In the Arena

Afghanistan: A New Balance

The long-awaited battle for Kandahar Province has begun and Time’s Jason Motlagh is there, at the heart of the fight in the same Zhari district where I embedded last April. There is a larger story here, about a change in emphasis by General David Petraeus, from counterinsurgency toward counterterrorism, that Fred Kaplan laid out here last week, ably as ever. For those for whom this is gobbledygook, let me provide a quick field guide to tactics:

Counterterrorism is all about going after the bad guys, often using special ops teams to kill or capture Taliban cells (a process that has gone very well in recent months, because of improvements in U.S. intelligence capability).

Counterinsurgency means protecting and providing services for the good guys, the civilian population caught in the middle of the mess. This hasn’t gone so well because (a) it takes a lot of time and (b) it requires an effective local partner. Hamid Karzai’s government is not effective.

Petraeus is the King of Counterinsurgency, having co-written the manual. But he is also a pragmatist. And after five months on the ground in Afghanistan, he apparently has decided to ramp up the special ops, perhaps hoping to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table–a result much desired by the aforementioned Karzai. This has involved the increased use of airpower, and larger scale military sweeps. (It would be interesting to know how these operations are being conducted–the McChrystal Rules of Engagement were very strict, making the use of airpower near-impossible, in order to protect the civilian population.) It will also be interesting to see if, absent a real negotiation with the Taliban, these operations will have any long-term effect on the balance of power in the Pashtun lands. I’m hoping to get back to Afghanistan soon and see for myself.

Related Topics: counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, David Petraeus, Afghanistan, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “I’m hoping to get back to Afghanistan soon and see for myself.”

    Great, b/c I like my stenography firsthand.

  • pintortwo

    “You have to recognize also that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting… This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”
    - General David Petraeus
    (via Bob Woodward, link)

  • pintortwo

    Mr Klein, I haven’t been around lately, but, upon returning, it amazes me to see that you still don’t get it.
    .
    We are not countering terrorists- the Taliban have no history of terrorism, they didn’t collaborate with al Qaeda and they have no way of attacking us here. Further, our military will not defeat terrorism, if anything, it inspires more terrorists making us less safe (Rand, for instance, gives historical evidence showing that militarism is inneffective in combating terror and recommends a “a light U.S. military footprint or none at all” -link).
    .
    We are not countering insurgents- the Taliban are locals, we are the insurgents. They are indigenous people that resist an invading army, its military bases and the advances of an illegitimate government that we installed.
    .
    What we are doing is building a network of bases to stretch from the Horn of Africa to S Asia in order to “fight bad guys” and rouge governments there for the next 50 plus years, thereby making the region safe for capitalism and ushering in the New American Century of unipolar goodness– as envisioned by the neocons during the Clinton admin. Petraeus is making sure Obama finishes the job. The rest is a snow-job.

  • Cliff

    I’m sorry to go full metal Grammar Nazi on you, but this:
    .
    rouge governments
    .
    drives me up the wall.
    .
    It’s rogue governments.
    .
    .
    And I would argue that you can classify the Taliban as insurgents. That doesn’t necessarily make them bad guys, and it doesn’t justify an endless war.
    .
    The rest of your post I pretty much agree with.

  • tanboontee

    Precisely, Karzai’s government is ineffective. The world knows it, Americans know it, Washington knows it, who else does not?

    But is anyone doing anything about it?
    (btt1943)

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    Just keep looking JK, there is bound to be a pony in there somewhere.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    I dunno Cliff. I think Grammar Nazis were rouge.

  • apr2563

    Joe, can you tell us how well the counterinsurgency has evolved in Iraq? When you return from Afghanastan, bring the troops with you? They deserve a reprieve from the carnage they have been exposed to through 2 wars supported by their government and enabled by the media.

  • Cliff

    GRAAAAAAH!

  • herby002

    jcapan,

    The Grammar Nazi government was decidedly not rouge; they were adamantly ant-rouge communists.
    Their governing philosophy was schwarz.

  • stuartzechman

    That’s right, you can have your very own “New Balance” occupation policy for only 12 to 36 MIA*, low-interest financing available for a limited time, check your Congressperson for details!
    .
    *MIA = “Months In Afghanistan” at US$6 billion dollars a month
    .
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/08/afghanistan-war-costs-jump-congressional-report-shows/

  • michaelfury

    “This has involved the increased use of airpower”

    Brilliant. No need to “protect the civilan population”, after all.

    But be sure you kill everything that moves, because any surviving “terrorists” (family of the killed/maimed) will find that pipeline a long and winding target.

    ———————————–

    “The governor said that the villagers have brought two tractor trailers full of pieces of human bodies to his office to prove the casualties that had occurred,” Mr. Farahi said. “Everyone at the governor’s office was crying, watching that shocking scene.”

    “Mr. Farahi said he had talked to someone he knew personally who had counted 113 bodies being buried, including those of many women and children. Later, more bodies were pulled from the rubble and some victims who had been taken to the hospital died, he said.”

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/

blog comments powered by Disqus