The battle for Marja in southern Afghanistan and the coming campaign in Kandahar are important, but victory on these battlefields will not win the war, though they will help set the conditions for success. It will take a comprehensive, holistic effort to bring stability to Afghanistan.
Drawing on our experience as institution builders, and after spending six months on the ground in Afghanistan, we would like to offer a different way to think about diagnosing this country's ills -- and finding the appropriate cures. In the course of our duties, we have helped build the Afghan army, police, air corps, educational institutions, military hospitals, logistics, and the bureaucracies of defense and interior. Rather than describing Afghanistan with the language of war and battles, we have come to think of the country as an ailing patient -- in many ways analogous to a weakened person under attack by an aggressive infection.
To extend this analogy further, to rebuild the country's long-term health, Afghan and coalition leaders must address the ailment at three levels: curing the body, mind, and spirit of the nation. This means rebuilding the body of physical infrastructure and physical security; restoring the mind of governmental and educational institutions; and reinvigorating the spirit of civil leadership and traditional, tolerant Islam...
Much more at Foreign Policy.
And also at Foreign Policy:
The New Rules of War - John Arquilla
The visionary who first saw the age of "netwar" coming warns that the U.S. military is getting it wrong all over again. Here's his plan to make conflict cheaper, smaller, and smarter.
Planet War - Kayvan Farzaneh, Andrew Swift and Peter Williams
From the bloody civil wars in Africa to the rag-tag insurgiences in Southeast Asia, 33 conflicts are raging around the world today, and it's often innocent civilians who suffer the most.
Africa's Forever Wars - Jeffrey Gettleman
Why the continent's conflicts never end.
In Praise of Aerial Bombing - Edward Luttwak
Why terror from the skies still works.
Let Europe Be Europe - Andrew J. Bacevich
Why the United States must withdraw from NATO.
Think Again: China's Military - Drew Thompson
It's not time to panic. Yet.
The Shooting War - Foreign Policy
An exclusive collection of work by the world's most acclaimed conflict photographers.
Comments
Where in God's name are all those successful American institutions builders? In fact, every professional soldier (now) goes to war never knowing how opportunist politicians will play with his sacrifice of self, making his effort useless or meaningful. In Vietnam CORDS was an amazing success. It saved us from becoming needless racist murderers in the name of liberating from Communism. The refugees, who crowded South Vietnam's cities, changing the Republic from 85% rural to 75% urban, were made "petits bourgeois" by CORDS, per Radio Hanoi-- a euphemism for unapproachable by VC ideological babble because Communism could never compete with capitalism of the full-of-hope small merchant type. In the end, Communism won because Democrats couldn't stand the thought of another Republican victory, resulting in fixing to the Democrat Partys butt forever the old saw from Korea: Democrats start wars and Republicans finish them by winning.
So really there is no precedent for what the neocons screwed Bush into and the generals totally screwed up operationally (not totally their fault as Commander-in-Chief had no strategy other than Rove's campaign slogans to win re-election in 2004).
Command-Iraq publicly admitted that the insurgency is because we created no jobs and with 80% unemployment the "insurgency" hired locals to die trying to kill us (#$%^&#@!!!!). And then, fresh into his job, McChrystal's Peanut Gallery of "expert" civilians gave him the perfect excuse for nearly a decade of leading to-- AGAIN-- near defeat: they were unemployed so the Taliban paid them to die trying to kill us. In the end Dorronsoro and Giustozzi washed off all the veneer of excuses that Kilcullen and Exum invented to exorcize command blame for the failure, leaving it to Tom Johnson to nail command's coffin.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/01/down_the_afpak_rabbit_…
So we're not curing anything...just resorting to the tired old Iraq trick-- WE'RE LOSING, BUT...-- to buy more time to think of something, knowing that many "ain't my kid going to war" disconnected Americans care less about the casualties than about losing.
We're not going to turn this around because we're offering the Afghans a choice between JDAM ordnance dropped on their heads or Karzai & the Warlords acid-rock music group that the Taliban got so popular overthrowing.
I am embarrassed to be so selfish asking for this, but I would be most grateful if Capt. Hagerott would read the following Dorronsoro analysis and give me his expert appraisal:
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/searching_polit_agreement.pdf
Curing Afghanistan
Should we not consider that the new term "curing" is just another metaphor for "transforming" (as in "transforming entire societies" -- "mind, body, etc.")?
If so, should we not expect a similar initiative to "cure"/"transform" other "sick" (as determined by us) societies of their many "ills?" (Example: As in portions of Africa?)
If this is the reason:
a. Why we must plan and prepare for "a permanent state of war" and an "era of persistent conflict" (necessary to "cure" [transform] various individuals, groups, nations, cultures and religions) or their varying "ills")?
b. Why the U.S. Army needed to shift to Irregular Warfare (necessary to effect the desired "cure[s]" in critical areas of the world -- and necessary to address the type of warfare that these diversely "ill" individuals, groups, governments, nations, cultures and religions will use to resist our "cure[s]")?
Petraeuss Israel Problem
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODU2ZDE0MTQ5OWZlMmMwOWJmNTJk…
As head of Central Command, General Petraeuss area of responsibility includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. That is, CENTCOM is the U.S. militarys bridge to the Muslim umma, much of which despises America. The vast majority of Americans couldnt care less about that. It is Islams problem, not ours -- were not dying to be loved by a dysfunctional civilization that produces most of the planets terrorists. But for the Wilsonians who deem it worth our time, money, and lives to try to remake the Islamic world, Muslim animus is something that must be addressed -- otherwise, theyd have to concede that there is nothing we can do about it, that Muslims resent more than appreciate our help, and that their grand project is thus a fools errand.
We need, they tell us, to exhibit a little sympathy. We need to be more understanding of the totalitarian, iniquitous, misogynistic, homophobic, virulently anti-Western and anti-Semitic culture that dominates Muslim countries. We need to project the image of an "honest broker" in the impasse between our stalwart ally Israel and an Islamic world bent on Israels elimination as a Jewish state. We need to "live our values," a favorite slogan of both top Obama officials and General Petraeus. These always turn out to be transnational-progressive values. Under them, our justice is blind: We must make no distinction between (a) a Western-style democracy that permits Muslims to live in dignity as citizens within its borders and (b) incorrigibles who make no secret of desiring that democracys annihilation and who consider mass murder to be legitimate resistance.