What the Taliban want is moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
What if the Taliban does not care about good governance? What if wants political power, to gain power over the population. If the population doesn't like it, they will kill them... just like they did before.
There was a civil war going in A'Stan long before NATO got there. What's that got to do with "good governance?" No one is fighting to "bring justice and peace." They are fighting to gain power over the population, to enrich themselves, socially, politically and economically.
COIN is not about defeating the insurgent, COIN is about out competing the insurgent for the support of the populace. If the populace believes that the insurgent is more likely to provide Good Governance, the insurgent is likely to ultimately prevail regardless of how much he is suppressed militarily, how much development is delivered, or how many elections one conducts.
If, however, the government can succeed in earning the support of the populace and address the perceptions of poor governance that the insurgent exploited, the insurgency will fade away, a death of natural causes.
This is the problem with military led COIN, it tends too often to be focused on defeating the threat. The insurgent is not what threatens the stability of the country, it is the failures of the governance to adequately provide good governance to some key segments of their populace that sowed the seeds of discontent that ultimately becomes insurgency.
Good post, Fuchs. As Bob's world says:
Quote:
"These things are rarely black and white, and as Ken White loves to beat me about the head and shoulders with (hey, a guy his age needs the exercise) there are no pat answers. There are, however, some underlying fundamental "truths" that help shape an effective understanding of the suface conditions we observe.
Yes I did, but I've sort of quit that except for an occasional stray round. He's too wedded to the dream to change. Much of what he advocates is worthwhile and it may do some good. Some is less worthwhile. Some is arguable.
One should take care to insure that ones desires do not become "truths."
I have long said that poor governance is not the only cause of insurgency and that good governance is not only solution. Others make the same points but Bob continues to see "truths." S'okay, everyone ought to have ideals and dreams. Maybe the good points will get some traction...
I draw comfort from knowing the Ken counseled my predecesors too
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Yes I did, but I've sort of quit that except for an occasional stray round. He's too wedded to the dream to change. Much of what he advocates is worthwhile and it may do some good. Some is less worthwhile. Some is arguable.
One should take care to insure that ones desires do not become "truths."
I have long said that poor governance is not the only cause of insurgency and that good governance is not only solution. Others make the same points but Bob continues to see "truths." S'okay, everyone ought to have ideals and dreams. Maybe the good points will get some traction...
Young Henry Ford was too wed to the idea that horseless carriages were better than the way we had always done it with horses;
Those darn Wright brothers and their fool contraption were way to wedded too the idea of powered flight as well.
As to the "fuzziness" of goodness. Read the paper. Insurgency IS fuzzy. That's why governments and militaries stuggle with it so mightily. They try to solve it by "defeating it." Kill the members of your populace who dare to challenge your failed ways. Or worse for the US, go help the failed governments of another country kill the members of their populace. It's not working.
I say again: It's not working.
So, like the Ranger instructor in your face: "Are you as F'd up as you want to be??" There's no good answer to that. Sure we know were F'd up, but we don't want to be, we just don't know what else to do.
Legitimacy is not a difficult concept. It comes from the people. Figure out how the people in a troubled area bestow legitimacy and simply empower that. Don't force them to do it your way (elections); don't pick their candidates for them (Hello, meet Mr. Karzai); and most importantly of all, don't try to shape the outcome in terms of form, nature or manning of said government and be willing to work with or abandon whatever emerges from the process. That is not complicated. But it does fly in the face of 60 years of control-based Cold War Strategy.
Hope is not a difficult concept either. Why are the teabaggers in America not an insurgency right now? They challenge the legitimacy of the President; They feel that they are not receiving Justice; and they sure as hell don't feel that they receive any respect. (A fellow SF Colonel who is extremely liberal told me with a straight face that "conservatives just aren't as smart as liberals." They believe that, it rationalizes their behavior and empowers them to ignore the express will of the ignorant masses and provide what they know is best for them). But in all of that, the Tea Party members have one thing that no current government can take from them. Its the same thing that the Bush administration could not take away from a equally frustrated liberal community: Hope. They know the system is strong, and that it will prevent any one approach to governance from enduring. Sure it disrupts the good a bit, but it is a showstopper for the bad. We have a system in America born of insurgency, and it is designed to prevent insurgency because of it.
Or we could just do capture kill on the Tea Party Leadership; Or perhaps try to buy them off with development projects; or maybe if we need help, bring in a couple hundred thousand Chinese military and aid workers to help provide security and development. We could have Chinese Captains and Majors advising our Cabinet members, Congressmen and Generals. We could have the Chinese show us how they pick leaders, and have them apply that process to picking and sustaining the leaders here that they think are best for us (when we know they really mean best for them) That should work. Right?? Good luck with that.
No, I'll keep banging my drum. I like the sound of it. I think some of the otherr members of the band are sounding a little flat though
While I will refrain from simply replying "Jackass..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Because they oppose your setting forth of policy, and the the opposing armed force is a minute percentage of the population in exactly the same way your army is. - it's called the armed force, not the population.
So politics works 53% of the time... wow... I will read with interest.
Ends, Ways and Means. This has been said many, many time before.
Non-violence does not stop the bad guys killing your family. Achieving policy goal by non-violence IS politics.
I will instead refer you to page 9 of the document you felt you free to deride without the benefit of a quick scan first to see how it might measure up to your dogma:
"Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, phychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence. It includes acts of omission, acts of commission, or a combination of both. Scholars have identified hundreds of nonviolent methods - including symbolic protests, economic boycotts, labor strikes, political and social non-cooperation and nonviolent intervention - that groups have used to mobilize publics to oppose or support different policies to delegitimize adversaries, and to remove or restrict adversaries' sources of power. Nonviolent struggle takes place outside traditional political channels, making it distinct from other nonviolent political processes such as lobbying, electioneering, and legislating.
I have no dogma in this fight...
Recognizing that you don't understand the point of this particular thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I did not deride the document. I merely expressed surprise at the conclusion as stated, because it did not seem insightful. Thus-
No threat of violence - thus politics in the truest sense of the word.
Again, all political instruments. None of this should be the concern of anyone in uniform - bar Policeman.
And? This statement attempts to draw a false distinction between formal political processes and real politics in the wider sense. Poll Tax Riots? Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Greenham Common? These are all well tracked and well understood aspects of politics since time began.
Sorry Bob, I full confess to not getting it. I grew up with Protests, Strikes and Boycotts. They pure politics in one of it's most unambiguous forms.
There is a good chance your persistent posts consisting of "I disagree" or "I don't understand" don't lend much to the SWJ community. There are dozens of other threads on this site where your comments typically add very much indeed. Post where you please, obviously, but I for one am not benefiting from what you are posting here.