Feral Jundi

Monday, October 5, 2009

Strategy: Ten Steps to Victory in Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,Strategy — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 8:45 PM

 Break guerillas’ moral-mental-physical hold over the population, destroy their cohesion, and bring about their collapse via political initiative that demonstrates moral legitimacy and vitality of government and by relentless military operations that emphasize stealth/fast-tempo/fluidity-of-action and cohesion of overall effort.

*If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides! -Page 108, Patterns of Conflict, Col. John Boyd

*****

     I liked this op-ed because it was short and sweet.  Each expert gave a quick rundown on what needs to happen, and it was cool to hear them reduce their thoughts on the matter to what is most important.  It is twitter-like in a way.

     With Twitter, you have 140 characters to produce something that is meaningful.  It forces you to really think about what you want to say, because you are limited.  And really, if you know the solution or solutions to the problem, and you have some conviction and passion about it, then it shouldn’t take you that long to communicate it. Less is more, less is more…..

     Either way, check out these strategies, and the rock star strategists attached to these suckers, and let me know what you think. –Matt

——————————————————————-

10 Steps to Victory in Afghanistan

October 4, 2009

Op-Ed Contributors

Reform or Go Home

COUNTERINSURGENCY is only as good as the government it supports. NATO could do everything right — it isn’t — but will still fail unless Afghans trust their government. Without essential reform, merely making the government more efficient or extending its reach will just make things worse.

Only a legitimately elected Afghan president can enact reforms, so at the very least we need to see a genuine run-off election or an emergency national council, called a loya jirga, before winter. Once a legitimate president emerges, we need to see immediate action from him on a publicly announced reform program, developed in consultation with Afghan society and enforced by international monitors. Reforms should include firing human rights abusers and drug traffickers, establishing an independent authority to investigate citizen complaints and requiring officials to live in the districts they are responsible for (fewer than half do).

(more…)

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Pakistan: A Conversation With David Kilcullen

Filed under: Afghanistan,Pakistan — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 10:38 PM

   Dr. Kilcullen’s statement on Pakistan is just eery to read. We all know those are the stakes in Pakistan, but it just doesn’t seem to sink in with most of the west.  There is so much else going on out there, but this kind of dwarfs everything in terms of threats when you really think about it.  A Pakistan that collapses, would not be good, and would be a huge loss in this war.  

   The other thing that is interesting is that he has given numerous interviews about his thoughts on the way forward, and it seems each interview keeps presenting a more refined viewpoint.  So that is why I keep posting them, and trying to get in the right mindset for what is required for this war.  I know he lives this stuff daily, and it really helps to hear his thoughts on the matter. 

   Now on to the one area that continues to get ignored when ever he talks, and that is the role of the contracting industry in his vision of the war effort.  I mean there are more of us than US troops, yet still we get no mention as to what we need to be doing in this war to help?  Doesn’t anyone else see a problem with this? We are very much a part of the population interaction out there, and our actions do have an impact on the war.  So why we continue to be treated like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is beyond me.  

   Further more, we are a resource, that if used correctly, can certainly add to the effort.  What is all this talk of diplomatic efforts, or taking care of the people?  Is a soldier with a gun, the best tool for that job, or is a civilian helping a civilian the best tool?  I tend to think that both are important to the equation out there, but we tend to fall back on using the soldier with a gun for all problem solving.  

(more…)

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Publications: Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) by Fick, Kilcullen, Nagl, Singh

Filed under: Afghanistan,Pakistan,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:01 PM

   If you care about the direction we are taking in the war, then I highly recommend reading this report.  The authors should give you a clue as to how important this thing is. If President Obama was smart, he would read this report as well, and not have some staffer spoon feed it to him. –Matt

—————————————————————— 

Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan)Publication Type: Policy Brief

Publication Date: 01/22/2009

Author(s): Nathaniel C. Fick, David Kilcullen, John A. Nagl, Vikram J. Singh 

January 2009 – In 2009, the Obama administration will attempt to deliver on campaign promises to change the Afghan war’s trajectory. In April, the Strasbourg NATO summit will determine the alliance’s role in shaping the future of the country and the region. By the fall, Afghans will have voted for their president for only the second time since 2001, an event which may irrevocably set the country’s course. By the end of this summer’s fighting season, the war in Afghanistan will not yet be won, but it could well be lost.

After seven years and the deaths of more than a thousand American and coalition troops, there is still no consensus on whether the future of Afghanistan matters to the United States and Europe, or on what can realistically be achieved there. Afghanistan does matter. A stable Afghanistan is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and to further stability in South and Central Asia. Understanding the war in Afghanistan, maintaining domestic and international support for it, and prosecuting it well requires three things: a clear articulation of U.S. interests in Afghanistan, a concise definition of what the coalition seeks to achieve there, and a detailed strategy to guide the effort.

U.S. interests in Afghanistan may be summarized as “two no’s”: there must be no sanctuary for terrorists with global reach in Afghanistan, and there must be no broader regional meltdown. Securing these objectives requires helping the Afghans to build a sustainable system of governance that can adequately ensure security for the Afghan people—the “yes” upon which a successful exit strategy depends.

Read the Rest of the Paper Here

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

News: Kilcullen on Afghanistan

Filed under: Afghanistan,News — Tags: , , — Matt @ 1:26 AM

The New Yorker

George Packer

November 14, 2008

Kilcullen on Afghanistan: “It’s Still Winnable, But Only Just.”

I wrote about David Kilcullen two years ago, in a piece called “Knowing the Enemy.” Few experts understand counterinsurgency and counterterrorism better than this former Australian army officer and anthropology Ph.D, who has advised the American, British, and Australian governments, was one of General Petraeus’s strategic whizzes at the start of the surge, in early 2007, and writes so well that you’d never imagine he’s spent his whole career in government, the military, and academia. Kilcullen is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, which has provided Obama with foreign-policy advisers and advice.

This week, Kilcullen agreed to do an e-mail Q. & A. on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he’s spent a lot of time, and where the most pressing foreign crisis awaits the new Administration. Though Kilcullen is still an adviser to the State Department, he emphasized that his views are his own. And they are characteristically blunt.

The White House briefed both campaigns on Afghanistan before the election. Apparently that’s how little time we have to turn things around. So how bad is it?

It’s bad: violence is way up, Taliban influence has spread at the local level, and popular confidence in the government and the international community is waning fast. It’s still winnable, but only just, and to turn this thing around will take an extremely major effort starting with local-level governance, political strategy, giving the Afghan people a well-founded feeling of security, and dealing with the active sanctuary in Pakistan. A normal U.S. government transition takes six to nine months, by the time new political appointees are confirmed, briefed, and in position. But nine months out from now will be the height of the Afghan fighting season, and less than a month out from critical Presidential elections in Afghanistan. If we do this the “normal” way, it will be too late for the Obama Administration to grip it up. I think this is shaping up to be one of the smoothest transitions on record, with the current Administration going out of its way to assist and facilitate. That said, the incoming Administration has a steep learning curve, and has inherited a dire situation—so whatever we do, it’s not going to be easy.

It sounds like you’re proposing classic counterinsurgency strategy: a combination of offensive and defensive military operations, political and economic development, and diplomacy. Isn’t that what we’ve been doing these past seven years? Have we just not been doing enough of all these? Or do we need to change strategy to something fundamentally new?

(more…)

Powered by WordPress