[News] The Taliban Rope-a-Dope
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Jul 14 11:32:08 EDT 2009
July 14, 2009
Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee
The Taliban Rope-a-Dope
By FRANKLIN SPINNEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Istanbul.
On July 7, the Times [UK] carried
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6652448.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093>a
remarkable report describing the trials and tribulations of the Welsh
Guards, who are now engaged in the ongoing offensive against the
Taliban in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. It described in riveting
detail how accumulating mental and physical stress are grinding down
the bodies and minds of what are clearly highly-motivated,
well-trained, and competently-led troops. My aim is to elaborate on
the Times report by examining its information from a different
perspective. My hope is that this will provide a better appreciation
of the Taliban's game.
With the exception of the last sentence in the penultimate paragraph
(i.e., "The Taliban fight not to win but to outlast"), which is
silly, the Times provides a graphic description of the pressures on
the individual British soldiers, and it is an excellent window into
the effects of the Taliban's military art. The information suggests
the Taliban's strategic aim is to wear down their adversaries by
keeping them under continual strain and by working on their
psychology, or as the late American strategist John Boyd would say,
by getting inside, slowing down, and disorienting their adversary's
Observation - Orientation - Decision - Action (OODA) loops. Moreover,
the Taliban's operational art seems particularly focused on the
mental and moral levels of conflict. Outlasting, by running away to
fight another day whenever faced with superior forces, is a central
part of any winning strategy directed toward achieving this aim.
(Interested readers can find a brief introduction to OODA loops in
the last section of my remembrance of Boyd in the Proceedings of the
Naval Institute, <http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c199.htm>Genghis
John. And for an example of an implicit application at the mental and
moral levels of conflict, see my essay in CounterPunch,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney11052008.html>How Obama Won).
The Times report also contains information describing NATO's
operational art. It suggests that NATO's operational focus is aimed
at occupying or cutting lines of communication (LOCs) by occupying
checkpoints or outposts. This operational level aim reflects NATO's
belief that control of checkpoints along the LOCs will make it
possible to control movement of the Taliban, and thereby make it
easier to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban. By
definition, if successful, this outcome would slow down and
physically disconnect the Taliban's OODA loops from the political
environment, thus establishing the blanket of military security
needed for achieving the strategic aim of winning the hearts and
minds of the people through political action. But we will see that
this is more an exercise in self-referencing than in strategy.
The differences between the Taliban's art of war and NATO's art of
war raise the question of who has and will maintain the initiative,
or in the context of Boyd's strategic theory, whose OODA loops are
really being slowed down, disoriented, and made more predictable in
what is an emerging war over the Afghan LOCs?
The Times report does not address this question, but it contains some
very suggestive information in this regard.
The Taliban live off the land and have weapons/supply caches
throughout Helmand province and Afghanistan. They can and indeed have
been ordered by their leader in Helmand, Mullah Naim Barach, to
concentrate and disperse at will. The Taliban can do this easily,
because they can blend seamlessly into the local culture, should they
choose to do so.
The deployed NATO units, on the other hand, are highly-visible alien
conventional military forces. Moreover, the NATO foreigners are
deployed in easily discerned, static positions: checkpoints,
outposts, and base camps. The geographic distribution of the NATO
forces in a large number of small outposts makes them vulnerable to a
welter of float-like-a-butterfly, sting-like-a-bee attacks and
ambushes, made at times and places of the Taliban's choosing. The
Times report makes it clear that Taliban attacks are aimed at
isolating and stressing individual checkpoints and, perhaps, also at
triggering a flow of reinforcements to these checkpoints, which could
then be ambushed by the Taliban along the long, vulnerable LOCs.
Not mentioned in the Times report is a closely-related, important
asymmetry: Conventional NATO forces can not live off the land and are
entirely dependent on a massive thru-put of food, fuel, water,
ammunition, and spare parts. In this regard, the report does describe
a land resupply route along the canal. It says that British forces
are forced to move at a snail's pace, because of the uncertain menace
posed Taliban's ever-present mine threat.
Cheap mines and simple booby traps, which the Pentagon
euphemistically labels as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, as
if they represented something new and unexpected, have long proven
themselves to be one of the most effective ways to slow down,
distract, and disrupt the OODA loops of an attacking adversary. That
is because they directly attack the attacker's mind and slow down or
paralyze his decision cycle. Any soldier who has experienced the
overwhelming sense of freezing fear created by the mental effect of
finding himself ensnared in a minefield during a firefight knows how
the known presence of mines can wreck even the best OODA loop.
