Date post: | 26-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sebastian-kraljevich |
View: | 128 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Afghanistan: Conflicting Narratives
George Washington University
July 24, 2010
Afghanistan Key to Region
Map taken from http://whitewraithe.files.wordpress.com
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
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
Afghanistan
A page full of data
A novel full of
relationships
Human Confrontations
Political Will
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Good Story Needs
Protagonist
Antagonist
Tests for the Protagonist (dilemmas to resolve within confrontations)
Promise of Redemption
Supporting cast of characters
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
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
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
The Future: What is Their Narrative?
Photos taken by Sean Caskie
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
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