Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama’s War - In Afghanistan, the change we need is a shiny new COIN.
National Review Online ^ | November 20, 2008 | Clifford D. May

Posted on 11/20/2008 11:37:21 AM PST by neverdem








Obama’s War
In Afghanistan, the change we need is a shiny new COIN.

By Clifford D. May

Kabul, Afghanistan — American troops in Afghanistan are fighting what will soon become Barack Obama’s war — not just because he will inherit it, but also because he has claimed it. This is “the right battlefield,” Obama has said. The war in Afghanistan “has to be won.”

How can that mission be accomplished? Extensive interviews with American military commanders, European diplomats, and Afghan officials lead to this conclusion: Although we are not currently defeating the Taliban and other belligerent groups in Afghanistan, we can prevail — if the incoming administration is prepared to fully resource a sophisticated counter-insurgency strategy similar to that implemented by General David Petraeus in Iraq.

A subtle and often misunderstood point: The war in Iraq was not turned around by “surging” more troops into the country to do more of the same. Rather, the key was transitioning to counterinsurgency — COIN — a form of warfare that requires many boots on the ground.

Before Petraeus took command in Iraq in early 2007, most American troops there were cooped up in large Forward Operating Bases — FOBs — that had to be supplied, maintained, operated and, of course, guarded. Meanwhile, outside the wire, terrorists were taking over neighborhoods and towns — killing, exploiting, coercing, and intimidating the locals.

A small number of elite troops would “commute” to this war — going out from the FOBs, often at night, to look for terrorist leaders, kicking down doors, arresting suspects, killing those who resisted, sometimes getting themselves blown up by bombs planted along roads the insurgents knew the Americans would have to travel. Reliable, actionable intelligence was scarce, so sometimes troops kicked down the wrong doors and killed the wrong people, stoking Iraqi resentment of the American “occupiers.” In sum, this was a flawed and failing strategy.

Petraeus initiated dramatic changes. He moved troops out of the FOBs and into Iraq’s mean streets. He brought in reinforcements and stationed them in Iraqi communities as well. Yes, that gave the terrorists more targets in more vulnerable postures. But once Iraqis understood that these warriors were there to provide security for them, their attitudes underwent a transformation.


They began work with the Americans, supplying them with intelligence no satellite or drone could produce: identifying the bad guys and pointing out the houses, schools, and mosques in which they were hiding, storing weapons, and holding prisoners. Before long, al-Qaeda terrorists and Iranian-backed militias were on the run.

As COIN experts in Afghanistan explain, successful counter-insurgency requires four discrete steps: shaping, clearing, holding, and building. Shaping implies such tasks as sitting down with local leaders to ask their consent before bringing in troops. Clearing is the “kinetic” part — eliminating the enemy through the application of lethal force. Cleared areas must then be held — security forces need to stay on to prevent the bad guys from returning. Short-term, these forces can be foreign, but — as soon as possible — responsibility should be transferred to indigenous authorities whom our troops have trained for the task and whom we advise as long as necessary. Finally, there is a development component: building the local economy and helping establishing governance so that communities liberated from terrorists can stand on their own two feet.

This is a long and arduous process. But it has worked against tough insurgencies — while other approaches have not. For that reason, American officers and troops are working hard to master the range of skills needed and to adapt what has been learned in Iraq to the different — and in many ways more difficult — conditions in Afghanistan.

However, to achieve success will require additional manpower and equipment: everything from helicopters to body armor. Obama, during the campaign, pledged to provide such resources. Gen. Petraeus and the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan should tell the President-Elect exactly what they need. Obama should listen. If he does, Republicans as well as Democrats should support him.

Afghanistan will be Obama’s war but it also will be America’s war — just as Iraq was both Bush’s war and America’s war (though many people refused to acknowledge that). A robust COIN is the change we need to win it.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a policy institute focusing on terrorism.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; obama

1 posted on 11/20/2008 11:37:21 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

obama the warmonger? engaging in american imperialism in afghanistan


2 posted on 11/20/2008 11:40:54 AM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Rather, the key was transitioning to counterinsurgency — COIN — a form of warfare that requires many boots on the ground.

Obama should ask all those cute college kiddies who voted for him to sign up


3 posted on 11/20/2008 11:41:12 AM PST by ari-freedom (So this is how Liberty dies... with thunderous applause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Rather, the key was transitioning to counterinsurgency — COIN — a form of warfare that requires many boots on the ground.

I'm unclear how this was ever forgotten. It is now and always has been the only way to defeat a counter-insurgency. In an insurgency the battlefield is the people.

