Know Thine Enemy: Why The Taliban Cannot Be Flipped

[boombala]

National Security Archive Update, November 2, 2009

Know Thine Enemy: Why The Taliban Cannot Be Flipped

Foreign Affairs Features Article by Archive Analyst

For more information contact:
Barbara Elias: 202/256-6269
belias@gwu.edu

The National Security Archive

Washington, DC, November 2, 2009 - As Vice President Biden and other high-ranking U.S. officials contemplate a policy of compromise with the Taliban in order to induce them to turn against al-Qaeda, a new article published today in Foreign Affairs by the National Security Archive's Barbara Elias outlines why this approach may be unrealistic.

Drawing on declassified documents and invoking lessons of recent history, Elias, who directs the National Security Archive's project on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban, notes how "Secretary of Defense [Robert] McNamara warned us of the central importance of knowing the enemy." "We must not ascribe our own logic, mindsets or worldview to the Taliban," Elias writes.

The problem the Obama administration faces, the article argues, is that "the Taliban and al-Qaeda are neither inextricably linked by ideology nor held together merely by fleeting correspondence of interests. Their relationship is rooted in more complex issues of legitimacy and identity. The Taliban cannot surrender bin Laden without also surrendering their existing identity as a vessel for an obdurate and uncompromising version of political Islam. Their legitimacy rests not on their governing skills, popular support, or control over territory, but on their claim to represent what they perceive as Shari'a rule. This means upholding the image that they are guided entirely by Islamic principles; as such, they cannot make concessions to, or negotiate with, secular states."

In other words, according to Elias, "the Taliban is not a state, and we should not expect it to be act like one."

The Archive's project on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Taliban has filed hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests for documents on the region and historical U.S. government approaches toward it.

For more information, visit the Archive's Web site:

The National Security Archive

To read the complete article in Foreign Affairs:

Know Thine Enemy | Foreign Affairs

----------------------
IMO, this is right on.

 

[Pabst]

they dont compromise, thats why you kill them. biden and obama will soon learn this. obama tried reaching out to muslims before and the extremist morons insulted him just as much as they did to bush. i guess people dont realize that the taliban doesnt care if a democrat or a republican is in the whitehouse, they still see us all as evil regardless. even if we never went there they would still agree with other terrorists that we suck and should be killed. our way of life doesnt mesh with theirs so they think we are evil decadent and should be eradicated.

the sooner people understand this the sooner we can get behind the idea that it really is a all or nothing situation, you're either with us or against us as bush once said. they demand the issue be black and white and to deal with it in any other way is simply foolish. i'm not saying i agree with that but if you're dealing with someone who will not bend break or compromise, in this case you should kill them. every last one of them.

 

[nova]

they dont compromise, thats why you kill them.

I would say you make them incapable of fighting, ie denial of material, manpower and room to maneuver, whatever methods that entails.

 

[Pabst]

I would say you make them incapable of fighting, ie denial of material, manpower and room to maneuver, whatever methods that entails.

oj how do you keep their hands off of small arms? mostly they use small arms and use other "things" to make IEDs. its not like they're fighting us using high grade military weaponry and equipment, its RPG's and ak47's.

how do you deny them man power? many a young muslim male buys their propaganda bullshit and joins them hoping to be a martyr. to them being a martyr is THE way to live AND die as a muslim. so how do you combat this problem?

room to maneuver...hmmm in case you havent noticed, we're in there country. they know it better than we do and because they are smaller, need less equipment and seem to specialize in striking fast and then moving on how do you stop this?

i want them dead, DEAD. they were a plague on the afghans before we got there and if we dont get rid of them they'll just come back after we leave and the afghans will really be pissed off with us. it requires we go to an ridiculous extreme to get rid of them and in the process probably cause more people to join their cause along the way.

i dont think there is a way to win against them and mark it as a win for us and the afghan people. we need to be sneakier and use smaller units. we need to think and act as they do, improvise, move fast. yeah its great to have all this high tech gadgetry but it means nothing if one terrorist nut old can make an IED and blow up a humvee and bring a whole caravan to a screeching halt. our tactics need to change and fast.

 

[nova]

oj how do you keep their hands off of small arms? mostly they use small arms and use other "things" to make IEDs. its not like they're fighting us using high grade military weaponry and equipment, its RPG's and ak47's.

You target the people supplying them. You target their methods of generating revenue so they can't afford them. You make the general populace support you. You deny them room to maneuver so even if they have the $$ and people will sell it, they can't transport it.

how do you deny them man power? many a young muslim male buys their propaganda bullshit and joins them hoping to be a martyr. to them being a martyr is THE way to live AND die as a muslim. so how do you combat this problem?

You make it better to be your friend than your enemy. You make the generally populace support you. You again deny them room to maneuver and sanctuary so what recruits they might get really have nowhere to go.

