NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

[JarodParker]

The few valid points you were beginning to raise were drowned out by the rest of your rant.

Civilian deaths in strikes have caused widespread resentment in Afghanistanhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm
This is a general response to the “moral” fallout from the death of civilians in Operation Moshtarak in the open source media and from “heated” diatribes I often hear Muslims deliver on the streets of my home town (there was a time when Hyde Park corner sufficed to satiate these types).

Our overwhelming superiority in firepower is our major strength (war, after all, is about “killing and destruction” as per Gian Gentile) , our congenital inability to apply that without second guessing ourselves or adopting ROEs with will only lead into strategic cul-de-sacs and coffins being flown home is our greatest weakness. A weakness they exploit.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Col Gentile is a proponent of using indiscriminate firepower.

So what if 20 civilians die on an operation against the Taliban? Why are WE apologising? How many Muslims currently residing in the “West” condemned the attacks of 7/7, 9/11 etc.? They didn’t. They justified/absolved them (ironically, Arab public opinion seemed less clear cut) and shifted the blame/passed the buck.

Assuming the Muslims in the west never condemned these terrorist acts, why should they have to? They didn't do it. As a Christian/Conservative, am I required to publicly condemn the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church?
As a liberal, should I write my closest military recruiting office and apologize for the actions of Code Pink? Just because somebody is of the same religion/political party/nationality/etc, that doesn’t mean they are obligated to publicly counter-balance the views of extremists?

If the Afghan people (whoever they are and that’s a different matter) don’t like the presence of NATO forces on their soil they should be reminded of why we are there...because of the Taliban. If civilians are dying in operations conducted by NATO to destroy the Taliban who hide like cowards “amongst the people” then that is the fault of the Taliban.

High speed police chase in Los Angeles... innocent bystander gets run over by cop car... who does the family blame?

Just compare the range of “services” we strain ourselves to supply to the Afghans (at no cost to themselves) with what the Taliban did and make the Afghan’s decide.

But they didn't ask for these services. Furthermore, this argument has been tried many times colonials but it usually fails to convince the natives to just play along (i know, i know, our intentions are noble). Not to mention the fact that some of the reports published state that we (or our partners) haven't even been that great at providing these services. I believe one of the articles posted in the Marjah thread claimed that the Taliban are much better at providing said services.

If the Afghans want us out why don’t we tie that demand in to the destruction of the Taliban. Once they are long gone (difficult metric to satisfy I know) so will we be and leave the Pakistanis, and Iranians to sort out the mess/responsibility (and blame should they fail); after all Pakistan’s role in this imbroglio nor its responsibility should not be forgotten. Instead of trying to “capture” the hearts and minds of the “Afghan” people why aren’t we making them participants, stakeholders or whatever buzzword is currently in fashion, in a process that will finally get us to some kind of satisfactory situation (another flammable metric) where we can get out “with honour”?

Even if the message "we will stay here as long as it takes, so you better help us" was going to work, how will it play out at home.

Why are we adhering to these Liberal neo-colonial (there’s no two ways about it) preconceptions that somehow these “primitive children” can be “forced to be free”, that inside every Gook or Arab or Afghan is a middle-class, atheistic, latte drinking, Franz Fanon reading, sexually confused, moral-relativist trying to get out? Take for instance the following neo-developmentalist/modernisation drivel;

I'm not touching this one.

WE [shouldn't be] in business of propping up failed states or building new ones (there’s a pun in there somewhere). I don’t think we got out of the imperial policing business just to return and make the same mistakes. Just think of all the filoos/money that we have spent pouring down the drain in Afghanistan (amongst other places) that could have been spent in our recession hit economies and, more importantly, on homeland defence. WE do not have the answers for THEM (and it’s important we remember that distinction) nor do we need to waste the lives of our young men and women on installing dams or generators when they will be inoperable within a decade after we have gone.

I kind of agree that the resources would've been better spent at home.

And if we really must educate them in the ways of democracy then let’s introduce them to the concept of accountability for ones actions.

But you have a problem with NATO taking responsibility for civilian casualties.

Definitely, but that’s a language THEY understand (psychologically speaking); in the face of overwhelming power Islam retreats (even to the extent of releasing its spell on Muslims); “The situation changed rapidly a month into the Allied campaign against the Taliban. Muslims saw the unequivocal power of American military might, and turned away from bin Laden and the Taliban” (Lazar Berman , “Understanding Arab Culture”, Small Wars Journal, p.6).

Your basing your argument on a 10-page article by an arguable biased IDF Lt with no hard data and a citation from this guy. You both seem to be making some giant leaps and cherry picking.

[carl]

A strike carried out by spec ops units on their own hook, without the knowledge of the battlespace owner (I hope I am using that term correctly), that greatly displeases the general in charge, who used to command spec ops forces: as Firn states, that does beg a lot of questions.

Such as:

Is it a habit of spec ops to do things without consulting the forces who live there?

Are they really under control of Gen. McChrstal or only sort of under control?

And what kind of, apparently very flawed, knowledge prompted the strike?