Actually, there is another way to defeat an insurgency. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. But that's not ever likely to be an acceptable American tactic. Nor should it be.

4 posted on 11/20/2008 11:44:47 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

I am going on record now being against COIN in Afganistan.
If history has shown us anything (Russia), we should ‘police’ Afganistan while husbanding our resources. There is no good exit stragety available for that area for a long time.
(I know nothing of military strategy but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last month.)


5 posted on 11/20/2008 11:47:40 AM PST by griswold3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Obama should ask all those cute college kiddies who voted for him to sign up

Why, when he can just draft our daughters?

6 posted on 11/20/2008 11:48:53 AM PST by BubbaBasher (www.HypocriteLibs.org - Tracking the Slandering Liars in the MSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Another thing required, I assume, is more money, if we are going to help them fix up Afghanistan.

Can we afford that, if we may soon be strapped for money to keep things going here in the U.S.? That’s one more difficulty raised by the failed economic policies that have grown up over the years—subprime mortgages, lifting of the separation between banks and investment companies, reduction in the loan reserves banks are required to hold, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, unlimited welfare for illegal aliens, failing corporations, and all the rest of it.

Bad time to be gearing up a new war, desirable as it might be to do so.


7 posted on 11/20/2008 11:49:04 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Afghanistan is a NATO led mission, unlike Iraq. Obama wants to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan (even though he has said on tape in Germany that all they do in Afghanistan is bomb and kill civilians). I want to see the rest of NATO increase their troop levels in Afghanistan before we send anymore of our young men and women there to be criticized by our next Commander in Chief.


8 posted on 11/20/2008 11:59:00 AM PST by carikadon (Mom of AF sons who have been in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

Classic quip: “throwing more manpower at a late project makes it later.”

Some situations just don’t benefit from more bodies. The job will take as long as it takes, given the right people & equipment & information for the job. The problem in Afghanistan isn’t not enough bodies to do the job, it’s FINDING the targets - and throwing more grunts at the problem won’t help.

I really don’t understand what O thinks he can do, what Bush hasn’t done, that will finish the job any faster.


9 posted on 11/20/2008 12:00:07 PM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Lots of Luck!!!

Afghanistan is the wrong place at any time. An argument can be made for us having been in Iraq (oil, strategic location, Sadaam’s aggression etc,) any valid objectives we might have in Afghanistan could be realized by remote control. Bomb camps, defoliate poppy fields to cut off opium revenue etc.

Iraq had/has a reasonably developed society with a few main groups. Afghanistan is comprised of MANY warlike tribes that have been in the business of fighting invaders for millennia, from the Persians, Alexander, the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, and now us. They have NEVER been subdued. Even at the height of the power of the British Raj, they only held Kabul and 100 yards to each side of the main supply route. These people’s culture is war. They will NEVER be subdued or stabilized. The terrain and infrastructure in Iraq enabled our forces, the opposite is and will be true in Afghanistan. Even now resupply is sometimes problematical.

We should get out now. the good news is that BO and the Dims are so blinded by Bush hate they will pull out whilly nilly from where we have (arguably) won and, so as not to be labeled weak on defense they will plunge into what will REALLY be a quagmire. It would almost be good if it weren’t that our troops will have to pay the blood price for their folly.


10 posted on 11/20/2008 12:01:20 PM PST by slorunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slorunner

I’ve always felt that iraq made more sense than afghanistan. We’re going to go after a bunch of guys in toyota pickup trucks while Ssaddam had oil, $$$, scuds and who knows what?


11 posted on 11/20/2008 12:09:32 PM PST by ari-freedom (So this is how Liberty dies... with thunderous applause)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: slorunner
Stan has come a long way in the past 7 years alone - We need to be there, simply because that is where our enemies are plain and simple. It isn't because of the strategic significance that goes along with Iraq, correct.

But our enemies of radical Islam (and whats left of AQ) is there. They must be continuously hunted until those top-tier elements are dead or captured (and that list is getting smaller without question).

We are not looking to "rule" Stan or turn it into anything specifically other than a quasi-ally / and/or no threat to us (U.S.). By and large this has been accomplished and we've succeeded in Stan like no others have (up till this point). Our enemies are being pushed out, in the opposite direction of their desires (which is why Pak border regions are the area of focus/attention and study).

More boots on the ground in Stan can and will be useful. Albeit, used correctly. More air assault assets / CAV assets even more so. Our OODA circle continues to become smaller and smaller with AOs throughout much of Stan. It is about having the needed assets available to take full advantage of that smaller and smaller OODA loop.

12 posted on 11/20/2008 12:49:50 PM PST by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson