Center for a New American Security

I do seriously believe that we are following the "Triage" strategy which precludes personalizing the conflict, wasting resources on one man. As per the example of Zarquarwi that you and the Triage paper cite. I reluctantly endorse this conclusion. My only reluctance being irrational - I hate their leadership far more than their foot soliders, who are basically ignorant, brainwashed, or poor and desparate.

I do have this question/suggestion - based only on what I read and research since I have been to Astan (and don't want to) why can't we emulate the Taliban's practices of recruiting Afghan's? It seems so much more so intelligent, flexible and better at reading and using the human terrain? It appears to me from afar that they may be recruiting a higher quality of Afghan. Yes they have the home field advantage but 1) were 7.5 years into this and 2) once again lets remember there are many Pakistani's and no doubt more than a few Afghans in the USA. Read "Defending the City" by C. Dickey. One of the most important and intelligent steps Kelly and the NYPD took was too mine the rich ethnic ore of NYC's immigrant community. Something the national level still can't seem to adopt.

His death probably wouldn't do much on its own to damage his faction, but if members of opposing factions such as the one led by the late Qari Zainuddin* were to kill him it might lead to a damaging enough struggle for the U.S to take advantage of. If it were a drone that killed we really don't know what the consequences would be.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/pakistans-taliban-baitullah-...

Zarqawi,

Lately, every time this comes up, I keep thinking of that morally smug little snark of an intel interrogator who wrote a book modestly titled " How to Break a Terrorist", by the man who "got" Zarqawi by inviting all the chics, oh excuse me Sheiks to Chai parties, etc. Apologizing for not respecting culture, blah, etc. And above all not torturing terrorists.*

Yeah. They got him. Well after he accomplished his strategic goal of starting a civil war between Shia and Sunni (whether or not it was wise, that was his goal. Stated in captured letters made public prior to his death). After he blew the mosque of the Golden Dome, and three years of work went up with it.

Kind of tangential, but it's been pissing me off.

*No. We don't do that. That's for ______, _________, __________,__________.

AM is still right not to make it personal. Although this guy threatened DC directly..so...we'll see.

We do love to put a specific name and face to an enemy. Osama bin Laden himself comes to mind.

Did we ever finish rounding up the entire 52 from that deck of cards back in '03? I lost track.

...to warm the cockles of even the coldest COINdinista hearts:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...anistan08.html

"CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — U.S. Marines trapped Taliban fighters in a residential compound and persuaded the insurgents to allow women and children to leave. The troops then moved in — only to discover that the militants had slipped out, dressed in burqas, the loose enveloping robes some Muslim women wear.

"The fighters, who may owe their lives to the new U.S. commander's emphasis on limiting civilian casualties, were among hundreds of militants who have fled the offensive the Marines launched last week in southern Helmand province."

But I do like it, Grant. It is evidence that our statements of intent are supported by action. Apologies if my introduction seem flippant.

I do wonder what might have happened to the women who left if the Taliban were indeed in their midst and using them as cover to escape. I suppose all we can do is hope for the best.

To clarify my own position (philosophy follows) -

I believe it's foolish to expect or predict success for any given strategy or tactic - which is different then saying any specific strategy or tactic shouldn't be tried. But very few people with any experience express unqualified belief in the inevitable success of any plan at it's outset in the first place. "Worth trying" or "best option available" is about as far as anyone can reasonably go. Unreasonable people will also support the effort, however.

On the other hand, there's no shortage of those who will predict inevitable failure and disaster for the specific strategy or tactic. They may or may not have a different plan in mind; their motives may be clear or not, as might their intentions. For various reasons some will accuse others of painting "rosy scenarios" for merely saying some version of the reasonable statements I used above. (Being compared to the unreasonable members of that first group will annoy the reasonable members beyond belief. This will increase the glee with which some will do it.) Another large percentage of people will simply declare the whole thing a waste of time from which we should flee. In time the distinction between people described in this paragraph ("group B") especially when viewed by those in the previous paragraph ("group A") will blur, and vice-versa. Because group B is confident they will be loud - both adjectives relative to group A, whose best response will be some version of "shut up and let us fight the war." (But the unreasonable group A members will make unreasonable arguments that the reasonables will then be accused of supporting.)

On the battlefield we'll try things out, the enemy will respond, we will adapt or die. Each adaptation will be declared a small victory for group B. Ultimately, whether we adapt and win or lose, group B will claim they were right all along. Group A-reasonables will just be glad it's over. No one will care what the group A-unreasonables think or say.

In the real world we just completed that process with Iraq (this is different than saying Iraq is "over") and folks are switching teams for Afghanistan. I did the best I could to be a group-A reasonable member throughout Iraq (probably failed from time to time), and intend to do the same for Afghanistan. (Yes, I know it isn''t the "new" war - but then again it is.)

