OK, while we wait [drums fingers on table] I might as well unload. (And I must add, none of this has anything to do with the boys on the ground, who are doing everything they can, day in and day out. Nope, this has to do with leadership.)
We often hear that the war effort in Afghanistan has been “under-resourced” for too long. Undoubtedly, it took a back seat to Iraq for several years. But I’m beginning to get more than just a nagging suspicion that the “under-resourcing” line doesn’t tell the whole story.
What other enduring campaigns in history have been under-resourced? There’s the Pacific Theater in WW2– by definition under-resourced versus the European Theater. That didn’t stop MacArthur and Nimitz from doing the best with what they had.
Let’s see, who else… Oh yeah. The China-Burma-India Theater. VASTLY under-resourced versus the Pacific Theater. That certainly didn’t stop Slim; he did with what he had, and he won. And the XIVth Army prided itself on that. When the CBI Theater did get a heap of men and equipment, it went mostly to the Chindits.
Oh, one more: Greene’s Southern Department in the American Revolution. So under-resourced as to be non-existent. Yet, Greene took his unclothed, unfed, unsupported, twice-beaten force and skillfully drew the ever-victorious Cornwallis right out of the Carolinas. Not bad for an under-resourced supporting effort, led by a gimpy little self-taught renegade Quaker.
So, here in Afghanistan, yes, we’ve been short-sheeted for years. From my view– and granted I’ve only been on a deck two months– I’d say that some senior leadership from previous years need to be asked some hard questions. Lots of young (and old) men have been doing some hard work, and paying the price for it. We ought to have more to show for it eight years on.
