I am always annoyed when someone says a war is unwinnable; it annoyed me when it was said about Iraq with much sanctimony and it annoys me now when said about Afghanistan. No war is unwinnable; to succeed depends on figuring out the kind of conflict you’re fighting, organising yourself accordingly and doing it better/faster than your enemy (not to forget blind luck). Afghanistan is winnable – the key question is whether the meagre outcome from winning is worth the massive input of men and material. To me, the answer is slowly shifting from yes to no, especially from a British perspective. But if anything will make me rush back into the warm, strong arms of David Kilcullen, it is the sanctimony of withdrawalists who say the war is unwinnable and tell people like me I told you so!
Afghanistan: An unwinnable war?
Posted on September 23, 2010
M.N.Silva
September 23, 2010
Well said!
My reaction is the same.
Jason
September 23, 2010
Michael Handel’s book “Masters of War” has an interesting graph in it. It has two warring factions on each side, and there’s a mid-point where one starts winning and the other starts losing. His point was that, from a cost/benefit standpoint, it’s smart for the losing country to know when the trend is going down so that it can pull out. Most countries’s leaders aren’t smart, though.
Yes, Afghanistan is winnable, no, it’s not worth the continued investment. Can we leave now?