A little unconventional war

It seems you can't read (or watch) a news report on Afghanistan lately without encountering something new and different - radical, even - about our approach to war.

Like this unusual example of advertising in the Washington Post:

NATO ministers, commanders advertise planned offensive in southern Afghanistan

ISTANBUL -- For the upcoming Battle of Marja, the element of surprise has already gone by the wayside.

Although Rasmussen said he could not go into details "for security reasons," other NATO officials said an allied force, led by U.S. Marines, was preparing for an assault on the town of Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand province. Senior military officials began touting the offensive, the first operation since a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan, even before President Obama announced in early December that he would be sending more forces to the country.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, said the offensive would start "relatively soon." When asked why he and other commanders were being so open about their plans, he said it was partly to try to persuade as many Afghans as possible in Marja to throw down their arms and side against the Taliban.

"If they want to fight, then obviously that will have to be an outcome. But if they don't want to fight, that's fine, too," he told reporters Thursday. "We'd much rather have them see the inevitability that things are changing and just accept that. And we think we can give them that opportunity. And that's why it is a little unconventional to do it this way."

The plan has indeed been advertised. Admiral Mullen mentioned Marja during a pre-Christmas visit to Afghanistan,

Marja - a region west of Kandahar - remains a Taliban hotbed. "It's been very clear for weeks now for the need to clear out Marja, and that's going to happen," Mullen said. "It's going to happen at a time and place of our choosing, but it's going to happen."

...and multiple news articles on the pending offensive have appeared since.

Some may question the wisdom of the approach, but certainly announcing our intent is not a radical new concept. The November 2004 attack on Fallujah was undoubtedly the most widely telegraphed punch ever thrown in the history of warfare - at least since the first battle for Fallujah - even though no one expected the enemy would choose peace there.

But as for the wish that a potential enemy will "see the inevitability" rather than choose to fight - as much as some might be disappointed in that outcome it's something we should all want. Similar sentiments were expressed in a less newspaper-friendly way by Marine General James Mattis in Iraq in 2003:

After the invasion he sent home his tanks and artillery pieces and went to Iraqi military leaders in each area his troops were in."I come in peace," Mattis recalled telling them. "I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."

In fact, little has changed from our approach to the battlefields of Iraq to the battlefields of Afghanistan. Follow the Fallujah link above and you'll find this post-battle quote from 2005:

"We're mostly known for killing the bad guys" says Lt. Col. Harvey Williams, a reserve officer with the Marine 5th Civil Affairs Group. But killing alone can't defeat the insurgency. Win over the populace or lose the war.

And explanations of exactly that approach were appearing in newspapers as early as 2003 - where they were dismissed as an illegal Bush administration propaganda effort directed at the American public.

What has changed - and clearly - is the tone of newspaper coverage. And the certain knowledge in the minds of those who would potentially lead or encourage a bloody opposition to US and Afghan forces in Marja or elsewhere that General Mattis wasn't bluffing.

In that regards, it's a damn good thing, one might correctly conclude, that we didn't abandon Iraq.

Next: Eve of battle: Marjah

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.