With this background in mind, let us now place these observations and
thoughts in a somewhat different context.
Every conflict, be it conventional or unconventional, embodies an
amalgam of physical, mental, and moral effects. The great battlefield
commanders have long recognized that strengths and weaknesses in
moral and mental effects can be far more influential in shaping
outcomes than physical effects. Napoleon, for example, pithily
encapsulated this view by saying "the moral is to the material as
three to one." Viewed through a moral and mental lens, the Times
report contains information that is strongly suggestive of an
asymmetry in the opposing strategies that reflects long standing
differences the eastern and western approaches to making war.
Without explicitly saying so, the Times report makes it clear that
the Taliban's strategic target is the mind of their adversary. Its
operational schwerpunkt (i.e., main military effort to which all
other efforts are subordinated) is also directly aimed at the mind of
their adversaries, both in the field or in London and Washington. It
is also pretty clear, that the Taliban's operational schwerpunckt is
to use an omnipresent physical menace (manifesting itself through a
welter of large and small attacks, and when faced with opposition,
running away to fight another day, as well as mine warfare, terror,
etc.) is to undermine mental and moral stability of their
adversaries. This focus on the mind is a way of war that is entirely
consistent with the thinking expressed in the first book ever written
on the art war by the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, as well as their
modern incarnation in the guerrilla theories of Mao Zedong.
Like the Taliban, the strategic aim of the British operation is also
directed toward the mental and moral levels of conflict -- namely
winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. But in sharp
contrast to that of the Taliban, the operational-level schwerpunkt of
the NATO forces is entirely physical. It is aimed directly at
controlling checkpoints and lines of communication.
The theory behind NATO's operational schwerpunckt -- and remember, it
is only a theory -- is that through this physical control, NATO
forces (i.e., alien outsiders) will provide the means to win at the
mental and moral levels of conflict. Borrowing terminology from Mao
and applying it to the culture of Afghanistan, NATO forces would do
this by physically isolating the Taliban fish from a sea of a people
supporting them -- people who, in this case, have been conditioned by
30 years of violent civil war in what is perhaps the most xenophobic
culture in the world. Once the Taliban are isolated, the NATO
military forces would then be able to play the mental and moral game
of winning the hearts and minds of the people by providing greater
protection, economic aid, and the construction of economic and
democratic political infrastructures.
This new strategy, named Clear, Hold, Build by the Americans, is
actually the resurrection of a famous old colonialist strategy
evolved by Hubert Lyautey (1854-1934) who eventually became a
Marshall in the French army and ended his days as a virulent fascist.
Lyautey's theory, named Tache d'huile, a buzz word to connote the
idea of spreading oil spots, posited that counterinsurgent forces
should aim to secure an ever expanding geographic zone of security,
like a spreading oil spot, and then use that security to win over the
colonized people (presumably, so the French colonialists could
continue to exploit the people and their resources). Each new area
secured would provide a basis for further spreading, and so on,
clearing and holding ever larger regions. Tache d'huile was tried by
the French in Morocco, Vietnam and Algeria and by the Americans in
Vietnam with the notorious Strategic Hamlets program. Although it
worked sometimes in the short term, the long term results speak for
themselves. (Some contemporary counterinsurgency specialists like to
point to the case of Malaya as a successful counter-example of
clearing and holding, but one must remember that the guerilla
fighters in this case were ethnic Chinese who were hated by the
ethnic Malayans.)
The problem is that to succeed in the moral and mental game in
Afghanistan, NATO's tache d'huile strategy must establish a blanket
physical security so pervasive that highly visible alien aid
providers and reformers spread thinly throughout a traumatized,
xenophobic, clan-based population will not be picked off one by one
by the Taliban, warlords, criminal gangs, or any others who feel
threatened by their presence.
But there is more. Not only is the operational focus of the NATO
forces physical, it is clearly reflective of and consistent with the
interdiction theories of modern western conventional war,
particularly those of Baron Antoine-Henri Jomini, a very influential
19th century French theoretician who tried to systematize Napoleon's
art of war. These theories reflect the incontestable fact that
western combatant forces are heavily dependent on lines of
communication (LOCs) for flows of supplies and reinforcements, and
therefore, are highly vulnerable to physical disruption of LOCs.
