Bill,
Not sure what your point here is, but I've never suggested that one size solution fits all, only that all insurgencies share a common causation. There are other forms of informal conflicts, such as what is going on now in Mexico with the drug cartels; or those for control of diamonds in Africa; that are not insurgencies. Similarly, as I pointed out earlier today, Colonial counter guerrilla operations are not COIN either; not if they are executed with the goal of sustaining some friendly, locally illegitimate government in power. FM3-24 is really a Colonial counter-guerrilla warfare manual.
As to the Taliban, you are right, I have said and stand that I believe that Pakistan will resist efforts at reconciliation and sees it in their best interest to keep a string on the Taliban as their agent to maintain a degree of control over Afghanistan. I don't think anything anyone can do to change how they perceive that national interest. In fact, our efforts to bring India into Afghanistan must surely make them want to pursue that interest with even greater effort.
But there are a wide range of powerful indicators that the Taliban is open to reconciliation. But as the Ahmed Rashid "The Way out of Afghanistan" piece points out so well, it is complicated (Via SWJ or directly with:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...nistan/?page=1 ). Any solution must address the very real fears of the minority groups that make up the Northern Alliance to guarantee that they will not once again be subjugated to Pashtun rule. Pashtuns must have confidence that they will not be forced to be subjugated to Karzai's cronies, or to Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc. But I suspect the indicators are that if the right guarantees can be made, if the right constitution to codify clear roles, barriers, rights, roles, etc can be crafted; that they would gladly end their current deal with Pakistan to participate once again legally in their own country. Giving up AQ is what they have to bring to the table to entice the US to broker this deal. But we have to shed our commitment to the preservation of the Karzai regime. That is the anchor around our neck. We need to take better account of the national interests of Iran, Pakistan, and the other countries bordering on Afghanistan who all have their own national interests and populace ties that reach across those fuzzy borders.
The fact is that Gen Petraeus is conducting a massive suppression operation currently. We are not executing "Population-Centric COIN," we are conducting "COIN symptom suppression." Combining massive development, night raids, and clear-hold-build operations in Afghanistan; coupled with drone strikes into Pakistan; so create a window of suppressed symptoms that allow us to declare success and withdraw on schedule. He may well succeed in that. But that will not accomplish the mission against AQ, and that will not resolve the insurgency in Afghanistan either. It will get us out, but it is a cop out.
All I am saying is that the mission is AQ. The key to AQ is the Taliban; and the key to the Taliban is a comprehensive reconciliation program. That gets us out of AFPAK.
Then we can get on to dealing with the much larger problem of the growing support for AQ across so much of the Middle East, the Stans and N. Africa. Defeating AQ in Pakistan is not enough, they will go elsewhere or others will step up to replace them. We have to address the policy issues feeding those conditions.
Bookmarks