Pat Lang: "Counterinsurgency – a much failed strategy?"

[Fuchs]

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...-strategy.html

Some time ago I was asked to encapsulate my views on the afghan policy situation. The resulting summary is quoted below. Since policy has clearly gone in a different direction I feel free to state my view for the record. pl

...

Conclusion

COIN is a badly flawed instrument of statecraft: Why?

- The locals ultimately own the country being fought over. If they do not want the “reforms” you desire, they will resist you as we have been resisted in Iraq and Afghanistan. McChrystal’s strategy paper severely criticized Karzai’s government. Will that disapproval harden into a decision to act to find a better government or will we simply undercut Afghan central government and become the actual government?

- Such COIN wars are expensive, long drawn out affairs that are deeply debilitating for the foreign counterinsurgent power. Reserves of money, soldiers and national will are not endless. Ultimately, the body politic of the counterinsurgent foreign power turns against the war and then all that has occurred has been a waste.

- COIN theory is predicated on the ability of the counterinsurgents to change the mentality of the “protected” (read controlled) population. The sad truth is that most people do not want to be deprived of their ancestral ways and will fight to protect them. “Hearts and Minds” is an empty propagandist’s phrase.

- In the end the foreign counterinsurgent is embarked on a war that is not his own war. For him, the COIN war will always be a limited war, fought for a limited time with limited resources. For the insurgent, the war is total war. They have no where to escape to after a tour of duty. The psychological difference is massive.

- For the counterinsurgent the commitment of forces must necessarily be much larger than for the insurgents. The counterinsurgent seeks to protect massive areas, hundreds of built up areas and millions of people. The insurgent can pick his targets. The difference in force requirements is crippling to the counterinsurgents.

What should we do?

- Hold the cities as bases to prevent a recognized Taliban government until some satisfactory (to us) deal is made among the Afghans.

- Participate in international economic development projects for Afghanistan.

- Conduct effective clandestine HUMINT out of the city bases against international jihadi elements.

- Turn the tribes against the jihadi elements.

- Continue to hunt and kill/capture dangerous jihadis,

How long might you have to follow this program? It might be a long time but that would be sustainable. A full-blown COIN campaign in Afghanistan is not politically sustainable.

W. Patrick Lang"

Sounds like in between the "Soviet" and the "CT" approach to me.

[jmm99]

No punditry or crystal balls to offer. The next 18 months will show whether Astan will follow Pat Lang's description of "COIN", or will follow Lang's own 5-point prescription. He might be surprised.

Anyway, one question:

What is the "Soviet" approach and what is the "CT" approach to you ?

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

"Soviet" was in this context the holding of cities, fighting on roads and rather rare excursions into the countryside (instead of 'ink blotting' the whole country).

"CT" in this context was the 'Biden' approach of focusing on CT ops - AQ hunt instead of holding much territory basically.


I think OEF/ISAF will at most become something that's "successful" enough to declare victory. There's imo no way how the net effects of waging war there vs. having left in '02 might become positive for us.
The whole Afghanistan involvement since '02 looks to me like an demonstration of political and military strategic incompetence and violation of oaths of office.

[J Wolfsberger]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

"Soviet" was in this context the holding of cities, fighting on roads and rather rare excursions into the countryside (instead of 'ink blotting' the whole country).

"CT" in this context was the 'Biden' approach of focusing on CT ops - AQ hunt instead of holding much territory basically.

Three seems to be a lot of empty space between those two approaches.