The French Experience and Afghanistan

I’m completing a course called Airpower in Small Wars as the final course for my master’s degree in military history.  While reading about the postwar French experience in Indo-China and in Algeria, I noticed some interesting parallels which clearly demonstrate the gravity of our situation today in Afghanistan specifically and the war against jihadists in general.

Following World War Two, France attempted to regain control over their former colonies in Southeast Asia.  Instead they found a determined opponent in the form of the Viet Minh, whose goal was an independent Vietnam.  The Viet Minh were committed to achieving their objective at all costs.  The French, on the other hand, lacked the same level of commitment.  Their economy remained in a weakened state following World War Two and they faced other pressing threats closer to home.  Consequently, they were never able or willing to commit the troops and resources necessary to defeat the Viet Minh.  As a result, the Viet Minh eventually forced the French from North Vietnam.  In order to prevent a communist take-over of all Southeast Asia, the United States ramped up support to South Vietnam as the French left, but that experience is another story.

Algeria enjoyed status as something of a French “state,” even holding delegate seats in the French legislature.  Similar to the situation in Indo-China, a desire for independence rapidly gained momentum following World War Two.  In this case, the push for independence came from Arabs in Algeria who suffered as “second-class” citizens under the ethnic Algerians.  When fighting broke out, the French were determined not to lose Algeria.  Unlike Vietnam, in Algeria the French committed the resources and the will to win.  The French dominated the fight, clearly and decisively militarily defeating the insurgents.  However, by 1960 the political winds had changed.  The French leadership lost the political will to hold onto their victory and granted Algeria independence.

In Afghanistan, and in the war against jihadists in general, we face a very determined and committed enemy.  Radical Islam is committed to achieving their goals no matter the cost – something most in the west simply do not understand.  Our enemy is not a bumbling fool, but a calculating, cunning protagonist so committed to the fight he’s even willing to martyr himself in order to achieve larger objectives.  Our enemy is not interested in “peace” or “negotiated settlements” or “just getting along.”  We face an enemy whose only acceptable end-state is complete and total victory.  For them, victory means complete destruction of the United States and our way of life.  They murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people in one day, yet far too many still can’t get the concept through their heads that this is not an enemy who will stop fighting if we just give them a big hug.

Where does this leave us in the fight?  Are we going to follow the French example and either lack the commitment to win the fight or win the fight and then give up?  The stakes are simply too high to follow either example.  When the French lost, they only lost colonies.  If we lose, we lose it all.  Unfortunately, it seems most people, including our political leadership, do not understand what’s at stake in this fight.  Our very existence as a people and a nation are the stakes in this fight.

Don’t think we should be in the fight?  First, our enemy does not share your opinion and would actually prefer your opinion since that will make it easier for them to kill you.  Second, that horse has already done left the stable!  At this point in the game, “should we be fighting?” is now nothing more than an academic question.  We ARE in the fight.  The only acceptable outcome is victory.  If we want to survive as a people and as a nation, we must prevail.  There is simply no other option.  Look to the French example to see what happens if we just “give up” in the face of a determined and committed enemy.