Afghan 'Insurgents' Now Called 'Enemies of Afghanistan' by Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today.
Military announcements of deaths in Afghanistan - generally terse, bare-bones statements - have undergone a subtle change this summer, reflecting the shift to Afghans for the security of their country.
The date, number of troops killed, general location and the type of attack accompany the most detailed news releases. Others merely state that a servicemember had been killed.
Until May 26, the assailant, if one were named, was referred to as an insurgent. Now, attackers are called "enemies of Afghanistan." ...
Comments
Bob:
I don't like the way the word 'legitimacy' is normally used. It is like the word 'strategy' in many discussions. It gets in the way. Strategy is often used in sort of a sacred, fan the smoke from the burning sage kind of way when the word 'wise' or the phrase 'wise course of action' would make things much simpler and clear. Same thing with 'legitimate'. As we have discussed, neither side are paragons of liberal virtue so 'legitimate' just muddies things in a "We are and you ain't", "No you ain't and we are" kind of way.
I think it is better if we just say this-does this gov or that gov make people want to fight it? That is the crux of the matter anyway, will there be fighting. Taliban & Co have every bit the problem in that respect as do the US, NATO and GiROA. Lots of people want to fight Taliban & Co and have for years. So in that respect, both sides are about the same, neither one is 'legitimate'.
I don't like references to Pathan wielding of power in the past as sort of giving an imprimatur to the current political ambitions of Taliban & Co. First off there are a lot of Pathans who don't like Taliban & Co at all and fight them. Second and more importantly, it smacks too much of feudal privilege or the expectation that the aristocrats must get their due because they are. The Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tajiks probably don't see it that way. They appear to feel strongly enough about it that they will fight. Which leads us back to my paragraphs above.
I pretty much agree with your last paragraph, except I think it applies just as well, perhaps better, to Taliban & Co and the Pak Army/ISI.
Carl,
Actually, it is the central issue. Legitimacy, that is. We place great stock in the US these days in our recognition, or refusal to recognize, the legal legitimacy of some foreign government. But for populace-based conflicts and internal stability it political, or popular, legitimacy that matters. A recognition by those affected by some system of governance of the right for that system to do so. US, NATO and GiROA governance all have major, major political legitimacy issues in Afghanistan. To ignore that as the central issue of the current insurgency is extremely dangerous.
And yes, certainly Pakistan conducted UW to help the Taliban rise to power; but the larger Pashtu populace the Taliban come from has been the dominant owner of political and patronage power in Afghanistan long before a country of Pakistan ever came into existence.
But this concept of legitimacy, and effect of foreign intervention on perceptions of legitimacy is rooted in human nature and applies to all such conflicts everywhere and over time. This latest example in Afghanistan is just the most recent reminder that there are fundamental aspects of human nature and human conflict one does well not to ignore.
Good conversation. Good topic.
Bob
Robert C. Jones:
We could go back and forth about who is legitimate and who is not but I don't think it serves well.
I know you second and third paragraphs were written in reference to the US and the current Afghan gov. But I think they could have been written in precisely the same way, word for word even (...almost), in reference to the Pak Army/ISI and Taliban & Co.
Gaining power through the barrel of a gun, or the tip of a spear, or the edge of a sword are perhaps, historically, the MOST COMMON ways to gain legitimate power.
But, when some foreigner brings his gun, spear, or sword to the fight to take out the locally strongest actor to replace him with some weaker party who will agree to prioritize the interests of the foreign power in exchange for being placed into and protected in power, that is a very different thing.
We put our finger on the scale. That used to be ok. I don't think it is nearly as effective as it used to be. But it has always been, and will always be "illegitimate."
Robert C. Jones:
The name is a press release name. It has to sound good and be short. It shouldn't be flattering to the opponent. 'Enemies of Afghanistan' fits the bill. It is a good press release name. That is all it is meant to be.
Now if the decision makers can't see beyond that and figure the motivation of this segment of the opponents is different from that segment which may differ from a third, I submit that the real problem is the ability of the decision makers to think properly, not the press release name. If they can't think so good, a different press release name isn't going to help them.
Saying Taliban & Co have a grievance because "of the illegitimate way they were removed from...power" is a weak argument considering their acquisition of power wasn't exactly legitimate. They gained power through the barrel of a gun and they lost it the same way. They ain't got no complaint coming in that respect. They got the power through violence. They lost it through violence and they are trying to get it back through violence.
I don't figure Afghans are apolitical at all. From what I've read they are plenty political and are thoroughly conversant on the political ins and outs of their village and district and province. They know exactly who owes what to whom and who owns what and how they got it and keep it, or not. And that knowledge goes back generations. I think it a bit insulting to their acumen to imply that they are merely simple people tilling the land oblivious.
I just got done reading War Comes to Garmser and boy was it a great book. The conflicts there were between Pathans for reasons that had nothing much to do with us. They were fighting each other long before we got there. Resistance of foreigners didn't seem to be the primary motivation for conflict. It seemed to be more my group, whatever that may be, vs your group.
You're right about CT. It provides fun things for spec ops types to do and gives a vicarious thrill to the suits inside the beltway but I don't think it works so great for anything else.
Carl,
Certainly GIROA is free to call their challengers whatever they want, for whatever purpose. Likewise with ISAF. But I still contend this name change has no productive purpose.
To me, when one label's something or someone that is a problem, that label should suggest a affiliated family of solution.
What is the discrete solution to "enemy"? I have no idea, but then by all indications neither does GIROA or ISAF. The words we use can help us to stay on track, or they can create broad generalities that equally enable us to drift from approach to approach in our efforts to find something that might actually work.
If you had cancer you would not want your doctor to simply tell you you were "sick." A little more specific, please doctor, give me a name for this problem that helps me to understand what it is, who I should see for help, and what broad family of treatment is likely to help me. To simply say one is sick is accurate, but dangerously inadequate.
Big T Taliban who fled to sanctuary in Pakistan are primarily revolutionary insurgents. They are primarily motivated by the illegitimate way they were removed from political (and patronage) power, and equally the illegitimate way the Northern Alliance was elevated into political (and patronage) power. That suggests a family of approaches to address that revolutionary energy.
Little t taliban who have been dragged into this conflict as it came to them in their largely apolitical homes and villages across Afghanistan are primarily resistance insurgents. They are primarily motivated by our foreign presence and the problems we have brought with us.
There are also UW actors, such as AQ, the government of Pakistan, etc. There are ways to deal with those who conduct UW that can disrupt and render their operations ineffective. CT is not one of those ways.
We are very sloppy with our terms, and the effects speak for themselves.
Bob
Robert C. Jones:
Why can't they all be viewed as enemies of Afghanistan as it currently exists? They seem to want to change it so they can be viewed as enemies. That seems accurate.
Besides, it is all in the grand tradition of a propaganda label, things like imperialist, imperialist running dog, lackey, puppet etc.
Apparently Mr. O'Hanlon does not understand the nature of insurgency in general, or of this one in particular. We do far too much lumping of widely diverse actors under broad, dangerously meaningless titles already (AQ et al, AQAA, OTO, Taliban, etc). Sure, it eases targeting and reporting, but is so simplistic that it leads to "one size fits all" approaches.
This is not an improvement.