A short war nation in a long war world

The New York Times has a front page story today about the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. Since the Times usually leads the liberal charge across the country we're likely to see a surge of attention on this subject, something sure to be turned into another Bush bash.

But are they right? The Times uses one of those ubiqitous anonymous sources to describe the current perception as follows:

The Bush administration is alarmed, according to a Western intelligence official close to the administration. He said that while senior members of the administration consider the situation in Iraq to be not as bad as portrayed in the press, in Afghanistan the situation is worse than it has been generally portrayed.

Michael Yon’s recent dispatches would seem to support the notion that all is not sweetness and light. Perhaps the fact he decided to go should tell us something.

We do know the Taliban are regrouping in the south, bordering the age-old hostile territories of Baluchostan and Waziristan, areas that appear to be the modern day equivalent of the wild, wild, west.

"The Taliban and Al Qaeda are everywhere," a shopkeeper, Haji Saifullah, told the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, as the general strolled through the bazaar of this town to talk to people. "It is all right in the city, but if you go outside the city, they are everywhere, and the people have to support them. They have no choice."

The problem seems to be that American forces are pulling out of the south in favor of UN/NATO peacekeepers, who’ve said they won’t be killing any terrorists anytime soon.

Fault Bush if you like, since if we had 150,000 troops in-country it would be harder for the Taliban to regroup as they are. But, while you're doing that keep in mind the presence of foreign troops begets the call of “occupation force”, which stirs native hostilities. That's why a multi-national force is better.

But, regardless of who's there Bin Laden's plan is clearly to fight a war of attrition. It took them over ten years to push out the Soviets, but they finally did. Our situation is different, as despite what the far left 'thinks' about the mission we did not invade that country to capture territory. Setting up the government and sheparding a security force to keep the peace was our goal. Such was being accomplished without serious side effects up until about a year ago.

But can we stay indefinitely? Using the Bosnia/Kosovo example the answer is yes, but if the peacekeepers refuse to keep peace, then the answer might be no. If the Taliban attacks multi-national forces who refuse to engage them, and the Afghanis have no competent force to send in, we're back to square one.

Such a scenario is what leads rational people into suggesting we take up Murtha's cause and retreat to the horizon, screaming over our shoulders that we’ll blow the hell out of any new training camps or WMD facilities that crop up in our wake. But there's a long term problem with that--they'll see our retreat as fear, regroup and hit us again. Then what?

'What' is that we’ll probably wind up right back over there in a few years. The only real way to keep that from happening is to completely wash our hands of the entire region and our defense of Israel. But let's play out that scenario. One has to assume the Arab/Muslims would organize a move on Israel, and we know the Israelis aren't going to sit by and let the Arabs launch a ground war against them again. Iran has made clear how they’ll be responding as well (by the way, I like this proposal). And don't forget the powderkeg between Pakistan, India and Kashmir.

Having just seen “United 93” it's difficult to handle any reversals of fortune in Afghanistan where the terrorists trained. Any red-blooded American watching the movie should have the overwhelming desire to choke the life out of those terrorists and throw their lifeless bodies out the door towards the end of the movie. A somewhat disturbing emotion, but the movie illustrates clearly the lingering threat, one which is completely independent of the party holding Congress or the White House.

If we take the Murtha route, which may indeed happen if Congress flips and certainly after 2008, we best find a better way to deal with worldwide threats. Every tinhorn and terrorist alike will know they can hit us with impunity, then simply wait until the initial shock and awe subsides. Projecting strength and democracy is the American way, not simply the Bush way. We abandon that at our own peril.

MORE 5/7/06

This morning Instapundit tipped us to a George Will column on United 93. Will focused on words from one of the passengers, who told his doomed counterparts they were "on their own". He made the point that unlike most previous American wars, in this one average citizens might find themselves on the front lines one day.