[William F. Owen]

Civilian deaths in strikes have caused widespread resentment in Afghanistanhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm

....and? From where I stand, no one really cares. There are never UN War Crimes investigations into US/NATO action.

Our overwhelming superiority in firepower is our major strength (war, after all, is about “killing and destruction” as per Gian Gentile) , our congenital inability to apply that without second guessing ourselves or adopting ROEs with will only lead into strategic cul-de-sacs and coffins being flown home is our greatest weakness.

Whoah there, me old Deep Battle Chap!
Warfare requires killing and destruction OF THE ENEMY! - Clausewitz, not Col Gian - and the skill here is killing the enemy, IF POSSIBLE - without killing too many civilians. ROE is not moral. It is policy driven, and is the art of the possible, not the absolute requirement.

27 dead US Marines is far more of a problem for the US and NATO than 27 dead civilians. Marines matter more, as concerns US policy.

Whole page on the BBC web site about the Taliban using Human Shields. Wow? Who knew? - Hang on.... I hear the "trees of hypocrisy creaking in the wind of apathy."

[Bob's World]

Every Insurgent is a civilian. But not every civilian is an insurgent.

Another case of where we are hamstrung by our poor lexicon.

In a place like Afghanistan, most of the "insurgents" are "civilians" for half of the year, and "insurgents" for the other half.

It is really more an issue of "innocent" and "liable" parties; and accomplice liability applies.

One really needs to apply of mix of criminal terminology and military prosecution to get closer a workable scheme in a COIN effort; trending to civil prosecution as the situation settles. None of this is directly related to the incident in Uruzgon, but our sloppy terminology is not helpful in general, and certainly not in a situation like this.

(As to the incident in Uruzgon, it is a tragedy, regardless of whose "facts" one applies. But currently the truth is being lost as "facts" are created or manipulated to support political positions. Patience.)

[Fuchs]

....and? From where I stand, no one really cares. There are never UN War Crimes investigations into US/NATO action.

Backlash doesn't need to be official and civilized to hurt.

27 dead US Marines is far more of a problem for the US and NATO than 27 dead civilians. Marines matter more, as concerns US policy.

Too bad that it isn't only about U.S. policy, but also about Afghan politics and opinions.

Whole page on the BBC web site about the Taliban using Human Shields. Wow? Who knew? - Hang on.... I hear the "trees of hypocrisy creaking in the wind of apathy."

I've become tired of "human shield" accusations because too many simply don't fit to what's actually forbidden in the Geneva Conventions. This concerns both parties.

[Tukhachevskii]

Am I being more than usually naive?

I just needed to get that frustration off my chest and, well who knows, maybe wiser heads (and, thankfully, there are many of those in the SWC), will prevail and counsel me (no pun intended) regarding these doubts/fears/frustrations.

I am pleased to say I was not disappointed. Thank you all for your valuable comments and, in future, I will try to count to ten (at minimum) before posting.

[William F. Owen]

I've become tired of "human shield" accusations because too many simply don't fit to what's actually forbidden in the Geneva Conventions. This concerns both parties.

Concur. Human shield is simplistic from the perspective of description. However, some people do use the civilian population to ameliorate themselves from the effects of enemy fire.

In "information and effects" terms the Geneva conventions are utterly irrelevant to a lot of people.

[Firn]

Every Insurgent is a civilian. But not every civilian is an insurgent.

Another case of where we are hamstrung by our poor lexicon.

In a place like Afghanistan, most of the "insurgents" are "civilians" for half of the year, and "insurgents" for the other half.

It is really more an issue of "innocent" and "liable" parties; and accomplice liability applies.

One really needs to apply of mix of criminal terminology and military prosecution to get closer a workable scheme in a COIN effort; trending to civil prosecution as the situation settles. None of this is directly related to the incident in Uruzgon, but our sloppy terminology is not helpful in general, and certainly not in a situation like this.

(As to the incident in Uruzgon, it is a tragedy, regardless of whose "facts" one applies. But currently the truth is being lost as "facts" are created or manipulated to support political positions. Patience.)

Bob, I think I understand the points you are raising and in war the simpliest things become very difficult. Still I wonder if in the specific case other methods, like the insertion of a blocking force on the way to the mountain pass might not have been the better choice. It is hindsight, yes, but perhaps a legitimate question.

Silent enim leges inter arma is not an entirely correct concept, as laws just as politics permeate war, but it captures the clear difference between the application (or the lack of it) and interpretation of both in times of war. But be it as it may, the attack made today's headlines about Afghanistan.

Concerning your comment about the "facts". A very interesting and very profound take on the issue is shown in Rashomon. This might touch on of the biggest questions in philosophy or better epistemology. Of course this discussion is just of limited interest for the dead and their relatives.


Firn

[davidbfpo]

A short article comparing casualty rates in Afghanistan and ends with this:

And of all the countries on the list, it is probably Denmark and Canada that have borne the greatest political shocks overall. It is a wonder they have stayed as committed as they have for as long as they have.

