Article: War in Isolation
My friend Robert Bryce just published another article recently in Atlantic Monthly discussing the IED threat we face out here every day. Having been hit by a couple of IEDs, its obviously something on my mind every time we head out of the wire.
I've placed the full version of the article on pdf for download here.
Robert is a fellow Austinite, a remarkable guy and a helluva writer even if I don't agree with everything he says all the time. Come to think of it, considering who I enjoy hanging around with, not agreeing with me on matters of politics seems to be a prerequisite for my friendship.
From the article:
IEDs also create fear and uncertainty...Fear and uncertainty, of course, ultimately breed mistrust. That may be the most damaging aspect of the IEDs: they prey on American minds, making soldiers suspicious of the local population and ultimately isolating them.
This is likely the best point that could be made concerning the overall effect of IED's on our mission both here in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That isolation and mistrust is, in my opinion, the single most detrimental result of insurgent tactics that complicates and delays what really is our ultimate goal: economic connectivity and mutual, cultural acceptance.
There are several factors that add to our isolation from the local population which in turn limits the effectiveness of our efforts. One of these is the employment of IEDs, but it’s not only the IEDs that alienate us from those we are ostensibly here to help.
BODY COUNT POLITICS
You don't have to read the writings of Mao or Ho Chi Mihn to know that defeating a democratic "superpower" isn't that hard if the voters back home don't believe in the cause. When public support drops to a certain level, partisan politics becomes the insurgent's most effective weapon. Reach that threshold and you'll soon have U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and don't forget journalists) racking up wins for you. Just keep the pressure on and be patient - victory is all but certain. Don't believe me? How many times have we already seen the "L" word on the cover of major weekly periodicals?
The losses we've encountered thus far from all enemy engagements are "tactically insignificant"* from an operational perspective. This simply means there are not enough losses to have a noticeable effect on our mission capabilities. The fact is, more souls were lost (1,052 by most counts) in one friendly-fire incident in WWII, the sinking of the Montevideo Maru than in the first three years of GWOT combined. But of course "tactically insignificant" turns into strategic defeat when the politics played with our body-count undermines public support for our efforts. Americans have proven time and again that we can handle great loss of life if the purpose and end state are unambiguous and a direct threat to themselves is tangible. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's mismanagement of information operations and public relations both pre and post-conflict in Iraq, combined with the misdeeds of a small, handful of individuals have eroded the credibility and moral clarity of our “side” of this conflict, thereby lowering the threshold of acceptable losses considerably.
As a result, commanders on the ground are coming under increased pressure to prevent loss-of-life. The amount of second-guessing and hindsight recrimination that goes on after a KIA incident is disgraceful and can be a career-ending event for commanders if investigations find the slightest deviation from the increasingly constrictive SOPs, regardless of whether they would have made a difference. This politically-driven force-protection mania translates into increased security restrictions by risk-averse commanders that severely limit our mobility and effectiveness and by extension, our interactions with the public. I should add, most of these security measures, save the installation of electronic counter-measures (ECM) devices, do little if anything but provide window-dressing to our actual force-protection level. I think the question of "How can we win if we can't engage the enemy?" should be replaced with "How can you win a war if you can't risk loss of life?" Soldiers are spending more and more time inside the wire and less out amongst the local population building relationships and rebuilding infrastructure and governments. Its negative effect is most tangible.
ETHNOCENTRISM
Another major contributor to our isolation is our mentality and attitude toward the local populace. Soldiers and Marines are not policemen; we're not diplomats; we're not politicians or public officials. Our traditional, explicit purpose is to engage and neutralize the enemy. Most of us are good-hearted, well-intentioned individuals with a strong moral sense. However, the most striking and disappointing observation I have made since my arrival here nine months ago is our overwhelming, misplaced sense of superiority to the cultures we've come to assist. This phenomenon isn’t limited to those of us who serve in uniform; it is pervasive in civilian agency mindsets as well. The term for this is "ethnocentrism". Most soldiers, including many in Civil Affairs, limit their interactions with locals to a minimum; zero if possible. There is an unspoken but clear apartheid between Westerners and Afghans that only a select few chose to reach across. Many actively despise the Afghan nationals and certainly look down on them. Dehumanizing terms such as “Haji” and “Sand-Nigger” are reminiscent of those from another era: “Charlie” and “Gook”. In some ways these feelings are understandable; even I recoil at the harsh subjugation of women and the lack of what I would consider to be innate hygiene practices. But this superiority complex is unwarranted and dangerous. It’s important to divorce the circumstances from the individual and remember the profound disadvantages in education, health and technology that others have been born into. As we work toward burying ignorant, prejudicial views of the past back home, its disheartening to think we would simply move on to new, socially acceptable prejudices and not internalize the underlying lesson: We are all the same inside. That’s not just my feel-good, bleeding-heart belief, it is a scientific, genetically-proven fact.
