and the permanent damage we did to our military and diplomatic (can you trust our word) reputation around the world. This clusterF will echo negatively to everything we do around the world for generations.
more poetically
Maximus: Brothers, what we do in life... echoes in eternity.
We will never know the truth regarding events in AFG because whichever side presents its version of the truth will do so in to maximize benefits for itself while making others appear in the worst possible light.
"our National Security Advisor had about as much of a 180-degree lockoff from a proper assessment of the situation as can be. From Kabul to Gaza, generations of national security professionals will study NSA Sullivan’s serial incompetence, and leadership professionals will try to understand the complete lack of accountability from his boss"
But lessons can only forever remain unlearned if we'd just move on...quit the finger pointing, the armchair quarterbacking. Let it go. Let the "NORK levels of awards and badges" be the healing balm. <---B.S.! We'll likely never see an apology but getting the facts into the history books and universally acknowledged as truth would be a good step. I don't see a catharsis happening in my lifetime. BZ for the CDR for keeping the torch lit.
McKenzie is an embarrassment to all Marines. That he has not accepted responsibility for the debacle is a indictment of high level military leaders; serving the incompetent FJB Administration instead of resigning and alerting the public to such gross malfeasance is symptomatic of the careerism that grips the majority of our senior flag officers.
Please explain... Are you talking about Sandy Berger? I was not aware that he was a former Marine. Apologies for my ignorance.
Still, over the course of my lifetime, I have been more impressed by forthright behavior and public comments from USMC flags than, for example, Navy flags.
No, he’s referring to Gen. David Berger, 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps. Under Gen. Berger’s “leadership” he managed to change the ethos of the Corps from an offensive mindset to a defensive one, by “divest to invest”. He eliminated all armor, 2/3 of the tubed artillery, several fixed wing squadrons, several rotary wing squadrons, assault breaching units, combat engineering support, some amphibious assault vehicle units, some aviation combat support units, 3 infantry battalions, and reduced the remaining infantry battalions from 4 line companies to 3 line companies. In their stead he created Marine Littoral Regiments (MLR), that were supposed to be armed with the NMESIS weapons system centered around the Naval Strike Missile (NAM) an obsolete subsonic, short range (100 NM) missile. After six years no MLR has been issued complete NMESIS systems. These MLRs are supposed to provide a “sensor line in the First Island Chain by placing them on small islands owned by foreign governments. Their mission is completely defensive in nature.
Gen. Berger has through these actions allowed the Corps to atrophy its ability to provide 3 combined arms Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) afloat 24/7/365 worldwide. Today we have only 1 MEU afloat, the 22nd MEU currently deployed to the Caribbean.
If you want more information on the debacle that Gen. Berger oversaw and is continuing under the current Commandant, Gen. Eric Smith I suggest you visit and subscribe to Compass Points here on Substack.
You may be surprised to learn that Berger and Smith developed their foolish policy using outright deception! Berger, especially, claimed that they rigorously wargamed the their initiatives BEFORE adopting them… If that is true, then a bunch of 3-year-olds provided OPFOR!
I'm not getting something here. Is the point of this exegesis to affix blame for failure to succeed to those doing their duty as best they understood it in an unwinnable war? What is the point of that? Who does it serve? What lessons are to be taught or learned and by whom and for what purpose? And another point: if genocide (the killing or dying off and replacement by a new, somehow "better" population) is "winning," you're not fighting a war, you're engaged in social engineering of the most dangerous and reviled type.
The point of the spear shatters when it meets sufficient resistance no matter the amount of force used. That is in the nature of the implements of warfare, no matter their sophistication, deadliness, or steadfastness and valor. Wars are won by the will to fight on, no matter the cost. Since WWII, the USA has not possessed sufficient will to win wars (some minor "police actions" notwithstanding), even while its warriors have been more than amply ready, willing, and able to carry out its orders. The country has therefore lost the wars it has, for whatever reasons, taken on. And it will continue to do so.
I'm a career active duty soldier who spent years in Afghanistan (culminating in a relatively senior-level position that granted me rather exclusive access to the political and senior-level military planning of the war effort and the start of the 2020+ drawdown), so I have a pretty informed perspective of CDR Sal's excellent points (and I share his fury at what happened and the unconscionable lack of accountability that followed). You state, incorrectly, that the war and broader international effort was 'unwinnable.' Of course, "winning" can include many measures of success. What Sal and others argue, convincingly, is that we had the capability to influence the course of the war/effort to greatly increase the probability of a far different outcome, one that was far more favorable to US national security interests (and standing in the world) than that which was ordained by the Biden Administration's idiotic and arbitrary to rush for the exits and cowardly abandonment of our Afghan and, let's not forget, NATO and non-NATO allies who had more forces in Afghanistan than we did. I do agree that will is imperative in war and that our leaders did a piss poor job explaining to the American people why maintaining a security assistance effort in AF for a longer-term was necessary, which goes a long way in explaining why support for the war waned over time. But the fact that we have maintained tens of thousands of forces abroad in places like Europe and South Korea (relatively "hot" through the 1970s) argued for maintaining a viable presence in Afghanistan and the region for a longer term. That all simply got thrown away.
Thank you for your service, your perspective, and taking the time to respond. I agree there is great waste in war. It is best avoided altogether, but when necessary it must be fought and won quickly. The alternative is loss of faith, loss of will, and inevitably loss of the war (and all that implies for the chances of success in future conflicts).
Oddly enough, not a word of the actual agreement agreed to by Trump during his first administration.
It was the Trump administration that in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal. The Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500 even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces during the Trump drawdown period. Biden, for his part, kept the Trump agreement although delaying the May 1 withdrawal date that he inherited but ultimately pushed ahead with a plan to withdraw by Aug. 31, despite obvious signs that the Taliban wasn’t complying with the agreement.
