Go Big Or Go Home: Lessons (Not) Learned In Afghanistan

The report states that “former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top U.S. commander Gen. Tommy Franks held back the necessary forces for a classic sweep-and-block maneuver that could have prevented bin Laden’s escape.”, and later provides an explanation for the choice not to send in the cavalry, “It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, ‘light footprint’ model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks,”.
Now, I pretend to be no military tactician, nor would I even go so far as to say that I’m a master logician, but I find an inconsistency here that’s hard to ignore.
When the Bush Administration undersupplied the operatives requested to capture one international agent of terror, it was a massive PR hit, a National Security gaffe, and a defining moment in the failure of the President’s foreign policy career.
When the Obama administration underallocates 30-40,000 troops to Afghanistan, the fact that this course of action was deemed “the bare minimum” by General McChrystal, and only half of the necessary servicemen for a “safe” option in Afghanistan is completely and wholly ignored.
Einstein once said that the working definition of insanity is to follow the same course of action, and expect a different result, and this is no exception to the rule. Bush and Rumsfeld failed to allocate the necessary resources to do our job eight years ago, and as a generality, their detractors are absolutely correct. Because of their inability to “seal the deal” in Tora Bora, we face a bolstered global Islamist insurgency, and a less-stable Afghanistan. However, the answer to “The Afghanistan problem” is found in a decisive political and military hand, not fence-riding and the feel-good middle-of-the-road option.
To achieve results in the region, President Obama is going to have to stick his neck out, in one direction or the other. Both decisions will draw the ire of his people, be it from Cindy Sheehan, or Sean Hannity, but the time for political expediency in this matter has long since passed. His options are clear and simple. Provide the US military with the resources required to do their job, or withdraw from the region, and wash our hands of the matter.
Because the middle of the road, despite it’s appeal to pragmatic, power-seeking politicians, has historically never been, and will never be an effective military option. Our men and women in uniform deserve better.
P.S. Hat tip to Davinski, who posted a similar article earlier today.