Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 324

Thread: Sanctuary or Ungoverned Spaces:identification, symptoms and responses

  1. #241
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Bob,

    What about Kashmir?
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  2. #242
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by Ken,

    Even if the second hand moves in full second increments
    . You could get real fakes for $35.00 in Thailand, may be cheaper now with the devaluation of the Baht. Isn't that being careful with your money?

    Bob,

    I think our government has made all your proposals (or similiar ones) only to be rejected by Pakistan. While I agree there is some blow back from the drone strikes, they appear to be striking fear in AQ senior leadership, so I wouldn't so easily give them up (unless the Pakistanis agree to get them). They are still planning attacks on the homeland and we do have the right to self defense.

    Assuming we go after AQ and foreigners only, where does that leave us with the Taliban threat against Afghanistan? I think your proposals would only work if we had a time machine, and could go back in time with the knowledge we have now. Maybe we can submit that requirement to SOCOM's S&T development section?

  3. #243
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    The key to the Taliban threat is the reconciliation process. A process that ISAF throws up its hands and says "that's up to GIROA, we'll just support reintegration at the local level. Besides, we find many of those actors to be beyond the pale."

    The WWII equivalent would be the U.S focusing on German activities in South America while leaving Europe to the Europeans. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and go after the main effort.

    Besides, considering that GIROA is made up of a coalition of ethnic minorities that are fearful of any possible return of Pashtuns into the fold, they are unlikely to take this on of their own accord, and settle for the current program of leveraging ISAF to hold the Pashtuns at bay. The Tajiks appear open to reconciliation, but I doubt it gets much support among Uzbeks and Hazara.

    Oh, and I reject the idea that if one takes the wrong path for too long they can never get back on azimuth again. Its never too late to kill a bad program at the pentagon, and its never too late to dump a bad plan either.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  4. #244
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default It's more than a plan

    Posted by Bob's World,

    Oh, and I reject the idea that if one takes the wrong path for too long they can never get back on azimuth again. Its never too late to kill a bad program at the pentagon, and its never too late to dump a bad plan either.
    Wouldn't it be nice if it was really that simple? We just huddle around the map and come to consensus that our current plan is pretty stupid, so we agree to change it. What does changing it mean? If it means abandoning our friends, who put their trust in us, to years of ethnic warfare and bloodshed; then is changing really a viable option? If it results in another post Vietnam War foreign policy slump where we're risk adverse (gun shy) and refuse to get involved where it is wise to get involved because our memories of the Afghanistan conflict, then is changing a viable option? We pulled a lot of nations into a just conflict that we never developed a viable strategy for, and now we're saying after years of denial that maybe we didn't get right, so we're going to change our plans, are you blokes game? I think your onto something with the decent interval, but the blow back will be significant in ways we can't even imagine now.

    Another option, since we did commit to solving this problem with our military is to cut the military loose to actually fight the enemy. We can't say it won't work, when we have refused to attempt that approach since 9/11. We talked a tough game, but we quickly lost momentum and now are mired down by legal bureaucrats, scary assumptions that probably have limited basis in fact, and a COIN and Nation Building dogma that is distracting us from the real issues that are in our national interests.

    I hear what you're saying and agree we need to get off the track we're on now, but simply changing plans isn't that simple.

  5. #245
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Bill

    I agree, "true change" is extremely hard. I suspect 'the World' expected a substantive change to our approach in Afghanistan following the election of President Obama, and that indeed would have been the perfect opportunity.

    Problem was that he had been mislead by the "experts" as to both the nature of the threat, the risk to our nation, and the viability of various cures. He also had been roundly abused by the Republicans as weak on foreign policy, so he had little choice but to jump into Afghanistan with both feet. Thus "Obama's War." We changed the tone of our approach a bit, increased the resources, but essentially left the framework unchanged, opting for "harder, faster," over "smarter."

    The "experts" are just as loud today, though the metrics coming back from the surge efforts are making them nervous. The "Biden Plan" is beginning to take on new life. If I was gambling man, and asked what the most likely friendly COA currently is, my money would be on "Create a 'decent interval' with the surge, then shift to the Biden Plan and withdraw."

    If I were asked if I thought that was a viable plan, I would have to say "No." It may well save our bacon, but it only delays a likely replay that could look a lot like the final days of South Vietnam, or more accurately, the final days of Afghan communists following the Soviet withdrawal.

    There is no need to run out on our friends to make true change, in fact, we actually put our friends in a much better spot by making true change now, rather than by forcing them to stay on the current ride to its inevitable finale.