We may be here to help, but charity can easily be construed as condescension when the proper spirit isn't honored. Imagine someone "giving" you say, a loaf of bread by chucking it at your feet like you might a dog. How much would you “appreciate” that? Sure, you’d eat the bread if you were hungry but your feelings toward the giver would probably not improve from that interaction. Giving is a shared moment between two souls and has little to do with the gift itself. A sense of cultural superiority nullifies the giving spirit that must be present to foster understanding and recognition of a shared humanity. I’m not sure what agency or department would be best suited for training a more “spiritually enlightened” government service-member, but it certainly isn’t the United States Army or Marine Corps. This will remain our greatest hurdle to building true and lasting cross-cultural harmony, regardless of how many schools, clinics and roads we build here.
A LIMITED EXCHANGE
Unlike post-war Germany and Japan, we have no ability to venture out and intermingle with the local population. This is due as much to the nature of counter-insurgent warfare as to considerable differences in cultural norms and an inherent, if not understandable xenophobia in the traditional leadership of the indigenous population. Unfortunately this retards the process of cultural exchange and integration. We cannot even look at the women, let alone date or marry them. Adopting their children is so difficult, it might as well be impossible. The best we can hope for is to lay the foundations for individual freedom, education and the communications and commercial infrastructure that will foster the free exchange of ideas. This will facilitate the people’s ability to make informed choices as to what they read and write and how they will dress, behave and believe. It really is the only way to break the stranglehold of ignorance and oppression. The illiterate are doomed to fall prey to the designs of wicked men. Historically, cultural shifts are either slow or extremely disruptive and costly. It is going to take time, blood or both to build understanding and tolerance between the myriad cultures of the world, but it will happen. The more individual freedoms and connectivity with the outside world, the less time. The more enlightened and proactive our approach, the less blood.
Our inability to see ourselves in others; our misguided belief that we are not connected in spirit; this is the ultimate isolation we must overcome.
Author’s Note
Whenever I make criticisms, particularly those directed at the military establishment, I feel the need to point out that the men and women I serve with are very professional. Their desire to “win”, to perform at the best of their abilities is without peer. They are the finest soldiers, sailors and marines on the planet. If dispersions are being casts here, it is not in their direction, but toward the training and doctrine of the military as an institution and its seeming inability to move beyond its stolid, conventional mindset and its fierce loyalty to the defense industry. Let us not fool ourselves. The military in its current form, and the defense industry built around it, are manifestations of our collective fears and of profit motive, not of our desire to help those in need around the world. I don’t see that changing any time soon. The military will always be good at halting foreign aggression and bringing tyrants to their knees, but for real change my faith lies in the peripheral cultural exchange and economic connectivity that ultimately results from military intervention and the requisite establishment of the rights of the individual.
*The term does not connote a lack of sensitivity to each individual loss which is obviously a catastrophic event for friends and family of those who have fallen. No disrespect is intended.
I've placed the full version of the article on pdf for download here.
Robert is a fellow Austinite, a remarkable guy and a helluva writer even if I don't agree with everything he says all the time. Come to think of it, considering who I enjoy hanging around with, not agreeing with me on matters of politics seems to be a prerequisite for my friendship.
From the article:
IEDs also create fear and uncertainty...Fear and uncertainty, of course, ultimately breed mistrust. That may be the most damaging aspect of the IEDs: they prey on American minds, making soldiers suspicious of the local population and ultimately isolating them.
This is likely the best point that could be made concerning the overall effect of IED's on our mission both here in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That isolation and mistrust is, in my opinion, the single most detrimental result of insurgent tactics that complicates and delays what really is our ultimate goal: economic connectivity and mutual, cultural acceptance.
There are several factors that add to our isolation from the local population which in turn limits the effectiveness of our efforts. One of these is the employment of IEDs, but it’s not only the IEDs that alienate us from those we are ostensibly here to help.
BODY COUNT POLITICS
You don't have to read the writings of Mao or Ho Chi Mihn to know that defeating a democratic "superpower" isn't that hard if the voters back home don't believe in the cause. When public support drops to a certain level, partisan politics becomes the insurgent's most effective weapon. Reach that threshold and you'll soon have U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and don't forget journalists) racking up wins for you. Just keep the pressure on and be patient - victory is all but certain. Don't believe me? How many times have we already seen the "L" word on the cover of major weekly periodicals?
