« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

U.S. military strategy for Afghanistan goes New Age

Now it's "giving the people trust and confidence in themselves" rather than "winning hearts and minds"

After reading the following story this morning on Fox News, I am left utterly dumbfounded that our general in charge of the Afghanistan campaign has to make such an appalling statement. How any military leader can in good conscience sacrifice the lives of our American soldiers for such a mission goal is unconscionable.

We might as well turn our Department of Defense into the Department in Charge of Promoting Self-Esteem by Force.

Top U.S. Commander Says Taliban Winning Communication Initiative

America’s top commander says the United States and its allies in Afghanistan must “wrest the information initiative” from the Taliban and other insurgent groups, in an assessment made public last Monday.

Gen. McChrystal said the mission has changed in Afghanistan from a goal of struggle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Afghan population, to one of giving them the ‘trust and confidence’ in themselves and their government, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

On second reading, I see an even more insidious agenda at work, just another example of supplanting American Exceptionalism and the defense of Western culture with multiculturalism and cultural relativism that says that no culture’s values are above anyone else’s – that all are equally valid.

Exactly what Comrade Obama has been preaching since he took office.

How else to interpret this change from “winning hearts and minds” which means promoting and defending our values of freedom and rights of all individuals to ” giving them the trust and confidence in themselves and their government” which means making people feel good about what they now believe in: no change required.

So American and Western values are no longer worth promoting to the rest of the world – we no longer will even attempt to defend them (except as one choice among many equally valid choices)? This is what generations of Americans have shed their bloods for?

So if the people want to maintain 9th century values to oppress women, require strict adherence to Sharia, and bring the world under domination by their version of Islam, including annihilating all infidels (unless they convert) – then we should eagerly participate in help make them fell good about these things so that they have trust and confidence in the themselves and their government.

And if “trust and confidence in themselves” means that they go out and try by force make the rest of the world have the same type of “trust and confidence” – that’s perfectly fine too?

Does that mean our military are now going to be trained to facilitate encounter groups while the Taliban are continuing to assassinate tribal and governmental leaders under their version of “winning hearts and minds”?

This is total intellectual and moral mush.

Indeed, this is nothing short of sacrilege. And if the American people go along with the leadership that produces such spittle, then we will share culpability for this betrayal of American and the world.

COMMENTS

  • reddog53

    “Winning the hearts and minds” is the phrase we used to mean changing the mindset of the people from an ideology that they were being force-fed to another one–usually freedom and representative government. Without consensus of the people to stand against any forceful change, things tend to revert to whoever has the strongest force–and strongest ‘message.’

    In this case, I think, the Afghans have courageously opted to govern themselves, and have largely rejected the Taliban’s past, but the first couple of years haven’t gone as well as any would have liked. I think they do need a dose of ‘confidence’ in the route they’ve taken, given that the Taliban are back trying to pull them back to the way things were.

    McChrystal, as well as many before him, realize that there is an ‘information’ component to warfare, and that the Taliban are currently doing a better job in that regard.

    • janis

      Civil Truth’s just telling it like it is. Our military is supposed to do military stuff, not act like a bunch of sociologists or sophomoric school girls. They are SUPPOSED to shoot the bad guys and render the terrorist training camps inoperable.

      When your military policy devolves into boosting a busted country’s self-esteem, then you’ve seriously gone off the rails. No wonder Obama’s cutting funding to the military and canceling weapons programs. He has no intention of this country ever winning–or even fighting–another war as long as he’s in charge. All the more reason to boot him as soon as possible, and to render him inoperative in the meantime.

      • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

        To repeat Kenny from above, the purpose of the military, as Rush has pointed out so often, is to kill people and break things. Quickly and efficiently. It is not to sit on their hands loading their weapons only after being fired upon. Get the job done and get out. The new ROE’s are going to get more of out guys killed than a “shock and awe” type of offensive ever will, they will just embolden the Taliban.

        No wonder Becker is so thankful his son is now out and back home.