    The Northern Alliance and the minority populaces they represent will be far better served by a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and the Pashtuns that leads to a new constitution and more balanced and equitable governance than the current model, than they are by leaving them to their own devices and years of violence. The violence will likely increase and potentially end in the Northern Alliance fleeing for their lives. The US and our influence and reputation is far better served by designing and overseeing the former rather than the latter as well.

    BL, is we have options.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #246
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    There is no need to run out on our friends to make true change, in fact, we actually put our friends in a much better spot by making true change now, rather than by forcing them to stay on the current ride to its inevitable finale.

    The Northern Alliance and the minority populaces they represent will be far better served by a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and the Pashtuns that leads to a new constitution and more balanced and equitable governance than the current model, than they are by leaving them to their own devices and years of violence. The violence will likely increase and potentially end in the Northern Alliance fleeing for their lives. The US and our influence and reputation is far better served by designing and overseeing the former rather than the latter as well.
    This works very well if the Taliban and the Pashtuns will settle for "a new constitution and more balanced and equitable governance". If they will not, and if they see a deal simply as a way to get the US out of the picture so they can toss our Constitution in the bin and resume governing the way they govern, it doesn't work at all. What reason have we to believe that the former scenario is what would happen? The ethnic minorities clearly believe that the latter scenario is what will happen, which is why they don't want a deal.

    What can we offer the non-Pashtuns as protection against a Pashtun majority and a Pakistani-backed Taliban? A Constitution? A Constitution that is not backed by genuine internal consensus, or one that is imposed by an outside force, is a meaningless piece of paper. It will protect nobody.

    Should we be trying to design and oversee a political "solution" to Afghanistan's internal conflicts, or should we be focused on achieving our own objectives despite a political culture that we cannot change?

  7. #247
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    No, we support and defend the constitution, not the man.

    We stop creating a functional "sanctuary" for Karzai's poor governance to function from within and go after the root causes of the insurgency.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  8. #248
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    No, we support and defend the constitution, not the man.
    The current Constitution? I thought that was the source of all the problems...

    Defending the Constitution makes perfect sense to an American; I wonder how much sense it makes to Afghans. This is a feature of our political culture, and I'm not sure we can superimpose it on theirs, or that we should try.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We stop creating a functional "sanctuary" for Karzai's poor governance to function from within and go after the root causes of the insurgency.
    Is this really "bad governance" or is it simply Afghan governance?

    Root cause of insurgency may simply be that the Taliban want to take the country back and neither we nor the non-Pashtun populace consider that an acceptable outcome. Deciding that everybody should just share power under a balanced Constitutional system might be ideal for us... but is that ambition consistent with Afghan political culture, and do we have the right or the capacity to impose such an outcome?

  9. #249
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    You may be right, but I highly doubt it. Of course the "Taliban want to take the country back." The question is why, and how are their reasonable goals balanced with those who are currently in power. The Republicans can't simply run the Democrats off to Canada and write a new constitution that excludes them for further participation in government; and neither can Karzai. At least, not without being met by a growing insurgency since he pulled that stunt with our support and blessing.

    "poor governance" as I employ it in my work is rooted in human nature. The facts, cultures, beliefs, etc of every community are unique and shape what triggers such human nature responses; but in the end, people are people. So no, poor governance is not just Afghan governance. The Afghans are fully capable of being just and equitable. They are fully capable of designing and employing methods of selecting government officials that are perceived as legitimate by the populace; and they are fully capable of drafting a constitution that guards against abuses of governmental power and that protects individual rights deemed essential to these people.

    But you dodge the main point. We have built a bubble around the Karzai government and protect it, while at the same time refusing to engage directly the aspects of it that fuel this insurgency. We agonize over why the Pakistan government protects that Taliban, yet never seem to wonder why we similarly protect the Karzai government. But this is the nature of COIN doctrine so closely related to TTPs developed over generations of colonial interventions.

    Until we remove the self-imposed sanctuary we have created around the Karzai government, we are merely working our tails off to manage the symptoms of the problems that are caused by the nature and policies of that very government.

    And obviously I mean defend the "new constitution" that is step 2 of the reconciliation and constitutional loya jirga that I see as vital to making true headway on bringing stability to these people and this region.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #250
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    Robert,

