Robert Gates: Why are you, once again, implementing a strategy in which our victory is dependent, not upon our own forces but instead, upon the ability of a not-yet-completely-created military force to take over the fight for us? It’s as if, after D-Day, we expected the French Underground to suddenly take over.
I learned everything I know about military strategy in 2 years of Basic ROTC in college. One point that Major Williams stressed repeatedly was: don’t ever put YOUR victory in someone else’s hands. Never surrender the initiative. Never let the other guy call the shots.
In the present case, it is the success or failure of the local police, and a barely-existing Afghan army, that will determine the tactical disposition of our troops. The course of events is no longer of your volition, Robert. What you will do depends on how big and strong somebody else can get, and how quickly they can do it. You have left the matter to chance. How, Robert, is this a sound military strategy?
It’s the same strategy we lost with in Vietnam. First, invade a country on the pretext of defending or spreading democracy, or freeing an oppressed population. Then set up a corrupt puppet government. Next, create an army out of the defeated population to defend the corrupt puppet government we are propping up.
When we invaded Vietnam, we said that the war would be won when the Vietnamese people were strong enough to take over the fight for themselves. It was called ‘Vietnamization’. It didn’t work.
Now we’ve installed a shamefully corrupt government in Afghanistan, and we’re expecting the formerly downtrodden population to suddenly rise up like Spartacus, take over the fight, and defend our puppet government for us. How, Robert, is this a sound military strategy?
I’ll look for your response on C-SPAN.
Coming next: daddeeo addresses the single biggest problem we face