NATO's heavy dependency raises the ominous question of whether the
fallacy of mirror imaging -- i.e., assuming the Taliban is vulnerable
to something NATO is vulnerable to -- is again creating the same
mistake it did for the Americans in Vietnam.
History has shown repeatedly that conventionally-inspired military
action (especially interdiction operations aimed at choking off the
supplies and reinforcements and destroying the so-called safe havens
of the adversary) aimed at achieving an unconventional end (winning
hearts and minds of the people in a guerilla war) can easily
degenerate into a mindless, fire-power centric war driven by
conventional military thinking.
The Soviets, for example, tried to win the hearts and minds of the
Afghan people, but lost sight of their goal and eventually became
ensnared in a struggle for control of Afghan LOCs. This degenerated
into a firepower intensive bloodbath in which the Soviets inflicted
horrendous damage; but, in the end, they had to leave Afghanistan
with their tail between their legs. Readers interested in the Soviet
experience should
<http://amconmag.com/article/2009/aug/01/00030/>click here for a
stunning lessons-learned analysis of how nation building Soviet-style
failed in Afghanistan. The same kind of degeneration into a mindless
applications of firepower happened to US forces in Vietnam. In both
cases, all the noble sounding rhetoric about winning hearts and minds
of the locals was drowned and forgotten in a sea of mindless body
counts and wanton destruction.
As in Vietnam, the tempting response to the welter of Taliban attacks
on NATO's LOCs, checkpoints, and outposts in this war will be to
increase NATO's dependence on high speed reinforcements. But, as the
Times report shows, the Brits are learning to their dismay that
guerrilla surprise attacks and mine laying activities force ground
reinforcements to move at a snail's pace. The natural response by
NATO will be toward a greater reliance on rapid-response
reinforcements moved via air to threatened areas by helicopters and
Marine V-22s, together with an increase in supporting firepower of
air and artillery.
Such an evolution on a large scale would mean that costs to fight the
most recent Afghan war will escalate ever more rapidly. Operating
these aircraft in high mountain ranges or in the dusty high desert
plateaus entails a host of very expensive logistics and operational
problems. Moreover, by concentrating the troop reinforcement packages
in vulnerable helos and V-22s, NATO will run the risk of far greater
troop casualties, when the Taliban learn how to shoot down these
reinforcing aircraft as they approach their landing zones, as they
surely will. Counter insurgency strategists would do well to remember
that the United States lost over 5,000 helicopters in Vietnam, mostly
to small arms and machine gun fire as they approached hot landing
zones. The Soviets relied more on ground reinforcements (which
resulted in a large number of very bloody ambushes), but their helos
also got plastered in Afghanistan. NATO strategists would also do
well to remember how the "strategists" in both of these earlier wars
insensibly became obsessed with bombing lines of communication. In
the end, frustration, coupled with the insensible seduction of
firepower and conventional dogma, led to attrition and destruction
becoming ends in themselves, memorably encapsulated by the American
officer who told a reporter, "we had to destroy the village to save
it," and thereby pushed the hearts and minds of the people into the
welcoming arms of the insurgents.
No one knows if this kind of ruin is to be our future, but the Times
report suggests many of the fatally flawed building blocks are now
falling into place.
One unrelated final point: The Times report contains some very
interesting information that should be of specific interest to those
American officers who have a Haig-like affinity for the comfort of
rear echelon command posts. Of the five battle deaths suffered by the
Welsh Guards, the Times says three were commanding officers: one a
platoon commander, another a company commander, and last, the
regimental commander. The British officers at the pointy end of the
spear seem to be setting high moral examples by sharing the risks and
burdens of the grunts they are leading. It also would not be
surprising if the Taliban are targeting commanding officers, but this
high percentage of total losses (admittedly 60% of a tiny specific
sample makes it impossible to extrapolate) makes one wonder if they
are also receiving the requisite intelligence information to do so.
Franklin "Chuck" Spinney is a former military analyst for the
Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and
can be reached at <mailto:chuck_spinney at mac.com>chuck_spinney at mac.com
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20090714/b5794f7e/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list