So for those new to the group, welcome aboard. It sucks and the abuse is unrelenting. We're a minority, get used to it.

More on topic at hand:

"we should probably not expect too much impact from the killing of any single bad guy or make his elimination a centerpiece of U.S.-Pakistani counter-Taliban strategy."

Agree. But who gets to decide? I say media coverage of Zarqawi made him a focus beyond military reality, that Americans want (or need) a "bad guy", and the media provides (and the military plays along to an extent). Then when we get him, the media points out why he really wasn't all that.

You can replace "bad guy" with hero in the above, too.

How did Mehsud become an enemy of the American people.? How will his death make us any more secure from the AQ threat?
How cost effective are these man hunts?
Why doesn't anybody ever discuss why we are killing people rather than how we kill them.
It's so friggin simplistic to call him a bad guy - !
COIN and COIN in AFGH is a cruel hoax played on the Amer/Afgh peoples.
jim hruska

"So for those new to the group, welcome aboard. It sucks and the abuse is unrelenting. We're a minority, get used to it."

Oh, Greyhawk, I thought I was a 'group A - reasonable' all along, but, now, I don't know anymore, sometimes I slip into one or the other category. I get a kind of intellectual whiplash reading things around here. I was reading, what was it, Pat Dollard's site, and in the middle of the post he describes some US irrigation projects from the 1950s-1960s? What will happen to our projects and our development after we eventually leave? Is it too early to think about that stuff? I guess I'm still roughly with elf and you and fnord, we should give the administration a chance*, but I am getting skeptical.

*I love Mudville Gazette, it is an amazing thing that you and Mrs. Greyhawk are doing. 'Read their stories' - maybe we all should be like that with everyone - everyone has a story and it's important. None of us is a statistic, or shouldn't be.

*Did Madhu actually write something positive about the Obama admin? Goodness. (Oh, and regarding my very gentle, er, 'all in good fun' criticisms, and regarding that whole 'think thank of the Obama admin,' thing. Well. Am I going to get audited or something? Because that would not the most fun I have ever had).

**I'm kidding around, right?

I agree in that these manhunts may not be worth the resources, time and energy that are spent in conducting them. But we shouldn't be lost on the political points that can be scored by the administration, the military, and the intelligence community if we were indeed to knock out Mehsud. You better believe that the following day this news would appear on the frontpage of cnn.com and become a major talking point amongst all the pundits. This would essentially validate the efficacy of these drone strikes and would likely be trumped by the policymakers in a big way. This would like produce a sizable increase in the frequency of these strikes as the administration, military, and intelligence officials can trump that they've neutralized the Pakistani Taliban's top leader through this strategy.

Re: Elf & the impossible standard
I agree with all these statements: We can't become that which we fight against and win. War involves killing. There will be collateral damage including death.

"The USMC lost it's mind over Haditha"

Did they? I'm not implying they didn't - I actually don't know. I know the Marines involved (save one, last I heard) were found guilty in the court of public opinion and not guilty in any real court* - but did the USMC overreact? Did some broad, sweeping, and damaging (yet group-B appeasing) policy changes ensue that actually extended hostilities?

Looking forward, in the event of an ROE/EOF incident in Afghanistan, who is going to play the critical "Jack Murtha" role? (I don't think it will be Jack Murtha.) Who will play "the mob"?

*Not to say they weren't "punished".

Geoff,
"...if we were indeed to knock out Mehsud. You better believe that the following day this news would appear on the frontpage of cnn.com and become a major talking point amongst all the pundits..."

No offense intended, but you're mistaking something that matters to you (and me and others here) for something that would be "newsworthy" in the broader sense. Short of OBL I think not.

And I maintain that in the wake of the Zarqawi strike (valid historical precedent) the media focus was on why it didn't matter - or even why things would now be much worse. There are those who predicted an opposite result, but I don't recall anyone extending that argument to something approaching "we should therefore bomb our way to victory". But you're implying that would be the case in the future.

Kilo is right in saying (re: Zarqawi) "There was a period there when his name was included in every single mention of a bombing, regardless of who blew up or where. There were 16 different Sunni groups couldn't get props for anything they did" but while that implies a message that "if only we killed him things would be better" that does not mean anyone saying "he's worth killing" is justifying it for that reason. Likewise, stating "his death won't have that great an impact" doesn't imply "he should be left alone". However, there were those who argued that killing him would only make things worse (which is certainly close to saying "he should be left alone"). There are valid concerns underlying that, and one can argue that it did, citing "violence metrics" to support the claim. But I say the "awakening movement" - which followed closely on the heels of the Zarqawi strike and is often cited as a response to AQI violence - can't be ignored in the discussion. To be a bit more bold: killing him was a net positive.

