And the End Game in Afghanistan Is ...?

If you are, like me, increasingly disturbed by the aimlessness of our commitment to Afghanistan, I would direct you to read Mona Charen's article, "Can We Succeed in Afghanistan," posted at National Review Online.

The always thoughtful Charen evaluates new information from the ground inside that war-torn, poverty-stricken country, and asks whether we have reached a "brainlessly partisan" point in our history where "your nation building is a war crime. My nation building is a national-security necessity"?

She quotes Rory Stewart, a Scotsman who is a British Foreign Service Officer who wrote a book, The Places In Between about his journey, on foot no less, across Afghanistan after the initial fall of the Taliban. Stewart believes the new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan is a mis-diagnosis of what is needed and is raising, as Charen describes it, "a yellow flag" of caution.

The rationale that President Obama has offered for our ramped-up engagement in Afghanistan, Stewart argues in a piece for the London Review of Books, runs as follows: We cannot permit the Taliban to return to power or they will revive the alliance with al-Qaeda and will plot more catastrophic attacks on the United States. In order to defeat the Taliban, we must create a functioning state in the country, and in order to create a functioning state, we must defeat the Taliban. Obama seems keen to increase our role in Afghanistan to highlight the contrast with his predecessor. Bush, Obama ceaselessly repeats, fought “a war of choice,” whereas Obama will fight only “a war of necessity.” [Emphasis DTO]

I'm not quite ready to pull the plug on our effort in Afghanistan, but I'm a lot closer today than six months ago. I fear that our nation's president is ramping up that war for unfathomable reasons, especially after his declaration that victory "wasn't necessarily" the goal of the conflict.

If victory is not the goal of military action, then pray tell what is? Our men and women in uniform deserve to know the broad outline of the end game.

More at some point.

British Pandemic 'Dry Run' Was a Mess

Authorities in Great Britain did a "dry run" on a flu pandemic a couple of years ago and found out that the real thing would be disastrous.

UK financial regulators have rehearsed how a pandemic like the swine flu, now spreading from Mexico, will affect Britain. In the most detailed disaster planning exercise held anywhere in the world, more than 70 City firms, including HSBC and Norwich Union, secretly tested how the crisis would unfold over five months.

The exercise, which began in November 2006, was masterminded by the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury – the three authorities that monitor financial stability. It was condensed into six weeks, with firms sent updates as the crisis developed.

Some of the results included:

... government spending budgets were adequate, but, before long, hospitals ran out of masks and hand gel, and the Department of Health warned it would take four to six months to produce a vaccine. Hospitals canceled all except urgent operations. [And this differs from ordinary procedure in what way? - DTO]

But as the crisis deepened, Britain's economic structure collapsed. There were queues at garages as motorists filled cars and petrol cans. Panic buying at supermarkets was followed by stores stocking only basic food and clothing, while smaller shops and restaurants closed, creating ghost towns. Food piled up on docksides but could not be distributed. Sickness and absenteeism led to bank branches closing and empty cash machines after the public hoarded banknotes. Supermarkets' cashback replaced banks until they ended that service.

As the death toll reached 50,000, the prime minister called on people to show their famed bulldog spirit but the country was grinding to a halt. The three authorities warned: "The UK economy could face financial meltdown unless the situation improves soon." Rather than improve, businesses closed due to lack of staff, suppliers or customers.

Besides the Tube closures, London's commuter railways were suspended, and intercity trains, all packed, were reduced to one an hour, stopping only at major towns. Roads became jammed – but London refused to lift its congestion charge. Airlines cancelled hundreds of flights as demand plummeted. [SNIP]

By the time the exercise ended, the flu had affected 500 million people worldwide and killed nine million [in Britain]. Problems continued: insolvencies soared and firms' credit ratings were downgraded in the following months.

The reporter put a happy face on the story at the end, saying:

But participants claim the exercise prepared them for a crisis like today's pandemic.

Call me skeptical, but I don't think you can "war game" these types of situations with computers, think tanks and committees. Like elections and football games, you have to play the real thing to find out how people will react. The recent book, "The Survivor's Club," tends to debunk the myth that most people exhibit their worst characteristics in a crisis. Some will, many won't.

My guess is that the upshot of this exercise is that the "lesson" will be to give the government greater control over all aspects of British life which, I predict, will bring about much of the chaos they seek to avert when, and if, they real thing comes along.