Afghanistan has nearly 30 million people. How can an American force of roughly 100,000 secure them all? The question tends to bring perplexed looks, or even grimaces, meaning — politely and carefully — take that question upstairs.So the "strategy" basically is to train a native army to occupy their own country. Okay, well, it worked for the Brits, for a time, in a different albeit nearby country in a different albeit not-really-so-long-past age. But the natives prove untrainable; or, um, they move to their own mysterious agenda. I love that little detail, "or to the bazaar." "The generals" remain uncomprehending. Don't these people want to build a military occupation of their own country?
Again, the generals have an answer. The Afghan military and police are growing, and in a few years could be roughly three times the size of the NATO forces, they say.
But the escalating numerical projections, which have grown each year as the United States has deepened its involvement in the war, have yet to undo these forces’ reputation for poor initiative, corruption, marginal skills and an enduring dependency on foreign supervision for everything from resupply and fire support to actions that should be routine, like standing post.
Many American officers, year in and year out, describe a persistent trait visible to anyone who visits almost any line unit for an extended time. Afghan units are supposed to be preparing to take over security. Yet they are often unwilling to set out on independent patrols, beyond trips back and forth between their own positions, or to the bazaar. They remain largely a tag-along force.
-The Times
You read things like this, and you start to wonder, like Starbuck, if the leviathan isn't just a dumb brute after all.
28 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFkmAVOeLY
leviathan has to deal with jumping jacks.
There is nothing magic to effective occupation. It was done pretty much routinely, by every country that managed to conquer another, from the dawn of time right down to, oh, 1946 or so. Including, I should point out, the USA.
There are two ingredients to effective occupation.
First, you must convince the occupied people that you plan to rule them indefinitely. If people know you are leaving in N years, they plan accordingly.
Second, you must actually rule the occupied people. That is, you must install your own, trusted men -- not natives -- in all positions of substantial authority, including most particularly the army. And they must exercise that authority, and fire or kill any native who will not conform. Corollary: you must forbid all political organization except those you control.
Magic, it ain't. But you can see why current USG fails pitifully at it. Everyone is the same! Self-determination! We invaded for them, not us! We don't want to dominate anyone, oh no! Hearts and minds!
There is a third practical requirement for effective occupation: you must find a way to make the occupation pay for itself. Otherwise it is unsustainable domestically. (This is yet another way which modern USG fails.)
I’m surprised it has never occurred to you that most of our leaders are idiots. There is no such thing as foreign policy because foreign policy is driven by domestic political concerns, like getting reelected. Is leviathan stupid? Did the numerous intelligence agencies see the Arab revolutions coming? Have they ever seen anything coming? Why do you even ask? The Pentagon is out for itself, congress, the prez, all of them are out for themselves, there is no plan, there never was, there are no guiding principles, no all seeing oracles, in fact the whole idea of clever and resourceful Americans is entirely laughable. American foreign policy is a great big stupid dog that only knows one trick which it performs to get fed.
"Don't these people want to build a military occupation of their own country?"
That is the norm when the opportunity presents itself.
Leonard, the British empire ran on very little British manpower precisely because they relied so heavily on natives to run things. I believe you are correct about the officer corps though.
I discussed with Razib the extent to which colonies paid for themselves here. He elaborated here.
Actually, Leonard, your plan requires some degree of cooperation from the locals. I would say the Afghan national sport since your "dawn of time" has been fighting off outsiders.
Afghans are so like weird! It's hard to imagine that we actually evolved from them.
I love that little detail, "or to the bazaar."
We won't win the future until we can say, "or to the mall."
Corollary: you must forbid all political organization except those you control.
This, with a caveat. The point of counterinsurgency is to control everything, period.
listen, pal, there never was any money. the big Lebowski gave me an empty briefcase, so take it up with him.
The us military actually "ruling" somewhere, my god do we not hate these people enough. I would perhaps trust the us military to rule my cat, if I didn't care for it very much.
I get it. Its the call of the mall: shop till ya drop.
