Moving forward on Afghanistan

Watching news coverage on television of the war in Afghanistan, it's hard to get a sense of what progress, if any, is being achieved by Western military forces. We see scenes of soldiers on foot patrol and occasionally interaction between them and local people. Sometimes, we see the aftermath of an improvised explosive device. There have been many civilian casualties. Overall, the military objective of stabilizing the country by ensuring security and winning "the hearts and minds" of the population appears a nearly impossible task. The country is vast and underdeveloped; the local security forces, police and army, too small, susceptible to pressure and corruption; the divisions between tribes, interests and loyalties very hard to overcome.

While safety has been improved in some cities and other areas, it has come at a great cost, in terms of financial resources and human life. Efforts to create national infrastructure have been hampered by corruption, betrayals and the insurgency.

The war in Afghanistan is being played out against a backdrop of high-risk geo-political tension: perceived global threats from fundamentalist religious regimes; the lure and traps of oil revenues; the strategic positions of Western democracies, China and Russia, just to list several issues.

Increasingly, it appears the road to stability in Afghanistan may lie not so much in centralized democratic government, but rather in developing local leadership in the rural areas and assisting people in creating workable alternatives to Taliban rule. We may need to abandon notions of Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. Countries rarely achieve in a few short years what others have developed over hundreds.

Traditionally, people in Afghanistan respond to tribal leaders. Perhaps greater efforts can be directed towards protecting and encouraging these leaders. Moderate religious authority figures, likewise, could be assisted, so that they regain their former standing in their communities. They will also require complete protection from insurgents and their radical form of Islam. None of this will be easy.

Analysts argue that allowing Afghans to determine local solutions to local problems may be a more effective approach to securing the country from the Taliban threat. This will take patience and fortitude. But perhaps Western countries will be seen more as genuine partners than occupiers and invaders, as Taliban propaganda surely labels U.S. and NATO forces.

If such an approach yields results, we should see fewer troops on the ground.


Notes:
For more information on military options in Afghanistan, see Mitchell LaFortune's article in the New York Times. LaFortune served as an intelligence analyst with the 82nd Airborne Division in two tours of duty in the country.

See also Thomas L. Friedman's backgrounder on the global perspective on the war. It's a revealing behind-the-scenes op-ed piece entitled: The Great (Double) Game.

For a variety of comments on the situation, see Afghanistan and the Counterinsurgency War at PBS.org

Photo credit: United States Marine Corps, through Wikimedia Commons.

Secrets of the underdog

Malcolm Gladwell, author of "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Difference" and two other best-sellers, wrote last month in the New Yorker magazine about a fascinating topic: how underdogs often beat the odds and win.

In typical Gladwell fashion, the author draws from disparate examples to illustrate research that shows how weaker opponents in any contest, from sports to war, often find a way to come out on top. He finds that successful underdogs adopt tactics of insurgencies: attacking where opponents are weakest, challenging the established rules and common mindset. They use speed to their advantage, keep moving and are relentless.

Gladwell tells the remarkable story about a novice girls basketball team in California, coached by a software engineer from India, who made it all the way to the U.S. national championships. Six of the girls had never played basketball before. The coach used a full-court press and some nifty logic to successfully challenge the conventional approach to the way the game is played.

He also examines the tactics of an obscure British archaeologist who in the First World War led bands of Bedouins in the desert to a series of improbable victories against the Ottoman Army occupying the Middle East. T.E. Lawrence's exploits against long odds earned him the title "Lawrence of Arabia." Like David beating Goliath, the underdog can often win by substituting hard work and cunning for ability.

You can read Gladwell's examination of these traits in his piece, "How David Beats Goliath."

For a scene from David Lean's famous movie about Lawrence of Arabia, see this link that illustrates how Lawrence (played by Peter O'Toole) planned to attack the coastal town of Aqaba.

How much of the horror of war should we show on television?

As someone who works in television news,  I wince every time my colleagues and I have to decide which images of graphic violence to allow on the screen and which ones to remove.  In North America we have some clear sensibilities about the level of brutality we show on television. Our guiding principle is to give the viewer a clear description of tragedies in the news, but not to sensationalize them. We also try to consider the dignity of innocent victims of violence and of their families. We are particularly aware of the vulnerabilities of children who may be watching the news during the day.

This is not necessarily the case in other countries. Eric Calderwood, a Harvard student living in Syria, recently spent some time observing the coverage of the conflict in Gaza by the Al-Jazeera network.  He calls Al-Jazeera's coverage "blood journalism" because of the level of violence shown on the screen. While the network's sense of editorial balance is distinctly different from those of North American media organizations, Calderwood finds some benefits to Al-Jazeera's depiction of the harsh realities of armed conflict.

The Boston Globe recently posted an essay on this topic by Calderwood. His ideas are worth considering.  

It's also a reminder that, wherever we live, we should avoid watching television news passively; we need to keep our mental filters on and our faculties sharp. Deconstructing and analyzing media messages is vital to a better understanding of the forces that shape our world.

Calderwood's essay is entitled "The Violence Network" and you can read it here.

-----------
>To send to a friend, click on the envelope icon.

What happens when the fighting stops

On this day each year, on the 11th day of the 11th month, when we remember and honor those who died in war, we not only reflect on the human sacrifice of conflict, but also on a sad irony: that the seeds of war are often planted at the moment of surrender.

Every generation, it seems, is burdened by the deeds of its predecessors.

As we seek to understand the conflicts in the Middle East today, our thoughts on this Remembrance Day go back to the First World War because of its pivotal importance.

It was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." Sadly, after nine million soldiers and five million civilians lay dead on all sides, and twenty-one million remained wounded, the peace treaty that was signed laid the foundation for yet another global conflict.

The Treaty of Versailles imposed such punitive measures on Germany that the treaty became a primary cause of the rise of the Nazi Party and the subsequent onset of World War II.

Now, as we reflect on the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, we see a similar pattern replaying itself. As a result of poor management by the forces that ousted the previous regimes, the situation is grim: societies in chaos followed by the struggle for some semblance of stability. The disaffection and suffering of millions of civilians and subsequent exploitation of the situation by militant forces have resulted in insurgency and internal conflict; in short, a real mess.

At the end of the Second World War, the Allies faced a similar dilemma. While it's true that the power struggle between Russia and her Western allies sowed the seeds of a divided Europe, it's also true that the world responded very differently towards the countries in need. The cessation of hostilities led to the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Europe. The United States also led the rebuilding of Japan, another defeated power. As a result, Europe and Japan recovered, the seeds of the European Common Market (now the EU) were sown, and these nations became contributors to peace and stability in the world.

As we recognize the collective sacrifices of humanity at war, let us hope that we also remember that what we do when hostilities end is just as critical in honoring those who died and those who remain with us, on all sides of a conflict.

-------------------------
Photo courtesy stock.xchng.