A Tribal Strategy for Afghanistan

| Mon Nov. 23, 2009 6:04 PM PST

A couple of weeks ago Fred Kaplan speculated that President Obama might be planning to pursue a tribe-centered counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan rather than one centered on the central government in Kabul.  Today, after reading Dexter Filkins' piece in the New York Times that describes an effort already underway to co-opt local militias, Kaplan doubles down:

The interest, even excitement, in this development stems from two sources. First, it is reminiscent of the Anbar Awakening in 2006-07, when Sunni tribal leaders in western Iraq formed alliances with U.S. forces — whom the Sunnis had been shooting just months earlier — to beat back the bigger threat of al-Qaida.

Second, it has drawn high-level attention to a 45-page paper by Army Maj. Jim Gant, the former team leader of a special-ops detachment stationed in Konar province. The paper, called "One Tribe at a Time: A Strategy for Success in Afghanistan," recounts his experiences with organizing "tribal engagement teams" to help local fighters beat back the Taliban — and it spells out a plan to replicate these teams across the country.

....There are signs that Obama has been mulling over something like Gant's strategy. At one of the seven meetings Obama has held with his national security advisers (the ninth, and perhaps final, session takes place tonight), he asked for a breakdown of which Afghan provinces could provide their own defense, which need our help, and to what degree.

....Obama is likely to announce his decision — on a strategy and on how many, if any, more troops it will require — soon after Thanksgiving. A key question to ask, in examining this mix, is how prominently it features the tribes.

I first heard about Gant's paper via email from Wagster, who wrote about it in a post earlier this month:

Gant goes on to describe how he developed close relations with the village chieftain, whom he affectionately called "Sitting Bull." He was audacious enough to arm and supply the village's fighters, probably breaking many rules but winning their trust and allegiance and gaining access to valuable intelligence. It is this approach — a tribal engagement strategy — that he advocates for the country as a whole. He calls the fighters Arbakai, a tribal militia that would protect their neighbors from Taliban intimidation. These could be the Afghani equivalent of the “Sons of Iraq,” grass-roots warriors defending their own tribal interests, with the U.S. as their ally — not imposing a central government on them, but giving them what they want: security, their tribal traditions, and the right to be let alone.

I will go farther than Gant does. Instead of envisioning an end state where Kabul dominates all of Afghanistan, we should be striving for Kabul + Largely Autonomous Tribe Lands. The Karzai government would control the heavily populated areas in the east of the country, and as best they could the border areas with Pakistan. They would have nominal sovereignty over their country, as previous Afghani governments have. The Pashtuns would be empowered to defend themselves from the Taliban, but they would largely be free of Kabul too. Provincial government structures would have to be developed in order to resolve inter-tribal conflicts and law-and-order issues, but largely, governance would come from nearby.

Kaplan says flatly that if Obama's eventual strategy doesn't look a lot like Gant's, "it is almost certain to fail."  And even if it does, it might still fail.  But at this point, the tribes are pretty much our only hope.

I am, as I've said before, skeptical about deepening our engagement in Afghanistan at all.  But the absolute minimum requirement is a strategy that's notably different from the one we've been following for the past seven years, a strategy that's done little except pour ever more troops into the country while simultaneously losing ever more control.  This might be the one. We'll probably know in another week or so.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Agreed

Afghanistan is not a nation state nor will it be anytime soon. A strategy that acknowledges that Afghanistan is basically at the same level of development in which Alexander the Great found it will be the most likely to succeed.

The dumb fucking neo-cons always thought in terms of nation states, that's one reason why they stumbled so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

because people are so

because people are so backwards, in your words, at a certain stage of 'development' that these plans failed? your attempt at a historical argument, bringing in the reference to the Macedonian Marauder, is problematic to say the least. don't think of people as progressing on a linear scale, otherwise we end up in the same boat as the neocons who want junior and senior nations in world influence.

Afghan literacy rate is

Afghan literacy rate is 28.7%, that's a linear scale that works for me. And I'm confident that qualifies a society as "backwards."

Sounds Like a Plan

to replace the Central Authority in Kabul with the Central Authority in Washington, DC.