        • janis

          But I think about all those who are still in the service, especially those who are in country and I am infuriated to have a POTUS who cannot keep faith with his own military, a man who actually can say garbage like “I’m not interested in victory….”

          Obama betrays the troops of his own country and doesn’t even have the decency to say that he was misquoted, or didn’t mean it that way, or anything else. He said it, he meant it, and people worth more than he will ever be are going to die because of it. I’ve seldom ever been this disgusted by a leader of this country.

        • Achance

          I did something I thought I’d never do and actively discouraged my son from re-elisting in the Army as it became apparent that Comrade Obama was going to win. I doubt I’m the only person in America who did that or is doing it now.

          • JadedByPolitics

            My younger son was deciding college or Army a short time ago and I begged him not to sign up to fight for The Won I knew that bast**d would be an appeaser and get our fine young men and women killed for nothing. He makes me sick to my stomach and I worry about all those fine soldiers who risk their lives everyday knowing they are not fighting for victory but are fighting to leave losing while their brothers and sisters die in battle until the idiot decides to bring them home in defeat (in name only because our military cannot ever be defeated when they are allowed to fight).

          • larueladue

            My father, a Viet Nam vet circa ’69-’70, actively discouraged me from going into R.O.T.C. in ’78. He said he would work two jobs, or three if needed, to keep me in school and out of the military. He was burned very bad by the whole Viet Name debacle and the subsequent degradation of our military. He also quit the reserves about this time, with only 6 or 7 years left to make his twenty. Couldn’t take it anymore.

            This is looking like deja vu all over again…..

      • reddog53

        We didn’t just focus on breaking things and hurting people….

        Our troops on the ground spent a lot of time with local councils, local police forces and in the community to build trust in our forces, and trust among the communities, so that the insurgents could be ID’d and pursued.

        Without the confidence in the US and local forces to back up the citizens who helped drive out the bad guys, it wouldn’t have worked.

        We need to do some of these same things in Afghanistan…it’s not all Predator and Reaper strikes.

        • janis

          And I would guess that most of us are fine with that concept. What we are not fine with is the notion that sociological experiments are replacing battle plans. No matter how much we might want to have the Afghanis feel all warm and fuzzy about us, the primary objective is supposed to be winning the fight.

          Which means that the bad guys have to die and the good guys have to win. Too bad Obama and Co. don’t believe the same thing.

          • janis

            have a different take on just who the “good guys” actually are. It used to be that a POTUS would designate his own team the good guys. These days? Well, that’s now a debatable point.

          • reddog53

            to hold self esteem training…..

            I think he’s planning to flood the zone with our folks to root out the bad guys, but we have to ‘clear and hold’ the territory, and the ‘hold’ part involves doing some things to build up the Afghan forces and their ability to continue on….

            I’m beating a dead horse, so I’ll stop.

        • Hooah_Mac

          As someone who was there from pre-2006 election to post-surge, I can tell you the key to the surge was breaking more things and killing more people. ROE implementation changes, a renewed commitment to getting the bad guys. Even the most useful aspect of the Surge, the PR effect, was because we convinced the bad guys (and the good guys), that we intended to stay and keep killing people and breaking things until we had killed and broken the appropriate amount.

          As to building trust, although the MSM tells you differently, that was what we were doing all along, and the success of working with locals far predates the surge. However, working with locals was a vital component of or breaking and killing, allowing us to be more effective at it.

          “Without the confidence in the US and local forces to back up the citizens who helped drive out the bad guys, it wouldn?t have worked.” – Exactly – the Iraqi people trusted us to keep killing the people who needed killing.

      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • urinaryinfec1

    I was wondering when or how the obama liberal vomit would creep into the military/war. I guess I shouldnt be shocked.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      Instead of being a moby spammer who likes to pee on the carpet here thinking that will help you sell UTI products.

      Though I must say the combination is a new one on me.

      Hope your time here at RedState is very short.

