was probably better said here:
Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
And neither are you, Gian. You both are offering reductionist viewpoints poised against a red herring reductionist view.

I agree that we need a clear view of Afghanistan. War is war is not a good start.

Tom
The argument was framed in ways that seemingly reject a large body of thought and practice with some relatively smug comments that are equally simplistic and reductionist as that accused of the other camp:
""COIN-oil" folks"

Gian Gentile's post acknowledges that both killing and "hearts and minds" were used, but then states: "war is war, it is not "armed social science," and real war, not happy war sold through clever-speak of "hearts and minds" language involves killing and death. And in actuality the historical models that we use to prop up this ostensible notion of "hearts and minds" were won through killing and destruction that broke the back of the resistance." Again, his own post shows that it is not either-or, but he ends with a statement that makes it seem like "hearts and minds" is a crock. I'd agree that imagining that you can win a war through hearts and minds alone is insane, but who is really arguing that you can fight COIN by hearts and minds alone?

The article rejects hearts and minds as a pipe dream: "A hearts-and-minds approach is predicated on the proposition that we foreign, Western, culturally Christian, invaders can persuade a sizeable proportion of the Pashtun population to cut themselves off from their cultural roots; subject themselves to an equally foreign and incomprehensible form of government resting largely on the customs of the tribes of pre-Roman Germany; and abandon their cultural birthright of unrivalled hegemony over “Pashtunistan”. To do this we offer some new buildings, some cash and more reliable electricity—none of which have been important to them so far in their history." This is a strawman argument. The hearts and minds he describes is of course a failing proposition. Yet, securing the population by killing, then staying, and helping to rebuild, while working to show why it is good to have you around is a good "hearts and minds" campaign. You aren't going to get Pashtuns to be eager "little Americans" but you can show them why it is worth their while to have you around.

At the end, I guess I just don't understand who is advocating a purely hearts and minds approach that doesn't advocate killing the insurgents to secure the population as an integral and primary goal. Unless there are large bodies of military leaders and policymakers that think you can "win" without killing by "winning hearts and minds", it seems that Kelley's argument is framed against a straw man. And I'd also like to know what his vision of winning is since he labels his article as "How to Win in Afghanistan."

To me, it is disturbing that such a reductionist argument is still ongoing 8 years into this fight. I would think that people would be arguing more about details rather than whether "hearts-and-minds" snake oil salesmen or people properly focused on killing and war as war has been for 3000 years are right. You need both and need to properly integrate all of your means and that is where the discussion should be: integration and synergy of the different means and ways.