War in the shadows

Fine article in the NYT this morning about clandestine military and CIA operations being carried out by the Obama administration. I think the takeaway is supposed to be twofold: for the left, gasp! that a leftist president would actually defend the United States; and for the right, reassurance that Mr. Obama isn't quite the doofus that he sometimes seems. (Is it entirely a coincidence that this long article about our covert warrior-president follows hard upon his Friday defense of the Ground Zero mosque?)

I found the article both reassuring and comical, as when the authors fret that using soldiers in clandestine ops might deprive the U.S. military of its Geneva Convention rights. Yeah, sure: when was the last time were American soldiers in enemy hands treated according to Geneva? Most of you aren't old enough to remember, so I'll answer the question: April 1945, and even then only if you were fighting against German forces, didn't fall first into the hands of the Gestapo, weren't a Jew, and best of all qualified for a Luftwaffe camp. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

On what General Petraeus can deliver

The New Yorker, which can be good reading when Hendrik Hertzberg is on vacation, has a Talk of the Town in its July 5 issue on the change of command in Afghanistan. George Packer is articulate and (surprise!) downbeat on whether David Petraeus can actually pull the president's irons out of the fire:

"But disarray among top personnel is almost always a sign of a larger incoherence. American goals in Afghanistan remain vague, the means inadequate, the timetable foreshortened. We are nation-building without admitting it, and conducting counterinsurgency on our own clock, not the Afghans’."

Well, of course we're nation building!  Whoever said otherwise? But Mr. Packer's is a refreshingly honest appraisal of a difficult situation, and for that we can thank George W. Bush. If he were still president, Hendrik Hertzberg would never have allowed anything sensible to be written about the war he launched. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

The future of AfPak II

On a somewhat more elevated level than GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD's interview with Major Mike (see below), Andrew Exum and Max Boot are throwing digits at one another over the American role in Afghanistan. Mr. Exum, who posts under under the nom du web of Abu Muqawama, started the exchange on June 16 by suggesting than the 'Stan was "the graveyard of assumptions." He listed some of those assumptions (for example, that the war is simply a clash between the Hamid Karzai government and the Taliban) and argued that each was wrong. Mr. Boot fired back the very same day: "where there's a will, there's a way." (It used to be that we all read the New York Times, and as a result we all thought the same way, though we might reach different conclusions. Now we all read the same blogs.)

Mr. Exum updated his blog post in response. Mr. Boot  fired back: "Yes, we can" win in Afghanistan, because the people prefer the Karzai government, with all its warts, to the Taliban. Unlike most revolutionaries (Lenin, Castro, Mao, Ho....) the Taliban have been in power before, and the people didn't like it. And again, Mr. Exum updated his blog--a pity he didn't argue at more length. It's an argument worth having, though it seems to me that the end result of Max Boot's faith in the power of national will is simply to pour more of America's treasure and youth into the Afghan graveyard. That's a long distance from Major Mike's notion that we should pull out the troops and let the Green Berets have a got at it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

The future of AfPak

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD, who is fast becoming my favorite blogger, has an interview with Major Michael Few about the future of the Afghan/Pakistan wars. In short: "By October, the Taliban will retreat for the winter, and we will declare victory. By next summer, we will withdraw and turn the mission over to the SF boys (a CJSOTF plus) as should have been done in 2002 and last summer to concentrate on FID with a renewed State Department effort." If you strip out the acronyms, Mike is saying that we should turn it over to U.S. Army Special Forces, aka Green Berets, and like-minded professionals, the same men who managed it so well in 2001.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD seems to be a young woman named Courtney. I'm reasonably sure that's not her in black panties: she just likes to pepper her blog with provocative images of female hotties, provocative especially to the Islamicists. That being the case, how can I do otherwise when posting about her work? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

We could call it 'Islamicism'

Mighty Joe Lieberman has a worthy op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning, complaining that our recently released National Security Strategy affirms that the United States is at war, but defines the enemy as "violent extremism." I've always mistrusted phrases that can be turned around and still be meaningful. ("This nation, going forward, is at war with extreme violence!" . . . .One must never omit the ruling idiocy of the day: going forward.)

Senator Leiberman prefers the Bush-era term: violent Islamist extremism. "The United States is definitely not at war with Islam," he writes. "But a group of self-identified, extremist Muslims has definitely declared war on us, a war which they explicitly justify by reference to their religion." Well, VIE is a start, but I think it could usefully be defined even more strictly: Islamicism. That's the term I will use, going forward. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Call them nitwits

The Atlantic has a hilarious if perhaps over-optimistic essay about Osama bin Laden & Co: "Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they’re well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine." It's not just the homegrown variety, the hapless Underwear Bomber and his soulmate in farce, the Times Square Bomber. Routinely, argue the authors, jihadists blow themselves and their friends up when they perform the ritual group hug before setting out to off the infidel. And those aren't the only rituals they perform! Read it and snicker.

The authors also have a serious point to make: we should "work to undermine some of the myths built up around our enemies by highlighting their incompetence, their moral failings, and their embarrassing antics. Beyond changing how the Muslim world perceives terrorists, we can help ourselves make smarter counterterrorism choices by being more realistic about the profile and aptitude of would-be attackers."

