A NECESSARY SACRIFICE
In War, Soldiers Die
American casualties are a good sign. It means the military is doing its job.
To be an effective critic, you must also know when to praise. In the five short months since the beginning of combat action in Afghanistan by U.S. forces, our military has shown a remarkable ability to learn as it fights. The broadcast media, by comparison, has fought the opportunity to learn. As I write, various television and radio networks are trumpeting reports of half a dozen or so American combat deaths in tones reserved for catastrophes. The reportage is naive, irresponsible--and just plain wrong.
Consider how far we have come in a very short time. Immediately after Sept. 11, the great majority of commentators and pundits warned that any U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan was doomed. Of course, most of those talking heads had never served in uniform, had never been in the region, and had only the most superficial grasp of history. All they had were opinions--but their defeatism was delicious to the media. To its enduring credit, the Bush administration ignored the think-tank cranks and soft-bellied columnists, with their taste for mediocre prose and imitation thought.
Our military, admittedly still suffering a residual infection from the cowardice of the Clinton years, moved timidly at first. Then the generals and admirals seem to have gotten the message that our national leadership was serious this time. The lights went on, and they were green ones. Our military embarked on an extraordinarily impressive program of learning-by-doing in wartime. When our Kosovo-style, stand-off bombing cued by strategic sensors didn't work, we quickly put special operations forces on the ground to identify targets. The effectiveness of our airstrikes soared. Despite more "expert" advice and handwringing from the punditocracy, we realized soon enough that the Northern Alliance was the horse to back.
When bombing fixed targets failed to have the desired effect, we turned to bombing the Taliban's frontline troops--and watched them collapse. The war went even faster than a handful of optimists believed it could. According to our doctrine, our combination of the use of the most sophisticated strategic resources and old-fashioned boots on the ground (with satellite communications) was not the way such a campaign was supposed to work. But it was the way things did work. Given that the military is, above all, a bureaucracy, we were able to adjust to the new rules with astonishing speed.
In the Tora Bora operation, which was a powerful military success by any standard, we did get some things wrong. We expected too much of our Afghan surrogates, and, as a result, more of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters escaped than we would have liked. But Tora Bora was an important milestone in getting over the no-ground-forces nonsense of the Clinton years--it proved irrefutably that there are times when our troops must go in and do the job themselves.
That is what we are seeing now. Larger numbers of special operations forces and infantrymen are engaged in the current operations south of Gardez simply because that is what it takes. The Tora Bora operation was staged in haste, amidst the confusion of a fast-moving war and a collapsed state. This time, there has been a careful intelligence build-up, coordination with Pakistani forces on the border and with our allies, a build-up of innovative munitions for our aircraft, training and equipment for at least some of the Afghans fighting alongside of us--and a detailed plan of operations. We timed the operation carefully, so the enemy would still be obstructed by winter conditions. Even security was better than it had been in the past, despite the scale of the effort. Our enemies were not allowed the time and the means to escape. Many, if not all, of them are surrounded now. Should we be surprised if encircled fanatics fight doggedly?
There likely will be more American casualties. Perhaps many more. We may see some American elements ambushed and even wiped out. That's war, folks. You suck it up and keep on marching. War is, ultimately, a contest of wills. And our war with terrorism is a knife-fight to the bone. When Americans die, the sole correct response is to hit back even harder.
Even the best-planned combat operations by the best-trained, best-equipped troops can go awry. Combat is disorienting, confusing, and indescribably dangerous. Your enemy is intent on killing you and surviving, just as you are intent on destroying him. Our combat losses, though we feel each one, are understandable and, to a painful extent, inevitable. We have done an astonishing and commendable job of limiting our casualties. But soldiers die in war.
My sole fear is that some elements within our government, responding to the broadcast media's alarmist whining, will argue for interrupting the operation. That would be entirely wrong. We cannot afford any more Mogadishus, where U.S. victories convince our leaders to cut and run. The least wavering merely encourages our enemies and costs us far more casualties down the line--as the last administration's failure to take serious action against terrorism led directly to Sept. 11. I don't think the Bush administration will follow such a course--but we must not flinch for even an instant. Not even if the casualty figures soar. The best way to honor our dead is to defeat the enemy.
Yet, even the worst ignorance cannot explain the yearning so many reporters and pundits appear to feel for American forces to fail. Of course, failure makes for richer headlines and predicting disaster will always get you on a talk show. But I still cannot understand wanting the good guys--and make no mistake, we are the good guys--to lose just to get a story.
Fortunately, our military forces have done a grand job this time around of frustrating those who delight in American setbacks. We're winning. And, despite inevitable casualties, we are going to continue to win.
Wouldn't it be lovely, though, if just a few of those men and women preening for the cameras in their "combat correspondent" get-ups would spend just a little less time in front of mirrors and just a bit more learning about war?
Mr. Peters, a retired military officer, is the author of "Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph?" (Stackpole, 1999) and the forthcoming "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World" to be published in July.
