Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

[Bill Moore]

The American Revolution did not spontaneously spring from American Soil,

No one ever said it the ideas that were the basis for the revolution sprung spontaneously from American soil. I specifically pointed out that people migrated to the colonies to pursue certain freedoms, so obviously the "idea" existed before they arrived. A man in Mao's China can dream about being free, but he nor others pursued a revolution to realize their dream, so the idea wasn't a revolution. If enough men in China had the dream and a catalyst drove them to action, then we would see a revolution. The idea created the fertile soil the revolution evolved from.

Your posts on the Magna Carta were about its impact on the American Revolution and its subsequent development as a nation based on the rule of law. However, as I stated when the Magna Carta was written that wasn't the idea, it was simply a document resolve a conflict between the King and the Barrons. It didn't change the feudal system in England. That happened many, many years later. Was it part of the historic thread that contributed to the revolution? Definitely. Was it a revolution when it was written? No.

Recall that the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment followed the Magna Carta and preceded our Revolution by a few hundred years.

And your point is? Of course world history existed before our revolution and the ideas from the these movements contributed to our revolutionary thought, but in know way does that subtract from the significance of our revolution.

Off topic, but I find it interested you list a series of Protestant Revolutions and then show the Scientific Revolution thread. Putting it in context it is amazing that science eventually flourished in a society where free thinking was oppressed by religious ideology. That to me is the most amazing aspect. Whether revolutions or transitions societies are always undergoing deep change, but often it is not recognized until it is the rear view mirror.

[Surferbeetle]

And your point is?

The revolutionary idea and the act, although separated in time, are inseparably linked.

In this particular case, the American Revolution, we are the ones who fully operationalized the idea (Magna Carta - 1215) of telling royalty that their services were not required (1776).

That's why I hopped in with the Victor Hugo quote way back when.

Done.

[ganulv]

The revolutionary idea and the act, although separated in time, are inseparably linked.

In this particular case, the American Revolution, we are the ones who fully operationalized the idea (Magna Carta - 1215) of telling royalty that their services were not required (1776).

The resemblance of 13th century England to the 13th century England imagined by the Founding Fathers is perhaps better than the resemblance of 7th century Arabia to the 7th century Arabia imagined by the Taliban. Perhaps.

[Bill Moore]

The revolutionary idea and the act, although separated in time, are inseparably linked.

Agreed and also done on that point.

However, getting back to my original point I think there is something else we may be missing that permits the idea to be operationalized. There are conditions in society that create the will to act, and those conditions must be more than an abusive government because many people don't rise up against abusive governments. I suspect those conditions vary significantly in each case, but a topic worth discussing if it leads to greater understanding.

While revolution may not be right word, it is close. In my view we "imposed" a social and political revolution upon both Iraq and Afghanistan. The conditions were not right in either country for synergy to develop with their populace, thus no shinning city on the hill after years of sacrifice. In our UW Doctrine we used to teach (suspect they still do) you as the foreigner can't start a revolution, but you can support one. Not so sure that is a law, but rather something that is generally true, yet if we're going to continue to pursue these idealistic foreign policies, then it may be worth considering how to make a population receptive to revolutionary ideas and ready to act when the catalyst is presented (JDAMs dropping their nation's security forces). I know this is an extreme idea, but maybe extreme ideas are called for if this continues to be our mission. I don't think our current approach is working well if at all.

[Bob's World]

America likes stability and certainty in the locations around the planet where we perceive our interests to manifest.

One major component of our current challenges in the post Cold War era is that in many of those locations populaces are evolving in their expectations of governance more rapidly than the "US-approved" systems of governance that serve them. Those systems that have the flexibility to evolve in nature along with the evolving expectations of their populaces are doing better than those that rigidly seek to sustain some status quo of governance as defined by those who control the government. But changes are so rapid that all systems are struggling to some degree. Flexible systems are being bent, rigid systems are breaking.

All of that leads to instability and uncertainty, and that makes America nervous, so we launch into a massive program of excessive engagement to seek to re-establish the stability and certainty that we have come to see as so essential to our interests. It is an unsustainable situation.

We are fairly flexible at home, but very rigid abroad. A mix of domestic bending and foreign breaking. If we could only learn to allow others the same fundamental principles we demand for ourselves we would be less compelled to overly engage those breaking systems abroad, and there would likely then be less bending at home. Instead we over-engage and see the solution as pushing modern US values rather than simply allowing classic US principles. But to allow the latter is to relinquish the control and certainty we see as so essential to making our current system work.

We need to think about "stability" differently. It is not just a "phase" or an "operation" that we can conduct to "fix" an unstable situation. In fact, such operations more often than not only serve to suppress the current set of challengers to the existing unstable situation. They freeze instability rather than produce stability, then require constant input of energy to sustain that unnatural condition.

We also need to learn to deal better with, and fear less, "uncertainty." Become less of a control freak. The problem is that we have become so intertwined in the governances of some places that relinquishing control is labeled as "abandonment." Big corporations love certainty as well, and the pressure they apply to sustain status quo relationships does not help either.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do believe we need a new model better tuned for the world we live in today. That the model we apply was designed for a world that no longer exists. It demands too much energy (measured in money, engagement, influence, etc) to sustain, and as it is inappropriate for the emerging world it actually serves to make us less secure rather than more secure through its execution.

This leads us back to Afghanistan and this thread. We emplaced and now protect a system that we think will give us the stability and certainty WE "need" and are therefore reluctant to pull way back on all of the programs we are applying there to make the current system work, and to instead focus our energy on an approach designed to allow the current system to evolve to a more natural state.

[davidbfpo]

Meantime after the recent diversion back to Afghanistan:

In a rare interview, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, the powerful northern warlord who was a key US ally against the Taliban and threw his support behind President Karzai at the last election, gives an interview at his Kabul home.

Slightly strange IMO, but as General Dostum rarely gets such attention worth adding here. Plus I thought he was taking a sabbatical in Turkey.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...id-Dostum.html

I am sure the General is well versed in Afghanistan's equivalent of constitutional and social propriety.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Afghans, Crocker said, have "been there and done that. ... No one wants to go back to that." Instead, he said, major politicians from various ethnic groups want to have a voice in their nation's affairs — but not at the point of a gun. And, said Crocker, because the Taliban and its allies "are equal opportunity killers" who victimize all groups, they have "actually been a unifying factor" in Afghanistan.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/30/157580...ry-achievement

See also: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ns?ft=1&f=1001

That is where the actual quote is above is from. Second article is on a report that indicates that our nation building efforts are largely for naught since they will come to fruition too late and they are unsustainable by the Afghans.

the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction warned in a report released today that U.S.-funded construction projects now underway in Afghanistan that are costing hundreds of millions of dollars are behind schedule and may not be finished before U.S. combat forces depart. And that means, the report said, that the projects may not be "viable or sustained by the Afghan government after completion."

"Implementing projects that the Afghan government is unable to sustain may be counterproductive to the [counterinsurgency] strategy," the inspector general reported, as they raise Afghans' hopes for electricity and other basic necessities only to dash them later.

[jcustis]

Col Jones, that is an excellent explanation of the problems we incur and endure. It makes for the stuff of a political science textbook that you really ought to get around to writing, because it makes for a very resilient predictive model.