Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
When Taliban reporting goes wrong...
The real subject of this post is communication, and when it all goes wrong.
Londonstani has spent most of the day confused by an interview in the Independent with Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb. The British soldier tasked with finding ways to make Afghan insurgents into ex-insurgents without resorting to the traditional military method of just killing them.
Was the general saying something radically new to warrant a headline that practically screamed "Army chief; "We must tackle Taliban grievences"? (note: shouldn't that be grievances?)
The first paragraph read: "The British commander tasked with helping to bring to an end eight years of war in Afghanistan by persuading the Taliban to lay down their arms believes many in the enemy ranks have "done nothing wrong".
Was he saying the Taliban weren't really all that bad. Was this some sort of pimped-up repeat of the embarrassing 2006 Musa Qila deal, where an agreement between locals and the British military resulted in the town falling to the Taliban?
Well, actually, Lamb was only repeating an idea that has become an accepted part of the tool box that will be employed in Afghanistan; most Taliban fighters aren't hardened terror-loving ideologues and are so open to being persuaded to lay down their weapons. The problem here is the reporting.
The way the first paragraph uses the phrase "done nothing wrong" and in the second paragraph, "Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb told The Independent that many in the Taliban's rank and file carry a sense of "anger and grievances which have not been addressed", makes it sound like the writer's trying to be ironic in that "how-could-they say-such-a-thing" sort of way.
The fuller quote which is lower down makes a bit more sense: "We need to take a good look at the people we consider to be our enemies. A lot of young men fighting us have not done anything wrong. They have anger and grievances which have not been addressed. The better life they expected has not materialised; these are the people we must talk to, but we must make sure we have something to offer them."
You mean, we need to understand the people we are fighting and figure out why they are doing it?.. okaay, that doesn't sound too stupid
The article is alarmist, inaccurate and destined to provoke knee-jerk reactions. And the reason for that is pretty mundane. The Independent doesn't get many exclusives. Lamb gave them his first interview since he was appointed to the post by Gen. McChrystal so they had to make a big deal out of it but were stuck because he didn't really offer anything news worthy (ie anything new), so they made hammed up the comments they had.
To get an idea of what sort of context his comments should have been seen in, have a look at the Reuters pick up of similar comments he gave to the BBC.
LONDON (Reuters) - A retired British general sent to Afghanistan to explore ways of negotiating with members of the Taliban said on Thursday money might convince young fighters to give up their arms.
While this is the AFP pick up of the comments from the Independent article itself (but without the hysteria and spin):
LONDON (AFP) – The British commander overseeing a programme of reconciliation with "moderate" Taliban fighters on Friday said talking with the rank-and-file was essential to ending the conflict.
Ahaa.. so it all sounds a whole lot less sexy now.
Part of the reason this has gotten way up Londonstani's nose, is that he was at a discussion in London attended by media types covering foreign affairs and a senior editor from the Independent spoke about the innate superiority of newspapers over blogs. Her point was that newspapers are staffed by trained professionals who are able to put comments in their proper context and provide the public with the information it needs to take positions on policies carried out in its name. Londonstani can only conclude that possibly the Independent's staff of trained professionals had the day off.
Afghanistan needs proper reporting, but this isn't it.
Londonstani used to love this newspaper as a kid.. please someone shut it and put it out of its misery
Every single day I see more
Every single day I see more evidence that Noam Chomsky was right in Manufacturing Consent.
Support those terrorists.
Support those terrorists.
I can't figure out the point
I can't figure out the point of your post. But nothing in this article surprises me.
Of course, most of the people in the Taliban have done "nothing wrong." 95% are rural, illiterate hicks, whose world-view barely extends beyond a 50km or so radius from their home village. They fight the US because the US is there, and overthrew the government they had from 1996-2001. That's why the Taliban fights. I'm glad to see that this British soldier is able to grasp that sense of nuance, in contrast to the pro-COIN lobbyists in the US, who don't seem to have a similar ability, and are dominated by old-school views of black and white, good vs evil.
Liberal Conspiracy reports
Liberal Conspiracy reports that the independent will be shut down in the next few months.
Agreed Londonstani. People
Agreed Londonstani. People should look at this insurgency and remember the insurgency in Iraq: a loose network of who knows how many interests who have found themselves on a side. Sure they could be "flipped." But then what? Can the US and Co really build an Afghanistan that is something to be for? Perhaps.
