chris_gerrib | Afghanistan

So, a blogger at Information Dissemination asked If a few burned Korans and the actions of a single mentally unstable individual can set back a theater level military campaign by "months if not years" as suggested by Dan Cox, how sound is the judgment of the civilian and military leaders who pushed this course of action? How sound is the judgement of political leadership who went along with it?

Here's my answer. For the non-military, 'COIN" stands for 'counterinsurgency' - the tactics and strategies used to defeat a guerrilla war. My answer:

COIN works in one of two ways. The first way is via "hearts and minds" - persuading the population that the government is worth supporting. In that case, COIN is like a political campaign. In a campaign, if, for example, your candidate gets portrayed as a bumbler, then he can do 99 things right but the 1 wrong thing he does leads the news broadcasts. So, "hearts and minds" is inherently fragile.

The other way COIN works is the "Indian Wars" theory. This is based on what the US Army did in the 19th century west of the Mississippi. There, after 30 or 40 years, one side simply wore out the other. Similar events occurred in Guatemala and Honduras during their civil wars. In that case, the time frame is similar, and I don't think that's a coincidence. You need to fight for a generation or so to "persuade" one side or the other to just quit.

Our problem in Afghanistan is this - we have three choices:

1) Get out
2) COIN - for however long it takes
3) ??? (I suppose '???' could be the Ottoman Solution - look at one of our soldiers cross-eyed and we kill you and everybody in your village.)

There's no real stomach in America for #3, and #1 is perceived as what allowed Afghanistan to become a base for Al Qaeda in the first place. So, we tried #2.

We can't have a real discussion about policy in Afghanistan because our political system is broken. If the system worked, the questions we should ask are:

- What do we want to accomplish in Afghanistan?
- How much resources do we want to allocate to Afghanistan?
- Can we accomplish the stated goals with the resources available?
- If not, what can we accomplish with the resources available?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The important reason why we need to take an "Oh, too bad, but not important" attitude toward Koran burnings is simply that, otherwise, it's a tactic that can be used against us to affect our policy at any time. There is no way for us to prevent the enemy from taking a few Korans, burning or otherwise desecrating them, and then claiming that we did it. Consequently, we have to take a "who cares?" approach to such events when they happened, and treat any attacks in reaction to such events as utterly-unprovoked and hence to be very harshly punished.

Apparently you have no idea what "COIN" means.

Under COIN theory, our reaction to Koran burnings is irrelevant. The people's reaction is what matters. Again, COIN operators are attempting to persuade people to support a specific government, or at least not oppose it.

It's like a politician saying "my views on X are irrelevant." In his mind they may be, but the opinion that matters is that of a majority of the voters.

and treat any attacks in reaction to such events as utterly unprovoked and hence to be very harshly punished…

- And that's the key to his whole point: Punishment. Smite the wicked. Make them pay with their children's blood.

“Kill them all - God will know His own.”

“We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig. Cow after cow. Village after village. Army after army…”

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_Training_the_trainers.jpg/800px-Flickr_-_The_U.S._Army_-_Training_the_trainers.jpg)

It was necessary to destroy the country, in order to save it.

What the hell, it's worked since the Bronze Age. Sort of. Of course, Assurbanipal and Tiglath-Pileser didn't have nuclear weapons…

… And really, you can't fault him on that, not if you want the “Middle East Peace Process”™ to continue as it has in 1948, in 1958, in '68, in '78, in '88, in '98, in '08… Hell of a process, there. Is it supposed to 'produce' anything? Besides corpses, that is? “Harsh punishment” of one side by the other as the decades go by, certainly produces enough of those…

Since corpses can't attack you, and tend to deter hostile non-corpses from attacking you out of fear of becoming corpses themselves, is has historically worked quite well. Hard on the losers, of course, but vae victis.

has historically worked quite well

Really? That's not what I see in the news; how many rockets landed in Israel-occupied territory this week? How many Palestinian militants killed this week?

Meanwhile, when was the last time you heard anything from Northern Ireland? Anything of Belfast, of the IRA, the Troubles? When even the Irish Protestants and Catholics realize that they're causing more grief than any good they could possibly do and THEY STOP - ! There's a “historical example” worth noting, I would say.

Neither Israel, nor post World War II Great Britain, has been practicing any such policy. They have both been holding back tremendously, out of humanitarian motives -- which has allowed their enemies to survive even when sorely outmatched.

Oh, and in regards to Great Britain -- the radical wing of the IRA is still engaging in violence, it's just that the moderate wing of the IRA is suppressing them. It's hardly Israel's fault that the Palestinians are less sane than the Irish -- the Palestinians were offered exactly the same deal as the Irish, but refused to take it.

If one wing of the insurgency is suppressing the violence of another wing of the insurgency, that's called a "win" in COIN.

I believe the Irish have concluded they have far more in common than in conflict, and far more worth saving as The (unified) Irish Nation. The alternative (as they observe the destruction of European nations) may be to commit self-genocide while their most dear way of life and heritage is stolen through the steady influx of Muslim immigrants, all too happy to one day demand Shariah law as they devide the spoils.

No, I want the "Middle East Peace Process" to result from decisive Israeli victory, instead of leading to endless wars due to Israel shrinking from such victories.

Actually, the "key to my own point" is to deal with those who make war upon oneself by example deterring the deterrable, and by action destroying those who refuse to be deterred.

Afghanistan

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

The Irish Pact

no subject

no subject