Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
4 thoughts on “Steve Metz on Learning Lessons from Afghanistan”
Phil
“Even if Afghans do not much like the Taliban, the group at least is not motivated by the sort of parasitism that seems to drive the national government.”
Aaaand then it went tits up.
They are (in-so-far as there is a “they”) every bit as parasitic.
I think the whole article is flawed. He doesn’t produce a shred of evidence to show that the US image of a counter-insurgency campaign matches what he says it does. His argument works reasonably well if what he says is true – that US thinking is like that. But where does he show it? He’d get a big fat FAIL if this was an A-Level essay.
wf
I thought it was a thoughtful short essay. He might not have room to quote the source material in such a short article, but I suspect that it’s main thrust is correct, in that happy clappy projects have little effect, and COIN primarily depends on a “my Da’s bigger than your Da” calculations on the part of the population.
The biggest jump for us and the Yanks will be dealing with the fallout of waging a necessary, but imperfect COIN war, where the goodies are a shade better than the baddies only. At least such campaigns will probably require fewer troops, but the lawfare waged against them is going to be significant. Well, even more than now. If I was a US Republican politician, I would be laying down markers as to all the usual suspects remarkable silence over the last four years on everything from Gitmo remaining open to attitudes to prisoners in Afghan jails
Phil
I just don’t recognise that model of thinking in ISAF. There has always been a Realpolitik edge to their communications and statements of intent.
I appreciate there isn’t the length to quote much but there’s nothing there to back up anything he is saying. It sounds like a wonderful argument – if it is true. Which he does not show. It’s poor journalism. You can’t just say shit.
Ace Rimmer
I thought he made some very valid points, but I’d call it more of an objective opinion piece. I wouldn’t call it poor journalism, compared to some of the ill-conceived, second rate, xenophobic crud that’s churned out in the UK every Sunday, I’d call it a good read!
“Even if Afghans do not much like the Taliban, the group at least is not motivated by the sort of parasitism that seems to drive the national government.”
Aaaand then it went tits up.
They are (in-so-far as there is a “they”) every bit as parasitic.
I think the whole article is flawed. He doesn’t produce a shred of evidence to show that the US image of a counter-insurgency campaign matches what he says it does. His argument works reasonably well if what he says is true – that US thinking is like that. But where does he show it? He’d get a big fat FAIL if this was an A-Level essay.
I thought it was a thoughtful short essay. He might not have room to quote the source material in such a short article, but I suspect that it’s main thrust is correct, in that happy clappy projects have little effect, and COIN primarily depends on a “my Da’s bigger than your Da” calculations on the part of the population.
The biggest jump for us and the Yanks will be dealing with the fallout of waging a necessary, but imperfect COIN war, where the goodies are a shade better than the baddies only. At least such campaigns will probably require fewer troops, but the lawfare waged against them is going to be significant. Well, even more than now. If I was a US Republican politician, I would be laying down markers as to all the usual suspects remarkable silence over the last four years on everything from Gitmo remaining open to attitudes to prisoners in Afghan jails
I just don’t recognise that model of thinking in ISAF. There has always been a Realpolitik edge to their communications and statements of intent.
I appreciate there isn’t the length to quote much but there’s nothing there to back up anything he is saying. It sounds like a wonderful argument – if it is true. Which he does not show. It’s poor journalism. You can’t just say shit.
I thought he made some very valid points, but I’d call it more of an objective opinion piece. I wouldn’t call it poor journalism, compared to some of the ill-conceived, second rate, xenophobic crud that’s churned out in the UK every Sunday, I’d call it a good read!