One more consideration: any argument made in regards to Zarqawi - or any other specific "target" - may or may not reflect one's position on "targeting" (via air strike or otherwise) as a tactic. Point being, there's a broad spectrum of opinion on the effectiveness of "targeting". If you're at one end of that spectrum, that's fine. But I wouldn't justify moving there out of fear that others may be clamoring for a move to the other end.

@ ELF, THE MAN!!!

Re: the impossible standard we the US are held to vs. no standard for our enemies, indeed celebration of their depravities - why not challenge this instead of accepting it? Why are we simply ceding moral ground in the face of sophistic lawyers and the gibbons of the chattering classes - both of whom contain a most unhealthy share of demon groupies.

I can understand concerns about going too far, who are we, etc....but face the facts. We are held to an impossible standard because we've been conditioned from grade school on to simply accept PC platitudes without arguing. That's cowardly and dishonest. It's also the main cause of our near defeats (Iraq) and impending debacle in AF/PAK. A lot of dead and maimed American kids in Iraq were due to the ROE - ROE that often changed. Then there's more than a few kids that were subjected to UCMJ when they should not have been. The USMC lost it's mind over Haditha, NCIS had more people chasing Chessani then are probably looking for UBL, and it took a military judge slapping Command around to bring them to their senses.

If none dare call it treason, then at least call it idiotic, hypocritical, two faced, and call them out as the sexy beast groupies that are seeking to enable our enemies because they lack the balls to bear arms themselves.

Or - I indulge my gift of prophecy - get ready for KSM T-shirts and posters to start replacing Che Guevara on college walls. He's got the longer beard.

I agree 100% !! I would also point out the obvious because in the "ivy League" it is commonly missed. When you kill a leader you feed the movement by making a "hero" It isn't PEOPLE we are fighting. It is an Ideology THAT'S WHAT WE MUST DEFEAT.

Jim,

Yes, we are in their AO for a reason. First of all, the Taliban had the choice to turn over UBL or be taken out. They chose to be taken out. We are in the Afghanistan AO, not the Taliban's. It belongs to the Afghani people. We are trying to help a failed state recover. Should they have elections and decide to make themselves some other form, that's their business. I don't think we'll stop them. You're right, though. At the end of the day, we are leaving and they weill remain there until the next super power invades them later in history.

Counterinsurgency has nothing to do with what form of government they have. If anything, it tends not to be as much a democracy than it does socialist, IMHO. You're comparing apples and oranges. COIN should not be considered a strategy but a tactic.

I think it would be an interesting study to "what if" the American Revolution in the area of counterinsurgency. Maybe, had the British not been so arrogant and heavy handed unnecessarily, they could have convinced the Colonies that living under the Crown would be beneficial. However, the reality was that it was the French who supported us and we won our freedom. The Colonists and militia fought beyond the technology of the day. All the best England had to offer was not enough to defeat the will of the American people.

Let's take that same example in Afghanistan. Look at the way the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Very similiar to the way England treated the Colonists. Heavy handed and arrogantly. The US came in differently. We were surgical, going after only those who we needed. We did not target civilians as a rule. We are fighting, now, with a three pronged aproach. One with the might of the military, second with the civil military consideration, and third with the civilian support for government and business. That's what counterinsurgency is all about. Like it or not, we're in the nation building business. I'm not sure I like it, either, but if we're going to commit to it, we had better be prepared to make it work. Afghanistan is a recovering failed state. Just like a recovering alcoholic, it's easy to go back to old habits, especially when you're being encouraged by the same people you used to hang around (i.e. this case, the Taliban).

As far as working on this country. That's another subject complete. We have poverty stricken cities in the US. Until we can encourage the small businesses to hire, again, there is little to be done. If the government gets involved, they will never get out. We need to do more to encourage them to work themselves out. No hand outs.

Chris

"The US came in differently. We were surgical, going after only those who we needed. "

Right. And the containers full of humans that got bullet-riddled by the Northern Alliance was a clear precise surgical strike. And all the tales of randomly arrested folks who have been tortured in Bangram only to be found innocent never happened. And no wedding-parties were ever hurt. Stop buying your own propaganda, and see it from a Afghan perspective: You came in and reinstated the same old warlords that the Talebs had kicked out in the first place. You took sides in a civil war, from a Pashtun pov. They dont read NY Times over there, you know. They rely on their own perceptions.