The truth is that most of these fighters are not world scholars; they know little if anything that is concrete about the West, other than its armies. The Osama transnational terrorists--may I dare say fortunately?--have to have at least an idea of what they have sworn their life to detest.
Good post.
The General should read
The General should read Kalyvas. The General's quotes and your post convey the underlying population centric coin theory that shapes thinking and rhetoric. In the General's statements there is the Coin idea that the majority of the people are this mass of “undecideds” in the middle, and on the extremes are the hard core enemy who will never change, and the other extreme are our friends. The trick, so the theory goes is to shift the malleable mass in the middle over to our side and more importantly the government. But what if these people are not socially organized in that fashion? What if their decisions to fight are based on much more than superficiality and the need for a few extra bucks? What if they really believe in what they are doing based on tribalism, hatred of foreign occupation, civil war, thousands of years of traditions, etc? Hence, we should consider Kalyvas's work on violence in civil wars as our basis of understanding peoples in these situations much more than the half-baked model of populations offered in FM 3-24 and positied by population centric coin theory. If we did perhaps our zeal to change these societiesat at the barrel of an American gun combined with progressive developmentalism might be tempered just a bit and brought back down into the real world.
Gian, Reading your quote
Gian,
Reading your quote reminds me of a telling comment from " The Best and the Brightest" made by a noted Harvard professor in the early 1960s, who was floored by the arrogance of Walt Rostow regarding the US ability to "shape" the situation in Vietnam:
“You all think you can manage limited wars and that you’re dealing with an elite society which is just waiting for your leadership. It’s not that way at all,” he said. “It’s not an Eastern elite society run for Harvard and the Council on Foreign Relations.”
Seems to me that the same situation applies today in Afghanistan. All of the prominent COIN theorists have top-notch academic degrees, MAs,, PhD,s but one thing sticks out: none of them know Afghanistan in any serious depth. By this I mean that none can be called experts on Afghanistan, and have no serious non-combat or miltiary experience in the country that would allow them to gauge the Afghani people in any objective manner. Take them outside of the wire, let them spend five minutes without a military convoy, they are completely incapable of speaking with authority on "what the Afghani people want." I wish the media would be a little bit tougher on calling out some of the COIN gurus credentials regarding their ability to read the Afghani population.
Not knowing having true expertise on the populations of Afghanistan, one is forced to rely on these kinds of theories. I also find it odd (or perhaps completely logical) that actual experts on Afghanistan, such as Mariam Abu Zehab and Rory Stewart, tend to be ignored at sites like this. Could it be because their genunie expertise, and their empirical research and experience in Afghanistan, leads them to analytical conclusions that undermine these COIN theories?
Kalvas notes that, in the
Kalvas notes that, in the current era, civil wars are caused and motivated by "predation" -- rather than by collective greivances and ideological concerns (as was the case during the Cold War).
Could the same thing be said regarding today's international wars (examples: Iraq and Afghanistan); that is, these post-Cold War international conflicts, likewise, should be understood as being caused and motivated by predation -- and not by ideology and/or greivance. Does "predation" provide us with a more accurate context for understanding what armed state-building and societal transformation in the 21st Century is really all about?
Visitor on predation.... You
Visitor on predation....
You realize we're the prey if we let it happen, right? We already did let it happen.
Not sure who you are calling the predator, and who the prey is (I can make a good guess, but wouldn't want to misjudge).
Speaking of Predators....
We defend terrorists and cop killers, and we're proud. Atty's at Law.
I hope you lefties realize you're in the same position that the Left was in Germany and Peru with regards to the RAF and Sendero: you're enabling and assisting them.
Oh, that's the new A.G's alma mater....
"The former head of the SAS
"The former head of the SAS has been asked to turn the seemingly relentless tide of war in Afghanistan by overseeing the implementation of the new US-led strategy of promoting engagement with Taliban "moderates" and convincing them to switch sides." - from the Independent article
The concept of a 'new strategy 'keeps coming up in discussions, articles, hearings, etc, doesn't it? Imperfect understanding by reporters, civilians and politicians, or, as stated in the following SWJ article:
"According to a Sept. 17 Washington Post article, President Barack Obama stated he is waiting on making a decision about sending more soldiers to Afghanistan until he has “absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be."
This declaration will come as a surprise to those who thought he had decided on his strategy for Afghanistan on March 27th. Are Obama and his advisers preparing to rip up the March strategy and delete this link from the White House Website?
The answer is yes."
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/09/this-week-at-war/
Ahem. So, all the bloggy confusion, and harping on, the past month or so about strategy was onto something, eh? Sorry. I've got to stop with this schtick where I just quote smarter people at other blogs, I know.
@ Londonstani,
As others in this thread have stated, I, too, thought about COIN principles and irreconcilables/reconcilables when reading the article. I thought the excerpted article a discussion of those principles?
Afghan Taliban Leader Mullah
Afghan Taliban Leader Mullah Muhammad 'Umar Issues 'Eid al-Fitr Message
Official English translation
Official English translation of New Bin Laden Audio Message Released
WSJ article calls into
WSJ article calls into question whether it's wrong to target personalities...as losing key leaders throws the enemy into setback...
Bad week for AQ
The source of yesterday's
The source of yesterday's and today's international conflicts would seem to be exactly the same:
These conflicts are between:
a. Those nations, peoples, cultures and groups who have had the greatest material success in their endeavors and who, because of this, have acquired significant wealth and power (such that they might dominate, control and / or support lesser such entities) and
b. Those nations, peoples, cultures and groups who have had less material success and who, because of this, have achieved less in the way of wealth, power and security. These lesser entities often find themselves being dominated, controlled and supported by those who have achieved a greater degree of material success.
Thus, those having the greatest material success are often exceptionally enamored with the "system" that has brought them into such a favorable and dominant position.
While those having had less material luck or success sometimes see the "system" in a much less favorable light.
Those disgruntled "lesser / looser" nations, peoples, cultures and groups have two choices:
(1) They can "transform" to achieve greater material success -- by striving harder within the system -- and by adhering more closely to the system design; this, so as to hopefully achieve a greater degree of wealth, power and security.
(2) Or they can reject and / or rebel against the system. Herein, such "lesser / looser" entities characteristically (a) seek to revert to an earlier, less challenging, less material, more egalitarian system ideal, (b) bring forward a system ideal which is in direct contrast to the current and prevailing market / material-based system theory or (c) attempt, through discourse and / or through conflict and discord, to cause the market / material system to be altered and adapted to their predicament.
The "winner" societies, for their part, are often prepared to force the "lesser / looser" societies to transform -- in the hopes that such actions will more quickly and more adequately accommodate their rapidly expanding market / material needs.
Thus, international conflict today, as in the days of the Cold War, comes when some societal entity challenges the market / material-based system that the "winners" have come to depend upon for their wealth, status and security -- or when some people, nation, culture or group refuses to be "transformed" so as to more optimally accommodate market / material societies needs.
Bill, You are tone deaf to
Bill,
You are tone deaf to religion. Perhaps also conflicts of cultures/civilizations? The Muslim invasions of Europe were against poorer societies, the attacks against Byzantium and Persia against wealthier ones. For example. If your theory were true, why are they fighting (for instance) in Darfur?
Then there's plain old hate.
Not saying it's never the case that wars are fought for the reasons you state, just saying it's not always the case. That seems to be your unified field theory.
We really didn't go into Iraq (and certainly not Astan) to develop "markets" and there's just not enough there to improve our access to materials. What, our access to adobe bricks? Goats?
I'm not even sure that theory explains the Cold War.
Then there's questions of why some cultures and nations succeed (and for that matter individual people) and some don't. Could it be open inquiry, rule of law, tolerance, democracy, education?
Empowering your women?
Elf: By "yesterday's" and
Elf:
By "yesterday's" and today's international (not internal) conflicts I was referring (as noted in the closing paragraph) to those international conflicts of the Cold War (yesterday) and to the current international conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (today's). I should have been more clear.
With regard to internal conflicts, however, during these periods (Cold War and post-Cold War), many of these too would seem to find their purpose within the context of a clash between material / market winners and loosers, market v. less / non / anti-market entities, and struggles by various groups for control of resources (again driven by rapidly rising market demand).
Returning to the current international conflict perspective for the moment:
a. We go into Iraq to achieve greater regional security -- such that markets might be able to operate more freely and in a more safe, secure and less threatening / precarious environment. (Not sure this intervention was such a good idea in this regard, was the best way to do this or whether this intervention will ultimately turn out to aggravate rather than enhance the regional security picture.)
b. We go into Afghanistan because Al Qaeda has specifically targeted our market-based system for destruction (World Trade Center; other attempts to render and portray to the world that our system is less safe, less secure, evil and critically and fundamentally flawed). We stay in Afghanistan if we believe that by staying, we will enhance regional security and, thereby, provide an environment in which trade and markets might more easily florish -- and to prevent Al Qaeda from attacking our system again. Some believe that this will require that we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely -- to completely remake the society (to "transform" it) such that it will (a) be more compliant with market-nation needs and demands (peace, security, prosperity) and be less malleable to Al Qaeda and other such disruptive / detractive forces. (Again, such an approach [more boots on the ground; indefinite stay] might easily backfire and produce an even greater and more counterproductive effect [further erode regional security]).
