"Whether we like it or not, we have a conventional warfare mentality... We must do things dramatically differently, even uncomfortably differently," he said, talking about the need to secure the civilian population in Afghanistan.
-- Gen. Stanly McChystal
What are we doing in Afghanistan? Population-centric counterinsurgency: Getting our troops off the bases and working--and more importantly securing--the civilian population, while helping with various means of public development.
That's The Casbah definition. You can take it, leave it, or offer a better definition if you wish.
But as some have been asking: What are our alternatives? I thought this was an interesting post that our dear friend, Andrew Exum, did on his blog, Abu Muqawama. Check it. It really opens the debate. (And isn’t that what this is all about?)
As for this population-centric counterinsurgency, Frontline did a half-hour program on what this concept actually looks like.
And finally, both Exum and Michael J. Totten have given their full blessing on Michael Yon's new piece, The Greatest Afghan War. This guy is really talented and has a refined skill for giving the "so what's it really like on the ground." I, for one, look for this kind of commentary when reading about a place I have never been, like Afghanistan.
After watching the Frontline program and reading Yon’s piece, well, what do you think? Is population-centric counterinsurgency really the best strategy in Afghanistan? Or is this a ploy for statecraft, which had nothing to do with transnational terrorism (al-Qaeda) in the first place? Whatever one thinks, it seems like we are gearing up to debate Afghanistan for a long time…
If my hazed memory servers me, I finished Peter W. Galbraith book, Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America's Enemies, last January. Indeed, a great read. (I even blogged about it!)
Since I last thought of our principled idealist (yes, Galbraith certainly came across this way in his book) he joined the UN in Afghanistan. And as of last Wednesday he was fired from his position as the UN's NO. 2. The reason? Well, as Galbraith demonstrated in his book, you cannot allow the bastards grind you down. Yes, old Galbraith was fired because he wouldn't roll over and watch the UN try to cover the recent election fraud--which gives just about every NATO country a reason to cut and run from statecraft in Afghanistan.
I think we all understand why it was important to have the last election run smoothly and provide a much-needed legitimacy for the Afghan government. But at what cost? Should the international community really become complicit in corruption to maintain the state? And will this really help the Afghan people? Transnational terrorism?
Galbraith didn't think so. That is why he wrote "a scathing letter accusing the head of the mission here of concealing election fraud that benefited the campaign of the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai."
Sound off in the comments.
Update: Click here and here for two great, interesting Middle East related links.
Update II: For all the flack I give Thomas Friedman on this blog, I do have to say, the NY Times senior columnist hit it out of the park with his most recent piece, Where Did "We" Go?"
We all have our favorite websites for news. Some like the quasi-liberal yank tone of the NY Times. Others dig the undigested reporting of the AP. And then there are those who find a neck tied read from the Washington Post most suiting.
Whatever your read, it is important to understand how the news is forged. And since the last post I did was on last Sunday's provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem, lets stick with that.
Here it is:
Al-Jazeera
The Al-Aqsa Foundation had warned a few days earlier that Israeli authorities were planning to permit settlers entrance to the area. Officials in East Jerusalem predicted that the break-in would occur on Sunday under the pretext of marking Yom Kippur.
Ma'an
On Thursday, the Al-Aqsa Foundation had warned that Israeli authorities were planning to permit settlers entrance to the area. Officials in East Jerusalem predicted that the break-in would occur on Sunday under the pretext of marking Yom Kippur, or Day of Atonement.
Al-Jazeera
Clashes also erupted near Majlis Gate, one of the main entrances to the mosque, after police prevented worshippers from entering the area, according to witnesses. More clashes followed noon prayers near the Lions' Gate entrance to Al-Aqsa.
Ma'an
Clashes later erupted near Majlis Gate, one of the main entrances to the mosque, after police prevented worshippers from entering the area, according to witnesses. More clashes followed noon prayers near the Lions' Gate entrance to Al-Aqsa.
Wow. Crazy. Right? Believe it. That's how the news works. So next time you hear someone bashing a small news agency for being irrelevant (like Ma'an), just look at who blatantly plagiarizes it!
Al-Jazeera a little to exotic for you? Read the NY Times version. Not "plagiarism," but similar in a way I find, well, I'm skeptical.
What an industry.
Ramallah - Ma'an - The Palestinian Authority joined a chorus of institutions and leaders condemning what officials termed a provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in East Jerusalem on Sunday.
The PA's Information Ministry released a statement that slammed the actions of "Israeli occupation police and extremist settlers" wanting to "implement a new series of organized state terror" in Palestinian East Jerusalem.