Ghurkas baby! We need more freaking Ghurkas! But it IA interesting to hear the individual espousations of those who personify the monstrosity.
Blake, of course it requires cooperation -- massive cooperation. Any system of domination does. The point is how you get cooperation.
In our modern view, you get it by harnessing love. Ah, love! What can be more powerful than love??! We must win their hearts! By handing out chocolate, educating their girls, building soccer fields, etc. When they see how very good we are to them, they'll love us, and then they'll cooperate because they want to.
In the old practical method, you got it by harnessing greed, ambition, and fear -- in short, by winning their minds. Their minds are what you appeal to when you make it clear you plan to be there today, tomorrow, next year, and forever. So if they want to get ahead, they must cooperate. Their minds are what you appeal to when you hang anyone who opposes you.
As for "fighting off outsiders", the Afghans have been conquered (and have submitted) many times, just like everyone else. Of course, they do have a pretty good record in modern times. (Though the Brits successfully dominated the Afghans from ~1880 through WWI.) I agree this is real, but I think the explanation is more geography and economics than genes or culture. Afghanistan is remote and rugged, so it is very hard to fight a war there. And it is also worthless, so there's little reason to (it is hard to make the place pay).
yeah, we need to either actually become an oppressive colonial empire or just give up on the whole thing entirely ...
Yeah but Starbuck mostly thought that Ahab, in the scale of things, was the dumber brute. Derhay.
lulz, scales...
I thought for Starbuck the leviathan was a Cylon?
Heh, I was going to make fun of a BSG ref, but it turns out it's embarrassing in some circles not to have ready Moby Dick.
thank god for wikipedia.
So the leviathan is the whale, right?
IOZ,
Yeah. I was sitting in Starbucks just the other day leafing through my coffee table edition of "The Magnificent Orca"--and then I thought: Damn. Afghanistan. Isn't that all Ralph Nader's fault? Does it not prove, once and for all that the perfect is the enemy of the good?
Help me out her Mossuiereeeee.
I think this is a great post. One thing that I find the most helpful is number five. Sometimes when I write, I just let the flow of the words and information come out so much that I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’ve done. There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.
You write really good articles, very attractive, I feel very shocked. I hope you can continue with your work, come on!
Ghurkas baby! We need more freaking Ghurkas!
There are in fact a substantial number of Ghurkas serving with the UK contingent of ISAF.
And they carry that knife of theirs everywhere they go.
Fuck all this patrolling, I'm going to the bazaar! :D
And it is also worthless
the fields of opium poppies mock you vibrantly. also, lithium - though that may have been a result of the poppies.
granted, it's not oil but this might come in handy for the collapse.......
Men's Shoes, Number 5 is alive?
"Afghanistan has a population of 30 million people. How is an American force [...] supparf to secure them all?". Does it even bear repeating anymore how bloodthirsty the NYT-NPR set is? And a big ol' lulz @Paul Alexander.
10 years on and we ain't got em trained up enough to stand post yet. At that rate we should have the Afghan forces ready to assume control of their own country in approximately 745 years.
10 years on and we ain't got em trained up enough to stand post yet. At that rate we should have the Afghan forces ready to assume control of their own country in approximately 745 years.
10 years on and we ain't got em trained up enough to stand post yet. At that rate we should have the Afghan forces ready to assume control of their own country in approximately 745 years.
I’m surprised it has never occurred to you that most of our leaders are idiots. There is no such thing as foreign policy because foreign policy is driven by domestic political concerns, like getting reelected. Is leviathan stupid? Did the numerous intelligence agencies see the Arab revolutions coming? Have they ever seen anything coming? Why do you even ask? The Pentagon is out for itself, congress, the prez, all of them are out for themselves, there is no plan, there never was, there are no guiding principles, no all seeing oracles, in fact the whole idea of clever and resourceful Americans is entirely laughable. American foreign policy is a great big stupid dog that only knows one trick which it performs to get fed.
You can be sure that if I was as big a fan of reductio ad absurdum and wrong map, wrong landscape as the above quote, I'd post it Anonymously too.
Post a Comment