The fact is that both Biden and his predecessor, Trump, were both eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and end America's involvement in the country. The mechanics of the actual botched withdrawal, however, in the final days lay directly with the Biden administration. Statements such the withdrawal "ordained by the Biden Administration's idiotic and arbitrary to rush for the exits and cowardly abandonment of our Afghan and, let's not forget, NATO and non-NATO allies" are indulgent fantasies that ignore the slow descent into failure from both Trump and Biden administrations.
The original reason for involvement in 2001 was for the USA to invade Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. No nation building, just find and kill bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Once bin Laden slipped away from Tora Bora the mission morphed.
Once the "morphing" began, the end result was inevitable. Bounce the rubble, leave the lesson for the Afghans to ponder.
Oh, and looking for a mention of Trump? He's currently enjoined from cutting off the CONTINUING supply of American "aid" to the Taliban by a federal judge somewhere. Yeah.
I was opposed to Trump's deal with the Taliban, for the record. Making the deal over the head of the Afghanistan government was a big mistake, IMO.
But my understanding is that Trump's route out was better (marginally or a lot, I'm not sure of the details any more) for supporting the Afghanistan government and in the timing of the withdrawal (as you noted) that made it less likely the Taliban could seriously exploit it. But I agree failing to react to Taliban refusal to follow the deal (shocking that jihadis lie, eh?) was a Trump error.
And while I won't argue the unknowable question of whether Trump's plan would have ultimately worked or if he would have reversed course when it became undeniably clear the Taliban were exploiting withdrawal, he was not in office in 2001.
Biden was in charge and did not reverse course as signs of disaster (clearly visible to anyone who followed media reports) mounted, insisting until it was too late that we would have a "decent Interval" between withdrawal and government collapse.
So while there is blame to spread around, the buck stops in the Biden Oval Office for what actually happened.
As I mentioned, the Biden administration has to accept responsibility for the results of the actual withdrawal. The Trump administration was not part of that final process.
Except Biden arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the withdrawal date to 9/11. Biden and his Administration were the last ones to touch the ball before it went foul. They own it.
'indulgent fantasies'? I was in Afghanistan Oct '19 - Sep '20 and was in the catbird's seat during the runup to the US-Taliban Agreement and know full well the warts and all reality of the negotiations and provisions of the document (and am also privy to the additional conditions articulated by the US that explicitly expressed our continuing right to strike the Taliban should the latter not abide by the letter and spirit of the agreement). I also know a great deal about the deliberate planning and preparation in place to ensure an orderly drawdown and retrograde across the CJOA-A and out of theater, which was generally well executed in the last several months of the Trump Administration. (Would that the hapless Biden Administration had stuck with that well rehearsed and war gamed planning; if nothing else, Bagram Airfield would have been preserved for as long as necessary and the Kabul crapshow avoided). I wasn't a fan of the US negotiation approach (e.g., excluding the Afghan Government) or the Agreement itself (too accommodating), but a lawful order is a lawful order and I was but a relative peon given the big picture. (I agree that Trump was too inclined to want to rush things and we should have been more decisive in protecting Afghan security forces). What you don't acknowledge is that under Trump, our execution and timeline always remained ultimately conditions-based, and we reserved the right to adjust the timeline accordingly, an overall approach that the Biden Administration completely abandoned. Further, we did conduct kinetic strikes against the Taliban under Trump when the TB got sideways (naturally, the TB would claim in such cases "that wasn't us!" Right. Same guys, different jerseys for this or that action/attack. And, when in doubt, blame ISIS). There are also other considerations regarding the ultimate end state envisioned by US planners and commanders that would have preserved US interests, influence, and presence/access, but I'm not at liberty to share more about that. Lastly, any Afghan vet worth his salt knows that the greatest fear of the Afghans who threw in with us or were inclined to be sympathetic to our efforts was the fear of abandonment. Once I saw Biden's "rush for the exits no matter what" (and arbitrary Sep 11 pull-out date) announcement, I knew that it was all over. Biden unleashed the (predictable) furies inherent in a policy of abandonment. Many of us will never forgive him or his team for that.
Do you think that keeping the original May date from the agreement would have had a better outcome? Fear of American abandonment is a well founded fear from the Montagnards onward.
Thanks for your post—very informative. My only comment is you fight your into wars and, if or when you decide to turn tail, you'll have to fight your way out. The enemy, seeing your backs, always tries to kick you in the ass. Rightfully so.
Biden completely changed how the withdrawal was to be carried out. We had a basically impenetrable fortress in Bagram that could have easily and safely carried out a withdrawal. So of course Biden first surrendered it and released all the terrorists held there, one of whom was the suicide bomber, and required that the evacuation would have to be carried out from the basically indefensible airport during the height of fighting season. Nobody made Biden and his clowns do that, they decided on their own to change everything to make it worse.
I would need to see some definite evidence before I laid that clusterfumble exclusively at the feet of someone whose ignorance is only exceeded by his senility. I doubt Biden knew where Afghanistan was, much less Kabul or Bagram, and I doubt he made any decisions regarding the withdrawal.
When I first signed my oath to the Constitution at age 20, I did so eyes wide open, in full knowledge of our many flaws, and with an awareness that I might have to follow orders with which I disagreed. However, I took my oath with faith in our basic decency as Americans, and in the firm conviction that, on balance, the American empire is and has been the greatest and most noble in the history of the planet.
