Is there a Dutch approach ?

[Coined]

Hi Ken, thanks for the discussion.

You say:
"Quite problematic, though, when the opponent truly cannot negotiate because he is too disparate and amorphous to provide, much less enforce, a binding resolution..."

Well, I think that the opponent is not desperate. The word "oppoment" usually relates to a visible and organised element. In current conflicts an opponent can be a politician, a local policeman, a governmental rep, .... and so on.
Referring to Afghanistan the Western population often think that the opponent is Taliban. Well, I think that Taliban is the high leadership and some midlevel leaders in the provinces and that 80% of what we refer to as Taliban are not more than people who try to earn a living for their family, people who fight out of hatred because of ten years of Russian violence and years of Taliban supression (although the population embraced the Taliban in the first year of their power) and others who to things for the Taliban because they are intimidated to do so. Taliban as a name is sometimes also used to cover up drugscrime .... not only people in Afghanistan earn a lot by trading drugs.
So, what do the Afghanis want for themselves and for their children?

[Eden]

Most Afghans outside of the urban elite are looking for an entity that can best ensure their security at the least cost to their traditional rights. In most cases this is not a 'lawful and tolerant Islamic Republic.' I suspect most Afghans would prefer a weak central government that serves mostly as a foil for the ambitions of neighboring tribes, ethnic groups, or warlords.

I spent a tour with ISAF and grew to admire the professionalism, skill, and toughness of the Dutch. However, I found them to be inflexible in their approach to the '3-block war' and naive in their belief that a soft-power approach would work best in one of the most restive provinces in the country.

[Coined]

Most Afghans outside of the urban elite are looking for an entity that can best ensure their security at the least cost to their traditional rights. In most cases this is not a 'lawful and tolerant Islamic Republic.' I suspect most Afghans would prefer a weak central government that serves mostly as a foil for the ambitions of neighboring tribes, ethnic groups, or warlords.

I spent a tour with ISAF and grew to admire the professionalism, skill, and toughness of the Dutch. However, I found them to be inflexible in their approach to the '3-block war' and naive in their belief that a soft-power approach would work best in one of the most restive provinces in the country.

Well Eden, for me it not so relevant to decide who is better and who is not.
I think that the we can be complemtary in both our approaches.
I am sorry that you felt the need to react as you did.

[Ken White]

You say:
"Quite problematic, though, when the opponent truly cannot negotiate because he is too disparate and amorphous to provide, much less enforce, a binding resolution..."

Note the word is 'disparate'; that means "Fundamentally distinct or different in kind; entirely dissimilar: Containing or composed of dissimilar or opposing elements." -- there are too many factions. The so-called Taliban are but many (even the Talibs are not unified; far from it...) out of many more. All of those many and varied groups are also amorphous which means there's no form or crux to their effort. More succinctly and directly, that means no one is really in charge so we cannot really make a deal with them -- though we may well fake one before we withdraw in 2011, declaring victory as we pass the Pakistanis with smug grins on their faces.

Well, I think that the opponent is not desperate.

Nope, not one bit. Time is on their side and they know it. No reason for them to be desperate or even slightly worried. However, they are disparate as we both seem to say...

The word "oppoment" usually relates to a visible and organised element. In current conflicts an opponent can be a politician, a local policeman, a governmental rep, .... and so on.

Startling revelation -- can we then say that an opponent is not necessarily a visible and organized element but can be anyone or any number of anyones who oppose to some degree or another what one wishes to say, do or to occur? That should be an acceptable definition. It was to me.

Referring to Afghanistan the Western population often think that the opponent is Taliban. Well, I think that Taliban is the high leadership and some midlevel leaders in the provinces and that 80% of what we refer to as Taliban are not more than people who try to earn a living for their family, people who fight out of hatred because of ten years of Russian violence and years of Taliban supression (although the population embraced the Taliban in the first year of their power) and others who to things for the Taliban because they are intimidated to do so. Taliban as a name is sometimes also used to cover up drugscrime .... not only people in Afghanistan earn a lot by trading drugs.

I think we can agree on all that though it has little bearing on anything I said. However, since that is apparently a new question, seems to me the answer was provided by Eden above: "I suspect most Afghans would prefer a weak central government that serves mostly as a foil for the ambitions of neighboring tribes, ethnic groups, or warlords." Only thing I'd add is that my bet is that's what they'll end up having. As it was in the beginning, is now...

So, what do the Afghanis want for themselves and for their children?

Unless you're an Afghan, neither you or I can or should answer that question and, frankly, it would be foolish for us to try. It is up to the Afghans to sort out the answer to that in their own way and in their own time. For us to presume to do it for them is the height of deluded western egocentrism -- and folly. Welcome to Afghanistan.