A suggestion for changing the course of the conflict on the Afghan/Pakistani frontier

[Tom Odom]

RA

I agree the President has responsibility. That responsibility begins when you first consider putting troops at risk. Just saying it does not make it happen, the "it" being exporting democracy, declaring victory, or tackling hard problems like Afghanistan, a can we have been kicking down the road for some time.

Elegant solutions are nice to talk about about but deceptive in that they propose simple solutions to complex problems. "Sealing" one of the earth's toughest borders, one across which the art of smuggling is exquisitely practiced is one. Controlling tribal lands is another. Which tribal areas are you proposing to control? Keep in mnd that they straddle the border. I have been hip deep in efforts to control populations when they straddle a border. It does not work unless you control or have the agreement of the governments that are supposed to control those borders. That might be "COIN 101"; COIN 601 comes in when you recognize the basics in 101 are not single solutions in and of themselves, neither are they always available for use. In our case regarding Afghanistan, COIN 601 says that there is little prospect of getting the Paks to fully control their half of the tribal lands when such controls have long been unacheived goals. By the same token, COIN 601 says that you are even less lilkely to muster the US will to expand cross border operations to the degree necessary to control the tribal lands on the Pak side of the border. And even if you did, you would be expanding the conflict beyond the sustainable.

As Ken likes to say, "win" is too elagant and clean a word to even consider applying to this situation.

Tom

[bourbon]

To quote RTK, "The basics are the basics." COIN 101; you can't win if the insurgents have sanctuary. Somebody needs to solve the problem. If no one else can, that's why the president gets a big house and a taxpayer funded 747; we need him to solve the difficult problems.

Personally, I think we need to establish population control in the tribal areas. Separating the foreign jihadis from the local tribes is a clear, straight froward objective. Much clearer and more straight forward than almost any strategic COIN related objective. Therefore it's achievable.

Hi RA,
In a SWJ blog last December titled "Can the Anbar Strategy Work in Pakistan?", Clint Watts illuminated three impediments to separating foreign Jihadis from the tribes:

- "al-Qa’ida has operated in the tribal regions of Pakistan for more than two decades and today it is part of the region’s fabric, not an outsider"

- Ideological fissures are small because "today there is a greater overlap between the Deobandi strain of Islam that the Taliban follows and the Salafism of al-Qa’ida"

- Financial inducements are unlikely to work because the "tribes in Waziristan have already withstood six years of pressure from Musharraf and al-Qa’ida has more than twenty years worth of supply networks in the region"

I believe foreign Jihadi's have also taken local wives in the 20+ years they have been visiting the tribal areas, further weaving themselves into the local fabric. Watts may or may not be right regarding the possible success of the Anbar model in Pakistan. But the point remains that separating foreign jihadis from the tribal areas of Pakistan is far from clear and straight forward.

It may indeed be achievable, but the costs and unintended consequences may not make the juice worth the squeeze. Especially if it further destabilizes and fractures Pakistan, as some suggest it will.

As Ken likes to say, "win" is too elagant and clean a word to even consider applying to this situation.

"Happy," I muttered, trying to pin the word down. But it is one of those words, like Love, that I have never quite understood. Most people who deal in words don't have much faith in them and I am no exception --especially the big ones like Happy and Love and Honest and Strong. They are too elusive and far too relative when you compare them to sharp, mean little words like Punk and Cheap and Phony. I feel at home with these, because they're scrawny and easy to pin, but the big ones are tough and it takes either a priest or a fool to use them with any confidence.

- The Rum Diary, by Hunter S.Thompson

In this case substitute "Happy, Love, Honest, and Strong" for "Win, Victory, Democracy, and Freedom", and "Punk, Cheap, and Phony" for "Morass, Expurgate, and Blowback".