+ All Categories

Cranell

Date post: 26-Jul-2015
Category:
Upload: sebastian-kraljevich
View: 128 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
31
Afghanistan: Conflicting Narratives George Washington University July 24, 2010
Transcript
Page 1: Cranell

Afghanistan: Conflicting Narratives

George Washington University

July 24, 2010

Page 2: Cranell

Afghanistan Key to Region

Map taken from http://whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com

Page 3: Cranell

Conflicting Narratives

Regional PlayersTribal Leaders/Elders/Warlords/Mullahs TalibanNATOPresident Karzai and his CabinetAfghan people Afghan Army and Afghan PoliceCivilian/NGOs/UN/Intl OrgsNATO publics back homePresident Obama and his AF/Pak Team

Page 4: Cranell

Conflicting Narrative

“You know you’re in trouble when you’re in a war in which the only party whose objectives are clear, whose rhetoric is consistent and whose will to fight never seems to diminish is your enemy: the Taliban.” Tom Friedman, NY Times,

June 22, 2010

Page 5: Cranell

Afghanistan

A page full of data

A novel full of

relationships

Page 6: Cranell

Human Confrontations

Page 7: Cranell
Page 8: Cranell
Page 9: Cranell
Page 10: Cranell
Page 11: Cranell

Political Will

Page 12: Cranell
Page 13: Cranell

Definitions

Narrative: ongoing discussion of and collective opinion about events taking place in theater, and assigning value motivations and value judgments to the parties in conflict.

Confrontation – when interested parties do not agree on a resolution of an issue

Conflict – nested within a human confrontation – involves kinetic action

Page 14: Cranell

Mapping Confrontations: Then and Now

“Macnaughton was not happy to tighten the purse on the tribes that had only recently proved tranquil, but felt a keen responsibility to leave behind a country not only at peace but palatable to the East India Company’s accountants.”

1841“Two Russian veterans of the Soviet Afghan war privately warned Gen. Stanley McChrystal last summer that the key to winning the war would be to

pay off the Taliban.” 2010

Page 15: Cranell

Mapping Confrontations: Then and Now

“Had we left Shah Soojah alone, after seating him on the throne, the case would have been different. He would have adopted the Afghan method of securing his sovereignty. But we insisted upon his acting according to European notions of policy, and we have left all his enemies intact---powerless, only because

we are here” Macnaughton, 1841U.S.-backed Afghan President Karzai threatens to join Taliban, 2010

Page 16: Cranell

Mapping Confrontations: Then and Now

“pressure…arose from both Calcutta and London to cut the expenses of the occupation, which were then running well over a million pounds a year” 1841

“Nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers have died. And for what? Hundreds of billions spent. And for what?  To make Afghanistan safe for crooks, drug dealers and crony capitalism?”  2010 US Congressman

“Afghanistan war support could be starting to fray,” according to Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, 2010

Page 17: Cranell

Level of Compliance to Exit

What will we do if

they don’t comply?

Are our threats

credible? Are they

persuasive enough?

Are we willing to

sustain the

threats?

Foes Non-Compliant

Parties

Compliant Parties

To what degree do we need neutrals

compliant?

Neutrals

Page 18: Cranell

Relationship of Terms

Winning a conflict (or a series of conflicts) creates a condition to resolve a confrontation.Mapping confrontations articulates what we want and defines the boundaries for what we are willing to do to achieve compliance in non-compliant parties (and maps our understanding of what other parties want and will do)A compelling narrative (thru story) supports us in winning over non-compliant parties.

Page 19: Cranell

Dilemma Analysis

Threat – Threat lacks credibility. Make it credible.Persuasion – Threat is inadequate. Strengthen it or make your position more attractive.Trust – Promise is not credible. Agree sanctions and rewards.

Page 20: Cranell

Current Objective

Deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan.

Create an exit strategy from Afghanistan similar to the one in Iraq by creating the conditions for negotiating with the Taliban; make denying al Qaeda a base a condition for the resulting ruling coalition.

Begin withdrawal by 2011

Page 21: Cranell

Actions to Achieve Objective

Increase the number and aggressiveness of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.Create Afghan security forces under the current government to take over from the Americans.Increase pressure on the Taliban by driving a wedge between them and the population and creating intra-insurgent rifts via effective counterinsurgency tactics.

George Friedman, 30 Year War in Afghanistan, June 29, 2010

Page 22: Cranell

Good Story Needs

Protagonist

Antagonist

Tests for the Protagonist (dilemmas to resolve within confrontations)

Promise of Redemption

Supporting cast of characters

Page 23: Cranell

ObservationsDefinition of success is not shared Coherent messaging not occurringInherent contradiction to our strategyNarrative is not being dominatedStory of the enemy is not being disruptedCoalition is not “failing fast” Cultural translators are required to bridge the chasm between various western organizations and with the host governmentOur conflict wins are not leveraged appropriately

Page 24: Cranell

The Way ForwardDetermine what success we are able to achieve within a short timeframe

Map and manage confrontations including Iran, Pakistan and India

Determine to what degree we need compliance from each of the key players

Create compelling narratives

Equip our narrative with an immune system and flexibility/adaptability

Page 25: Cranell

Way Forward

Maintain presence around Kandahar and delay large-scale kinetic operation until civilian component is in place

Build a stronger narrative by focusing on Kabul and surrounding area

Carefully examine the political will and what is required to maintain support

Page 26: Cranell

The Future: What is Their Narrative?

Photos taken by Sean Caskie

Page 27: Cranell

Questions/Comments

[email protected] Sciences, Inc.

205 The StrandAlexandria, VA 22314 USA

Page 28: Cranell
Page 29: Cranell

Drama vs instrumental rationality

Assumes the situation can, and will, be changed …the parameters of the situation can be altered –

i.e. the “game” can be changed

Accepts central role of emotion in decision-making (in confrontation and collaboration situations) …as a consequence of dilemmas; and …as a tool to be harnessed in the resolution of

dilemmas

Accepts the importance of irrational behavior in organizational decision-making

Page 30: Cranell
Page 31: Cranell

NCPs

observe

environment

act

orient

decide

Coalition member debriefs

CC analysis by coalition

Coalition’s CC strategy/tactics

Coalition members meet Non-Compliant PartiesMissions assigned to sub-coalitions, CIMIC, IO, etc

Coalition Intel