    The Republicans and Democrats have co-existed and cooperated under a democratic constitution for over a century. The taliban are not the democrats (or the Republicans). You need to stop seeing at Afghanistan as some kind of 51st state.
    The US can:
    1. With enough determination and finesse (NOT an infinite amount of money or manpower, but definitely more determination and FINESSE than they may be capable of) stabilize this current ruling coalition, including deals with reconcilable Taliban and pressing Pakistan to cooperate with such deals. While it is not clear if that is a job the US should have taken on in the first place, it is a job they promised to do. Still, realpolitik (no oil in Afghanistan, not worth it, etc) and determined opposition from GHQ may dictate that this aim be dropped.
    2. Stabilize and help to defend a new regime with less ambitious aims, but one that guarantees protections for those parties that stuck their neck out and worked with the US against the Taliban. This would mean a rupture with Pakistan and renewed civil war, but with the anti-taliban regime having an upper hand in large chunks of the country. It would get very ugly though. I personally think Pakistan would suffer most in this scenario, but the Pakistani army has to do what the army has to do. But from an American point of view, its very much doable and the cost is relatively low.
    3. Pull out with Pakistani help and let Pakistan negotiate some deal between the parties in Afghanistan. This is the least expensive option. It will be followed by a renewed civil war and a bigger regional mess (because the deal will not stick), but that will be China's heacache (and India's and Iran's and so on). I assume this is what you might pick as the least bad of the three scenarios I listed? (i obviously did not list your 51st state scenario, but that one does not look plausible to me).
    I should add that I dont expect any of these scenarios to come to pass soon. I expect more of the current picture for several years and then some unexpected disaster in Pakistan may change the situation. It doesnt look like there is any way out of the current impasse with current assumptions.

  11. #251
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Recommendation for Quote of the Week!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    The Republicans and Democrats have co-existed and cooperated under a democratic constitution for over a century. The taliban are not the democrats (or the Republicans). You need to stop seeing at Afghanistan as some kind of 51st state.
    Omar Ali addressed that most excellent and accurate suggestion to Bob's World but it should be heeded by many others as well...

    That is the gem from another altogether excellent post by Omar Ali.

  12. #252
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    You may be right, but I highly doubt it. Of course the "Taliban want to take the country back." The question is why, and how are their reasonable goals balanced with those who are currently in power. The Republicans can't simply run the Democrats off to Canada and write a new constitution that excludes them for further participation in government; and neither can Karzai. At least, not without being met by a growing insurgency since he pulled that stunt with our support and blessing.
    We're not dealing with Democrats and Republicans here. The Northern Alliance/Karzai Government are treating the Taliban exactly as the Taliban treated them, and exactly as the Taliban will treat them again if they get the chance. The Northern Alliance doesn't want to give them that chance, for obvious reasons.

    The Democrats and Republicans don't have to run each other out of town and suppress each other with armed force because they have agreed to accept a certain political arrangement based on a shared political culture and a shared consensus about the general pattern of governance. They trust each other to follow that arrangement, so it works. The arrangement works because of the consensus and the trust, not because of the documents: the documents merely codify the consensus, they don't create it.

    In Afghanistan no such consensus exists. Niether party would relinquish power if they lost an election, and both parties know it. Either will use state power to suppress the other if they get the chance, and both sides know it. If there's no consensus and no trust behind a Constitution, or if the Constitution is imposed by an outside power, it means nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    "poor governance" as I employ it in my work is rooted in human nature. The facts, cultures, beliefs, etc of every community are unique and shape what triggers such human nature responses; but in the end, people are people. So no, poor governance is not just Afghan governance. The Afghans are fully capable of being just and equitable. They are fully capable of designing and employing methods of selecting government officials that are perceived as legitimate by the populace; and they are fully capable of drafting a constitution that guards against abuses of governmental power and that protects individual rights deemed essential to these people.
    Rooted perhaps in certain assumptions about human nature.

    Yes, the Afghans are in the abstract capable of all the things you say. They are also quite capable of reverting to tribal identity, placing their trust in familiar interests and individuals instead of imported documents, and staging a civil war to determine who gets to stomp who. Given the existing political culture, which do you think is more likely?

    An observation, having lived most of my life in poorly governed places: many people who have never known what you call "good governance" do not aspire to that "good governance", and in fact have little concept of it. They often define "good governance" as "bad governance that benefits me", because the alternative is presumed to be "bad governance that benefits the other guy". That state can of course change, and it does. Those changes take time, they often involve violence and conflict, and they cannot be initiated, managed, or advanced by an outside power playing deus ex machina to advance its own interests.

    What I find intensely and repetitively frustrating about this conversation is the glaring contradiction between points that you make. You've often told us that we need to step back and relinquish control over foreign political processes. Here, though, you suggest that we initiate a process of political change, and that we should declare ab initio that the outcome will be shared power, legitimate governance, and "a constitution that guards against abuses of governmental power and that protects individual rights" If we don't control the process, how can we state that this will be the outcome? If we don't control the process, how can we assure the non-Pashtun minorities that they aren't going under the bus? How can we assure the Taliban that the existing government will accept restraint on their power? How can we assure any of the parties that the outcome will not be a breakdown in negotiations followed by a right royal schutzenfest, with the winner stomping the losers and the losers becoming insurgents?

