A threat-centric approach only delays the inevitable
This better than most gets to what is probably the biggest rock in my craw about SFA: It is premised on this VERY VERY flawed equation being true.Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
If you have defined the problem incorrectly, no matter how terrific your answer is to flawed analysis, you will have to be very lucky indeed for it to achieve your intended effect.
This is a very Threat-Centric perspective. Build the capacity of host nation security forces to (presumably physically) deny sanctuary to extremists and you win. I can't think of a single historic example of where this has achieved more than just a temporal effect. One has to address underlying causes of such populace-based conflict in order to achieve an enduring effect. Security is a supporting effort.
I would offer as a far more effective strategic equation: End ="Good"* Afghan Governance free from perceptions of US legitimacy = vastly reduced US footprint with complete subjugation of remaining US military operations being in support of Afghan security forces = focus on development of afghan governance as main effort with at least a half of foreign assistance to that end coming from (hold your breath - )Iran.
Key is to understand that "good governance" as used by me does not mean "effective" on some objective measurement of services, but subjectively how the populace feels about the governance. Populaces will rise up in insurgency when they perceive a major problem that they also perceive that they have not legimate means to resolve. So, success does not come from massive efforts to "fix" governance and battalions of "metrics" gathers; instead it comes from addressing perceptions, polling populaces to understand and facilitate host nation efforts to address their concerns, and ensuring that reliable mechanisms to address grievances exist.
One can graph out every single populace's relationship with its respecitve government on a simple x-y graph; with "violence" on the y-axis and "poor governance" on the x-axis. Most would plot in a big scatter in the lower left hand corner, but trending upward on the violence scale as one moves outward on the poor governance scale. To take a country like afghanistan and simply suppress the insurgent without addressing the conditions of poor governance merely artifically moves it staight down on the y-axis without moving back on the x-axis. Once that artificial suppression is removed (take Yugoslavia, for example) the violence will rapidly shoot straight back up to a high level.
As an interesting side note:
from a recent Gallup poll conducted in Afghanistan:
Single Greatest Problem for Afghans today (open-ended answers):
1. The Economy (41%)
2. Unemployment (16%)
3. Security (12%)
4. Rising and high living costs since international community presence (8.5%)
Lack of Leadership Alternatives:
Most Trusted Person in Afghanistan:
1. Karzai (25%)
2. No one (22%)
3. Ramazan Bashardost (7%)
4. Younus Qanoni (7%)
5. Ali Ahmad Jalali (6%)
Most desirable election outcome:
Who should be in charge of Afghanistan?:
1. New government (53%)
2. Foreign Forces NATO/ISAF (26%)
3. Present Government (10%)
4. Other (5%)
5. Clerics (1%)
6. Taliban (1%)
Importance and Popularity of Iran
How important for Afghanistan is a strong relationship with ____ country?
1. Iran (59%)
2. US (50%)
3. India & Pakistan (both on 45%)
Which country do you feel closest to? (open-ended answers):
- 41% of all responses put Iran as most admired country
- 62% have family connections in Iran
- 35% of Afghans would move to Iran as their first-choice destination
Role of the Taliban:
Is the Taliban having a negative effect on the country?
- Yes: 78%
Is Pakistan supporting the Taliban?
- Yes: 53%
US approval Rating:
- Even Split: 48% approve ; 48% disapprove
Bookmarks