Yes, we are an empire! My first visceral awareness of this fact was while enjoying the impeccable service, as a confident fleet Lieutenant, in the Cubi Point O'Club and gazing at the magnificent sparkling evening lights of Subic Bay. At the time, I speculated that this experience must have been something akin to serving as a British officer in the Raj, confirmed later on the same Westpac by my complimentary membership in the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club. My second visceral experience, this time as a contractor, was walking past multiple dozens of refrigerated containers lined up on my way to the main DFAC at Bagram. At the time, we were serving four meals per day to just short of a quarter of a million military and civilian contractors, at more than 200 locations a thousand mile behind "enemy lines," in that graveyard of empires. It dawned on me that this was a logistical feat never achieved by the British, that could not have been replicated even by the Roman empire at its peak. The American empire remains far superior, both in capability and nobility.
Yet, two of the darkest days in American history occurred in my lifetime, shameful events unworthy of our people and of our nation: 30 April 1975 and 30 August 2021 (correction). As I watched on television, I felt intense outrage and humiliation, feelings which touched my soul, never left me, and redoubled my commitment to my own oath to protect and defend.
This is my personal way of saying that every word of your essay is spot on, CDR Sal! Indeed, you are NOT alone in being unwilling to wink, nod, and let everyone move on! Administrations may come and go, but we happy few must always endeavor to persevere. It is not too late to hold senior military and civilian leadership accountable.
We ought to expect our leaders to at least metaphorically fall on their swords when faced with crushing and humiliating defeats.
As a minimum that's a resignation of commission and a fade into obscurity.
Works for disagreements with political leadership as well...though perhaps instead of fading into obscurity it should be a transition to orations in the Forum.
Leaders falling on their swords would imply they understand the concepts of accountability, shame, embarrassment, and moral courage. None of that to be found in the upper echelons of the American Empire (regardless of party or military branch).
It can. But one has to have some introspection and wisdom to look at their mistakes.
Unfortunately, the hallmark of the current generations in charge has been, "You're so special, it's not your fault, would a trophy make you feel better?"
If that's where you're starting you're unlikely to learn from a mistake.
I got a similar impression going into Kuwait City in '17 from our enclave at Arifjan: I felt like a Roman in Londinium or York or such, surrounded by nearly all of the trappings of home at the far side of the world, but with an inescapably alien native culture pressing up through the pavement at every turn.
I may be the odd man out, but as a Navy man I never felt that the Philippines were an alien culture. No one anywhere in the world has made me feel more welcome or at home.
Another gift that keeps on giving from this entire debacle..... interesting discussion with people who know recently.... in my area of the country we have a LOT of US Marine families. Right after the entire "withdrawal" we got swamped with thousands of "refugees." Now I'm a bit of a skeptic that we had that many "translators" there to warrant an influx into our local grocery stores to make it look like a Kabul bazaar, but that's another issue. So these "refugees" also brought their "children" who have inundated the local public schools. So we have interesting things going on there. No one actually knows the year they were born there, so we have 20 year old Afghan men (by appearance) who are in classes with 14 year old American girls. We have Afghan girls who were never given names going by initials FNU (Female Name Unknown) plus last name. The girls don't speak English and fail all sorts of tests but on the local standards of learning they get unduly high scores. No one can prove they aren't using bluetooth ear pieces under their headscarves to cheat. Many of the "boys" game the system by going to class half an hour every 14 days so as not to be marked withdrawn on the rolls. You see, the families get money for their "children" attending school. Don't try that with your lil red white and blue offspring. They also get their own prayer rooms. Don't demand one for your local Catholic kid to say their rosary. The families live in $600k houses. With equivalents of high school diplomas from Mohammed PBUH High School in Kandahar. Must be nice. I'm sure they get subsidized EBT cards too. But they're refugees, right? We don't want them to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, right? Well, when their equivalent of abuela dies they all take off to go back to the mother country for the funeral/burial and are gone for weeks. Echoes of the Tsarnaev family some years back in Boston. This whole boondoggle sucks resources from OUR children, OUR schools, OUR local tax base. Maddening.
I, too, am a bit of a skeptic. Also about all those alleged "US citizens" who were "abandoned". I remember watching a transport aircraft trying to take off with Afghans clinging to the outside, and I thought to myself,;
"They are willing and anxious to risk their lives clinging to the outside of an airplane to escape, but are not willing to pick up a rifle and fight---screw 'em".
"Fear, shame, and humility—these are strong gods of a superior military. With each passing year, this becomes clearer and clearer to me. As all three were drained from our military, we increasingly relied on the weak gods of false-bravery (wearing combat utilities for daily use in CONUS) and easy-honor (NORK levels of awards and badges) that always lead to arrogance. With arrogance comes eventual defeat."
In the Starship Troopers film, the Sky Marshall who order the Klendathu attack resigned after the disaster. In the book, he died leading a diversionary attack to allow Troopers to escape the planet.
Book superior to movie in many ways, in this case particularly because the director hated the book and wanted to send a different, contradictory message
This was my experience while investigating an incident in Afghanistan as a Cybersecurity manager. GI Joe bought a brand new Apple computer at the Exchange with his first paycheck and inadvertently plugged it into a secure network. Despite my recommendations, NO ONE in the chain of command was held accountable, only GI Joe.
It's the American culture. You hear all the time about high level politicians and private sector officers committing various crimes and not being prosecuted. It's a twist on "to big to fail".
I'll admit I'm a little hazy on my ancient history, so don't know what military reforms may have occurred at that point. What most know of is Marius in the late Republic.
Though I will say that the issue wasn't really solved until Rome conquered the Etruscans. And a lot of others as well.
Reminds me of the Bradley Manning case. Lowly E4 has access to an amazing amount of classified material, officers and EM walking in and out of the facility at will, and the NCOIC (E8?) takes the heat for an insecure facility.
