It’s not often that a serving general talks publicly about the prospect of defeat, but that’s exactly what General Stanley McChrystal, the US force commander in Afghanistan, has done.
His report, leaked to the Washington Post, makes bleak reading for those who would say that if only they had a few more troops all would be well.
“Focussing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely,” he writes. “The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.”
What it boils down to is more hearts and minds, less trying to kill the Taliban.
And he points up a very interesting issue: force protection. This is something we noticed when the American troops first arrived in Baghdad. Simply put, they killed Iraqi civilians rather than risk their own lives.
As a result scores of Iraqis were killed when they approached checkpoints simply because – at first – they didn’t know to get out of their cars and put their hands in the air.
I remember how our driver and fixer did indeed, as Dick Cheney predicted, see the Americans as liberators on Day One. But on Day Two we watched marines shoot at two carloads of Iraqis rather than theoretically risk exposing themselves by moving into the middle of the road with a notice in Arabic (not that they had a notice in Arabic) saying: No Entry.
The result: three dead and three wounded, including a five-year-old girl. Unsurprisingly, our Iraqi colleagues immediately changed their view of the Americans.
General McChrystal says US troops (and presumably other Nato forces as well) need to change their “operational culture”. I don’t know how easy that will be, especially in the one year time frame he’s given for reversing the “insurgent momentum”.
After eight years, it’s very hard for soldiers to see the local population as anything other than potential enemies, especially when every patrol runs the risk of improvised explosive devices. When soldiers are dying every day, of course they look with suspicion at those who around them who may be sheltering – willingly or unwillingly – those who are trying to kill them.
General McChrystal’s analysis is spot on. He seems to understand why so many Afghans are hostile to American soldiers. Yet I suspect he underestimates most Afghans’ over-arching suspicion of foreigners (especially those are occupying their country), and the wariness of his own troops.
He knows what’s gone wrong. But whether it’s really possible for a new strategy to put it right, well, that’s much more difficult.
Commentsoldest first
This does not come as a surprise. Clearly, most of the media claims of ’success’ and ‘winnable’ notions, were always nonsence.
Every single day since 911 the media & government have had the words ‘Terror’ & ‘Terrorist’ in the news. The sad fact is, when an enemy has nothing to lose and, is driven by some indoctrinated religious cause, knows nothing but violence and, is willing to sacrifice their life in the name of something they believe, you’ve little chance of ‘winning’ unless, you completely take over.
Since the ousting of Saddam and 1 million Iraqis dead, to the continuing Afghan conflict, the world is probably far more vulnerable to terrorism, due to further hatreds being caused as a result of military actions. The talk of a change in tactics may be too late but, it’s better to try than to continue on a road to knowhere. The people in the armed forces conducting these missions, end up paying the worst consequences of political incompetence and corruptions.
There will never be peace all the time there’s inequalities, corruption by the rich their and political connections, media distortion, religious
indoctrinations ie. ALL religions, selfishness and, worst of all..global population growth. But, these things can be changed.
How many Afghans run to America for refuge?
Changing hearts and minds; from what to what? I thought the primary objective was to democratically Afghanistise Afghanistan.
Is there a collective ‘feeling’ between America and Europe?
Know thine enemy doesn’t apply here Far from liberation, the only freedom will be in death.
Many of the worlds most serious problems often have a common obstacle in the way of the global efforts needed for their solutions.
Our Leaders are extremely inefficient, as they often lack the relevant experience & therefore are rarely on the same page to begin with. So many suffer the cost of this!
One of the most important changes that could take place in the 21st century, would be to see it been made a mandatory requirement, that politicians have to study human and social interactions. Therefore gaining the fundamental qualifications that are most relevant to their vocation before standing in a major elections; for example a qualification in the understanding of social conflict, or at least the study of one or more of the social sciences would be a step in the right direction. Its a shame that a doctor has to study for 7years before becoming qualified, if he makes a mistake killing someone in his carer, he’s in big trouble!… Yet a politician who can mess up society, inflame racial hatred’ start wars displacing hundreds of thousands of people, needs no qualification in the field of understanding people. He can even be elected upon charismatic ability alone.
[...] Afghanistan/ Afghanistan election/ Hillary Clinton/ Pakistan/ President Karzai The problem with Afghanistan is that every prescription has a noxious side-effect; every answer raises more [...]
Leave a comment
* Required field.