Comments
Addendum:
But, of course, I should have realized my mistake. For a moment, I forgot what we are really in Afghanistan for and what we are really attempting to do:
a. Not just defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaeda a base of operations.
b. But, rather, to do this via the installation of a new political, economic and social order inside this country.
In this latter regard (the concept of defeating an insurgency via state-building and assimilation), it would appear that (1) we must do the heavy lifting and take the lead, (2) deal with the fact that a lack of native literacy, etc., may constrain our efforts and (3) accept that such "cultural" differences/tensions/consequences, as noted above, will be forthcoming.
In this regard, should we be worrying about something on a larger scale (as in India in the mid-19th Century)?
Considering the success of the Afghans over the centuries -- in consistently defeating more-educated, more-wealthy, more-"advanced" and more-technologically capable and sophisticated societies -- do you think that the correct answer/approach should be/should have been:
To ask them (the Afghans) to teach us how to fight and win in their country/their environment? Certainly, they (the Afghans) are the subject matter experts in this area -- not us.
One would think -- that if we had been smart -- we would have humbly sat at their most capable leaders feet, had these leaders plan, execute and lead the charge and that we would have, otherwise, sought guidance, learned and then facilitated only how, when and as requested.
Our approach, to have those that consistently "loose" (us) teach those that consistenly "win" (them), in hindsight, would not seem to make much sense.
Maybe there is a very important lesson in this for us -- which we might apply re: these type of conflicts in the future.
(Note: Definition of "sophisticated:" Deprived of native or original simplicity; as in highly complicated or developed.)
Bill C. I think you hit it. I have seen this arrogance in action in Iraq (both from conventional and Special Forces troops who should have known better), and if you want to get a more personal view there is a good article (two parts I believe) in the Alantic that was written a few years back (it is posted somewhere in SWJ discussion board). I read recently (may have an article in SWJ) where an Italian trainer was complaining that it was impossible to train the Afghans when they were illiterate and didn't understand even the most basic concepts of math. I would argue it is impossible to train them to fight the way we do, but somehow the Taliban manages to train their illiterate soldiers to fight. I suspect if I was an Afghani or Iraqi soldier getting trained by Americans, who are constantly distracted by their electronic toys, and who repeatedly disrespect me, etc. I would consider taking arms up against them.
I'm not sure how to close the gap between societies that are so technologically advanced and much more primative societies. It seems our answer is push to our way of war, our doctrine, our technology on them, and if they don't get it we call them stupid (yet few of us could survive by our wits in their world without our logistics and technology). Then we attempt to teach adults to become literiate and learn math overnight. Maybe if we just get out of the way and let the Afghans train themselves (the Northern Alliance knew how to fight the Taliban, they just didn't have the resources, but they could make illiterate men into fighters)? If we are going to continue our push in the all the world's dark places, then we better learn to do this effectively.
This is not a metric of a problem to be solved, but rather a metric that we attempting an inappropriate operation.
Step one is not to get the soldiers to work better with each other, but rather to reassess the described interests that bring us there in the first place. IMO they are grossly mistated, as are the ones in our National Security Strategy. Fix the interests, and then everything else will begin to fall into place.
For those that are interested in such things, this is a quick and "interesting" read:
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1298&theme=…
Pretty scathing critique of the American Soldier by the Afghans and of the Afghan by American Soldiers:
"In 68 focus groups involving 613 Afghan police and soldiers throughout three provinces, some Afghans praised their American colleagues. But many, when asked what criticisms they had of the Americans, described American troops as "violent, reckless, intrusive, arrogant, self-serving, profane, infidel bullies hiding behind high technology," the report said."
...
"In an accompanying survey of about 100 U.S. troops, soldiers uniformly gave their Afghan partners poor marks. In a series of focus groups with about 130 Americans in total, the soldiers, asked about their complaints, described the Afghan service members as "cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous and murderous radicals," according to the report."
Somehow I think we have a disconnect here.
Of course, as the saying goes, I guess that at least they are _OUR" "cowardly, incompetent, obtuse, thieving, complacent, lazy, pot-smoking, treacherous and murderous radicals."
If I did not know better I would think that I was reading a student dilemma with the guerrilla forces out at Robin Sage in the Special Forces Qualification Course. "Okay Captain/Sergeant, what do you do now that your resistance force is filled with those described above?"