Afghanistan: Does Any of this Sound Familiar?
According to the October 26 article by Rachel Morarjee and Daniel Dombey in London’s The Financial Times, NATO “…sought to dismiss fears that its operation in Afghanistan was in disarray…” after a clash in the southern region of the country that may have killed dozens of civilians. Exactly like the strategy in Iraq, NATO leaders are prosecuting the war in Afghanistan using conventional military tactics of firepower and attrition against an unconventional threat. Once again, the political and military forces should be more concerned with separating the insurgents from the rest of the populace via classic counterinsurgency techniques. Instead, they are driving support directly to our enemies.
Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army has stated that NATO troops are in a much better position to manage the fighting in Afghanistan than equivalent forces in Iraq. Of course, the US forces in Iraq were once in a better position to deal with the insurgents there. That is, until the unrestrained and harsh treatment of the civilian populace drove up recruitment for the insurgents.
According to the article by Jason Motlagh in today’s Asia Times Online, military officials insist that at least 155 Afghan civilians have been killed and remain the most common victims in what appears as purely indiscriminate violence.
Nonetheless, Mark Laity, a NATO spokesman in Afghanistan recently stated, “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.”
A nervous populace is not conducive to winning an insurgency. This simply indicates that the population is not sure who to be more afraid of, the government and NATO, the local warlords, or the Taliban insurgents.
Sam Zarifi of Human Rights Watch has pointed out “The Soviets tried and failed to defeat Afghan guerrillas by using massive firepower so we know clearly that that is not the way to win in Afghanistan. You have to win the populace over, not kill it.”
Our radical Islamic enemies understand that as long as the population is not on our side—even if they are not on the Taliban or extremist side—then the western powers are on the defensive regardless of how much firepower they unleash.
Of course, NATO leaders will imply that since the insurgents are hitting and running from western and government forces, they are on the defensive and that we are winning or somehow making progress in the war on terror. Once again they are fooling themselves and trying to convince the rest of us.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army has stated that NATO troops are in a much better position to manage the fighting in Afghanistan than equivalent forces in Iraq. Of course, the US forces in Iraq were once in a better position to deal with the insurgents there. That is, until the unrestrained and harsh treatment of the civilian populace drove up recruitment for the insurgents.
According to the article by Jason Motlagh in today’s Asia Times Online, military officials insist that at least 155 Afghan civilians have been killed and remain the most common victims in what appears as purely indiscriminate violence.
Nonetheless, Mark Laity, a NATO spokesman in Afghanistan recently stated, “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.”
A nervous populace is not conducive to winning an insurgency. This simply indicates that the population is not sure who to be more afraid of, the government and NATO, the local warlords, or the Taliban insurgents.
Sam Zarifi of Human Rights Watch has pointed out “The Soviets tried and failed to defeat Afghan guerrillas by using massive firepower so we know clearly that that is not the way to win in Afghanistan. You have to win the populace over, not kill it.”
Our radical Islamic enemies understand that as long as the population is not on our side—even if they are not on the Taliban or extremist side—then the western powers are on the defensive regardless of how much firepower they unleash.
Of course, NATO leaders will imply that since the insurgents are hitting and running from western and government forces, they are on the defensive and that we are winning or somehow making progress in the war on terror. Once again they are fooling themselves and trying to convince the rest of us.
Does any of this sound familiar?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home