In addition, in the appropriate time and manner, you kill them. Killing them is not the best way to deny manpower though.

room to maneuver...hmmm in case you havent noticed, we're in there country. they know it better than we do and because they are smaller, need less equipment and seem to specialize in striking fast and then moving on how do you stop this?

You and your allies pretty much have to be everywhere, all the time. It takes a lot of manpower and lot of time. 10:1 ratio of your combat troops to theirs and years if not decades. Its altogether difficult.

i want them dead, DEAD. they were a plague on the afghans before we got there and if we dont get rid of them they'll just come back after we leave and the afghans will really be pissed off with us. it requires we go to an ridiculous extreme to get rid of them and in the process probably cause more people to join their cause along the way.

Not going to happen. Unless you're willing to start dropping nukes, they'll outbreed you everytime and even with nukes its iffy.

We tried the "kill 'em all" approach in Vietnam. Dropped 5 million tons of ordinance, enough to refight WWII over 2.5X. Even then something like 3-4X the number of NV and VC we killed came of fighting age every year. That is, for ever 1 we killed 3 or 4 more popped up to take their place.

The Russians tried the "kill 'em all" approach in Afghanistan and got kicked in the ass even worse.

The armies of Alexander conducted wholesale genocide against the Afghans of his day and still never managed to keep them under complete control. Lather rinse and repeat for every power from the Seleucids to the Mongols to the British. None managed it.

i dont think there is a way to win against them and mark it as a win for us and the afghan people. we need to be sneakier and use smaller units. we need to think and act as they do, improvise, move fast. yeah its great to have all this high tech gadgetry but it means nothing if one terrorist nut old can make an IED and blow up a humvee and bring a whole caravan to a screeching halt. our tactics need to change and fast.

They do need to change. To exactly what I'm describing ie classic counter insurgency operations. Pretty much every successful counter insurgency at least in the last 100 years if not the history of warfare has utilized this method.

Every fighting force in the history of warfare from Ceasars Legions to an armored division full of tanks requires 3 things.

1. Men
2. Material and supplies
3. Room to maneuver

You take away any one of those 3 things and they lose the ability to fight.

An insurgency gains 1 and 2 through support of the populace, either through popular support or intimidation. Both requireing either legitamacy through action. Therefore if you take away 3, and they cannot act, they eventually lose the support of the population. Without the support of the population 1 and 2 dries up.

As a strong actor, a nation state gives an insurgency legitimacy and lose their own by going after them with bulk and firepower. Think of it along the lines of an adult fighting with a child. Regardless of who started it, if the child is armed or what its a no win situation for the adult. The adults feels bad if they harm the child, stupid if the child harms them and the adult wonders if its really necessary to be in the fight at all.

3 requires a large investment in manpower and time and the willpower to soak up casualties for a long time. If you don't have the willpower to do that, its time to pack up and go home because you'll lose eventually.

I promise, this isn't some froo froo left wing hippie bullshit. This is the basis for the doctrine that guys like Petraus and McCrystal have written. Its the same basic strategy the UK used in Northern Ireland. You don't crush insurgencies, you suffocate them. You deny manuever, you win hearts and minds and they eventually can't operate.

 

[Pabst]

good luck with all that then.
especially with winning the hearts and minds of muslims who'd rather support terrorists than support non muslims who are trying to give them a better country to live in, at least in theory anyway.

 

[nova]

good luck with all that then.
especially with winning the hearts and minds of muslims who'd rather support terrorists than support non muslims who are trying to give them a better country to live in, at least in theory anyway.

You ever hear of the 90-5-5 ratio?

In any war of any size, at the start, out of a given population 5% hate you, 5% love you and the other 90% just wanna be left alone to live their lives. The challenge is to get rid of the 5% that hate you without making the 90% hate you. The 90% will keep living their lives regardless of who is in charge as long as you don't piss them off.

 

[Accountable]

We need a longer-range approach, using our most effective weapons: KFC, McDonald's, Coke & Pepsi. Couple this ground assault with an air attack: satellite TV, action movies.

Then when they're suitably softened up we bring out the big bertha: Walmart.

 

[Meirionnydd]

how do you deny them man power? many a young muslim male buys their propaganda bullshit and joins them hoping to be a martyr. to them being a martyr is THE way to live AND die as a muslim. so how do you combat this problem?

Many experts would make the assertion that the Taliban is not a religious movement, but rather, a nationalist movement.

Such questions regarding the religious fundamentalism of the Taliban are irrelevant, most of the country adhears to a conserative form of Islam anyway.

 

[Accountable]

Many experts would make the assertion that the Taliban is not a religious movement, but rather, a nationalist movement.

Such questions regarding the religious fundamentalism of the Taliban are irrelevant, most of the country adhears to a conserative form of Islam anyway.

I doubt they distinguish between the two terms.