Up and Coming Weekly is a weekly publication in Fayetteville, NC and Fort Bragg, NC area offering local news, views, arts, entertainment and community event and business information.
Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/531603
18 UCW JUNE 24-30, 2015 WWW.UPANDCOMINGWEEKLY.COM "I am a United States Army general, and I lost the Global War on Terrorism." These are the opening lines of retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Daniel P. Bolger's book, Why We Lost: A General's Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Bolger teaches military history at N.C. State. "No U.S. general has criticized the Iraq and Afghanistan wars more sharply" than Bolger, wrote reviewer Carter Malkasian in The Washington Post. Continuing the shocking opening words of his book, Bolger writes, "It's like Alcoholics Anonymous; step one is admitting you have a problem. Well, I have a problem. So do my peers. And thanks to our problem, now all of America has a problem, to wit: two lost campaigns and a war gone awry." With President Obama's decision to send 450 more U.S. troops to Iraq, Bolger's acceptance of responsibility and his explanation of "why we lost" are extremely timely. Just what did Bolger and the other generals do wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq? You do not have to read all 500 pages of Why We Lost to under- stand Bolger's explanation. He makes his point in just a few pages in the book's epilogue. He writes, "Despite the unmatched courage of those in U.S. uniform — including a good number of generals who led their people under fire — our generals did not stumble due to a lack of intellect. Rather, we faltered due to a distinct lack of humility. Certain we knew best, confident our skilled troops would prevail, we persisted in a failed course for far too long and came up well short, to the detriment of our trusting countrymen." This failed course was the military's nation-building efforts based on a coun- terinsurgency strategy. But, writes Bolger, "Counterinsurgency works if the intervening country demonstrates the will to remain forever." He continues, "Once it becomes clear that the external forces won't stay past a certain date, the guerrillas simply back off and wait it out. "We did not understand our enemies. Indeed, drawn into nasty local feuds, we took on too many diverse foes, sometimes confusing opponents with supporters and vice versa. Then we compounded that ignorance by using our conventionally trained military to comb through hostile villages looking for insurgents." Throughout the extended operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bolger says there were always only three options: "Stay the course. Add forces. Pull out. Over time, in both countries, all three approaches were tried. Only the third one, pulling out, worked, and that in the finite sense that it ended U.S. involvement. But it left both friends and foes behind, sowing the seeds for future troubles." The question remains. Why does Bolger blame himself and the other generals for losing the war on terrorism? Were not all these decisions made by the coun- try's civilian leadership? Here is his answer. "The record to date shows that no senior officers argued for withdrawal. Instead, like Lee at Gettysburg, overly impressed by U.S. mili- tary capabilities and our superb volunteers, commander after commander, gen- erals up and down the chain, kept right on going. We trusted our invincible men and women to figure it out and rebuild two shattered Muslim countries and do so under fire from enraged locals." The question remains for Bolger and for President Obama. Are we doing the same thing again? One more thing, if you skip the first 400 pages of Why We Lost, you will miss gripping, disturbing and inspiring accounts of the incredible performance of U.S. troops in the most challenging and ambiguous situations. These pages should be required reading for any president or presidential candidate who proposes sending American troops again to fight an extended counterinsurgency war. Dear EarthTalk: What's the latest with the U.S. Postal Service trying to reduce its environmental footprint? Starting delivery of some mail on Sundays doesn't seem like a step in the right direction. — Kerry Rawlings, Albany, NY As recent TV ads have been telling us, the United States Postal Service has recently started delivering some mail on Sunday in what most chalk up to an effort to stay one step ahead of United Parcel Service and Federal Express. But while Sunday delivery may be convenient for consumers, envi- ronmental leaders worry that adding an extra day causes an unnecessary waste of fuel and carbon emissions. Though this service has been implemented too recently for any concrete statistics on its increase of greenhouse gas emissions, the USPS has several other initiatives already in process that can, at the very least, perhaps help to offset the environmental impact of this new increase. Recycling, one of the familiar poster-children of the green movement, has become a true priority at the USPS in recent years. In 2012, USPS saved over 250,000 tons of paper, cans and plastic waste. In the lobbies of local post offices are over 22,000 recycling bins for those looking to dispose of any paper products. These same offices also offer eco-friendly envelopes, boxes made from recycled materials, and stamps that make use of a biode- gradable adhesive. Another important environmental initiative of USPS is its Return for Good program, which facilitates recycling of stuff besides paper. Under the program, USPS collects expired prescription drugs, small electronics, empty ink cartridg- es and even fluorescent lamps. This program recovered approximately 172,000 pounds of unused pharmaceuticals in 2012. Recyclers can save themselves a trip to the post office to turn in recycled items by scheduling a pickup from the trucks already driving nearby 6-7 days/week. USPS even offers cash back on some newer electronics devices. There are also efforts to reduce the impact of the large fleet of postal delivery trucks. According to the article, "Greener Delivery?" in the Harvard Gazette, the USPS has begun the process of replacing 180,000 of its trucks with more eco- friendly alternatives. The recognizable boxy mail trucks seem to be a thing of the past, as a January proposal suggested several design alterations to enhance efficiency and reduce emissions from the current rate of 9 miles per gallon. In addition to changes to the traditional truck, there are already around 42,000 alternative-fuel vehicles in the USPS fleet, most of them using ethanol as a fuel source. There are also electric, natural gas and bio-diesel trucks. Of course, another way USPS is trying to reduce its environmental impact is to cut out consumers trips — and the emissions entailed — to the post office. Consumers can now print out pre-paid labels to simply attach to packages. By scheduling a pickup from your home, the mailman who passes every day will pick up your package and begin the delivery process. Two other important programs can help reduce consumers' environmen- tal footprint. If you are going out of town, go to USPS.com and put your mail on hold until you return, eliminating unnecessary deliveries to your house. And alerting USPS when you move will also stop extraneous deliveries to your old abode. While USPS may never be able to be as green as the beast that is killing it, e-mail, at least it is making strides in the right direction, even if you do get pack- ages on Sundays. CONTACT: USPS, www.usps.com. EarthTalk® is produced by Doug Moss & Roddy Scheer and is a registered trade- mark of Earth Action Network Inc. View past columns at: www.earthtalk.org. Or e-mail us your question: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Going Postal EarthTalk®From the Editors of E - The Environmental Magazine Why We Lost by D.G. M ARTIN The U.S. Postal Service is working hard to facilitate recycling and reduce carbon emis- sions. Credit: FlickrCC D.G. MARTIN, Host of UNC's Bookwatch, Contributing Writer. COMMENTS? Editor@ upandcomingweekly.com. 910.484.6200