    On the other hand, if we do control the process, isn't the outcome meaningless?

    The process that you suggest would require wholesale changes in the existing political culture, and it would require a level of trust and consensus that does not exist. I'm not convinced that we should be trying to re-structure Afghan political culture, or that it's a goal we have the capacity to accomplish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    But you dodge the main point. We have built a bubble around the Karzai government and protect it, while at the same time refusing to engage directly the aspects of it that fuel this insurgency. We agonize over why the Pakistan government protects that Taliban, yet never seem to wonder why we similarly protect the Karzai government.
    Of course we've put a bubble around the government. That's implicit in regime change, and a necessary part of regime change. It's completely unrealistic to expect that we can install a government by force and that it will be able to survive on its own without an extended period in an externally constructed bubble. It's also unrealistic to expect such an installed government to reflect our ideas of good governance and our political culture, rather than those of the society in question.

    These are very good reasons to refrain from regime change, reasons that, unfortunately, we ignored. That's why we're in this mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Until we remove the self-imposed sanctuary we have created around the Karzai government, we are merely working our tails off to manage the symptoms of the problems that are caused by the nature and policies of that very government.
    Here I think you're dodging the main point: aren't the nature and policies of that government a reflection of an existing political culture? Can we change that political culture simply by asking the players involved to re-write the Constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    And obviously I mean defend the "new constitution" that is step 2 of the reconciliation and constitutional loya jirga that I see as vital to making true headway on bringing stability to these people and this region.
    So we are to defend a document that does not yet exist. Again, though... if we relinquish control over the process, why should we expect the process to produce a document that we are willing to defend... why should we expect the process to produce any kind of agreement at all? If a Constitution requires an outside party to defend it, how does it mean anything?

    I just don't see how we can reasonably expect that a Constitutional democracy is going to appear in Afghanistan simply because we want it. If that's our goal, we are likely setting ourselves up for failure, because it's not a goal we have the capacity to accomplish.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-21-2011 at 01:48 AM.

  13. #253
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default Can anyone explain this?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41770667...ew_york_times/

    KABUL, Afghanistan — After years of fighting for control of a prominent valley in the rugged mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the United States military has begun to pull back most of its forces from ground it once insisted was central to the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

    The withdrawal from the Pech Valley, a remote region in Kunar Province, formally began on Feb. 15. The military projects that it will last about two months, part of a shift of Western forces to the province’s more populated areas. Afghan units will remain in the valley, a test of their military readiness.
    Are we going back to the days of take the hill, then give it back to the enemy so we can take it again? This region has been and remains a key safe haven for those actually affilitated with Al Qaeda and LeT and a lot of other groups that are truely transnational bad actors. Not just local insurgents fighting the occupiers. Maybe this is the right thing to do, but I have my doubts. How do you feel about this?

  14. #254
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Do me a favor: Read the Afgan Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    Robert,

    The Republicans and Democrats have co-existed and cooperated under a democratic constitution for over a century. The taliban are not the democrats (or the Republicans). You need to stop seeing at Afghanistan as some kind of 51st state.
    The US can:
    1. With enough determination and finesse (NOT an infinite amount of money or manpower, but definitely more determination and FINESSE than they may be capable of) stabilize this current ruling coalition, including deals with reconcilable Taliban and pressing Pakistan to cooperate with such deals. While it is not clear if that is a job the US should have taken on in the first place, it is a job they promised to do. Still, realpolitik (no oil in Afghanistan, not worth it, etc) and determined opposition from GHQ may dictate that this aim be dropped.
    2. Stabilize and help to defend a new regime with less ambitious aims, but one that guarantees protections for those parties that stuck their neck out and worked with the US against the Taliban. This would mean a rupture with Pakistan and renewed civil war, but with the anti-taliban regime having an upper hand in large chunks of the country. It would get very ugly though. I personally think Pakistan would suffer most in this scenario, but the Pakistani army has to do what the army has to do. But from an American point of view, its very much doable and the cost is relatively low.
    3. Pull out with Pakistani help and let Pakistan negotiate some deal between the parties in Afghanistan. This is the least expensive option. It will be followed by a renewed civil war and a bigger regional mess (because the deal will not stick), but that will be China's heacache (and India's and Iran's and so on). I assume this is what you might pick as the least bad of the three scenarios I listed? (i obviously did not list your 51st state scenario, but that one does not look plausible to me).
    I should add that I dont expect any of these scenarios to come to pass soon. I expect more of the current picture for several years and then some unexpected disaster in Pakistan may change the situation. It doesnt look like there is any way out of the current impasse with current assumptions.
    Here is a link. In fact, it allows one to read and compare all 6 Constitutions that Afghanistan has had since 1923.

    http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/

    But, please, do not insult me to tell me that I see Afghanistan as some 51st state. Below is a simple cartoon to depict the difference between governance under the Afghan Contstitution and governance under the US Constitution:



    Now, we set out to help Afghanistan create a strong central government to deal more effectively with the problems of warlordism to help Afghanistan become a modern Democracy; but this is infact what we enabled Karzai to create.

