Mumbai style attack in kabul..

[Infanteer]

Sometimes the state gets lazy and is taken down by a clever opponent with a better narrative, even though the state was not in the wrong. Prosecutors understand this; Governments in general sometimes forget.

The Narrative - we have a narrative that often revolves around keeping terrorists away or helping "the people". The ANSF, as an extention of the GIRoA, has its narrative on foreign fanatics bringing war to their country. The insurgency also has its narrative, which seems to focus on expelling foreign crusaders and their puppet. I'd assume that all this plays out against the Pashtun of southern Afghanistan and their perception of which narrative is a) correct and b) offers them the best options (which one takes precedence is probably a good question).

Another corollary from trial to COIN; is that as a prosecutor my primary focus was always the Jury, the Jury, the Jury. I really didn't worry much about who the defense attorney was, or who the judge was, or who my witnesses were. I really didn't even worry too much about who got on the jury. What I focused on was getting control of the narrative from the very moment the Jury pool entered the courtroom for Voir Dire (jury selection) and establishing an open, trusting relationship that I would nurture throughout the trial. I did not try to "defeat" the other attorney; I worked to "win" the Jury.

Who is the Jury - Afghans amidst the insurgency or Western populaces supporting the COIN effort?

[Bob's World]

There are many levels to the question of "who is the jury"; and ones every action and word is sending a message to each of them.

Certainly for the US there is our populace at home.

The US also must be sensitive to the Afghan populace and the world populace, and the populace of specific countries that are crucial to this effort (either in support to the West's efforts, or to AQ).

You could say that you have different things that you are attempting to "prove" to each of those "juries," and that therefore one has a variety of critical elements and associated weak points that are unique to each; and that all must be considered in every action and word. Not an easy business.

As I said, the opponent has it much easier, because while the state must prevail in each of these audiances, the challenger must only prevail in creating adequate doubt in a single one, and the whole effort can collapse in their favor.

[slapout9]

So Slap, trial, like war, is boring 99% of the time, but being ready to act when those exciting moments occur is the key to success. That and making sure that the judge actually heard your witness ID the defendant, and making a verbal affirmation of that fact yourself and getting it into the record... (That one still stings). Getting the boring part right is important too
.

Agree, but.... and I am going to mess up a qoute by Chief Justice Marshall (some legal eagle here can find the actual quotewho basically said the Court room is a place for Law not Justice. Most people on the Jury believe just the opposite because no one ever explains to them how the system works as opposed to how it was meant to work. Except the Terroist/Criminal organizations understand this perfectly.