HOME | FUNNY ARTICLES | TOP NEWS REPORTS | SUBMIT
|
Aug. 12, 2010 A Hearts and Minds strategy which is the one presently being employed in Afghanistan requires a steady flow of intelligence. Intelligence agencies are loath to share information, even with allied agencies. The essence of a Hearts and Minds strategy is that the committed insurgent is separated from the local population who are either neutral or allied to the incumbent. The incumbent then has to bring the neutral on to his side while avoiding alienating his allies. It seems that the present haphazard state of affairs where each countries armed forces seem to be operating on their own is only giving the Taliban more recruits. Each killing of uncommitted or friendly civilians is making the Taliban stronger as they are not perceived as being the only enemy. In order for either the incumbent or the insurgent to deal a knock out blow there must be a decapitation of the opponents head. This most easily accomplished if the enemy is centralized; having one leadership command rather than many, one head easier to sever than a dozen or more. Centralized and decentralized structures both have advantages and disadvantages. Decentralization is good for the insurgency if he sees no way of dealing a decapitation of the incumbent and is willing to drag things out until the political situation allows for an incumbent withdrawal due to war weariness. On the other hand it is bad for the incumbent to be decentralized while fighting either a decentralized or a centralized insurgency as the essence of a hearts and minds strategy is to identify the neutrals and friendly’s in order to either bring him into the incumbent camp or, as in the case of the later, to keep him there. The wiki leaks seem to confirm the point that a decentralized incumbent force can be a liability to the incumbent as time after time there are reports of attacks by one part of the incumbent upon a village, government facility or road blocks that is under the wing so to speak of another part of the incumbent forces. What point in there in garnering the respect of the locals if your side keeps attacking those you are trying to help? A decentralized insurgency having safe haven, preferably in a neighbouring country, is hard to beat. A centralized insurgency having a single safe haven is a different matter being easier to spot and attack. As NATO and ISAF members slowly pull out; Canada and the UK the next likely departed, a more centralized incumbent will have to take up the slack. This will in my opinion leave the US Army as the single incumbent now having a centralized command structure, more suited to the hearts and minds policy. With only Pakistan as a safe haven it will be an easier proposition for the decapitation of the Taliban. The only fly in the ointment is Pakistan’ ISI (Inter Service Intelligence).It has always been hard to figure out their allegiance. During the civil war they incurred a debt to the Taliban where they were rescued by them in southern Afghanistan while accompanying an army unit on a road survey mission. They were looking into the viability of using a route to Turkmenistan to connect with the natural gas and oil fields within that country. In order to understand how the mind of the Indian sub continent works it is well to study how India and Pakistan came into existence. In 1946 after many years of wrangling it was decided by Nehru of India, Jinnah of Pakistan and Hari Singh of Kashmir and Juanna that the two former areas would form single counties while Kashmir would accede to one or the other. The crux of the problem is whether Kashmir acceded before the Indian armed intervention of after. At the time tribesmen of the north western areas invaded Kashmir, the ruler Hari Singh powerless to stop them. India states that it sent in troops before Kashmir acceded to India, Pakistan that the Kashmir accession to India was due to Indian occupation. And so the matter stands give or take a few wars and permanent state of armed occupation.
You can bet that Pakistan has an eye out for any advantage it can accrue through its role in the war in Afghanistan. Would it be beneficial to Pakistan if the Taliban, with their help, made gains in Afghanistan as it would help them in their claim for a freer reign in Kashmir and a counter to the power of their arch enemy India?
Read Mike Haran's essays on history at
http://www.geocities.com/manzikertca/
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