The figures:

Denmark, 1 per 177,000 (31 deaths)
Estonia, 1 per 186,000 (7 deaths)
United Kingdom, 1 per 224,000 (272 deaths)
Canada, 1 per 236,000 (140 deaths)
United States, 1 per 302,000 (1017 deaths)
Latvia, 1 per 733,000 (3 deaths)
Netherlands, 1 per 810,000 (21 deaths)

Some other major European countries have been less burdened, per capita:
Spain, 1 per 1,500,000 (28 deaths)
France, 1 per 1,600,000 (40 deaths)
Germany, 1 per 2,400,000 (34 deaths)
Poland, 1 per 2,400,000 (16 deaths)
Italy, 1 per 2,600,000 (22 deaths)

Read more:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...n-sharing.html

[Fuchs]

I've read some really angry comments about the behaviour of Mrs. Clinton in Buenos Aires and in regard to the Falklands topic. Other U.S. politicians seem to have incited some British anger as well (one is even reported to have called the islands "Malvinas").

My observations are certainly not representative, but I assume that the next polls from the UK about the "special relationship" will be interesting.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

The remarks of Hilary Clinton over the Falkland Islands were reported here critically, but I doubt if published, public opinion polls will focus on the 'Special Relationship'. We are in a pre-General Election period and other issues take precedence.

A US diplomat recently stated opinion polls found public support in the UK for the 'relationship' remained strong; without citing the source alas.

My own view is that, even with allowance for the end of President Bush, is that the 'Special Relationship' remains beloved in Whitehall-Westminster, but has less support amongst the public for a variety of reasons.

An insight into this diplomatic tussle can be found on KoW: http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/03/dea...nny-boy-to-do/ An earlier commentary on the UK-US link: http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2009/10/bri...-idle-musings/

[Tukhachevskii]

Spain confirms troop withdrawal in Summer 2011

[davidbfpo]

The Dutch have ended their active role:

The Netherlands has ended its military involvement in Afghanistan after four years in which its 1,950 troops have won praise for their effectiveness.

Nato had wanted the Netherlands to extend its mission, but the request triggered a political row which brought down the country's coalition government in February.

Professor Ko Colijn, a senior research fellow at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, told the BBC that the public supported the withdrawal "with a slight majority", and that domestic policy had forced the move.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10831294

[davidbfpo]

An independent assessment of the Dutch campaign, by a group I've not heard of (spotted by an Australian think tank) and did not download fully here. Maybe of interest?

Link:http://www.tlo-afghanistan.org/sites...ment-final.pdf

[fnord]

Sirs. Very interesting thread. Would like to point out that the Norwegian contigent has been pretty consistent through the whole play, and still contributes. There is a disturbing frequency-shift of contacts around Mazar and Meymaneh. We lost 4 just recently, and our SF guys are almost run down because of brutal rotation-rates on mountain specialists.

I think one aspect that is central is that all actions taken in the last years are unfortunately mostly trying to fix our own sins by omission in the 2001-2006 period in Afghansitan. I seriously hope some of the wizards who are thinking contigency takes that wisdom into account for any new adventures. We need integrated command-teams with basic unit cohesion, that have worked together. Inter-alliance tribalism seems to be rampant at times...? (Disclaimer: I am not active service military, just an old draftee.)

[JMA]

Sirs. ... and our SF guys are almost run down because of brutal rotation-rates on mountain specialists.

Can you explain this please?

[davidbfpo]

Just found this report:

(Sub-title) Italy has become the latest NATO country to say it will begin withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan next summer. (Then) Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister said its 3,400 troops will have left the country by 2014.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html

[davidbfpo]

Taken from KoW and yes, a Swedish viewpoint; an EU member, not a NATO member who has an infantry battalion deployed in the north:http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/10/sta...n-afghanistan/

Which cites a Swedish newspaper article:http://www.dn.se/debatt/darfor-maste...stan-1.1187784

KoW ends with this pithy comment:

...the aim may be to be part of the mission until the end, to do the best possible in their area of operations, and to thereby enhance Sweden’s standing internationally, even if this means partaking in an eventual strategic failure. There is a curious logic to that, but is this a cause worth sacrificing Swedish soldiers for?

[Bob's World]

I think the U.S. has presented many friendly governments with difficult dilemma.

Essentially the must choose as to if their national interest of maintaining strong relations with the US (to included keeping the US in NATO) is more important than the other national interests that they must compromise or put at risk by supporting US national interests elsewhere.

The US paints the problem as being every state's problem. That may be true, but the U.S. solution is not every state's solution, and there-in lies the rub.

The key, IMO, to keeping NATO allies engaged is for the U.S. to be more empathetic to the concerns and interests of others and tailor our efforts to be more supportive of those differences.

[SWJ Blog]

New NATO Library Guide: Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan

Entry Excerpt:

Via e-mail from NATO: The NATO Multimedia Library has just published a new title in its LibGuides series. 'Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan' is a web-based research guide bringing you the latest information (articles, news, videos, websites etc.) on issues related to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, in particular in the NATO context.



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.