Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

[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.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Two points:

1. Going back the the American revolution, it wasn't a revolution; it was a revolt. A revolution would require a change in the political landscape and while that was the result it was not really the spark that initiated the action. Most colonists were only demanding that their rights as Englishmen be recognized. An Englishman already had the right to vote for their representatives in parliament. our complaint was that we were being charged like Englishmen but not receiving the same benefits. "Taxation without Representation." The absolute monarchy had been abolished for almost a hundred years in England. So while the system that resulted was "revolutionary" from the perspective that it did not revolve around a constitutional monarchy, discontent amongst the colonists about being denied the rights they felt they already had was the impetuous for action.

Unfortunately, my second point will have to wait. The dogs need to go for a walk.

[Bob's World]

Most accurately it was a separatist insurgency. A distinct populace had formed over the generations, separated by much more than distance, but by the tremendous differences between living in the colonies and living in Great Britain. The fact that Colonials were perceived as a lower class of citizen, had little say in their governance, and as their grievances grew, their increasing perception that they had no legal recourse to address the same all contributed to the ultimate "revolution."

The King had several opportunities to apply small, reasonable measures to "reconcile" the differences, but he scoffed at the idea. Better to simply "enforce the rule of law." This is the typical perspective of government in these situations.

Regarding "Legitimacy" of government in Afghanistan, both sides of the the contest share the requisite religious legitimacy. GIRoA possess Western-granted "legal legitimacy," but such legitimacy is like an honorary college degree, it looks good on the wall but won't get you a job. No, the aspect of legitimacy that is in question in this, and most all insurgencies, is the simple recognition by the governed of the right of government to govern them. When foreign regime change takes one party out and places another party in, it is damn hard to get to effective political legitimacy across the entire populace from such an illegitimate start point.

We in the west often miss the main point on legitimacy because we apply the wrong definition. We apply the one that supports and validates our actions. That is not the one that rules among the affected populaces in these places where we opt to intervene. Political legitimacy cannot be granted or declared, it must be earned. Our very presence is perhaps the greatest obstacle to getting to stability in Afghanistan. That is is a pill we need to swallow (along with our pride).

The "experts" have been very, very wrong on this.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I agree, and you even beat me to my second point.

Comparing the situations in Afghanistan and say, Libya or Syria, legitimacy helps clarify the distinction. In Syria the government was seen as legitimate but lost that legitimacy over years as the population's ideas on legitimacy changed from an ethnic monarchy to ... I am not really sure. Something more representative perhaps, but only time will really tell.

In the case of Afghanistan the people's idea of legitimacy probably never changed. A foreign power created a government built on a representative form of legitimacy but that is not really what the people want. In both cases there is a disconnect, but in the case of Syria the people's view changed but the government did not change with it. In the case of Afghanistan the government's form of legitimacy changed but the population's concept did not change with it.

The lesson to be learned is that the people trump the government. You can maintain a government through power but power does not grant legitimacy. Even dictators (or invading armies) endeavor to claim some form of legitimacy.