Facilitating a Pashtun revolt against the Taliban -- A Strategy for Winning in Afghanistan

[steven johnson]

I think the way to win in Afghanistan is to bypass the corrupt central government of Karzai and go to the disaffected Pashtun, Sunni tribal chiefs and warlords. They dislike both Karzai and the Taliban. This worked for us in Iraq. We need surrogates to take some of the load and the central governmental army won't do. The Russians found this out.

We need to go back to the 'ghost war' approach that the CIA and ISI used during the soviet invasion, to coopt the afghani tribal leader. It is reported that the Pakistani ISI has good lines of communication with these same Pashtuns so the job wouldn't be that difficult.

The way we won in Iraq was to work with the Sunni Awakening and create jobs for the unemployed Sunni's by hiring them to keep peace. A similar strategy could work in Afghanistan.

Here is a blog by a Rand political scientist suggesting that the insurgency in Afghanistan is mostly confined to Pashtun areas of the country, which are dominated by tribes, sub-tribes, and clans that have historically been anti-central government. These people feel Karzai stole the election.

The Afghanistan debate raging in the United States has become hijacked by an obsession with American troop numbers. But this discussion misunderstands the subtle nuances of fighting a war in areas inhabited by fiercely independent Pashtun tribes, whose culture and traditions are under severe threat from the Taliban.

The current strategy rightly focuses on protecting the Afghan population. The U.S. counterinsurgency manual suggests that a force of roughly 20 counterinsurgents for every 1,000 inhabitants is necessary to secure an area. But it is a misunderstanding of counterinsurgency doctrine to assume that these numbers must be international forces or even Afghan national security forces. What's more, it reflects a troubling failure to understand Afghanistan.

The insurgency in Afghanistan is mostly confined to Pashtun areas of the country, which are dominated by tribes, sub-tribes, and clans that have historically rejected an intrusive Afghan government and permanent international presence. Khushhal Khan Khatak, a seventeenth century Pashtun poet and warrior, aptly noted that "the very name Pashtun spells honor and glory. Lacking that honor, what is the Afghan story?"

Pashtuns are predominantly conservative Sunni Muslims and are the largest ethnic group in the country...An effective strategy needs to facilitate a Pashtun revolt against the Taliban...Pashtuns have generally eschewed an intrusive central government in their areas, but most have supported a
government that serves as a mediator.


Path to a Pashtun Rebellion in Afghanistan

[Catshrink]

1. Thanks for the article and link

This is very interesting and sounds like a way forward -- and out!

[thunder rising]

Pashtun areas are where empires go to die.

[WCGreen]

2. Read the article and it sounds like a great plan...

Sometimes the people think only of Vietnam when they think about foreign military incursions. This really looks as if it could succeed if we give it time. And, we could perhaps show the rest of the Muslim world that we can work effectively

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. We lost in Iraq. And, we lost in Afghanistan, All that's left is to get out of both failed wars.

[Mari333]

4. How about we just leave altogether and let them figure it out nt

[NNN0LHI]

5. The plan appears to be to force the most dangerous Afghan elements into nuclear armed Pakistan

Sounds like a brilliant idea.

Let me know how that works out in a few years.

Don

[jwirr]

6. This may work, however how many times have we seen this and it

ended up as a never ending world problem. The results are seldom ever what we want. As a part of a Native American community there is nothing that can make our people more angry than the history that has made one tribe hate the other tribe. The effects of this kind of action are long lasting.

[TheKentuckian]

7. The biggest thing is none of this is actually about Afghanistan any more

The real underlying issue is Pakistan and it makes this much more of a pickle than anyone really wants to talk about. I think we need to give up on the whole cover story and get to what do we have to do to secure those nukes or get someone else to. There may be some legitimate whack a mole of larger scale terrorist organization but that is a footprint minimal situation.

We don't give a fuck about the people of Afghanistan or the territory. I see no real value in doing anything aside from fairly direct self interest on this. Nation building is a joke over there but there is some dangerous stuff that needs to be dealt with. There is a real and literal of the wrong shit getting into way wrong hands over there and the genie won't slink back into its bottle at will or if left alone.

I don't doubt there is interest in securing pipelines too but there are a few moving parts in this situation that creates legitimate self interest.

[On the Road]

8. I Like the Idea

Maybe it works. Don't know why it hasn't been tried yet -- have Bush and Obama been trying to deal only with the central government at the expense of the locals? That's not going to work.

[Elmore Furth]

9. Sun Tzu Recommended Indirect Strategies

One of Sun Tzu's key tenets is the use of the indirect approach to achieve one's objectives. His view is that a direct attack is one your opponent would expect, be prepared for and would ultimately be resisted very strongly. The indirect approach is one that is unexpected and will not be either noticed or understood by the opponent, nor effectively resisted. As Sun Tzu stated, "He who wishes to snatch an advantage takes a devious and distant route and makes of it the short way."

Sun Tzu warned against a protracted war and getting bogged down in a war against the enemy’s people in its own terrain. General McChrystal has not apparently read Sun Tzu.





http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/sun-tzu-and-a-peerless-empire/.