Regardless of what all the HR folks, leadership gurus, and consultants spew, fear is the greatest—although not necessarily the best—motivator. This is hard wired in the species from our fight or flight days.
I just finished reading the "The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" and am now reading "William Tucumseh Sherman: In the Service of My Country," by James Lee McDonough. These men were cut from a different cloth. They knew how to fight and win wars and to do so with honor, fully aware that thousands of soldiers would die for an idea.
For purposes of education, more attention should be focused on the military leaders who got it right, not the more recent cast of losers who got it wrong. The ones who got it wrong deserve to be forgotten, and they will be.
P.S. My next book will be "Pickets Charge in History and Memory," by Carol Reardon. The book is in my Amazon cart.
Even the ones who got it wrong can serve a useful purpose as examples of what not to do. If we don't identify and remember the mistakes, it is too easy to repeat them.
I was in Richmond and went to the war museum. We always see photos of Ex-President Grant; fat Grant. There was a photo of Civil War Grant; lean and fit, a badass.
Tom: President Grant had a lot of health problems and was dying (and broke) when he wrote his memoirs, which he did to secure a financial future for his family. He died upon completion of his memoirs.
Old Broke Grant is who I remember. The U.S. Grant who commanded the Union Army was lean. If you go to the Museum, there are some very interesting photographs, and exhibits. The President of the Confederacy was a tiny man. Lee looked old. Grant looked like he was ready to leap the barricade with a cutlass in his hand and a rifle on his back and defeat the rebels like Rambo against a police department.
Tom: I used to jog up to Grant's Tomb, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, during my grad school days at Columbia (MBA). He's a towering, but forgotten figure in American History.
Learning from America's defeat in Afghanistan must start with admitting it was a defeat.
We shoveled large numbers of unknown Afghans into our aircraft because those Afghans were nearby instead of American local allies we should have pulled out.
I was astounded and ashamed to hear American leaders claiming that those numbers reflected the great success of moving more people over longer distances than ever was done before. How could anybody stand on that metric to claim success without staining their honor forever?
We had a skedaddle debacle in Afghanistan. Learning requires admitting it. And punishing the leadership who let it happen.
Hard to dispute anything in CDR Sal's post. For what it's worth, I read McKenzie's book. It was frankly infuriating. Milley, Austin, Blinkley, Sullivan, and, of course, the decrepit Commander-in-Chief (who probably couldn't have located Afghanistan on a map), were a disgraceful collection of liars and incompetents who directly led to hundreds, if not thousands, of needlessly lost lives.
Still waiting for someone to pay a price for that - simple accountability would go a long way towards rectifying things to come. Not holding my breath. Let me suggest a book, too:
Unwinnable Wars: Afghanistan and the Future of American Armed Statebuilding by Adam Wunische
There are four rules in warfare. Don’t invade Russia. Don’t invade Vietnam. Don’t invade Mesopotamia. Don’t invade Afghanistan. That’s why we teach history at our service academies. What we need is a follow up course on how generals and admirals should deal with politicians who know nothing about history.
Not a recent problem by far. In the democracy of Athens many generals and admirals were politicians during the Peloponnesian War. Some were even brilliant but sideways-Alcibiades. Think of the Sicilian Expedition over vast distance as he Afghan invasion of its day. Dubious venture, thoughtless strategy, time timid execution, all to ultimate and complete failure.
They made the history that we read as history and yet we have had nothing but the taste of ashes for our efforts.
Not to mention the UK casualties in Helmand, plus the other ISAF casualties.
and the permanent damage we did to our military and diplomatic (can you trust our word) reputation around the world. This clusterF will echo negatively to everything we do around the world for generations.
more poetically
Maximus: Brothers, what we do in life... echoes in eternity.
We will never know the truth regarding events in AFG because whichever side presents its version of the truth will do so in to maximize benefits for itself while making others appear in the worst possible light.
If you don't know the truth you haven't been paying attention.
Thanks for making my point.
Sure....
An oldie but goodie
"our National Security Advisor had about as much of a 180-degree lockoff from a proper assessment of the situation as can be. From Kabul to Gaza, generations of national security professionals will study NSA Sullivan’s serial incompetence, and leadership professionals will try to understand the complete lack of accountability from his boss"
The events are owned by the CinC, his advisors, and his subordinates.
owned by every guy who didn't resign in shame before or after the debacle
But lessons can only forever remain unlearned if we'd just move on...quit the finger pointing, the armchair quarterbacking. Let it go. Let the "NORK levels of awards and badges" be the healing balm. <---B.S.! We'll likely never see an apology but getting the facts into the history books and universally acknowledged as truth would be a good step. I don't see a catharsis happening in my lifetime. BZ for the CDR for keeping the torch lit.
The GOFO's have their golden doors to the private sector. The "lower ranks" have "can I sleep through the night without screaming."
Addendum. Since all things are downstream from culture I think this applies:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-kipling-foresaw-our-present-downfall-more-than-a-century-ago/
I may be wildly off track. Maybe not......
McKenzie is an embarrassment to all Marines. That he has not accepted responsibility for the debacle is a indictment of high level military leaders; serving the incompetent FJB Administration instead of resigning and alerting the public to such gross malfeasance is symptomatic of the careerism that grips the majority of our senior flag officers.
McKenzie is an embarrassing exception to the rule that USMC flag officers possess the most integrity of all the flags.
Exception? Hardly. I think he started the trend: Berger, Smith…
Please explain... Are you talking about Sandy Berger? I was not aware that he was a former Marine. Apologies for my ignorance.
Still, over the course of my lifetime, I have been more impressed by forthright behavior and public comments from USMC flags than, for example, Navy flags.
