The tragedy of Afghanistan is that the Taliban has a better co-ordinated political and military strategy than we do
Daniel Korski 8:59pm
Two words that are repeated everywhere you go in Afghanistan are “comprehensive” and “integrated”. The thinking is that the international community must act in a comprehensive and integrated manner, ensuring that military and civilian activity work together. From the NATO commander’s intent down to every visitor’s presentation, these words are repeated ad nauseam. Even President Obama stuck them into his speech outlining his new strategy.
But as with most things, they are easier said than done. Around Kabul where the French patrol, they talk about working with civilians, but the general in charge does not even have a development adviser on his staff. In the north, coordination between the military and civilians amount to information-sharing rather than working towards a jointly agreed goal. Though General McKiernan, the over-all NATO commander, is clear on what he wants his actual influence over the regional command is quite limited.
The biggest problem is that the enemy is far more comprehensive than the international coalition. Counter-insurgency is in large part about spinning – spinning successes, looses and influencing audiences in theatre and abroad. In this, the Taliban excel. To put it in military terms, psychological operations are an integral part of their military strategy, not—as they are with NATO—an after-thought. They strike not necessarily to achieve a decisive effect but to create the impression of one.
Then comes the sequence of military and civilian activities. Interestingly, just like the British government has struggled to get DfiD, the FCO and the military to collaborate so had the Taliban. Their military and political operations were often out of synch. Now, however, they have brought their different activities under a French-style “prefect” in each district, who has control of both military and political activities. Their operations are now joined-up. Ours remain disjointed. For example, the Coalition targets the Taliban’s military wing but have not gone after its political operation.
With Obama’s planned twin surges, one civilian and one military, this may change. It will have to if the Coalition hopes to succeed.
Previous
TrevorsDen
March 29th, 2009 9:24pm Report this commentSaying the Taliban are better co-ordinated is not saying much.
the taliban know all they have to dom to wear is down in the long term is to inflict a steady stream of pointless deaths on our troops.
So what do we do? We go out of our way to put our troops into vulnerable vehicles where they can be pointlessly blown up and fail to provide suitable helicopter alternatives.
Oh and we overstrech our troops somthat they do not g et sufiicient rest and turnaround thus encouraging them to leave.
Oh what a lovely war.
Nicholas Langman
March 30th, 2009 1:00am Report this commentJust as we would support our own people against an invasion, so we should support the Afghans in their struggle against Nato. As TrevorsDen says above: Oh what a lovely war.
Austin Barry
March 30th, 2009 8:19am Report this commentThe West's military build-up in Afghanistan has only one long-term function: to establish a tooled-up base for a war on Pakistan when the Taliban assume de facto control.
Austin Barry
March 30th, 2009 8:51am Report this commentThe West's military build-up in Afghanistan is essentially to establish a tooled-up base for a war against Pakistan when the Taliban assume de facto control of the nuclear-armed Dystopia.
EC
March 30th, 2009 9:44am Report this commentThe more I wonder WHY the troops are over there the more I am tempted to believe that it is to prevent them doing anything decisive about the deteriorating situation over here, and that Afghanistan is neither here nor there.
Dirk Blade
March 30th, 2009 10:46am Report this commentDaniel: Where the interests of agencies inside PAK coincide with those of the Taliban, there is the natural co-operation that arises from self-interest that needs no memorandum of understanding. Bereft of mutual interest, NATO needs the wholly artificial sort of alliance that has to be delivered by summits, press briefing and leaking, and back-room bribery.
The Taliban(s) are not trying to fight in the context of a coalition where the will to succeed is undermined at every turn by national caveats and a domestic public that is vigorously opposed where it is not utterly bored - largely because the governments that took them into the engagement never bothered to make and sustain a convincing case for the venture; and who fail, understandably, to see the benefits of this massive cost.
The NATO effort in AFG is the reductio ad absurdum of the internationalist approach. I was listening to the profile of Richard Holbrooke on R4 yesterday, and if ever there were a manifestation of wrong-headed, internationalist thinking, his appointment embodies it. This is manifestly NOT a diplomatic problem as these people understand it: when the 'great men' interact, they are not doing so as 'legitimate' representatives of the peoples over whose future they negotiate, and who have very little power to implement the decisions of any quorum they attend. This approach is failing even in the Balkans, where there was a degree of legitimacy for men like Karadzic, who could argue to have the interests of their ethnic groups at heart: bluff and coercion could deliver an end to violence, but not the creation of a workable post-war environment.
But the 'great men' in the AFG-PAK region do not speak for or represent those who hold the monopoly on violence; and those who hold that monopoly have no obvious interest in using it for the benefit, however distant, of the peoples of AFG/PAK.
@Nicholas Langman: So are you volunteering to enlist in AQ or to join the Taliban? Or to send them funds? Or to join the Afghan National Army or Afghan Police Force, which hold their staff to a far higher level of accountability, and who support a democratically-elected government?
Just curious.
TrevorsDen
March 30th, 2009 10:47am Report this commentDo not quote me mr Langman - I think we should be in Afghanistan. It is a UN mandated with the support of the local government.
But by 'we' I think it should be ALL of NATO.
And I think we should only do what we can do properly and we should do it honestly not the way this govt is doing. And we need to properly gear up our armed forces for the threats they face now - not 10 years ago or some mythical future.
And Mr Berry if the West were really 'building up' we would be in a better position.
Back to top