Joe Boyles
One of the more difficult problems that any military faces is an enemy that has a safe haven or sanctuary which is off-limits to attack. This is a significant problem with regard to our long-standing (now approaching 15 years) conflict in Afghanistan where the enemy (Taliban, ISIS and al-Qaeda) can retreat into Pakistan and regroup without fear of counter-attack.
This was a huge problem during the Vietnam War a half century ago. The border nations to the west, Laos and Cambodia, were off limits to our ground forces. The North Vietnamese built an elaborate transportation system known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail through these two countries to resupply their forces attacking South Vietnam. Additionally, they used these supposedly neutral countries as ‘safe havens’ or sanctuaries to rebuild their strength after suffering a loss.
You simply cannot win a war, any war, if you’re unable to pursue and destroy your enemy. When you permit your enemy a safe haven to regroup, heal, resupply, and train without fear of attack, you cannot defeat him – he will always return, refreshed and strengthened to the attack. In effect, your policy cedes the initiative to your opponent.
You often hear Vietnam veterans like myself describe our dilemma as “fighting with one hand tied behind our back.” This is a classic example of that dilemma. The decision not to attack these safe havens was made in Washington, half a world away, by our elected leaders. Specifically, Cambodia was a “neutral” nation and therefore, off limits. It wasn’t off limits to the North Vietnamese – they simply denied culpability and carried on business-as-usual. We were stuck fighting an enemy that played by a different set of rules. Do you really expect this to be a winning formula?
We did conduct air operations against the Ho Chi Minh Trail, particularly in Laos, but were never really effective and at great loss – Laos is strewn with the wreckage of American aircraft. After all, how effective do you expect to be by bombing a dirt path in the jungle? Late in the war (1970), President Nixon did authorize a military incursion into Cambodia to destroy the enemy camps. He was excoriated by the media and the operation was halted before it reached objectives.
I believe the safe haven handicap is a significant problem in Afghanistan. Our military ground and air forces are not permitted to pursue the enemy when they retreat into Pakistan to regroup. That is sovereign territory off limits by our rules of engagement. Since the Pakistani military will not engage, our enemy is free to lick their wounds and restore their strength. Needless to say, this restriction results in the loss of American lives as well as those of our allies.
The professional military has a long-standing maxim – don’t send us to war unless we’re allowed to win. Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it, but you would be amazed at how often the ‘maxim’ is violated. Like good soldiers, the military salutes and presses on with what our elected officials demand despite the folly.
Some of our elected leaders say that we must live up to a higher standard; that if we engage in our enemy’s tactics, that “it is not who we are.” I agree with this philosophy to a point and then chose to differ. We must abide by the international Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions, but beyond that point, all is fair game. We do not live in a Pollyanna world. Above all, we cannot tie our soldier’s hands and take away their ability to fight the enemy on their own terms. To do otherwise is deadly… to our troops who have volunteered to protect our freedoms.
The new Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has reviewed and substantially revised the rules of engagement (ROE) that our troops are required to abide by. As a Marine combat veteran, the SECDEF knows just how debilitating the ROE can be when they are decided by bureaucrats who never leave their Pentagon offices and wouldn’t know the difference between real combat conditions and a drive on the Beltway at rush hour.
General Mattis has pushed the tactical decision making ability down to the local level. No doubt, strategic decisions like pursuing an enemy across a border into his safe haven will be made at a higher level, but it is a step in the right direction.