Afghan War: We're Winning Because They're Getting Away (?!?)

I know that everyone enjoys playing armchair general. And that doing that is much easier than the real thing.

But it's amazing to see senior Pentagon officials, military and civilian, make statements that are true if you're talking about conventional war, but bizarrely misleading in guerrilla warfare. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who I quoted in the last post, talked about the alleged progress in the Afghan War, where our allied government rules the capital city, and that only due to the NATO-led international force there:

<< He said U.S.-led forces were winning their war against "terrorists" in Afghanistan, despite nearly 400 people being killed in just over three months in the bloodiest period since the Taliban's ouster two years ago.

<< "The fact that the enemy is not pooling up in waves that can be attacked in large numbers to me means that in fact the coalition is being effective," Pace said.

<< There have been very few major clashes between U.S. forces and Islamic militants in the past two years.

<< In the most recent case, hundreds of Taliban were hunted down by U.S. forces and Afghan troops in the troubled provinces of Uruzgan and Zabul in August and early September, leading to the death of over a hundred rebels.

<< But generally U.S. operations, including the latest launched in the northeast earlier this month, kill few militants due to their apparent ability to blend into local populations or flee into the hills, often crossing into neighboring Pakistan.

<< "We will continue to pursue them to make sure that they don't re-establish any kind of a stronghold," said Pace. >>

The enemy's attacks are escalating. They're more and more successful. We're having a hard time killing or capturing them. But this is a good thing, you see, in Pentagon-speak, because it means that "the enemy is not pooling up in waves."  If the enemy would just come out and fight the way we prefer them to, we could kill them oh so much more easily. Gosh, I can't imagine why they might adopt a different strategy.

This is the way credibility gaps are made. And  haven't we been advertising Afghanistan for nearly two years as an example of success in the "war on terrorism"?