The "War" parts of Afghanistan and Iraq were a resounding victory for the USA. We basically won every fight.
Or do we need to study governance and nation building? The part that comes after a war? I can't help but think about the Philippine–American War / Insurrection (after the USA gained the Philippines from the Spanish in the late 1800s), and compare it against the Afghanistan mission.
In both cases, the USA wished to nation-build (the Philippines as a colony, but build it up nonetheless was a goal). It took many decades and the Philippines was given independence due to WW2 later on.
I think of heroic figures like Jose Rizal (author of many books in many dialects in the Philippines) who helped build the identity of the Philippines as a country. (Remember: there are 7000+ islands, and hundreds of languages/dialects, along with many subcultures. The idea of unifying them all under one banner must have been exhausting).
I see similarities and differences (most noticeably, the Spanish spread Catholicism across the nation ahead of time. Sharing a religion probably made the job easier. It was also the 1900s, so American-atrocities were more accepted back then compared to today's media heavy environment).
But we're talking about a nation that was basically undergoing a civil war in 1890s vs the Spanish. The USA took over a few years, and then the civil war continued into a Philippine-USA war/insurrection. The myriad of languages/cultures of the Philippines from island-to-island cannot be denied (much like how Afghanistan is a collection of tribes scattered throughout the region).
The Taliban similarly were waging a civil war / transforming the Afghanistan before the USA took it over in early 2000. The Taliban continued to fight, much as the Katipunan continued to fight / beat up Americans for years after the takeover.
There's even an element of Islamic rule in the Philippine history: the Moro (the Islamic islands) in the south were particularly difficult for the Americans to control after the Spanish-American War.
What went wrong? What went right? In both the Philippine Revolution as well as the Afghanistan one? If more people studied the Philippine-American history, could the Afghanistan occupation gone better?
The will to fight is part of war. Often it's the most important factor. Afghanistan was a failure because the US lost the will to fight. The same was true for Vietnam. Conversely, the North maintained the will to fight long enough to defeat the South in the American Civil War, and Britain maintained the will to fight after the fall of France after WWII (an event that, in itself, was largely dictated by France losing the will to fight).
To be clear, Afghanistan was also missing a few other factors. A common dictum of war is Clausewitz's statement that war is the continuation of politics by other means. James Mattis has commented that one of the problems with Afghanistan is that the political goals of the war were not explicitly decided upon or communicated to the military. The US military is decently competent at winning battles, but they can't achieve a strategic goal that doesn't exist.
The US set a date for Philippine independence in 1915 (IIRC); it was originally sometime in 1942-44; it was delayed by WWII.
I strongly recommend Earl "Pete" Ellis' article "The Bush Wars" which basically details the US Marine's counterinsurgency strategy in the Philippines; it's very similar to modern COIN doctrine, I'm told.
The article can be found in 21st Century Ellis, which also has his "Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia"---the Marine's part of the plan for WWII in the Pacific.
But I still don't know what happened in Afghanistan. I have heard the complaint, "How can we plan for Phase IV when we're still trying to figure out Phase I-III?" but it was 20 years....
> Do we need to study war?[...] We basically won every fight.
The study of war is not only about the tactics, how to win fights. It's also about what causes war, why conflicts arise, what the potential sources of instability are, what the alternatives to war are, etc.
Occupation is certainly part of the study of war. America was very good at that after WW2. Both the occupation of Germany and of Japan were extraordinarily successful. They could not have been so successful just by random chance.
When you study war don't forget the genocides, rapes, undiscriminate killings and destruction of property. Also pollution and the destruction of the environment. It's funny how those things are almost always left up and when they do appear is because "the other" did it.
dragontamer|4 years ago
The "War" parts of Afghanistan and Iraq were a resounding victory for the USA. We basically won every fight.
Or do we need to study governance and nation building? The part that comes after a war? I can't help but think about the Philippine–American War / Insurrection (after the USA gained the Philippines from the Spanish in the late 1800s), and compare it against the Afghanistan mission.
In both cases, the USA wished to nation-build (the Philippines as a colony, but build it up nonetheless was a goal). It took many decades and the Philippines was given independence due to WW2 later on.
I think of heroic figures like Jose Rizal (author of many books in many dialects in the Philippines) who helped build the identity of the Philippines as a country. (Remember: there are 7000+ islands, and hundreds of languages/dialects, along with many subcultures. The idea of unifying them all under one banner must have been exhausting).
I see similarities and differences (most noticeably, the Spanish spread Catholicism across the nation ahead of time. Sharing a religion probably made the job easier. It was also the 1900s, so American-atrocities were more accepted back then compared to today's media heavy environment).
But we're talking about a nation that was basically undergoing a civil war in 1890s vs the Spanish. The USA took over a few years, and then the civil war continued into a Philippine-USA war/insurrection. The myriad of languages/cultures of the Philippines from island-to-island cannot be denied (much like how Afghanistan is a collection of tribes scattered throughout the region).
The Taliban similarly were waging a civil war / transforming the Afghanistan before the USA took it over in early 2000. The Taliban continued to fight, much as the Katipunan continued to fight / beat up Americans for years after the takeover.
There's even an element of Islamic rule in the Philippine history: the Moro (the Islamic islands) in the south were particularly difficult for the Americans to control after the Spanish-American War.
What went wrong? What went right? In both the Philippine Revolution as well as the Afghanistan one? If more people studied the Philippine-American history, could the Afghanistan occupation gone better?
philwelch|4 years ago
To be clear, Afghanistan was also missing a few other factors. A common dictum of war is Clausewitz's statement that war is the continuation of politics by other means. James Mattis has commented that one of the problems with Afghanistan is that the political goals of the war were not explicitly decided upon or communicated to the military. The US military is decently competent at winning battles, but they can't achieve a strategic goal that doesn't exist.
mcguire|4 years ago
I strongly recommend Earl "Pete" Ellis' article "The Bush Wars" which basically details the US Marine's counterinsurgency strategy in the Philippines; it's very similar to modern COIN doctrine, I'm told.
The article can be found in 21st Century Ellis, which also has his "Advanced Base Operations in Micronesia"---the Marine's part of the plan for WWII in the Pacific.
Here's parts:
https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-ame...
https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-pop...
https://warontherocks.com/2015/04/the-bush-wars-ellis-on-int...
But I still don't know what happened in Afghanistan. I have heard the complaint, "How can we plan for Phase IV when we're still trying to figure out Phase I-III?" but it was 20 years....
credit_guy|4 years ago
The study of war is not only about the tactics, how to win fights. It's also about what causes war, why conflicts arise, what the potential sources of instability are, what the alternatives to war are, etc.
Occupation is certainly part of the study of war. America was very good at that after WW2. Both the occupation of Germany and of Japan were extraordinarily successful. They could not have been so successful just by random chance.
hulitu|4 years ago
hikerclimber1|4 years ago
[deleted]