FNORD,
Thanks for the supporting fire. Yep, we in the US live comfortably with the idea of killing wogs etc.. we had great practice with the native Indians, which we genocided but now were sparkling white warriors. Protect us from good men willing to blithly kill. But again killing is good when it's for COIN, whatever that is.!?
Chris,
And in what COIN Bible do you extract the mission that the US is responsible to help develop failed states?Somehow that got left out of Obama's Oath Of Office. Our Pres is responsible for US'ns and not thems.
Have you ever heard of the United Nations- an organisation that should address this issue were it not for the fact that the US denigrates their existence and ignores this fact. Nato does not have any legitimacy in the AFGH AO and only muddies the water. All i'm trying to say is that it's not our problem. Do the COIN people ever take their helmets off and look at the state of America? Why not fly over our cities in a drone and look at the poverty that is clearly evident. Let's get real and mind our own garden. I personally don't care about the AFGH or Iraqi people, it's not my concern or mandate.
Let's ask a simple question-when did the Soviet Union self destruct and why? Does excessive military spending pop into your mind.?
COIN is a hustle.
Again fnord-thanks.
jim hruska at rangeragainstwar.com
jim

To all;
sorry about the repetitive posts. I'm having computer problems. my apologies.
jim hruska

For Fnord:

Containers full of humans...

You mean Taliban who had brutally murdered Afghans who didn't prescribe to their version of Islam?

There were people who were arrested and interogated. If they were innocent, they went free.

It's war. Sometimes wedding parties get hit, civilians are accidentally killed. It's messy.

Yes, we did reinstate warlords the Taliban kicked out. The enemy of the enemy is my friend. We did take sides in a civil war. We supported the NA because they were against the Taliban who was our target in the first place.

Surely, you don't think war is clean, neat and tidy, do you? War's hell. I hate that it happens but when it does, we must play to win.

Coin-operator: But we were not discussing the general nature of war. We were discussing the differences between the russian approach and the US approach as seen from the side of the oppos. For everyone we allowed to be tortured and killed without any trial in the beginning of the war (and since, Bangram still operates as usual despite Obamas socalled stop to torture) we created a story among his kit and kin wich runs directly contrary to your story of a focused human invasion. Rummys "stuff happens"-doctrine all over again. And thats the story that has been running for 7 years straight now, and noone has been persecuted by our sides for those acts. The moral superiority that the west claims over the russians will be seen differently from the ground. Not that it to some extent isnt real, at least in scale of killing, but the approach is still the same: We failed to honour our enemies, and let our dogs loose on them without any restraint. It was a classic bloody mistake, just as the lack of funding of the Phase IV was. And just as the lack of funding for UN efforts in Swat is, leaving various Talebans to provide the aid needed.. (Only a 5th of promised funding has come through, and my country has provided roughly a tenth of that). We are shooting ourselves in the foot again and again because of a macho attitude, and its sickening to see.

@ The jet set here.
I would also point out the obvious because in the "ivy League" it is commonly missed. When you kill a leader you feed the movement by making a "hero" It isn't PEOPLE we are fighting. It is an Ideology THAT'S WHAT WE MUST DEFEAT.

It is an Ideology Not a people. Why don't you concentrate on finding a solution for that?

In re to Coinoperator07, I personally think we should have at least tried to force them to show more loyalty to the national government. I know that Afghanistan is not a place conducive to centralized governments, but if we believe Ahmed Rashid (and I have no reason not to given his experience at all levels of Pakistan/Afghanistan) then there never was a real effort to even create something similar to the Holy Roman Empire.

In re to Visitor ad lib, we are in the nation building business right now. numerous papers, studies, and monographs in and out of the executive office are being created on how to rebuild nations (my personal favorite is RAND's Beginners Guide to Nation-Building). Simply because we made a spectacular failure at it for several years doesn't mean we aren't trying to do it.

Finally in re to POM, you don't really fight ideologies in the sense that you can destroy them. In counterinsurgencies you generally try to separate the populace from the hard core base (by defending the populace or by forcing them to move, both have worked) and you try to develop those areas to prove to them that your system can produce benefits. That doesn't mean that you should stop trying to kill the higher ups, if they die and less talented replacements appear they might start fighting with each other thereby damaging the entire threat. Of course the problem with the bombings is that you aren't really defending civilians.

The most committed wins........The enemy of my enemy is my friend.......... till we win then I kill him.

The preceding brought to you by the ME. Enjoy.

News from 4 April
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512537,00.html

"A Pakistani Taliban militant leader has claimed responsibility for the attack on a U.S. immigration center in New York state in which 13 people were killed, Reuters reported.

"'I accept responsibility. They were my men. I gave them orders in reaction to U.S. drone attacks,' Baituallah Mehsud told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location on Saturday."

Actually the attack was carried out by a Vietnamese immigrant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5324JP20090404

Given that Mehsud is being described as an updated version of the Dark Avenger virus, just something to consider when determining his worth. Clearly he gains "respect" and perhaps a recruiting boost by building his legendary status, but did Reuters contact him or vice-versa?

Just something to make you go "hmmmm..."

But kill him if you see him, says I.

What you can't respond to me ? or are you afraid to?