The
Retreat From Kabul
by
David Dieteman
The
Taliban is on the run, say the headlines. The war, it would seem,
is nearly won.
As
a matter of military reality, this is not necessarily correct.
Given
the superior military strength of the nations allied against the
Taliban, it would be utterly foolish for the Taliban to defend fixed
points on the map. Over the long term, the prospects for the Taliban
are better out in the mountains. Of course, this is known to the
Taliban: it is the strategy which was used to defeat the Soviets
after more than ten years of brutal war.
It
is not necessary, however, to consider Soviet history, or even recent
history, in evaluating the likelihood of a quick American victory
in the war in Afghanistan. We can look back to the War of Southern
Independence, which the south, of course, lost. (A note on terms:
although you may know it as the "Civil" War, or the War Between
the States, it is properly conceived of as a war over the question
of southern independence. The southern states, you will recall,
seceded from the United States, and thus argued that they were independent
states; some of them formed a new union, named the Confederate States
of America. The military defeat of the South, however, denied the
Southern states the ability to realize in practice their claims
of independence).
Why
did the South suffer defeat in the war? Authors such as Jeffery
Rogers Hummel, Charles Adams and Bevin Alexander contend that the
South "died of West Point," to quote a famous Confederate, which
is to say, the Southern leadership fought the wrong kind of war.
Fighting
a traditional war is much the same as fighting a war against terrorism.
Recall that the federal authorities have assured the citizens that
they are now ready to combat utility knives as a means of hijacking
an airliner. Notice, however, that they were not ready when it mattered.
There is a reason for this: the human mind is finite, and we cannot
conceive of, let alone prepare for, every imaginable gimmick by
which a dedicated and evil mind seeks to cause harm.
It
is much the same on the battlefield. There is an inertia to tactics.
There is a given way of doing things, a war-fighting doctrine, if
you will. The South suffered from its desire to hold certain key
cities, such as Richmond, when the South could have instead used
its vast territory to wear down Federal troops who would have been
dependent upon tenuous supply lines, as detailed by Charles Adams
in When
in the Course of Human Events and by Jeffery Rogers Hummel
in Emancipating
Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. Bevin Alexander's book Lost
Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson, similarly
casts light on what might have been, if those in command of the
Southern war effort had possessed better insight. (A cynic might
note that hindsight is 20/20. Anyway.)
The
South was greatly outnumbered, and was an agricultural nation. Northern
industry, in contrast, was able to supply plenty of food, uniforms,
rifles, cannons, and other such items as are needed to keep an army
in fighting shape and able to win a war. Men of military wisdom,
such as General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson recognized that the
South was doomed in a European-style war, where grand armies clashed
in the open field. Much as the grandfathers of the Confederate troops,
the original rebels, i.e., the men who fought the Redcoats in the
American War of Independence, did not rely upon British tactics
to defeat the British.
As
a general rule, if you fight the war the way your enemy wants you
to fight it, you will lose. The same holds in football. If your
strength is the run, but your opponent forces you to pass, well,
Notre Dame is 3-5, and there is a lesson in that.
In
Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign, he repeatedly inflicted significant
losses and humiliating defeats upon numerically superior Northern
troops. Other Confederate generals, however, sent men headlong into
deadly rifle fire, in the process losing large numbers of troops.
Because of its numerical inferiority, the South could not afford
to lose even the same amount of troops as the North, and yet, in
some battles, the South lost more.
And
so a failure of strategic thinking made the outcome, well, understandable.
Although men on both sides, in blue and in gray, fought with valor,
courage, and skill, the Confederate armies were defeated, in part,
by matters not decided on the field of battle.
And
so it may be for the United States in Afghanistan if we are not
careful. The Taliban is not retreating because it is run by cowards.
The Afghans fought the Soviets for roughly a decade, and they are
combat veterans. They are retreating to the South, presumably, because
they wish to take advantage of superior, more mountainous terrain,
farther away from the allied supply bases.
It
may yet be a long time before we will know the outcome of the war
and the fate of the Taliban. It will be an even longer time before
we are able to gauge the lasting effects of the war, both at home
and abroad.
November
16, 2001
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail]
is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2001 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
The
Truth Needs Your Support
Please
make a donation to help us tell it,
no matter what nefarious plans Leviathan has.
|