Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A new language for the Afghan conflict

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 07:41 PM
Original message
A new language for the Afghan conflict
President Obama is currently considering General Stanley McChrystal's report on Afghanistan, which may result in sending up to 40,000 more troops. Yet there is a more basic and vital step to be taken before any new strategy is authorised: the lexicon must change, and with it the "big army" mentality and its comfortable, quantitative metrics.

Insurgencies are political affairs. The military can hold the ring (and Britain's armed forces chief, Sir Jock Stirrup, rightly insists the mission is still "do-able") but the solutions will be political. Terminology is important because it shapes the thinking. Talk of "defeating" the Taliban implies – to quote Nato's definition of defeat – "diminish the effectiveness of the enemy to the extent that he is unable to participate further in the battle or at least cannot fulfil his intention". In reality, all that needs to happen is for the other side to stop fighting, whether that is from logistic inability, sullen acceptance of incapacity, population disaffection or active embrace of the Afghan government's offer.

A new dialectic must be introduced. Rather than "defeating" an insurgency, it must be "dispelled" – to be defined (I would suggest) as "a reduction in effective capability through multiple lines of operation such that the insurgency loses the consent of the population". That's an indefinite, qualitative standard – one reason that soldiers are uncomfortable with it. Experience from Yemen, Northern Ireland, Dhofar and Iraq has shown that the "enemy" may not go away – indeed may evolve into criminal activity – but the general population rejects its cause, and it is unable to function coherently.

This is not to say that violence plays no role: where force is the currency, that is the coin Isaf must use. But the violence must be tightly focused on the recalcitrant elements, and the innocent Afghan population must be protected and nurtured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/11/afghan-conflict-strategy-afghanistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC