A
Useful Culminating Point?
by
William
S. Lind
by William S. Lind
DIGG THIS
In standard
military theory, a culminating point is where an offensive runs
out of gas. The troops are exhausted; vehicles urgently require
maintenance; fuel, ammo and rations are all short. No matter how
alluring the potential results of continuing the offensive, the
attacker has to take a break. Often, a culminating point will mark
the high-water line of an attack. Afterwards, the initiative shifts
to the defender.
Not
surprisingly, culminating points are seen as something to be avoided.
But a report in NightWatch for October 29 suggests that 4GW
may offer a new variety of culminating point, one that is useful
to an invader more than it is harmful. According to NightWatch
The Pakistani
daily The News reported today that a new "anti-coalition
force" party has been formed in Afghanistan which would resist
the activities of US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. This
new party is composed of those who detest the Taliban and Mullah
Omar and who also are unhappy about the presence of Coalition
forces in Afghanistan and considered them a compromise of Afghan
sovereignty.
How
large and how effective this new anti-coalition, anti-Taliban faction
might become is impossible to say. Should it become a significant
player, it would represent a new type of culminating point. It would
represent the point at which an invader’s presence pushes the vital
"middle" in an occupied country into resistance, without
simultaneously pushing it into an alliance with the invader’s sworn
enemies.
Why
is this a culminating point in 4GW? Because it represents both the
point at which the invader is doing himself more harm than good
by staying and the point beyond which he does not need to stay.
If the political middle can fight the invader and more extreme 4GW
elements at the same time, it is probably strong enough to defeat
the latter. We have seen this happen in Sunni-controlled regions
in Iraq. Once American forces stopped fighting the nationalist Sunni
resistance, those Sunni fighters wiped out al Qaeda.
At
the same time, it is almost inevitable that the presence of occupying
foreign troops will eventually alienate most of the population.
When the alienation reaches a degree where it leads the political
center to start fighting the occupier, the latter has reached a
strategic culminating point (defined in time rather than in space).
The longer he remains in country after reaching that point, the
weaker his position will become.
If
we put these two aspects of our new 4GW culminating point together,
we see it marks the moment in time when an occupier both can leave
and should leave. Unlike traditional culminating points, this new
variety is useful rather than harmful. It helps an invader answer
one of the most difficult questions in 4GW, when to leave. Timing
a strategic withdrawal is always challenging, but in 4GW it is critical
to winning the war. If timed too early, the occupier may open the
door to victory by inherently hostile 4GW elements. If timed too
late, he risks uniting most of the people against him, which can
cost him an army as well as a hostile post-war relationship with
the country he invaded. A culminating point that tells him the best
moment to withdraw is something a wise occupier will welcome rather
than seek to avoid.
What
might our new, useful culminating point tell us about the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq? If the new anti-coalition, anti-Taliban grouping
in Afghanistan proves real and gains significant strength, it tells
the U.S. and NATO it’s time to go. The new centrist grouping would
have legitimacy, unlike the Karzai puppet regime; if it can fight
the Taliban effectively, it would probably represent the best chance
of re-creating an Afghan state.
We
may be on the cusp of a similar development in Iraq. The former
Sunni insurgents now allied with U.S. forces as "the Awakening"
have been rejected by the Shiite al-Maliki government, and at some
point they will start fighting that government. If Washington reacts
stupidly (as it usually does) and orders the U.S. military to fight
the Sunnis, the latter will be fighting us and al Qaeda at the same
time. Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia is preparing for another round with
the Americans, this time on the Hezbollah model which relies on
small, well-trained units instead of armed mobs. As Shiites, they
will be equally hostile to us and to al Qaeda. Once we find ourselves
fighting Sunnis and Shiites simultaneously we will have hit the
4GW culminating point.
If
the U.S. government and the American armed forces understand the
new culminating point, which is doubtful, they will withdraw from
Iraq when they see it coming but before they actually hit it. They
would thereby avoid a new round of fighting, which they would lose,
and avoid a fighting withdrawal, which is always perilous. In other
words, the time to get out of Iraq is now, while the going is good.
The
American military will probably ignore all this, as it ignores military
theory generally. But the Europeans may pay some attention. European
militaries do pay attention to military theory, in part because
they know they cannot solve problems by throwing money at them and
in part because the 20th Century taught them the perils
of Great Power hubris. Europe can do little to affect the war in
Iraq, but if the Europeans were to decide that the moment to leave
Afghanistan had arrived, the U.S. government would have to listen.
So
here’s to the new Afghan centrists: may they prove strong enough
to defeat the Taliban and save the U.S. and NATO from themselves.
November
5, 2008
William
Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the
Center
for Cultural Conservatism for the Free
Congress Foundation.
Copyright
© 2008 William S. Lind
William
Lind Archives
|