Comments on: Episode 5: “How to Win in Afghanistan”

By: Mike Henderson

Mike Henderson — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:20:01 +0000

I love your idea of leaving a commander for a long periodof time…thats what the British did as much as they didnt seem to support TE Lawerence….the Tribes knew “he was the man”Really cool that head of the SBS sent you an e mail…he would be interesting to “do lunch ” with.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:14:54 +0000

It is amazing how far backwards we have gone with the tribal engagement initiative in Afghanistan. The troops are no longer allowed to use force to arm or train tribal militia for fear that they will become ‘warlords’. This fear is supported by the central government in Kabul (warlords) who fear arming and training tribes would constitute a direct threat to their own corrupt power. These restrictions have basically neutered the tribal engagement mission and renders it ineffective. The tribes don’t want CF around for fear of retribution and we don’t provide them with a means to defend themselves while those who want to help CF can’t because we have confiscated their arms. Combine this with the ever increasing pressure to use CF to inject GoA influence into tribal affairs, we all know how much the tribes trust the central government and what we have now is a complete failure of TET. I pray that somebody realizes that we need to accept a certain amount of risk in the TET strategy. Yes, some will misuse the arms and training we give them but in my mind it just makes our job easier in separating the bad from the good. They naturally float to the top in Afghanistan. Good men are being killed by insurgents who are planting IED’s on all their routes to and from their TET’s and for what? Allow the highly trained men in our military like Maj Gant and his brand of warrior to do their mission and change this war around.

By: Kevin McGill

Kevin McGill — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:17:06 +0000

I agree with your recommendations. How would you compare this strategy with the US’s relationship to the American Natives?

By: Mary Scriver

Mary Scriver — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:48:49 +0000

I like some of these ideas.

For Steve B., if you think the prairie clearances defeated the tribes, you haven’t been to a Montana reservation lately. They’re doing quite a lot better than the surrounding white towns and they are still distinctly themselves. Anyone who thinks “Dances with Wolves” is anything but a Hollywood invention had probably better schedule a visit as well.

As for sending some “Alpha Dogs’ of ours to negotiate with tribal chiefs, may I suggest Donald Trump and Dick Cheney? And leave them there.

Mary Scriver

By: Wes Hopper

Wes Hopper — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:26:02 +0000

One resource for understanding the different thinking of tribes is Don Beck’s “Spiral Dynamics.” Because different levels of consciousness exist across cultures, understanding SD allows better communications with people everywhere. Beck used this to help South Africa peacefully redesign their society by teaching them how to communicate across levels – the tribes, the Boers and others. With 8 or so levels of consciousness existing in the world today, each with its own set of values and language, it’s no wonder we have trouble communicating.

By: Rado

Rado — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:02:54 +0000

SteveB:
That’s certainly one way of doing things. Like you said, it’s unpalatable and sure does leaves unresolved grudges that later become social problems.
As in Star Wars, there are two ways to master the force: the quickest is through the Dark Side, the other way is the Jedi way.
Let’s make the right choice.

By: Georgemarc

Georgemarc — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:42:40 +0000

PS. Look at solar cookers. They are cheap, easy to make out of common materils, very effective and very useful.

By: Georgemarc

Georgemarc — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:33:36 +0000

I concur with Pressfield and go on to say that both in the past and presently we have ongoing tribal communities in the US and they never were nor can be defeated – but a deal even with enemies is acceptable.

By: steve B

steve B — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:56:23 +0000

I agree with these views, but I think that he is missing the point that the U.S. as well as other western powers have in the past defeated tribes such as those present in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The method is simple, but unpalatable. It is total warfare. The U.S. Army relentlessly pursued the plains indians until they had no means to resist. They were unable to rest during the winter and their food source was removed through commercial hunting of the buffalo. In Afghanistan the same could be done by destroying the poppie fields and if necessary the ones who tend them. By waging this war as an effort to eradicate the source of 93% of the worlds herion supply, the citizens of the western world might by into this drastic way as a mean to victory. The question now is what would the fall out be with the rest of the world and is this way to “victory” worth using.

By: Ruv

Ruv — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:46:35 +0000

Agreed, Steve. Afghanistan is perhaps the nearest thing our world has left to a Biblical era culture. One can’t modernise such a culture by introducing social institutions that are neither understood nor valued. Such a culture will modernise itself when it sees fit — and it may not do so according to Western ideals. But that shouldn’t be the primary concern of the West…

The West’s primary concern is its own security, and in that regard it should be sufficient to establish trust, mutual respect, and mutual accommodation. And you’re right — it’s not glamorous and doesn’t win votes, but it’s not supremacist either, and it will help avoid getting people killed.