Obama’s War
PBS’ Frontline is taking a look Tuesday night. An early cut of Act 1 is up at the link.
As basically a grunt’s eye view, on the ground with 2/8 Marines in Helmand, with a lot of about the difficulties of fighting a counterinsurgency. The Marine commander’s opening speech, the combat footage, the Marines’ living conditions and the interactions with locals all make worthwhile viewing.
There is very little big picture on whether and how that might work and virtually nothing at all on why we should bother, however. Unclear whether Acts 2 and 3 will improve on that. Full review:
The Marines are presented as a blunt and somewhat clumsy instrument. The example of one unit, one squad leader, one company commander and a handful of frightened villagers stand as the exemplar for the entire campaign. Much as is the experience of the Marines in Helmand, for Frontline viewers, the enemy is not seen. The Taliban, who have a long and terrible track record in Afghanistan, appear only obliquely in references to threats made to local villagers. Al Qaeda isn’t mentioned at all.
Which is where it starts to fall down. With deep appreciation for the efforts of those who put themselves in harm’s way to report on combat, and who attempt to convey its reality, if this were to be purely a grunt’s eye view, the criticism would be that it lacks intimacy and character, failing to go deep enough. Unfortunately, that’s not the only place it fails to go deep.
There is only the barest discussion of counterinsurgency principles and their application in Afghanistan to provide some context for all the on-the-ground frustration footage. In that respect this episode is superficial, and not particularly useful in the current critical period of questioning and decision our nation’s leadership is engaged in. Maybe Acts 2 and 3, promising to focus on the Obama admin’s evolving strategy with some interviews with high-level principles, will improve on that. In Act 1, title war-owner Obama himself only makes a brief audio cameo. I vote for a tight focus on Obama’s waffling and hyper-extended decision process and the highly public battle of the generals, but also, something on what happens if we choose to disengage or semi-disengage. Maybe something about the flaming hypocrisy and narrow political agenda of this nation’s Democratic leadership with regard to war policy, currently acting as if the Iraq surge success never happened. A little on the fact that the United States military in 2009 in fact has a clue what it is doing, and has had some success in ventures of this sort. Also, in keeping with Frontline’s recent fascination with the notion of a strong, influential vice-president, something on the emergence of Joe Biden as an influential war policy advocate. Maybe a whole episode on that.
I’d suggest that Frontline may in fact throw more light on the subject by not simply shining a flashlight down the well of a current counterinsurgency, but by examining the history of counterinsurgency from Malaya to Vietnam to Iraq. It is actually somewhat encouraging. The Vietnam example in particular is instructive in the way it demonstrates how domestic politics and skittish pols can totally bollix a successfully evolving military effort, with devastating effect.
Past experience, with some notable exceptions such as Frontline’s Haditha coverage, suggests that in the next two episodes of this current series, we can look forward to highly politicized war coverage with deeply intoned, ominious narration. Cases in point, Bush’s War and last year’s deeply disappointing Afghan war explainer, The War Briefing. Prove me wrong, Frontline.
Meanwhile, in Obama war deliberations commentary today:
Surber advises President O to consult Candidate O.
Morrissey at HotAir notes, as we did yesterday, that Feinstein’s chosen a side. She wants to win.
Gateway: “Peace Winner Obama ready to pay off Taliban.” Gateway doesn’t seem to much like the idea, but buying off foot soldiers is actually a key part of counterinsurgency. The Taliban may not be fighting to put food on the table but reports have indicated a lot of the foot soldiers are. Times of London.
via Small Wars Journal, your go-to place if you want to understand these wars of ours:
Lewis Sorley at WSJ on Vietnam’s real lessons for Afghanistan. You’ll remember Sorley from the other day’s post as author of A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.
In compliance with pending FTC regulations re blogger conflict of interest, I’d like to disclose that it will be a sad day when I need the federal government or anyone who works for it to dictate ethics to me. In compliance with my own pre-existing standards of disclosure, I’d like to note that Frontline buys ads on this and other websites through Blogads. In fact, in an earlier exchange about Frontline’s interest in raising its web profile, I suggested they consider that venue. Thanks for the business, Frontline. I wish there was more TV on TV like Frontline, only not run by flaming lefties. Also, that Frontline lived up to its promise of in-depth documentary coverage of issues. I do not review all material that is advertised on this site, but I feel strongly that Frontline’s potential is such that I would like to help them be better.