    Note the little American. He bestows his legitimacy up directly to shape several distinct levels of governance. He picks his National leaders, who in turn responsible for national level governance and security forces. He picks his state leaders, County leaders and local leaders. Each in turn responsible for governance and security at their level and each in turn drawing their legitimacy directly from the people they serve.

    Now look at the little Afghan. That little box he is standing in is where 95% of the Coalition COIN effort is focused. We are going to "Clear-Hold-Build" enough of those little boxes, or do Village Stability operations in enough of those little boxes so that stability will occur.

    But that little guy has only one shaky, highly suspect line of legitimacy upwards, and that is to the President. There is quite possibly no one on the face of the planet who believes that line from the people to the president is completely corrupted. How could it not be? Look who all draws their postion and patronage from that same President? If the President falls, everything below him falls as well, except for the little box that every afghan lives in, largely unaffected by, and unable to legally influence all that happens in that larger box. He has no District government that draws legitmacy from the people in the district, or that is secured by people of the district, or that owes patronage to the people of the district. He has no Provincial government that draws legitimacy from the people of the Province, or that is secured by people of the province, or that owe patronage to the people of the province.

    This is what we enabled, and this is what we dedicate ourselves to protect. I have never implied that the Taliban and Northern Alliance are like Democrats and Republicans (but if the Republicans had had to flee to exile in Canada and Mexico as the Democrats rode to office on the back of Chinese military power, I suspect we would see that the differences may not be quite so great as many seem to presume).

    Will a new constitution "fix" Afghanistan? Who knows, and I never said it would. What I said, and stand by, is that the current Constitution is the primary source of causation of the upper tier revolutionary insurgency between the Taliban in exile in Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. This constitution guarantees that they have no legal, effective or trusted means to participate in the governance of this country short of subjugating themselves to the current ruling party. Hell, we won't even let a local fighter "reintegrate" without swearing to support this constitution that legalizes the functional slavery of half the populace of this country.

    At the root of this debate is the question of who causes insurgency. Governments blame the insurgent, or perhaps ideology, or perhaps some foreign country. Governments are not good at taking responsibilty for their actions, and besides, by any measure, the government is the legal actor and the insurgent is the illegal actor. This is the majority position, and it is the position taken by colonial powers bent on defeating any challenge to the colonial governments they put in power; and it is the position captured in our current COIN doctrine of FM 3-24. I think it is wrong.

    I argue that causation radiates out from the government. Insurgency is a reaction by segments of a governed populace that typically believes its position to be unbearable, and that also believes that they have no legal recourse. The Taliban are in exile, the Pashtun south is subjugted to the Northern Alliance, and under the current constitution they have no legal recourse.

    If our goal is a stable Afghanistan, we must first achieve a sustainable model of governance. No amount of "Clear-Hold-Build" can overcome the current governance defined by the current constitution. Afghanistan does not need an American Constitution, but they do not need a Northern Alliance Constitution either. They need an Afghanistan Constitution, and we are currently dedicated to denying that from happening.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  15. #255
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Probably not

    Quote Originally Posted by Global Scout View Post
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41770667...ew_york_times/ Are we going back to the days of take the hill, then give it back to the enemy so we can take it again? ... Maybe this is the right thing to do, but I have my doubts. How do you feel about this?
    Not there so cannot reply with any tactical knowledge. However, I can say that IMO generally, the idea of small FOBs is not tactically sound.

    What is fact is that we do not have enough Troops to stay on the Hill (metaphorically speaking -- and actually...) and we therefor should adopt TTP that do not entail such occupation or defense. In fact, given US Troop strength, I believe any attempt at conventional counterinsurgent efforts it pretty badly misguided. That applies not only to Afghanistan today but to the world before 2001 and after Afghanistan. It can be done but only in some limited circumstances and provided we assess our capabilities honestly and accurately (not a US Armed Forces strong point...).

    Stasis kills and should be avoided...

    It also has a huge support cost for generally little benefit.

    The article you linked has this: ""And it is an emotional issue for American troops, who fear that their service and sacrifices could be squandered. At least 103 American soldiers have died in or near the valley’s maze of steep gullies and soaring peaks, according to a count by The New York Times, and many times more have been wounded, often severely "" (emphasis added /kw).

    Yep. Unfortunately, warfare calls for quite strong suppression of emotion...

