<p>I do not come from a military family and admit that I have not spent a minute of my life studying military strategy. However, I have studied a bit of history and it seems like *surprise *is an important element in warfare. If so, why do our presidents announce troop surges and troop withdrawals in advance?</p>
<p>President Bush did it. President Obama is doing it. So PLEASE don’t get into party politics. (Or at least wait until someone answers my question before getting the thread closed.)</p>
<p>I know there are spies and hackers and all that, but shouldn’t we at least* try *to keep our surges and withdrawals a bit of a secret? Do the military folks always want secrets, and the politicians (of both parties) want a press conference? Or is there some legitimate military justification for the announcements?</p>
<p>If you are focused on fighting actual battles against a specific enemy, the details of troop strength and troop movements are critical secrets . . . and the last time that actually mattered may have been June 6, 1944 (D-Day). When it comes to Afghanistan (or Iraq, or Vietnam for that matter), specific military engagements are fairly secondary. We could keep troop movements a secret, but I suspect the Taliban in any particular area knows as much or more about any particular post there as the brass in Kabul, whether or not anything has been made public. And if they know, why shouldn’t we?</p>
<p>More importantly, politics – Afghan politics – are far more important than any particular skirmish. We need the Afghan people, friend or foe, the Afghan leaders, and neighboring countries (Pakistan, China), to believe we mean what we say. The message of the “Surge” was that we were committed to victory, and they the Taliban had better start negotiating. The message of the withdrawal is that we’re not withdrawing very fast but we don’t intend to be a permanent imperial presence, the Taliban had better start negotiating, and the Afghan government has better start acting more like a government and less like a drug cartel. The battle for hearts and minds is a lot more important than who controls a particular poppy field on Tuesday.</p>
<p>And, yes, American domestic politics may enter into things just a tad. Do you really expect a President who said “We are going to start withdrawing troops in July 2011” not to announce “I am keeping my promise and starting to withdraw troops in July 2011”? We treasure the control of civilian, democratically elected governments over the apparatus of war, in large part because democratic processes supposedly restrain warmongers. (That’s something both Republicans and Democrats say all the time.) Well, if war is going to be the subject of domestic political debate, then you are going to have a pretty high level of public information about the war.</p>
<p>Some things are still secret. I don’t think you are likely to hear any President say publicly, “I’m thinking of sending a team of Navy SEALs into Abbottabad to maybe off Osama bin Laden.” But “We continue to commit personnel and resources to the search for bin Laden, and we expect to bring him to justice eventually.” – you are going to hear things like that a lot, often with supporting details.</p>
<p>Also, I expect that for Afghan political purposes, we need the Afghans to hear from us that (as JHS put it) “we don’t intend to be a permanent imperial presence.” The issue of collateral damage is a thorny one for Karzai with his own people.</p>
<p>The best thing for all, including the US people, to hear is that we can’t, through our military might, ensure that Afghanistan is a safe place. That, in the end, has to come through the efforts of the Afghanis themselves.</p>
<p>Surprise is one tactic. So is intimidation. So is strategic retreat. It’s knowing when to use which tactic that’s so tough. </p>
<p>(The Japanese used surprise at Pearl Harbor; we used mutual intimidation throughout the Cold War; the Colonials used strategic retreat during the Revolutionary War–just for examples that come readily to mind.)</p>
<p>The Taliban can ensure Afghanistan is a safe place. When they were in power, they pretty much ended corruption, ended the grip of the warlords, ensured equal (masculine) access to courts, etc.</p>
<p>Of course, it isn’t the Afghanistan most of us would choose. The point being that when we talk about the “efforts of the Afghanis”, you have to ask “which ones”? This relates directly to your question. Most U.S. announcements are not directed at the Taliban (who know U.S. troop movements and strengths and weaknesses pretty well), but at the Kabulites.</p>
<p>Public support is critical for the US’s military efforts. The actions our military is ordered to take do not occur in a vacuum. Therefore, the President and other political leaders will try to tailor our strategy to be effective and popular. The precise balance is clearly hard to find.</p>
<p>I just feel SO very sorry for the families of young men and women who have died in Afghanistan. I feel even sorrier for the families of young men and women who WILL die in Afghanistan in the next couple of years.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine the pain of listening to the president’s speech and THEN getting a telegram telling me that my son or daughter had died. And, reality is, that will happen to a lot of families.</p>
<p>If I remember my U.S. History/Government at all, I think it all started with Vietnam. Because of the secrecy surrounding that war, the public in recent years has demanded a lot more information and accountability.</p>
<p>The thing is these big announced moves while they are important, they aren’t the key to winning these fights. Most of these battles will be won with small teams like SEAL Team 6, like the Army Rangers, like your Special Forces, etc. And those units’ travels will not be revealed in the media the same way “random army guard unit” would be.</p>
<p>@Mini The Taliban is the best fit for Afghanistan? Please do some research on that because I am sure the women of that country would strongly disagree.</p>
<p>Mini–the (masculine) point is downplayed by parentheses. We need to acknowledge what was (is) done to women under that flag–I don’t mean to excuse or explain any American actions–and I don’t begin to think we’re there for the women-- but please, let’s honor the reality of what the Taliban did(do) to the women.</p>
<p>The fact is that the Taliban could trample women’s rights and religious rights (remember their blasting centuries old religious statues because they weren’t Muslim) and the US would do nothing more than complain. The Taliban’s big mistake was providing haven to Osama bin Laden. If they hadn’t done that, there’s little doubt that the Taliban would still be running all of Afghanistan.</p>
<p>I am not at all excusing the Taliban’s actions toward women. Note, however, that every single Afghan woman commentator I have ever read (and I’ve read a lot of them) state the condition of women was every bit as bad under the warlords as it was under the Taliban.</p>
<p>If you go back to the 1960s/early 1970s (a time when I worked in Iran), in several areas Afghanistan was AHEAD of the U.S. in women’s rights. For example, university entrance was by competitive examination only, and there was no identifying marks on the exams themselves - neither name nor gender. The result was that the majority of Afghan university students were women (at a time when women still had difficulty in university entrances in many places in the U.S.)</p>
<p>So I simply want to place the question in context. The Taliban were pretty popular (with men) for reason already stated. They likely weren’t more unpopular with women than the warlords were. </p>
<p>Again, when Obama speaks of "Afghanis’, (and not ‘terrorists’), he usually means “Kabulites”. And most of what he says is addressed to them. (And to be fair, the condition of women IN KABUL - where there were no warlords - was far worse under the Taliban.)</p>
<p>She seems like a nice person. President Obama thinks that she’s bad news. I would think that would upset you. What is it that you want me to deal with?</p>