Jim Sauer is a retired USMC CSM and he has a piece at American Thinker disputing the utility of COIN in Afghanistan. There is s lot of good information in it and I wouldn't argue with the vast majority. But I don't agree with his conclusion that COIN is not a viable strategy for Afghanistan. I think it is the only one with a reasonable chance of success. One of his arguments is that the people there have to share some of our basic values. For COIN to succeed in Afghanistan, the population would have to share at least some of our values. The fact is they don't! Their "values", whether religious, social, or political, are the same values held by Al Qaeda and the Taliban! Islam is an integrated system! Islam is not just something Muslims do on Friday when it is convenient! The Islamic world is in no way similar to "Christendom" where the faith of many -- particularly in Europe -- has been compromised by progressive secularism. Most Muslims actually believe in the tenets of the Koran. These tenets are not the passive "Five Pillars" and other sanitized junk you read in an English translation. Muslims believe in the tenets that direct that they convert, subjugate, or destroy non-believers -- that means Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even atheists. Polls in Afghanistan show that around 90% of the population do not want to live under the Taliban and it's barbaric ways. They may be Muslims but they do not share the outrageous practices the Taliban perpetrate. That is the lever we can use against them. In addition they share the one common human value of wanting to live a secure and prosperous existence. If we can show them that, the rest of the differences can be overcome. He also takes exception to the Tactical Directive designed to limit civilian casualties. COIN may be a legitimate strategy in a limited sense when the "insurgents" are seen as outsiders -- or at least trouble makers with a foreign ideology -- by the native population in a fixed geographic region. However, the insurgency we face is not limited to Afghanistan. It is a global movement. Civilian casualties must be avoided whenever possible -- not at all costs. There is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents. However, if a COIN strategy is to succeed, our political and military leadership must demonstrate the willingness to adjust the tactics used in the battlespace in order to allow our troops to kill the enemy. As I have noted before the rules do not prohibit and even explicitly authorize troops in contact to call for supporting fire, even against civilian structures. But they also require that if they can disengage without destroying civilian buildings and potentially innocent civilians, then they must do so. I heard from the CDR of the 1st Ranger Bn. who was freshly back from A-stan earlier this year that he had instituted this exact rule before McChystal was even there. He did it because too many times the Taliban had come onto a village and taken over a house then attacked our troops from it using the family as human shields. He determined that it was more conducive to his mission to not kill those innocents and that once he informed the locals of this policy the intel he got on Taliban activity got much better. COIN is not a panacea, it is a means to an end. If the local people trust that we and the Afghan government bring the security and prosperity they desire, they will help us and the Taliban marginalized.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/IdpnRYfVU_0/countercoin.html
Posted
Oct 22 2009, 05:28 AM
by
BLACKFIVE