(Care to comment? Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand. Include your preferred screenname and temporary password. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. This is a free speech zone as long as you keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)
Topics: Afghanistan, Obama, media
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:11 am on Monday, October 12, 2009
7 Responses to “Obama’s War”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I saw the promo for it, and it made it sound like an apologia for Obama and what a tough situation he’s been put into, with the money quote being “we can do everything right in Afghanistan and still lose this war.” That might not match the actual content, but it’s obviously what PBS thinks their mostly liberal audience wants to hear.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
If you really want to understand the stakes in the AF/Pak theater of the Long War, don’t watch that, read this:
“Analysis: Al Qaeda is the tip of the jihadist spear”, by Thomas Joscelyn & Bill Roggio on October 8, 2009 2:12 PM at
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/10/analysis_al_qaeda_is.php
October 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“…With deep appreciation for the efforts of those who put themselves in harm’s way to report on combat, and who attempt to convey its reality,…”
If this was what they were doing, or attempting to do, I’d agree. But, these are propagandists working to further the aims, will and goals of our enemy during a time of war.
As such, the only appreciation they should be receiving is a final meal before the trap door falls out from under their feet.
Enemy is enemy. Lovers of the enemy are enemy. The objective in war is to close with and destroy the enemy. Foreign or domestic. The oath covers both.
Semper Fi.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
A Tokyo Rose by any other name is still a Tokyo Rose.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I watched it tonight and found it disappointing. It’s a muddled report with few details and very little depth. They go to great pains to describe the situation as incredibly complex, but then fail to reveal details on just how that is true (though they do an excellent job in creating an overall mood of “hopelessness.”) There’s a little on the Marines, though they don’t get much beyond the basic conditions they face there. There’s a little on Afghan corruption, a little on Pakistan, a little on US strategy, and a little (very little) on the Taliban itself. The whole show is like that, like a cliff notes version of the cliff notes version.
Worst of all, they never truly address the possible consequences of losing and winning, and that the decisions being made today are critical to the future of the region far outside Afghanistan’s dusty corner. I think that the takeaway for the average person would be that the situation in Afghanistan is hopelessly difficult, and that whether we win or lose won’t matter much anyway.
As an aside, I thought Richard Holbrooke came across very poorly, which surprised me.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Thanks FB. I got whacked with something and spent yesterday on the couch, slept thru “O’s War.” I suspected that’s where they were headed. What a disappointment. Well, I emailed this review link off to the Frontline flack. Never know, maybe they’ll develop a sense of shame, and do a documentary that talks about how counterinsurgency can actually work against all expectations when the pols support it instead of trying to screw it up. Just like it did in Iraq. Just like it could have in Vietnam.
You never know. They developed a sense of shame on Haditha, the left’s lovingly celebrated American war crime that wasn’t. Why do I care? Because they are one of the banner lefty programs, and because they are on PBS. If privately owned news networks and newspapers want to be politically biased, that’s their business. But people who get government subsidies and non-profit status and get all holier than thou while shaking down the public for donations really should try to be more intellectually honest.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Never know, maybe they’ll develop a sense of shame, and do a documentary that talks about how counterinsurgency can actually work against all expectations when the pols support it instead of trying to screw it up. Just like it did in Iraq. Just like it could have in Vietnam.
Exactly! The dots are all there, they just never get connected. The Taliban are like ghosts, attacking and disappearing at will. They scare the villagers with death threats to keep them from cooperating with the US forces. We don’t have enough US and Afghan troops to hold an area once it is cleared. Is it just me, or are there bells ringing?
Ah, but COIN is presented as a strategy that sounds good in Washington but will never work in Afghanistan. Why? Well, the locals are poor and turn to crime and insurgency for cash, they don’t trust us to stick around and therefore won’t help, the Taliban offers a brutal but effective law & order, the national government is inept and corrupt, former thugs have wormed their way back into power, and neighboring countries are less than helpful. Hey, that’s TOTALLY different than Iraq, right?
It doesn’t help that the show constantly jumps around from one subject to another, which is why it (and Afghanistan) seems hopelessly muddled. Presented in order, with some comparisons to our similar experiences in Iraq and elsewhere, viewers could be left to draw their own conclusions.
You know what would be nice to see? Frontline could post the unedited interviews with McChrystal, Kilcullen, Holbrooke, the Marines, the Afghanistan national security chief (Saleh is his name, I think), Pakistan representatives, Andrew Bacevich, and many others who sounded like they had something interesting to say but were mostly limited to competing sound bites.