Close, But Not Quite

By Lt Col P

BZs to Anne Applebaum for coming very close to scoring a direct hit on the strategy for Afghanistan. She has, however, made two errors.

First, it'll need to be the Afghan police, not the army, that ultimately wins the war. A counterinsurgency is at heart a police matter, even if it's military units that might appear to be in the lead from time to time, or indeed for much of the time. For a properly constituted police force, of whatever form, is drawn from and has the trust of the people it lives and works among. A policeman's primary weapon is his badge (or equivalent), which represents the moral authority of the government. (The soldier's primary weapon is his weapon.) A competent and clean police force is, at any rate, the ideal and the goal, and it ought to be pursued as the ultimate security enabler.

Second, the real objective of the US and NATO is V-I-C-T-O-R-Y. Not simply an exit, but a clear-cut win. If we win, the exit becomes a simple matter. If we don't win outright, the exit is just lipstick on a pig.

February 10, 2009 05:11 PM Afghanistan ~ The Long War

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2033

Comments

Two problems. First, historically, the only times the Afghans have been unified is when they're fighting an outsider... be that British, Soviet, or American.

In the 1980's, the Muj were united to fight the Soviets. It's not that they liked us... we just conveniently provided weapons to them so that they could kill Soviets.

In 2001, we simply took a side of a civil war. Our side won... at least for the first round. Brilliant victory, yes. However, it was left with an ambiguous future.

Second problem... define victory. One American a month being killed? The people hold succesful national elections for "x" years in a row? We kill all the Taliban?

One of the real sticky problems is that you cannot define victory or success. The current situation in Iraq does not meet the stated victory conditions (a stable democracy) as Bush put it in spring of 2003. However, it seems to be a workable situation and one in which I (as a veteran of that war) can look on with some sense of accomplishment (although it was a plenty f-ed up situation when I was there). Clearly, the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam. I say leave it to them to decide on their future.

Afghanistan is going to be a hard row for us. A very hard row.

And you're right, Colonel... in the end, it will be the police that matter.

Unless we will tolerate something other than a representative democracy to exist in Afghanistan. I'm still somewhat a supporter of the "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard" way of doing things. If that's what it takes to secure Afghanistan and keep it tamped down as a base for terror, I say so be it.

Obama's got a lot on his plate over the next couple of years. And I'm sure I have a first trip to the 'Stan coming in my not-so-distant future.

PSYOP Cop · February 11, 2009 05:30 PM