No, he’s referring to Gen. David Berger, 38th Commandant of the Marine Corps. Under Gen. Berger’s “leadership” he managed to change the ethos of the Corps from an offensive mindset to a defensive one, by “divest to invest”. He eliminated all armor, 2/3 of the tubed artillery, several fixed wing squadrons, several rotary wing squadrons, assault breaching units, combat engineering support, some amphibious assault vehicle units, some aviation combat support units, 3 infantry battalions, and reduced the remaining infantry battalions from 4 line companies to 3 line companies. In their stead he created Marine Littoral Regiments (MLR), that were supposed to be armed with the NMESIS weapons system centered around the Naval Strike Missile (NAM) an obsolete subsonic, short range (100 NM) missile. After six years no MLR has been issued complete NMESIS systems. These MLRs are supposed to provide a “sensor line in the First Island Chain by placing them on small islands owned by foreign governments. Their mission is completely defensive in nature.
Gen. Berger has through these actions allowed the Corps to atrophy its ability to provide 3 combined arms Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) afloat 24/7/365 worldwide. Today we have only 1 MEU afloat, the 22nd MEU currently deployed to the Caribbean.
If you want more information on the debacle that Gen. Berger oversaw and is continuing under the current Commandant, Gen. Eric Smith I suggest you visit and subscribe to Compass Points here on Substack.
Thank you for the referral, Greg. I distinguish between foolish policy choices and outright deception.
You may be surprised to learn that Berger and Smith developed their foolish policy using outright deception! Berger, especially, claimed that they rigorously wargamed the their initiatives BEFORE adopting them… If that is true, then a bunch of 3-year-olds provided OPFOR!
TDLR: USMC, Devil Dogs -> USMC, Coast Watchers
Slightly O/T
https://maxtonsoviak.org/
Humble, homegrown and keeping the memories positive.
I'm not getting something here. Is the point of this exegesis to affix blame for failure to succeed to those doing their duty as best they understood it in an unwinnable war? What is the point of that? Who does it serve? What lessons are to be taught or learned and by whom and for what purpose? And another point: if genocide (the killing or dying off and replacement by a new, somehow "better" population) is "winning," you're not fighting a war, you're engaged in social engineering of the most dangerous and reviled type.
The point of the spear shatters when it meets sufficient resistance no matter the amount of force used. That is in the nature of the implements of warfare, no matter their sophistication, deadliness, or steadfastness and valor. Wars are won by the will to fight on, no matter the cost. Since WWII, the USA has not possessed sufficient will to win wars (some minor "police actions" notwithstanding), even while its warriors have been more than amply ready, willing, and able to carry out its orders. The country has therefore lost the wars it has, for whatever reasons, taken on. And it will continue to do so.
I'm a career active duty soldier who spent years in Afghanistan (culminating in a relatively senior-level position that granted me rather exclusive access to the political and senior-level military planning of the war effort and the start of the 2020+ drawdown), so I have a pretty informed perspective of CDR Sal's excellent points (and I share his fury at what happened and the unconscionable lack of accountability that followed). You state, incorrectly, that the war and broader international effort was 'unwinnable.' Of course, "winning" can include many measures of success. What Sal and others argue, convincingly, is that we had the capability to influence the course of the war/effort to greatly increase the probability of a far different outcome, one that was far more favorable to US national security interests (and standing in the world) than that which was ordained by the Biden Administration's idiotic and arbitrary to rush for the exits and cowardly abandonment of our Afghan and, let's not forget, NATO and non-NATO allies who had more forces in Afghanistan than we did. I do agree that will is imperative in war and that our leaders did a piss poor job explaining to the American people why maintaining a security assistance effort in AF for a longer-term was necessary, which goes a long way in explaining why support for the war waned over time. But the fact that we have maintained tens of thousands of forces abroad in places like Europe and South Korea (relatively "hot" through the 1970s) argued for maintaining a viable presence in Afghanistan and the region for a longer term. That all simply got thrown away.
Thank you for your service, your perspective, and taking the time to respond. I agree there is great waste in war. It is best avoided altogether, but when necessary it must be fought and won quickly. The alternative is loss of faith, loss of will, and inevitably loss of the war (and all that implies for the chances of success in future conflicts).
Well said PB.
Oddly enough, not a word of the actual agreement agreed to by Trump during his first administration.
It was the Trump administration that in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal. The Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500 even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces during the Trump drawdown period. Biden, for his part, kept the Trump agreement although delaying the May 1 withdrawal date that he inherited but ultimately pushed ahead with a plan to withdraw by Aug. 31, despite obvious signs that the Taliban wasn’t complying with the agreement.
The fact is that both Biden and his predecessor, Trump, were both eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and end America's involvement in the country. The mechanics of the actual botched withdrawal, however, in the final days lay directly with the Biden administration. Statements such the withdrawal "ordained by the Biden Administration's idiotic and arbitrary to rush for the exits and cowardly abandonment of our Afghan and, let's not forget, NATO and non-NATO allies" are indulgent fantasies that ignore the slow descent into failure from both Trump and Biden administrations.
The original reason for involvement in 2001 was for the USA to invade Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. No nation building, just find and kill bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Once bin Laden slipped away from Tora Bora the mission morphed.
Once the "morphing" began, the end result was inevitable. Bounce the rubble, leave the lesson for the Afghans to ponder.
Oh, and looking for a mention of Trump? He's currently enjoined from cutting off the CONTINUING supply of American "aid" to the Taliban by a federal judge somewhere. Yeah.
I was opposed to Trump's deal with the Taliban, for the record. Making the deal over the head of the Afghanistan government was a big mistake, IMO.