But the tension in the international arena, yesterday (Cold War) and today (post-Cold War), would seem to be the same: a tension between winners and loosers -- as determined by adaptation (or not) to market forces and market demands -- which render rewards and penalties -- depending on how well, and willing and able, various societies adapt.
Hope this helps.
How do we turn something so
How do we turn something so simple into something so complex?
Even assuming we find 'moderate' Taliban and convert them (to what?) we will still eventually be fighting them as this silly strategy does nothing to address the eagerness of the Muslims to convert the world to Islam or kill them.
No carrot dangled by some limey general to make-belief moderate terrorists will fix what's written in the kuran.
Funny how the authors of this pro-Islamic blog never mention this inconvenient truth. Perhaps they are avoiding it because this philosophy is doomed to fail and they know it.
the only good jihadi is a
the only good jihadi is a fat jihadi.
One benefit to the
One benefit to the redirection to COIN within the US military that I consider a possible outcome is the development of expanded understanding by military personnel of cultural differences, and the implications attendant to such understanding. I doubt that the result of effective training in cultural competence would be greater support by "boots" for the idea of war directed to global economic expansion benefiting NATO alliance countries, although I can see how presenting warfare as COIN, with de-emphasis on the necessary support of kinetic activity, might be used to disguise the use of war for that purpose. I don't mean to impute lack of good faith to those who support COIN, but consider COIN unlikely to lead to the optimistic results projected.
Tell me, Mr. Elf, have you encountered training in cultural competency? Did it meet your own ideas in such a way as to be water surging up against a barrier and then splashing away as if never having risen, or is your fulsome indignation in part a reaction to such training?
das bruce - the simple is always more useful for 'defense of the homeland', isn't it? Mustn't tax the brain of the untermenschen - stirs the dust, distorting the vision of the right-way-of-seeing eyes necessary for your philosophy to prosper. (Please excuse the boorish use of foreign terms if your sentiment arises from sources that don't approve of that which is foreign.)
Kalyvas, Kalyvas... would
Kalyvas, Kalyvas... would come after works beginning with L.
J comes before K, in some circumstances, afterward in others... lol, with suitable reverence for the power of the alphabet.
Sorry to break it to you,
Sorry to break it to you, readers, but General Lamb espouses a progressive point of view one comes to recognise in senior military figures with a Special Forces background. The same cannot be said of much of the rest of the British military and especially the Army, I think. I am reminded of the Lieutenent Colonel who argued (I was in the room) that influence/information operations should be considered second to kinetic ops because 'well, if you kill someone, you influence them.' During my time there (I left in April 09) influence/IO was a new and relatively esoteric concept and old fashioned senior officers were determined that it be a subset of fires, not vice versa.
This is why I fear that the type of fundamental shift towards COIN that has evidently taken root in the US Army will not be happening any time soon with the British Army. You are asking for serious and fundamental changes to be made from the roots up in one of the most conservative organiations, led by conservative establishment figures from public schools and so on, that it is possible to conceive of.
If you all are so freaking
If you all are so freaking smart and I am so wrong, why hasn't COIN succeeded in defeating this enemy, making them productive global citizens, and turned the Taliban into the Afghan version of VistaCorps?
Clowns to the left of me,
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am . . .
Why does it seem that all anyone wants to do is propagandize and recruit for their ideology? What ever happened to intellectual integrity? Whoop, silly me I forgot - humans. We are mor einterested in villifying any opposing point of view and so desperate to be "right", aren't I right? that nobody ever speaks plainly about what is plain. Why does everyone here work so hard to complicate and obfuscate the basic issues?
Forget about how to lie with statistics, how about how to lie with propaganda, from all sides of our collective mouths.
this is really interesting...
this is really interesting... How to Lose Thigh Fat
Groom Speeches Example
When taliban reporting goes
When taliban reporting goes wrong.. OMG! :)
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1978 Buick Century AC Compressor
Add your comment