For victory, U.S. military must adapt

The U.S. military has made a noble attempt to spare civilians in Afghanistan, and aid a people abused by their own government. It's doing its best to hit all the right targets, to strike at the wolves and not the sheep, but the military has made some errors, and civilians have paid the price. It would be foolish to think any military act, even a focused air strike, could leave civilians unharmed. To be fair, the direct hits on militia bases and missile sites have outnumbered the mistakes. Perhaps the effects are simply more obvious and shocking when we bomb a village.

But the U.S. military's most grievous error was not destroying any village. It was bombing a Red Cross complex in Kabul, not once, but twice in a span of 10 days. I tried to be understanding when we struck the complex the first time. Sure, it has a big red cross on the roof, but mistakes happen in war. I was less understanding when we hit the same complex a second time, completely leveling it. This was not a computer error, a malfunction in the guidance system. It was human error: military planners chose the complex as a target, albeit a wrong one. This came even after the Pentagon sent a representative to Geneva for a detailed review of Red Cross installations in Afghanistan.

And no, no one was hurt, at least not at the complex. (One of the bombs intended for the Red Cross complex did hit a nearby village: that was a computer error.) Instead, the bombs destroyed food and blankets for 55,000 people.

This is not a small mistake, nor is it simply another way Afghan civilians have felt the war's effects. It reveals a lack of communication in the military's highest levels and very poor planning. It should make us question the military's ability to run a war by remote control. President Bush urges patience and determination, but I wonder if the American people really know the details, if they know that this was not just another computer glitch. More mistakes like these could seriously shake not only America's self-confidence, but its credibility as well.

Indeed, our rather tentative allies, especially Pakistan, are growing impatient, urging a pause in the campaign with the start of Ramadan. Back home, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll suggests that Americans are growing less confident in the government's ability to fight this war and to protect them from more attacks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks must constantly defend against claims that the air strikes have reached a stalemate.

Americans want to know we're making progress. If we are making progress, then the Pentagon and President Bush need to make that more clear. If they can't provide any evidence, then maybe it's time to reevaluate their plan.

I won't pretend to be a military strategist, but there are too many variables changing every day to just stay the course. Many Afghans are saying that the Taliban is actually getting worse since American intervention, that Taliban forces are now hiding in civilian neighborhoods to escape American bombs. We need to adapt to these changes, or we will fail.

That's not to suggest that the military is not adapting at all. On Tues., Oct. 30, Rumsfeld announced that a small number of ground troops are already in Afghanistan. The Pentagon recently handed the defense industry a wish list of new technologies, soliciting new ideas in the battle against terrorism. It is a strangely public act for a secretive organization. Some have seen this as a sign of weakness, a desperate plea for help.

Or maybe it's a step in the right direction. Most of the time, the Pentagon seems closed to outside advice. Maybe it's time they enlist the help of the country's best thinkers-not just the defense industry, but even so-called armchair generals, especially political scientists and historians. There's a quiet but growing anxiety that this could turn into another Vietnam. It won't if we keep our goals well-defined and listen to the lessons of history. We need to listen to the Russians who fought Afghan guerillas long before us, and we need to listen to American historians who see us stepping into old traps.

We may destroy the Taliban's defenses, but they'll find new places to hide and new ways to fight back. We're going to need more than force to win this war. We need to learn from our mistakes. We need to stay on our toes.

Back to Opinion...