Really. The cohesive force holding all these threads together will be the United States. Instead of taking direction and advice and resources from the government in Kabul, "Tribes" will be taking the same from the government in DC. In Iraq there was a Central government (or anyway, a Biggest Tribe) to eventually hand things over to. To whom does the United States hand things over a couple three four years down the line in Afghanistan? Whatever Biggest Tribe that emerges from this?

That's the point...

There isn't a single tribe or Govt that will emerge from this. There never has been and the last seven years acting as if that was the natural state over there is part of what is the problem. Afghanistan has predominantly been a loosely affiliated Nation with a weak central Govt. By trying to create linkage (remote villages to Kabul) where is hasn't existed, we have just annoyed local leaders. Assuming we can't leave until there is a strong central Govt or a single controlling party is foolish and a poor endgame.

I could get behind that.

Essentially bribe the local powers that be to be at least nominally on our side. Then we can declare victory and leave. Being that we are currently spending a multiple of Afghanistans GDP on the military occupaction approach, this oughta accomplish the goal (being able to declare victory -or at least non-defeat) and leave for mere pennies on the dollar.

Maybe not very flattering to our sense of morals. But, ultimately it is the best we can do. And absent the motivating factor of having an occupation by foreign infidels, Afghanistan will probably be better off as well.

First, it is reminiscent of

First, it is reminiscent of the Anbar Awakening in 2006-07, when Sunni tribal leaders in western Iraq formed alliances with U.S. forces — whom the Sunnis had been shooting just months earlier — to beat back the bigger threat of al-Qaida.

Can we mention the bribery? Should work in Afghanistan also.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12385

The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack U.S. forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "U.S.-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack U.S. troops.

This is not bribing people

This is not bribing people to stay quite. This is effectively cutting out the government in Kabul in favor of paying locals in their own communities. They will pay these funds to benefit their own communities. Even if they're lusting for Sharia, they still don't want the Taliban to impose at the point of a gun.

The way to sum up this strategy is as follows: you don't steal from yourself.

Feudalism is the Future

This is what I've been saying for years: Feudalism is the future in Afghanistan.

Europeans invented feudalism to keep the Vikings away. It's cheap, it's decentralized, it works. Not very well, but it does work.

At $1 Million A Soldier,

wouldn't it be cost effective just to buy a lot of these people off?

Perhaps... nice to see the armchair Afghan experts in any case

However, I note that one key reason the Talebans succeeded in conquering (and for much of the country, fairly bloodlessly) much of Afghanistan is the issue of warlordism.

The fragmented Moujahidine post-Soviet withdrawal effectively fell into pure regional warlordism - feudalism as it were. Abuses drove much of the southern and central populations directly into the arms of the Taleban.

As a short-run stabilisation strategy to exit, doubtless it is the only one that can work as very evidently Neo Colonial rule for an Iraq or an Afghanistan is a utterly losing proposition.

At the same time it is wise not to fool oneself, the strategy has a high risk to produce a Neo Taleban reconquest within c. 5-7 years.

I hasten to add

That merely staying of course is idiocy and that among the bad choices available, it is likely the best. There are no good choices as such.

Hopefully Crazy Horse will

Hopefully Crazy Horse will join forces with Sitting Bull and provide Obama and America a last stand comeuppance.

Taliban are more hated now

Talking with a cousin just back from Afghanistan (biologist currently helping the national government set up a national park system (Band-e-Amir being the first), and a pacifist). He noted that in much of the place, the Taliban are hated, so a Taliban takeover would be very bloody, but that most of the place would fall back into fighting if the foreign troops left. That the older people who lived through the conflicts often couldn't explain why they had fought, it was just the thing to do at the time. That ethnicity dominates.
It is interesting that a pacifist (with long experience in Afghanistan) has observations similar to those of Gant & Kaplan.

conflicted and needs help

Here i am conflicted. I've always wanted to join the military but I always hated the commander and chief but Obama seems different. Instead I joined the peace Corps. Now as I near the end of my service (i switched to an international Volunteer organization) I still want to serve my country....and the afghan war seems like an opportunity to do real good work. I like Obama's approach and I agree that the Afghan war may just yield some very positive results for the Afghan people. I also feel it was justified in the first place not becouse of Bin Laudin but becouse of the brutal Taliban rule (which I admit we supported and propped up for our own interests).

so here is the question.....How can I convince myself not to join? After all they will pay for my grad school.

Ahhh So conflicted!!

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.