But my understanding is that Trump's route out was better (marginally or a lot, I'm not sure of the details any more) for supporting the Afghanistan government and in the timing of the withdrawal (as you noted) that made it less likely the Taliban could seriously exploit it. But I agree failing to react to Taliban refusal to follow the deal (shocking that jihadis lie, eh?) was a Trump error.
And while I won't argue the unknowable question of whether Trump's plan would have ultimately worked or if he would have reversed course when it became undeniably clear the Taliban were exploiting withdrawal, he was not in office in 2001.
Biden was in charge and did not reverse course as signs of disaster (clearly visible to anyone who followed media reports) mounted, insisting until it was too late that we would have a "decent Interval" between withdrawal and government collapse.
So while there is blame to spread around, the buck stops in the Biden Oval Office for what actually happened.
As I mentioned, the Biden administration has to accept responsibility for the results of the actual withdrawal. The Trump administration was not part of that final process.
Roger that.
I just wanted to acknowledge your point that blame—if not responsibility—was broader than 2021 decisions.
What reaction would you have proposed? Another 20 years of US troops on the ground?
Except Biden arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the withdrawal date to 9/11. Biden and his Administration were the last ones to touch the ball before it went foul. They own it.
True that.
'indulgent fantasies'? I was in Afghanistan Oct '19 - Sep '20 and was in the catbird's seat during the runup to the US-Taliban Agreement and know full well the warts and all reality of the negotiations and provisions of the document (and am also privy to the additional conditions articulated by the US that explicitly expressed our continuing right to strike the Taliban should the latter not abide by the letter and spirit of the agreement). I also know a great deal about the deliberate planning and preparation in place to ensure an orderly drawdown and retrograde across the CJOA-A and out of theater, which was generally well executed in the last several months of the Trump Administration. (Would that the hapless Biden Administration had stuck with that well rehearsed and war gamed planning; if nothing else, Bagram Airfield would have been preserved for as long as necessary and the Kabul crapshow avoided). I wasn't a fan of the US negotiation approach (e.g., excluding the Afghan Government) or the Agreement itself (too accommodating), but a lawful order is a lawful order and I was but a relative peon given the big picture. (I agree that Trump was too inclined to want to rush things and we should have been more decisive in protecting Afghan security forces). What you don't acknowledge is that under Trump, our execution and timeline always remained ultimately conditions-based, and we reserved the right to adjust the timeline accordingly, an overall approach that the Biden Administration completely abandoned. Further, we did conduct kinetic strikes against the Taliban under Trump when the TB got sideways (naturally, the TB would claim in such cases "that wasn't us!" Right. Same guys, different jerseys for this or that action/attack. And, when in doubt, blame ISIS). There are also other considerations regarding the ultimate end state envisioned by US planners and commanders that would have preserved US interests, influence, and presence/access, but I'm not at liberty to share more about that. Lastly, any Afghan vet worth his salt knows that the greatest fear of the Afghans who threw in with us or were inclined to be sympathetic to our efforts was the fear of abandonment. Once I saw Biden's "rush for the exits no matter what" (and arbitrary Sep 11 pull-out date) announcement, I knew that it was all over. Biden unleashed the (predictable) furies inherent in a policy of abandonment. Many of us will never forgive him or his team for that.
Do you think that keeping the original May date from the agreement would have had a better outcome? Fear of American abandonment is a well founded fear from the Montagnards onward.
I shall repeat myself; "And the alternative was what, another 20 years of US involvement?"
What was that "ultimate end state envisioned by US planners and commanders that would have preserved US interests, influence, and presence/access,".
Thanks for your post—very informative. My only comment is you fight your into wars and, if or when you decide to turn tail, you'll have to fight your way out. The enemy, seeing your backs, always tries to kick you in the ass. Rightfully so.
Biden completely changed how the withdrawal was to be carried out. We had a basically impenetrable fortress in Bagram that could have easily and safely carried out a withdrawal. So of course Biden first surrendered it and released all the terrorists held there, one of whom was the suicide bomber, and required that the evacuation would have to be carried out from the basically indefensible airport during the height of fighting season. Nobody made Biden and his clowns do that, they decided on their own to change everything to make it worse.
"Biden and his clowns". You may be entirely right but ideological drivel impedes any effort to assemble ,rather than divide.
I would need to see some definite evidence before I laid that clusterfumble exclusively at the feet of someone whose ignorance is only exceeded by his senility. I doubt Biden knew where Afghanistan was, much less Kabul or Bagram, and I doubt he made any decisions regarding the withdrawal.
"political and senior level military planning of the war effort"
There was planning? Based on what?
" "winning " can include many measures of success".
True, but what, exactly, were the "measures of success" used? Surely not "body count" again.
"our leaders did a piss poor job explaining..."
Again. Perhaps because they themselves had no idea.
Bingo.
The lesson is the same as it always was, “don’t get involved in an Asian land war.”
As Bush the first wisely noted, “it’s a quagmire.”
Or, as Hamilton wrote for Washington, “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?”
When I first signed my oath to the Constitution at age 20, I did so eyes wide open, in full knowledge of our many flaws, and with an awareness that I might have to follow orders with which I disagreed. However, I took my oath with faith in our basic decency as Americans, and in the firm conviction that, on balance, the American empire is and has been the greatest and most noble in the history of the planet.
Yes, we are an empire! My first visceral awareness of this fact was while enjoying the impeccable service, as a confident fleet Lieutenant, in the Cubi Point O'Club and gazing at the magnificent sparkling evening lights of Subic Bay. At the time, I speculated that this experience must have been something akin to serving as a British officer in the Raj, confirmed later on the same Westpac by my complimentary membership in the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club. My second visceral experience, this time as a contractor, was walking past multiple dozens of refrigerated containers lined up on my way to the main DFAC at Bagram. At the time, we were serving four meals per day to just short of a quarter of a million military and civilian contractors, at more than 200 locations a thousand mile behind "enemy lines," in that graveyard of empires. It dawned on me that this was a logistical feat never achieved by the British, that could not have been replicated even by the Roman empire at its peak. The American empire remains far superior, both in capability and nobility.
