Left hand, right hand on Afghanistan
Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 12:05AM 
WAPO piece about Petraeus butting heads early on with Karzai about creating local militias to battle Taliban:
As he takes charge of the war effort in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus has met sharp resistance from President Hamid Karzai to an American plan to assist Afghan villagers in fighting the Taliban on their own.
A first meeting last week between the new commander and the Afghan president turned tense after Karzai renewed his objections to the plan, according to U.S. officials. The idea of recruiting villagers into local defense programs is a key part of the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, and Karzai's stance poses an early challenge to Petraeus as he tries to fashion a collaborative relationship with the Afghan leader.
Senior U.S. officials say that the United States would like to expand the program to about two dozen sites across Afghanistan, double the current number, and are hoping to overcome Karzai's concerns. But the issue is delicate to many who fear that such experiments could lead Afghanistan further into warlordism and out-of-control militias.
You have to wonder if the "fear of warlordism" is just a clever rationale for a Karzai eager to get his desired deal with his fellow tribesmen Taliban, because if the deal is cut with Taliban, doesn't that present the same problem--just with preferred winners as far as Karzai is concerned?
Makes you wonder about a disconnect between an Obama administration thinking about deals with the Taliban and a US military pursuing the local defense path. Of course, the two can also work together nicely, under the right conditions, but again, once you make peace with the Taliban, you arguably are forced down the path of leaving the locals defenseless against their encroachments.
Eventually, the Afghan government approved the program. The deal puts the forces under the Ministry of Interior, assuaging Karzai's fears of a loss of central control.
Fair enough, but you see the underlying tension between a US military strategy that accepts or promotes local empowerment and a government approach that fears that outcome.
Reader Comments (3)
More likely Karzai's concern is that villagers need most protection from the rapaciously corrupt Afghan police and Karzai's own shady associates, and arming villagers will stop him from preying on them with impunity as he has so far..
Well, now we are dusting off an old Vietnam strategy. Arm the villagers. Local defense force. There were two problems with this in Vietnam. Arms supplied to villagers sometimes ended up in the hands of the Viet Cong. The "friendly" villages became targets of the Viet Cong. This led to relocation of the villagers. The villagers of course were the losers in this game. They lost their homes, their farms, and any confidence they might have (slim to begin with) in the government. You can imagine what it was like for them when the war was lost. It was hell.
I am not confident that we have, or for that matter, that there is, a strategy that will ever change that place. There is an old joke about Hollywood marriages. "Your kids and my kids are beating up our kids." That seems to be what is being proposed. Your guys and my guys will fight their guys. Never mind Vietnam...read about the French and Indian Wars.
Nothing new on US problems and methods of dealing with 'civilizing' and somehow uniting tribal people.
When Americans went to our West they found roving tribes with some home turf competing for land, and resources, but also to maintain tribal identity of their young, and respect for leaders and their heritage. For awhile it seemed the US 'colonists' were finding ways to merge tribes into US national mindset. Then the Civil War caused experienced troops to be withdrawn and the resources of our government tribal liaison officials to be reduced. So wandering old style tribal conflicts returned.
After the Civil War, Arthur MacArthur was one of the key leaders sent to find relatively inexpensive SysAdmin type methods to deal with situation. Some Indians became scouts and advisors. Others formed small peace keeper and tribe liaison units. Arthur had the same type people problems noted in the WAPO article, and sly reps from foreign powers tried to undermine him.
Decades later, son Douglas had similar responsibilities and problems trying to bring a SysAdmin approach to divided groups of the Philippines that we earlier 'liberated' from Spain. He was imperfect, but effective ... and had the "I shall return' pitch at start of US WW II. If we read the news we still see problems from their ethnic, cultural and historical problems ... but the learning process goes on.
Oh, yeah wandering Asian tribes were some of our best allies in Vietnam conflict.