 The first part at least could have been written by John Boyd. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Tank hits landmine

One of the refreshing things about Taliban propaganda is that the ragheads are blessedly (or is that word politically incorrect?) free of alphabetical jargon. 'US tank hits landmine explosion in Helmand,' writes Qari Yousuf Ahmadi on Voice of Jihad. Of course it wasn't a tank, if the incident took place at all; likely it was an MRAP, a vehicle so new that the military has no name for it, only the acronym for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected. Or a Humvee, which at least can be pronounced, but which is likewise the smoothing out of the acronym for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.

Ah, for the days when things had names, however foolish! Tank, for instance--that was a British cover word to hide the fact that they were developing an armored, tracked vehicle to roll over the trenches of World War I. Happily the code word stuck, and we don't have to talk about the ATVROT battles on the Eastern Front.

I think the Taliban are on to something with their homely translations. How much more evocative is "landmine" than Improvised Explosive Device! Perhaps if we could restore our language to its onetime flexibility we would be faring better in the Global War on Terror, Overseas Contingency Operation, Struggle Against Violent Extremism (whose acronym sounded a bit like a call for help), Man-Caused Disaster, or whatever it's called today. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

On stifling innovation

David Brooks, a comparatively sensible opinionator for the New York Times, wrote a rather good column the other day about the U.S. Army’s evolution from smash-and-enter to “Good morning, ma’m, may I help you milk that goat?” Since he works for the Gray Lady, Mr. Brooks of course thinks this is a splendid thing. An Army made up of Good Guys (and Good Girls—I mustn't forget the girls!). Who could be against that?

The catch, though Mr. Brooks doesn’t seems to notice that it’s a catch, comes in the second-last paragraph: “Now some say that the approach codified at Fort Leavenworth has become so dominant that it is actually stifling innovation. This is a complete intellectual sea change.” Actually, it’s not. Stifling innovation is what the U.S. Army does best, and what it has always done. It wouldn’t be so bad if the new dogma were working in Afghanistan, but it doesn’t seem to be. It’s as John Boyd liked to say: “It’s doctrine on day one, and it’s dogma the day after that.” Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

A Vision So Noble

This small book is the result of three years' work at King's College London (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say Kings' College Online, since I never actually went to London). It combines my MA thesis with two earlier papers that I wrote for the program, and it went on sale on Amazon.com this morning: A Vision So Noble: John Boyd, the OODA Loop, and America's War on Terror.

I've blogged from time to time about John Boyd, but the short version is that he was a colonel who maddened the Air Force and attracted acolytes among its civilian employees for his outside-the-box thinking about aerial combat, maneuver warfare, and the ways in which wars, basketball games, and chess tournaments are won. Arguably he was the greatest American military thinker since Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. My task was to see how Boyd would have approached the War on Terror. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

If you can't beat them ...

Say what you like about Hamid Karzai, but you can’t call him an American puppet. On Saturday, we’re told, he said to members of the Afghan parliament: “If you and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban.” (The quote appears in the ninth paragraph of one of those Gray Lady “analyses” that are really editorials in disguise. This one beats the old drum that if only we get rid of the incumbent, everything will be fine.... Right! We had great success with that in South Vietnam!)

No doubt Mr. Karzai is playing the Cold War game of increasing American aid by threatening to cozy up to the enemy. (Alternately, he may have noticed the weird tendency of this administration to apologize to its enemies while pulling the rug from under its friends.) But his threat ought to be taken seriously: at a certain point, joining the Taliban is exactly what the West must consider doing: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!”

As it happens, my favorite military theorist made just that argument in his Patterns of Conflict briefing of 1986. The object of a counter-insurgency campaign, he begins, is to “Undermine guerrilla cause and destroy their cohesion by demonstrating integrity and competence of government to represent and serve needs of people—rather than exploit and impoverish them for the benefit of a greedy elite.” That is: we must prove that we represent the good guys. To which he adds a sly footnote: “If you cannot realize such a political program, you might consider changing sides!”

Blue skies! – Dan Ford

The Only Thing Worth Dying For III

I don’t usually get a whole lot of comments on this blog, so I think it’s worth noting what readers have been saying about this wonderful book: The Only Thing Worth Dying For. It tells the story of about the Green Berets who inserted Hamid Karzai into Afghanistan in November 2001. (That’s Mr. Karzai with the blanket wrapped around his shoulders, posing with the Special Forces A Team—or Operational Detachment Alpha, as it’s now called.)

Anonymous said: Thanks for spreading the word about this book!

Anonymous said: Amazing book. I'm surprised I hadn't heard more about it. Probably the best book I read about Afghanistan.

forrest said: An absolute MUST-READ for anyone interested in the modern style of warfare laughably called 'low-intensity conflict' and the US role in that warfare. As enthralling as I foudn the story, however, I found myself wishing Amerine himself had written the book and not a professional writer because it was a little too slick and seamless for me.