    • Achance
  • Scope

    Seemes to me that he was brought on to institute the “surge” in Iraq. Petreaus and McCrystal isnstituded the “hearts and minds” approach in Iraq. McCrystal asks for a surge in Afghanistan, and, was supported by Petreaus. If he uses language such as “trust and confidence in your self” for the Afghani people, I really don’t see the difference in the language. If you have trust and confidence in your beliefe that Afghani’s can live free, without the undue influence of the Taliban, the wording isn’t all that diffent, albeit, New Age.

    The question I have is who is Robert Gates? He was appointed by Bush, supported the Iraq surge, with the same commanders on the ground, yet, he said today that “He is holding the McCrystal report, until Obama has a chance to look at alternative strategies.” How can you possibly be in favpr of the Bush strategy, and, in another breath be for the Obama non-strategy? Gates doesn’t seem to have any other alligence than for that of the the President at the time. Can anyone make any sense of Gates?

    • Ausonius

      He is a classic survival-friendly bureaucrat.

      And given that he is dealing now with Big BRObama, such “doublethinking” – which seems not to make any sense to you – makes perfect sense in context.

      The NObama Administration is pure 1984 Orwell. When you realize that, then everything about it “makes sense.”

      • Scope

        with no inner convictions or principles. He lives for the fancy title, but, has no sense of what a Secretary of Defence should be all about. He is nothing more than a tool for the highest bidder.

      • Scope

        with no inner convictions or principles. He lives for the fancy title, but, has no sense of what a Secretary of Defence should be all about. He is nothing more than a tool for the highest bidder.

        • Ausonius

          who perhaps at times heard too many contradictory opinions on Iraq etc.

          I have the impression NObama gets few to no opposing opinions: at most there are simply slight variations on a radical theme.

          • aesthete

            Could Gates be some bureaucratic robot? It’s possible, but there are other possibilities, such as: 1) Gates doesn’t think that McCrystal’s plan (which, BTW, is for a country and situation that radically differs from Iraq’s) isn’t viable, 2) Gates is a loyalist, and doesn’t consider it good form to go around his boss (who is, after all, in charge of much of the foreign policy in the nation). Those are just the ones I can think of. It’s unfair to attack Gates as being a “robot” when we don’t know him or what is happening over there.

            Personally, I’m not too fond of the pop psychology progressives indulge in when talking about potential motivations of politicians and bureaucrats. It certainly doesn’t befit conservatives when we try our hands at it.

        • The_Gadfly

          I’ve always thought of him as an appointee of the Democrats who was acceptable to W. Sort of the same way Art describes appointing judges in Alaska.

  • Scope

    Seemes to me that he was brought on to institute the “surge” in Iraq. Petreaus and McCrystal isnstituded the “hearts and minds” approach in Iraq. McCrystal asks for a surge in Afghanistan, and, was supported by Petreaus. If he uses language such as “trust and confidence in your self” for the Afghani people, I really don’t see the difference in the language. If you have trust and confidence in your beliefe that Afghani’s can live free, without the undue influence of the Taliban, the wording isn’t all that diffent, albeit, New Age.

    The question I have is who is Robert Gates? He was appointed by Bush, supported the Iraq surge, with the same commanders on the ground, yet, he said today that “He is holding the McCrystal report, until Obama has a chance to look at alternative strategies.” How can you possibly be in favpr of the Bush strategy, and, in another breath be for the Obama non-strategy? Gates doesn’t seem to have any other alligence than for that of the the President at the time. Can anyone make any sense of Gates?

  • bk

    Who can sing Kumbaya in the most languages?

    Who can go the longest without firing their weapon?

  • http://spritelywatchdog.blogspot.com spritelywatchdog

    in Afghanistan because it is obviously not working back here at home.

  • rbdwiggins

    is the State Department has proven itself to be utterly incompetent.

  • http://www.meetup.com/dcworksforus Kenny Solomon

    Winning hearts and minds is all well and good, but I thought the job of the military, as Mr. Limbaugh so succinctly opines, is “to break things and kill people”.

    Oh well, back I go for some more in-depth training to become a member of “The 72 Virgins Travel Club Expediting Agency”.

    Cheers !