    The WaPo article differs a bit (LINK)""U.S. military officials are planning a significant repositioning of troops that would reduce the number of bases in one of Afghanistan's most dangerous valleys and free up American forces to conduct shorter-duration strike missions into enemy havens."" (emphasis added / kw).

    That IMO is a far better approach and what we should be doing / have been doing all along (I include Globally, worldwide strategic type, in that "should be". That would include both Afghanistan and Iraq post mid 2003..). I can only hope that the state of training and risk avoidance depletion factors allow it to be done effectively. It will work very well provided it is done even half right.

    That article also had this: ""Only about .2 percent of the population in the east is in that valley," said Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the commander of U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan. "We have to realign our forces to better protect the Afghan people."

    U.S. commanders are hoping to complete the shift over the next several months but are still working to win the support of senior Afghan officials. "We are not in total agreement in all of these areas," Campbell said."
    "

    I agree with the basic premise in that first paragraph, though I think that the last clause in it is a platitude of little merit.

    The second paragraph quoted shows the fun of coalition warfare - and why the policies change so often...

  16. #256
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    But, please, do not insult me to tell me that I see Afghanistan as some 51st state.
    I don't think Omar was insulting you. I think he just turned a pithy and memorable phrase that neatly encapsulated what he thinks is wrong with your position, that what is written on the paper doesn't really matter. I agree with him. If there was anything wrong with his statement it is only that I didn't think of it first.

    I took a look at the current Afghan constitution and article 22 contains this statement:

    "The citizens of Afghanistan – whether man or woman – have equal rights and duties before the law".

    Given the record of the Kandahari Taliban, and given that the current gov made the constitution that advocates the principle articulated above, and not given but I assume a new constitution will be a compromise document-how do you compromise on article twenty two? There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise there.

    The same goes for article 43, which states:

    "Education is the right of all citizens of Afghanistan, which shall be provided up to the level of the B.A. (lisāns), free of charge by the state."

    The Taliban was rather opposed to women's education in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Hell, we won't even let a local fighter "reintegrate" without swearing to support this constitution that legalizes the functional slavery of half the populace of this country.
    Don't you think "functional slavery" may be a bit over the top?

    I rather like a large part of your analysis but you didn't mention the machinations of the Pak Army/ISI. No matter how sophisticated the governance system set up, nothing much will change unless GHQ can be made to butt out.
    Last edited by carl; 02-25-2011 at 04:46 PM. Reason: typo
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #257
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Carl,

    Why does Pakistan working to promote its national interests in Afghanistan; a place where the US, a country with much smaller interests at stake there, does so much more to manipulate things to our ends, bother you so much?

    This is like cursing the sun for rising, or the rain for falling simply because you are either too hot or too cold. Pakistan will continue to play in this game regardless of what we want them to do.

    As to the current constitution of Afghanistan, it DOES matter. It is what enables the form of governance that is driving the insurgency in Afghanistan. Take that thorn out of the paw of the Afghan people and it will be much harder for Pakistan to manipulate the situation to suit their ends. It will also make it much easier for the US to manipulate things to our ends. I would think that would be a bus you might buy a ticket on.

    As I said though, this comes down to what one believes is the root cause of insurgency. I contend that causation radiates out from government, creating conditions that are then exploited, such as the Taliban and Pakistan and AQ are doing in Afghanistan. Should I target and seek to defeat those who emerge to exploit such conditions while I protect the source of causation? Seems foolish to me. The exploitable conditions will become worse by my very presence and efforts, and for every exploiter I help to put down, another will step up. Better to go to the source. And the defining, enabling authority for the source is the current constitution of Afghanistan. It is literally a license to steal. (and to oppress, and to exploit, etc)

    You can't just cherry pick some sexy phrase and pull it out of the effective context of the larger document and hold it up and say "see? This is good!"

    Pakistan isn't going away, and no amount of wishing will make that happen (Unless our AFPAK policy creates so much instability there that they are attacked and defeated by India, that is). We need to accept their manipulations as a given, as it is in there best interests to do so. Don't give their government a sanctuary by blaming it on the military and the intel any more than you should give the Afghan government a sanctuary. Both tendencies hinder our efforts to promote our own interests in this region.

    If you find slavery to be a hard word, you should. When after the next elections everyone in your family is evicted from their homes so that friends of the incoming officials can have them; and your business loses all of its contracts so that family of the newly appointed governor can have them; and when that governor is someone you have never heard of and who can't even speak your language, you might begin to empathize a bit with the modern Afghan not alligned with the Northern Alliance. Maybe it will take the presence of foreign military forces building bases all over your neighborhood, patrolling your streets, and killing without consequence to make you feel like a "slave." Or maybe you will still find that word to be too strong.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 02-26-2011 at 12:33 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  18. #258
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Why does Pakistan working to promote its national interests in Afghanistan; a place where the US, a country with much smaller interests at stake there, does so much more to manipulate things to our ends, bother you so much?
    Possibly because Pakistan is promoting its perceived interests by protecting and promoting a group that has in the past offered aid and shelter to people who attacked us. The issue isn't Pakistan's pursuit of its perceived interests, it's the vehicle chosen for that support.