When I was a Special Forces reservist, I had my own experience in Afghanistan 13 years before ODA574 and it was interesting to me that Capt Amerine found the mujahidin to be pretty much the same as I had, meaning their approach to fighting hasn't changed sicne the late, great British Empire thought it could conquer and administer that amazing land.

As to the question the title of Blehm's book asks, the answer is found in the song "How Many Are The Heroes" which asks "And if freedom's not worth dyin', what the hell are you livin' for?" Captain Amerine, I'd like to shake your hand someday; you, too, found something in Afghanistan worth dying for-- yourself.

And DaveHays said: Best book ever on the war on terror or afganistan. Tells a great story of what it take to be an officer in todays military. I felt like I knew the guys in the ODA well before the middle of the book. This is a must read for anyone interested in the war, current tactics or just reading about the best of our best. I'm reading mine for the 2nd time.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Mission accomplished?

Newsweek is joining the Joe Biden chorus: Iraq is the good war! Who knew? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Think COIN but practice FID

The more ingrained an institution, the more impenetrable its jargon. The U.S. Army that I reluctantly served in the 1950s was bad enough, but today's military has a language of its own. Take the headline above: It's inaccessible to most of the world, but it happens to be very good advice. It comes from a Green Beret colonel who argues that the Army's current fascination with counter-insurgency (COIN) is all very well, except that most of what American troops are called upon to do isn't countering insurgency at all. COIN, as we read on the Foreign Policy website, is what a government and military do when they are threatened within their own borders. So the COINsters in Iraq are the Iraqis; in Afghanistan, the Afghans. What the Americans and other outsiders are trying to do in those countries is better defined as Foreign Internal Defense--hence the FID. The colonel argues:

Tactically, the indirect approach requires clear-eyed recognition that U.S. capacity will be applied through -- and not around -- the host nation. This paradigm seems simple, but it runs counter to U.S. military "can-doism" and requires a long-term view and immense operational patience. The indirect approach does not satisfy appetites for quick, measurable results.

Robert Haddick of Foreign Policy adds that this is a hard sell to an administration that has already announced the date when the troop drawdown is to begin. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

The Only Thing Worth Dying For

Wow. This is a splendid book. It reads like a novel but seems true to life. (I'll say more about that later, when I've finished the book.) Eric Blehm tells the story of the Special Forces A-Team (now unfortunately known as ODA, for Operational Detachment Alpha) that took Hamid Karzhai into Afghanistan set him on the path to become leader of the Liberation and eventually president. (The only thing worth dying for is not Mr Karzhai, of course, nor even Afghanistan, but the individual soldier's deeply held belief.) I've been a sucker for the Green Berets since traisping with them to Tan Hoa in 1964. Mr Blehm tells us that they have lost nothing of their unorthodox style and stubborn loyalty to one another. Get it (here it is on Amazon). Read it. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Teach us to sit still

"I'm not a big fan of the population-centric approach," says a Marine colonel in Afghanistan, as reported in the Washington Post. "We can't sit still. We have to pursue and chase these guys. I haven't seen any evidence [that the strategy of protecting the population is] working. The only thing that's working is chasing them."

Fascinating stuff. In Vietnam, the Marines pioneered the Combined Action Platoon, in which a handful of Americans and a larger number of Vietnamese worked together over the long haul to protect a community. Bing West memorably wrote about the project in The Village. I was so impressed by it that I used the experience in my concluding thesis at King's College London: Let the Americans Live in the Village, in which I apply the thinking of military theorist John Boyd to the problem of counterinsurgency. (The thesis is available only as an e-book for the Kindle reader, but you can read Kindle editions on your PC by downloading the free software.)

Meaning no disrespect to the colonel, but he ought to pick up a copy of T.S. Elliot's Ash Wednesday and ponder the lines: "Teach us to care and not to care / Teach us to sit still". They're especially appropriate right now, with Ash Wednesday falling on the 17th. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Lawrence of Afghanistan

On November 25, I published a link to Major Jim Gant's online essay, One Tribe at a Time, and suggested that Mr Obama could do worse than adopt it as his new-new Afghan strategy. I assessed the chances of that as little or none. But according to the Washington Post today, the chances have suddenly and hugely improved:

'A decorated war veteran and Pashto speaker with multiple tours in Afghanistan, Gant had been assigned by the Army to deploy to Iraq in November. But with senior military and civilian leaders -- including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command -- expressing support for Gant's views, he was ordered instead to return to Afghanistan later this year to work on tribal issues.

'"Maj. Jim Gant's paper is very impressive -- so impressive, in fact, that I shared it widely," Petraeus said, while McChrystal distributed it to all commanders in Afghanistan. One senior military official went so far as to call Gant "Lawrence of Afghanistan."'

If you aren't willing to read his monograph, at least look at the WaPo's slide show with a narration by the major. It's the essence of his argument. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Girlie GI

I’m not a great fan of a gender-neutral military, perhaps because all of my descendants are of the female persuasion. Anyhow, there are a whole raft of reasons why, during most of recorded history, warfare has been a masculine pastime. But even I must admit that there are aspects of warfare that benefit from a woman’s touch. Can you imagine GI Joe replacing this splendid young Marine in Afghanistan? Blue skies! – Dan Ford