Had some time today to reread and think about several articles we've linked to over the last several months. In case you missed this one - or not - I'd recommend a first or second read of All Counterinsurgency Is Local by Thomas H. Johnson and M. Chris Mason in October's The Atlantic. Here are several take-aways:
1) As in Vietnam, the U.S. has never lost a tactical engagement in Afghanistan, and this tactical success is still often conflated with strategic progress. Yet the Taliban insurgency grows more intense and gains more popular traction each year.
2) The U.S. engagement in Afghanistan is foundering because of the endemic failure to engage and protect rural villages, and to immunize them against insurgency. Many analysts have called for more troops inside the country, and for more effort to eliminate Taliban sanctuaries outside it, in neighboring Pakistan.
3) Politically and strategically, the most important level of governance in Afghanistan is neither national nor regional nor provincial. Afghan identity is rooted in the woleswali: the districts within each province that are typically home to a single clan or tribe. Historically, unrest has always bubbled up from this stratum—whether against Alexander, the Victorian British, or the Soviet Union. Yet the woleswali are last, not first, in U.S. military and political strategy.
4) The Taliban are well aware that the center of gravity in Afghanistan is the rural Pashtun district and village, and that Afghan army and coalition forces are seldom seen there.
5) To reverse its fortunes in Afghanistan, the U.S. needs to fundamentally reconfigure its operations, creating small development and security teams posted at new compounds in every district in the south and east of the country.
Much more at The Atlantic about a COIN approach concentrating on the rural areas in Afghanistan.
Comments
The authors mention posting 60-70 NATO "security personnel", 30-40 support staff and 30-40 ANA soldiers at each proposed district compound. Do you know what they mean by "security personnel", soldiers or contractors or something else?
This is a small point that doesn't affect the fundamental points made in the article, but I find it a annoying when the second paragraph of the story implies that Vietnam fell to something other than a great big conventional army overrunning the country.