    Of course the US decision to maintain large forces in Pakistan for an extended period makes our objections largely irrelevant: we can't apply meaningful pressure on Pakistan while we require access to Pakistani territory to support our presence in Afghanistan. One more reason to add to the long list of reasons why extended occupation of Afghanistan was a lousy idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    What I said, and stand by, is that the current Constitution is the primary source of causation of the upper tier revolutionary insurgency between the Taliban in exile in Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. This constitution guarantees that they have no legal, effective or trusted means to participate in the governance of this country short of subjugating themselves to the current ruling party.
    Is the Constitution the source of causation, or is it the underlying political culture? It looks to me like we're dealing with a winner-take-all political culture, in which the winner will dominate and oppress the losers no matter what the Constitution says. If the Constitution is incompatible with the prevailing political culture, it will simply be ignored. If there is no clear winner on the national level, the same culture will prevail at the local level, producing what we call warlords... winners taking all on a smaller scale.

    The idea of "legal" means to "participate" in governance simply has no connection to reality in this kind of environment. The effective and trusted means to achieve power is armed force. If you win it's legal, and the other guy's armed force is illegal. If you lose it's the other way around.

    Realistically, these guys are not going to share power, except in a transient and highly unstable state that is seen only as a vehicle toward gaining control. What the Constitution says has no impact at all on that equation.

    We went into Afghanistan without recognizing the limitations of our power. We had the power to install a government, but once installed, they governed like Afghans. They won't govern any other way, and we can't make them govern any other way. We can continue to support them, and they will continue to govern like Afghans, or we can withdraw support and let them fall, to be replaced by others who will also govern like Afghans, at the national level if they can gain national power, at the local level if they cannot. They will not govern differently simply because they have a different Constitution. They will not balance power and share it just because we want them to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    If our goal is a stable Afghanistan, we must first achieve a sustainable model of governance.
    The prevalence of "we" and "our" in that sentence sums up the problem here. Our goal may be a stable Afghanistan, but if the goal of both the Karzai Alliance and the Taliban is "we win and we rule", our goals don't mean much... and like it or not, it's high time we recognized that "we" cannot and never could achieve a sustainable model of governance for Afghanistan.

  19. #259
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Dayuhan,

    I agree that "we" and "our" are problems. It would be great if Karzai would do this of his own volition. Perhaps if we stopped protecting him and began to draw down next year as the President originally established he would. Our problem is that we have inflated fears of inflated problems of what might happen if he does not.

    I also agree that this is a winner take all culture. We work with the old Soviet team. So it goes in this country, one side prevails and establishes control of the government and all of the money making key terrain (border crossing sites, irrigated farmland, trade routes, etc) and the other team is pushed aside.

    How does one overcome self-destructive culture? How does one create trust and proper behavior in a culture where there is neither? By bringing all the parties together, the winners AND the losers, and crafting a constitution that creates guarantees and obstacles to the abuses that naturally occur. Where we screwed up is that we put too much faith in Karzai and allowed him and his team to craft a constitution that actually codified the historic system of abuse and exclusion and made it worse.

    I think we need to tear down the sanctuary we have created around GIRoA and force the issue of bringing the parties together, scrapping the current abomination of a constitution, and starting over. Pakistan will see an opportunity in this to reestablish an acceptable degree of influence, so they should go along. The Pashtuns will see an opportunity to regain what they see as their rightful role in this society (and the Taliban will likely someday be little more than a political party once legal politics become effective and illegal politics are no longer the only option for change).

    Our challenge will be to establish and maintain the right degree of invasiveness. Always tricky, and not something Americans have shown much flare for. We lack the patience and are far too sure of the rightness of how we see things (yes, I am an American). We need to just create the environment that brings them together, the force to make them come together, and the broad guidelines of what a constitution is supposed to do; and then allow them to self-determine what that all then produces.

    Or go home. Pick one, but to stay and attempt to prop up an unsustainable model is not smart, and is not apt to produce any kind of good or enduring result.

    Cheers,

    Bob
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  20. #260
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Carl,

    Why does Pakistan working to promote its national interests in Afghanistan; a place where the US, a country with much smaller interests at stake there, does so much more to manipulate things to our ends, bother you so much?
    This is why the Pak Army/ISI working its machinations in Afghanistan bothers me so much.

