Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

[davidbfpo]

Anatol Lieven has been in Dubai and has some surprising lessons:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45b83f50-d...44feabdc0.html

Like:

perhaps the most striking thing to emerge from our discussions was that three of our four interviewees said the Taliban would consider agreeing to US bases and military advisers in Afghanistan after 2014 – something that contradicts every previous Taliban statement.

They want a strong national army – even one trained by the US – to hold Afghanistan together, prevent a return to warlord rule and deter interference by neighbours.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Isn't it a bit optimistic to assume that the Taliban is that united to accept keeping the US in the country after 2014 considering the recent assassination of Arsala Rahmani?

[Bob's World]

They are arguably "united" in their opposition to what exists, but I am sure there are conservatively dozens of competing concepts for what should replace it.

Revolution is not about what comes next, it is about what exists now. Fix the current and one need not worry so much about the next.

But it is not ours to "fix" and GIRoA is quite happy to stay just the way they are, with their little Northern Alliance monopoly and a constitution that consolidates all patronage in Kabul, with the US led coalition protecting this unsustainable model and fueling it with cash.

It is not in GIRoA's interest currently to reconcile. I suspect that will change if we seriously cut them off and leave, but by then it will be too late.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Revolution is not about what comes next, it is about what exists now. Fix the current and one need not worry so much about the next.

I am almost certain there can be no "fix" for the current government. They have no legitimacy and our current doctrine ain't getting them any closer.

That is the primary advantage of the Taliban. Religion offers them an instant and universally recognized form of legitimacy. They will always have that advantage and the current GIRoA has nothing to compare with that.

[Bill Moore]

Revolution is not about what comes next, it is about what exists now. Fix the current and one need not worry so much about the next.

Bob, food for thought, this idea is still rough, but it was pointed out by some astute historians that the American Revolution happened long before the conflict with the Mother Ship England. The actual revolution was a series of memes, core beliefs, social/poltical norms that emerged, and all these eventually ran into the "state" and triggered a conflict. The fight was NOT the revolution, that was the war, which was the result of the revolution that already happened. This is a paradigm shift from our doctrinal view of revolution.

Not sure what this implies for Afghanistan. Is the Taliban really a revolutionary force, or are they just a resilient system that will eventually oust the foreign system we established and rule Afghanistan again because there was no real revolution in Afghanistan in the first place?

[Surferbeetle]

... it was pointed out by some astute historians that the American Revolution happened long before the conflict with the Mother Ship England. The actual revolution was a series of memes, core beliefs, social/poltical norms that emerged, and all these eventually ran into the "state" and triggered a conflict. The fight was the revolution, that was the war, which was the result of the revolution that already happened. This is a paradigm shift from our doctrinal view of revolution.

Not sure what this implies for Afghanistan. Is the Taliban really a revolutionary force, or are they just a resilient system that will eventually oust the foreign system we established and rule Afghanistan again because there was no real revolution in Afghanistan in the first place?

What's old is new again...

'There are not enough armies in all of the world which can kill an idea whose time has come.' Victor Hugo

[jcustis]

Bob, food for thought, this idea is still rough, but it was pointed out by some astute historians that the American Revolution happened long before the conflict with the Mother Ship England. The actual revolution was a series of memes, core beliefs, social/poltical norms that emerged, and all these eventually ran into the "state" and triggered a conflict. The fight was the revolution, that was the war, which was the result of the revolution that already happened. This is a paradigm shift from our doctrinal view of revolution.

Not sure what this implies for Afghanistan. Is the Taliban really a revolutionary force, or are they just a resilient system that will eventually oust the foreign system we established and rule Afghanistan again because there was no real revolution in Afghanistan in the first place?

Absolutely, and unfortunately too many competing interests are preventing policy-makers from seeing this fact as clearly as they should.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bob, food for thought, this idea is still rough, but it was pointed out by some astute historians that the American Revolution happened long before the conflict with the Mother Ship England. The actual revolution was a series of memes, core beliefs, social/poltical norms that emerged, and all these eventually ran into the "state" and triggered a conflict. The fight was NOT the revolution, that was the war, which was the result of the revolution that already happened. This is a paradigm shift from our doctrinal view of revolution.

Not really a new paradigm. Take, for example, the Davies J-Curve that predicts political unrest resulting from an economic downswing.

"Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. People then subjectively fear that ground gained with great effort will be quite lost; their mood becomes revolutionary. The evidence from Dorr's Rebellion, the Russian Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution supports this notion; tentatively, so do data on other civil disturbances. Various statistics—as on rural uprisings, industrial strikes, unemployment, and cost of living—may serve as crude indexes of popular mood. More useful, though less easy to obtain, are direct questions in cross-sectional interviews. The goal of predicting revolution is conceived but not yet born or matured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Chowning_Davies

Broadened out it really predicts revolution based on a continuing disjunction between a society's expectation of what they should have and the reality of what they do have.

I should note that these ideas are generally attacked by the anti pop-centric COIN crowd.

I am not sure this model is applicable. The model here will be a power vacuum that will be filled by whomever has the ability to coerce others, has charismatic influence backed by followers with weapons, or can bribe others to maintain influence.

[Bob's World]

Ok, A few points.

1. The Taliban and GIRoA share the same religion. This is not about religion, it is about power. We tipped the scales so that the naturally more powerful party was displaced by the weaker. Then we enabled the weaker to create a form of government designed to elevate and centralize patronage, allowing them to exercise an unnatural degree of control across the country in an effort to preserve a monopoly that would keep those affiliated with the ousted party from being able to worm their way back in. Once that was done the revolutionary insurgency began to grow. Once we began countering the revolution it led to the growth of the resistance.

As to the US, yes, the fight was "the final argument of kings" but still, the revolution was not about the ideas being advanced, it was the intolerable situation being challenged. The new ideas did, however, lead to a growing sense of discontent with a system that had been in place for generations. Kind of a chicken or egg argument. Bottom line is that the populace in the new world evolved to the point where the status quo of British governance was no longer adequate and the British were unwilling to evolve to meet those new requirements. We see the same dynamic across the Middle East today with the Arab Spring movement.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Ok, A few points.

1. The Taliban and GIRoA share the same religion. This is not about religion, it is about power.

True enough, it is not about religion, but governance is about a base of legitimacy.

GIRoA's legitimacy is based on the consent of the people, which is really just an illusion. The people voted based on tribal alliances or a belief they would get something in return. The Taliban can claim legitimacy based in the word of God, a word shared by all. The difference between democracy and theocracy.

But you are ultimately correct; when the vacuum is created, it will be about who has the power. But that power will be limited and localized. To unit the country, it will take more than naked force. And even if a single warlord could unit the various fiefdoms somehow it would only last as long as his charisma held. It would exist because of his force of personality. To institutionalize it will take more.