Yet, two of the darkest days in American history occurred in my lifetime, shameful events unworthy of our people and of our nation: 30 April 1975 and 30 August 2021 (correction). As I watched on television, I felt intense outrage and humiliation, feelings which touched my soul, never left me, and redoubled my commitment to my own oath to protect and defend.
This is my personal way of saying that every word of your essay is spot on, CDR Sal! Indeed, you are NOT alone in being unwilling to wink, nod, and let everyone move on! Administrations may come and go, but we happy few must always endeavor to persevere. It is not too late to hold senior military and civilian leadership accountable.
While we're evoking the Roman Empire:
We ought to expect our leaders to at least metaphorically fall on their swords when faced with crushing and humiliating defeats.
As a minimum that's a resignation of commission and a fade into obscurity.
Works for disagreements with political leadership as well...though perhaps instead of fading into obscurity it should be a transition to orations in the Forum.
Leaders falling on their swords would imply they understand the concepts of accountability, shame, embarrassment, and moral courage. None of that to be found in the upper echelons of the American Empire (regardless of party or military branch).
Defeat can on occasion bring later wisdom. Ask Belisarius.
It can. But one has to have some introspection and wisdom to look at their mistakes.
Unfortunately, the hallmark of the current generations in charge has been, "You're so special, it's not your fault, would a trophy make you feel better?"
If that's where you're starting you're unlikely to learn from a mistake.
Not only an empire, but a garrison state that will be a significant contributor to the empire's fall.
Could be, but if Trump makes any progress at all in reducing the garrison footprint, it may save the day and help set the stage for our "golden era."
I got a similar impression going into Kuwait City in '17 from our enclave at Arifjan: I felt like a Roman in Londinium or York or such, surrounded by nearly all of the trappings of home at the far side of the world, but with an inescapably alien native culture pressing up through the pavement at every turn.
I may be the odd man out, but as a Navy man I never felt that the Philippines were an alien culture. No one anywhere in the world has made me feel more welcome or at home.
Another gift that keeps on giving from this entire debacle..... interesting discussion with people who know recently.... in my area of the country we have a LOT of US Marine families. Right after the entire "withdrawal" we got swamped with thousands of "refugees." Now I'm a bit of a skeptic that we had that many "translators" there to warrant an influx into our local grocery stores to make it look like a Kabul bazaar, but that's another issue. So these "refugees" also brought their "children" who have inundated the local public schools. So we have interesting things going on there. No one actually knows the year they were born there, so we have 20 year old Afghan men (by appearance) who are in classes with 14 year old American girls. We have Afghan girls who were never given names going by initials FNU (Female Name Unknown) plus last name. The girls don't speak English and fail all sorts of tests but on the local standards of learning they get unduly high scores. No one can prove they aren't using bluetooth ear pieces under their headscarves to cheat. Many of the "boys" game the system by going to class half an hour every 14 days so as not to be marked withdrawn on the rolls. You see, the families get money for their "children" attending school. Don't try that with your lil red white and blue offspring. They also get their own prayer rooms. Don't demand one for your local Catholic kid to say their rosary. The families live in $600k houses. With equivalents of high school diplomas from Mohammed PBUH High School in Kandahar. Must be nice. I'm sure they get subsidized EBT cards too. But they're refugees, right? We don't want them to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, right? Well, when their equivalent of abuela dies they all take off to go back to the mother country for the funeral/burial and are gone for weeks. Echoes of the Tsarnaev family some years back in Boston. This whole boondoggle sucks resources from OUR children, OUR schools, OUR local tax base. Maddening.
The Black Swan impact of the highly improbable in full effect.
I, too, am a bit of a skeptic. Also about all those alleged "US citizens" who were "abandoned". I remember watching a transport aircraft trying to take off with Afghans clinging to the outside, and I thought to myself,;
"They are willing and anxious to risk their lives clinging to the outside of an airplane to escape, but are not willing to pick up a rifle and fight---screw 'em".
"Fear, shame, and humility—these are strong gods of a superior military. With each passing year, this becomes clearer and clearer to me. As all three were drained from our military, we increasingly relied on the weak gods of false-bravery (wearing combat utilities for daily use in CONUS) and easy-honor (NORK levels of awards and badges) that always lead to arrogance. With arrogance comes eventual defeat."
Testify, brother.
In the Starship Troopers film, the Sky Marshall who order the Klendathu attack resigned after the disaster. In the book, he died leading a diversionary attack to allow Troopers to escape the planet.
No such mettle among our FO/GOs.
Book superior to movie in many ways, in this case particularly because the director hated the book and wanted to send a different, contradictory message
The director didn't even finish the book.
A private who loses a rifle faces more negative consequences than a general who loses a war.
Perhaps we need to consider the example of Admiral Byng. Pour encourager les autres.
This was my experience while investigating an incident in Afghanistan as a Cybersecurity manager. GI Joe bought a brand new Apple computer at the Exchange with his first paycheck and inadvertently plugged it into a secure network. Despite my recommendations, NO ONE in the chain of command was held accountable, only GI Joe.
It's the American culture. You hear all the time about high level politicians and private sector officers committing various crimes and not being prosecuted. It's a twist on "to big to fail".
Unfortunately true, Aurelian, but that is why we must do our best to stand in the breach.
I'm not sure standing in the breach is a viable tactic. Defenses rarely stand in the face of determined, sustained, attack.