    Insert photo of dead American soldier, killed in Afghanistan.
    Insert photo of the Twin Towers burning and Americans leaping to their deaths to avoid being burned.
    Insert photo of Aghan street just after a suicide bombing with smoke, dazed people and body parts scattered about.
    Insert photo of 12 year old girl in Naw Zad who is teaching the younger children and whose life will get really stinko if the Taliban comes back.

    That is why I dislike those stone hearted, stone headed perfidians (I made that word up) at GHQ messing around in Afghanistan. It is contrary to our interests and gets a lot of people killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    This is like cursing the sun for rising, or the rain for falling simply because you are either too hot or too cold. Pakistan will continue to play in this game regardless of what we want them to do.
    Those bone heads may continue to play their game but why do we have to pay for it, why do we have to pretend it doesn't hurt us and why can't we oppose their destructiveness? If a rat is eating the seed corn, you don't just throw up your hands and say "rats will be rats", you kill the rat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    As to the current constitution of Afghanistan, it DOES matter. It is what enables the form of governance that is driving the insurgency in Afghanistan. Take that thorn out of the paw of the Afghan people and it will be much harder for Pakistan to manipulate the situation to suit their ends. It will also make it much easier for the US to manipulate things to our ends. I would think that would be a bus you might buy a ticket on.
    I would buy a ticket on that bus if I thought it was going anywhere and if the ticket seller wasn't going to steal the money. But I don't. You do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    As I said though, this comes down to what one believes is the root cause of insurgency. I contend that causation radiates out from government, creating conditions that are then exploited, such as the Taliban and Pakistan and AQ are doing in Afghanistan. Should I target and seek to defeat those who emerge to exploit such conditions while I protect the source of causation? Seems foolish to me. The exploitable conditions will become worse by my very presence and efforts, and for every exploiter I help to put down, another will step up. Better to go to the source. And the defining, enabling authority for the source is the current constitution of Afghanistan. It is literally a license to steal. (and to oppress, and to exploit, etc)
    You're right, it does come down to one believes the root cause of the insurgency is. I believe it is a primarily a proxy war by the Pak Army/ISI to achieve their cloud cuckoo land fantasy of "strategic depth". They use Taliban & company to further that aim and Taliban & company use them to further their aim of taking back what they had before 2001. Remove the Pak Army/ISI from the equation and Taliban & company very well could wither on the vine or talk serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    You can't just cherry pick some sexy phrase and pull it out of the effective context of the larger document and hold it up and say "see? This is good!"
    I assume you are talking about article 22. If so, it is a fundamental statement about the status of men and women before the law. And it is something Taliban & company have demonstrated they don't believe in. I don't call that cherry picking. I call that pointing out something on which it seems there is no compromise. Besides, isn't it good?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Pakistan isn't going away, and no amount of wishing will make that happen (Unless our AFPAK policy creates so much instability there that they are attacked and defeated by India, that is). We need to accept their manipulations as a given, as it is in there best interests to do so. Don't give their government a sanctuary by blaming it on the military and the intel any more than you should give the Afghan government a sanctuary. Both tendencies hinder our efforts to promote our own interests in this region.
    You're right about wishing not making the Pak Army/ISI butt out. We actually have to do something. One thing might be to stop seeing ourselves as the puppet masters who control all and realize if the Pak Army/ISI fatally provokes India, it is the fault of the Pak Army/ISI. Another thing might be to take the money away from GHQ. (IF the Pak Army was defeated by India it might be a very good thing for us and Pakistan as it would ruin the credibility of the good General sahibs.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    If you find slavery to be a hard word, you should. When after the next elections everyone in your family is evicted from their homes so that friends of the incoming officials can have them; and your business loses all of its contracts so that family of the newly appointed governor can have them; and when that governor is someone you have never heard of and who can't even speak your language, you might begin to empathize a bit with the modern Afghan not alligned with the Northern Alliance. Maybe it will take the presence of foreign military forces building bases all over your neighborhood, patrolling your streets, and killing without consequence to make you feel like a "slave." Or maybe you will still find that word to be too strong.
    What you are talking about is bad government. The solution to the problem of bad government is good government, not its substitution with a different kind of bad government under a different set of bad governors.

    Yep, still find the word too strong, since slave means being owned by another and the other being able to pass on ownership and then ship them off somewhere.

    Another point. You like to say the Northern Alliance was lined up with the Soviets as a rhetorical tool to discredit them. Not quite true that. Ismail Khan wasn't nor was Massoud. Dostum, yes. Let us be precise here.
    Last edited by carl; 02-27-2011 at 04:04 PM. Reason: typo
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •