’t know whether his general would turn out to be Washington or Burnside.

Lincoln would have been in a fine kettle of fish if he hadn’t finally decided to stop trusting “Little Mac” and fire him. McClellan was –and remained – very popular, winning the Democratic nomination and running for president against Lincoln in 1864. McClellan was also a very weak battle commander; so much for popular opinion.

Taking our theme further, our current president made “fighting the right war” a centerpiece of his successful election campaign. What made Afghanistan the right war? “Getting Bin Laden? Since when does revenge – ok, law enforcement, then – justify a nation at war? Killing or capturing Bin Laden will not likely materially reduce the potential of radical Islamists around the globe to do us harm. Disruption of Al Kaida's base of operations at the time they planned and launched the 9/11 attacks? We accomplished that in just weeks after our October 7, 2001 attack. The first U.S. soldier killed by hostile fire was on January 4, 2002. Perhaps that would have been a good time to declare victory and leave; Al Kaida had already done so, decamping for Pakistan. Instead, we stayed in Afghanistan to "nation build," incidentally - and inexplicably - giving Al Kaida the same kind of sanctuary we once gave the NVA and Viet Cong.

Alexander the Great, having subdued the Persian Empire, the world’s great power of that day, took his army into Afghanistan in 330 BC. Four years of bitter battles later, he prevailed, but his army was so exhausted and depleted it never really recovered, and Alexander was soon dead. His dream of Empire had truly died in the mountains and valleys of Afghanistan.

Britain fought three Afghan Wars, tactical successes, but strategically no benefit to the Raj and the larger Empire. In the last gasp of its own Empire, the Soviet Union lost 15,000 killed and 35,000 wounded in Afghanistan. From the Sistan Basin to the Hindu Kush this has been graveyard of three Empires. This is really the right war?

Fighting irregulars who have some popular support with a regular army while allowing the enemy a geographic sanctuary is folly. That was true in the British colonies in North America at the end of the eighteenth century. In the Peninsular War of 1807-1812. In Vietnam. It’s unlikely to be different in Afghanistan.

Am I a "pacifist," or "anti-war" in this one? Not really. I'd support a large-scale (Colin Powell's dictum on overwhelming force) attack into Pakistan's tribal areas where the threat might still exist, rip those bastards up - and let Afghanistan go back to hearding goats, growing poppies, beating women, whatever else they do.

History: a compendium of truly inconvenient truths.

Note: A few days after I wrote the above, RNC Chairman Michael Steele was excoriated for saying much the same thing. Is he crazy, as they - even Fox - assert? Am I?