At some point the defense may have to sally out against the foe.
Point taken, LT. I was thinking of Horatio:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods."
-excerpted from Wikipedia
It did work out for Rome there.
I'll admit I'm a little hazy on my ancient history, so don't know what military reforms may have occurred at that point. What most know of is Marius in the late Republic.
Though I will say that the issue wasn't really solved until Rome conquered the Etruscans. And a lot of others as well.
Always nice to read a bit of inspirational literature.
Reminds me of the Bradley Manning case. Lowly E4 has access to an amazing amount of classified material, officers and EM walking in and out of the facility at will, and the NCOIC (E8?) takes the heat for an insecure facility.
To encourage the others, indeed.
Regardless of what all the HR folks, leadership gurus, and consultants spew, fear is the greatest—although not necessarily the best—motivator. This is hard wired in the species from our fight or flight days.
Apparently no serial number on the war; you can't prove he lost it.
I just finished reading the "The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" and am now reading "William Tucumseh Sherman: In the Service of My Country," by James Lee McDonough. These men were cut from a different cloth. They knew how to fight and win wars and to do so with honor, fully aware that thousands of soldiers would die for an idea.
For purposes of education, more attention should be focused on the military leaders who got it right, not the more recent cast of losers who got it wrong. The ones who got it wrong deserve to be forgotten, and they will be.
P.S. My next book will be "Pickets Charge in History and Memory," by Carol Reardon. The book is in my Amazon cart.
As an aside notice how Grant and Sherman communicated. Direct. Non-squish words. Now it's the opposite.
Aurelian1960: Yes, and Grant's written orders were models of brevity. Mission command done right.
Even the ones who got it wrong can serve a useful purpose as examples of what not to do. If we don't identify and remember the mistakes, it is too easy to repeat them.
I was in Richmond and went to the war museum. We always see photos of Ex-President Grant; fat Grant. There was a photo of Civil War Grant; lean and fit, a badass.
Tom: President Grant had a lot of health problems and was dying (and broke) when he wrote his memoirs, which he did to secure a financial future for his family. He died upon completion of his memoirs.
Old Broke Grant is who I remember. The U.S. Grant who commanded the Union Army was lean. If you go to the Museum, there are some very interesting photographs, and exhibits. The President of the Confederacy was a tiny man. Lee looked old. Grant looked like he was ready to leap the barricade with a cutlass in his hand and a rifle on his back and defeat the rebels like Rambo against a police department.
Tom: I used to jog up to Grant's Tomb, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, during my grad school days at Columbia (MBA). He's a towering, but forgotten figure in American History.
Learning from America's defeat in Afghanistan must start with admitting it was a defeat.
We shoveled large numbers of unknown Afghans into our aircraft because those Afghans were nearby instead of American local allies we should have pulled out.
I was astounded and ashamed to hear American leaders claiming that those numbers reflected the great success of moving more people over longer distances than ever was done before. How could anybody stand on that metric to claim success without staining their honor forever?
We had a skedaddle debacle in Afghanistan. Learning requires admitting it. And punishing the leadership who let it happen.
Look on the bright side. It took us almost 20 years to lose the war. That should count for something...
Thanks for that ray of sunshine, Richard.
Perseverance is a virtue; we are virtuous losers----again.
" How could anybody stand on that metric ..."
Just a variant of the "body count" metric of success. Alive or dead; it's quantity not quality.
Hard to dispute anything in CDR Sal's post. For what it's worth, I read McKenzie's book. It was frankly infuriating. Milley, Austin, Blinkley, Sullivan, and, of course, the decrepit Commander-in-Chief (who probably couldn't have located Afghanistan on a map), were a disgraceful collection of liars and incompetents who directly led to hundreds, if not thousands, of needlessly lost lives.
Still waiting for someone to pay a price for that - simple accountability would go a long way towards rectifying things to come. Not holding my breath. Let me suggest a book, too:
Unwinnable Wars: Afghanistan and the Future of American Armed Statebuilding by Adam Wunische
"Still waiting for someone to pay a price for that ..."
Get in line. I have been waiting since 1975.
There are four rules in warfare. Don’t invade Russia. Don’t invade Vietnam. Don’t invade Mesopotamia. Don’t invade Afghanistan. That’s why we teach history at our service academies. What we need is a follow up course on how generals and admirals should deal with politicians who know nothing about history.
don't fight a land war in Asia?
Not when the enemy is willing and able to lose ten to your one.
Thank you Vizzini.
I always thought was basically Russia + Afghanistan from a military perspective.
That would require that our generals and admirals actually know something about history. I have my doubts.
Not the DEI flags who read Howard Zinn.
Not a recent problem by far. In the democracy of Athens many generals and admirals were politicians during the Peloponnesian War. Some were even brilliant but sideways-Alcibiades. Think of the Sicilian Expedition over vast distance as he Afghan invasion of its day. Dubious venture, thoughtless strategy, time timid execution, all to ultimate and complete failure.
They made the history that we read as history and yet we have had nothing but the taste of ashes for our efforts.
Too many generals dream of being Alexander.
How did Alexander do in Afghanistan?
He came. He conquered. Named a few cities after himself. Invaded India. Died in Babylon at age 32 after drinking all night.
Got a cute wife as well.
Roxanne was the fist woman Alexander liked.
Realized it was a quagmire, married big-chief's daughter to establish an alliance of sorts and moved on to India
We teach history at our service academies?
Who knew?
We did but things may have changed since I raised my hand.
How Middies are taught to view the world these days....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TYWC-bhzNI
Our kids need to learn about naval warfare not class warfare.
Whatever happened to, "the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists," thing?
Terrorists or freedom fighter?