The losses we've encountered thus far from all enemy engagements are "tactically insignificant"* from an operational perspective. This simply means there are not enough losses to have a noticeable effect on our mission capabilities. The fact is, more souls were lost (1,052 by most counts) in one friendly-fire incident in WWII, the sinking of the Montevideo Maru than in the first three years of GWOT combined. But of course "tactically insignificant" turns into strategic defeat when the politics played with our body-count undermines public support for our efforts. Americans have proven time and again that we can handle great loss of life if the purpose and end state are unambiguous and a direct threat to themselves is tangible. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's mismanagement of information operations and public relations both pre and post-conflict in Iraq, combined with the misdeeds of a small, handful of individuals have eroded the credibility and moral clarity of our “side” of this conflict, thereby lowering the threshold of acceptable losses considerably.
As a result, commanders on the ground are coming under increased pressure to prevent loss-of-life. The amount of second-guessing and hindsight recrimination that goes on after a KIA incident is disgraceful and can be a career-ending event for commanders if investigations find the slightest deviation from the increasingly constrictive SOPs, regardless of whether they would have made a difference. This politically-driven force-protection mania translates into increased security restrictions by risk-averse commanders that severely limit our mobility and effectiveness and by extension, our interactions with the public. I should add, most of these security measures, save the installation of electronic counter-measures (ECM) devices, do little if anything but provide window-dressing to our actual force-protection level. I think the question of "How can we win if we can't engage the enemy?" should be replaced with "How can you win a war if you can't risk loss of life?" Soldiers are spending more and more time inside the wire and less out amongst the local population building relationships and rebuilding infrastructure and governments. Its negative effect is most tangible.
ETHNOCENTRISM
Another major contributor to our isolation is our mentality and attitude toward the local populace. Soldiers and Marines are not policemen; we're not diplomats; we're not politicians or public officials. Our traditional, explicit purpose is to engage and neutralize the enemy. Most of us are good-hearted, well-intentioned individuals with a strong moral sense. However, the most striking and disappointing observation I have made since my arrival here nine months ago is our overwhelming, misplaced sense of superiority to the cultures we've come to assist. This phenomenon isn’t limited to those of us who serve in uniform; it is pervasive in civilian agency mindsets as well. The term for this is "ethnocentrism". Most soldiers, including many in Civil Affairs, limit their interactions with locals to a minimum; zero if possible. There is an unspoken but clear apartheid between Westerners and Afghans that only a select few chose to reach across. Many actively despise the Afghan nationals and certainly look down on them. Dehumanizing terms such as “Haji” and “Sand-Nigger” are reminiscent of those from another era: “Charlie” and “Gook”. In some ways these feelings are understandable; even I recoil at the harsh subjugation of women and the lack of what I would consider to be innate hygiene practices. But this superiority complex is unwarranted and dangerous. It’s important to divorce the circumstances from the individual and remember the profound disadvantages in education, health and technology that others have been born into. As we work toward burying ignorant, prejudicial views of the past back home, its disheartening to think we would simply move on to new, socially acceptable prejudices and not internalize the underlying lesson: We are all the same inside. That’s not just my feel-good, bleeding-heart belief, it is a scientific, genetically-proven fact.
We may be here to help, but charity can easily be construed as condescension when the proper spirit isn't honored. Imagine someone "giving" you say, a loaf of bread by chucking it at your feet like you might a dog. How much would you “appreciate” that? Sure, you’d eat the bread if you were hungry but your feelings toward the giver would probably not improve from that interaction. Giving is a shared moment between two souls and has little to do with the gift itself. A sense of cultural superiority nullifies the giving spirit that must be present to foster understanding and recognition of a shared humanity. I’m not sure what agency or department would be best suited for training a more “spiritually enlightened” government service-member, but it certainly isn’t the United States Army or Marine Corps. This will remain our greatest hurdle to building true and lasting cross-cultural harmony, regardless of how many schools, clinics and roads we build here.
A LIMITED EXCHANGE
Unlike post-war Germany and Japan, we have no ability to venture out and intermingle with the local population. This is due as much to the nature of counter-insurgent warfare as to considerable differences in cultural norms and an inherent, if not understandable xenophobia in the traditional leadership of the indigenous population. Unfortunately this retards the process of cultural exchange and integration. We cannot even look at the women, let alone date or marry them. Adopting their children is so difficult, it might as well be impossible. The best we can hope for is to lay the foundations for individual freedom, education and the communications and commercial infrastructure that will foster the free exchange of ideas. This will facilitate the people’s ability to make informed choices as to what they read and write and how they will dress, behave and believe. It really is the only way to break the stranglehold of ignorance and oppression. The illiterate are doomed to fall prey to the designs of wicked men. Historically, cultural shifts are either slow or extremely disruptive and costly. It is going to take time, blood or both to build understanding and tolerance between the myriad cultures of the world, but it will happen. The more individual freedoms and connectivity with the outside world, the less time. The more enlightened and proactive our approach, the less blood.
Our inability to see ourselves in others; our misguided belief that we are not connected in spirit; this is the ultimate isolation we must overcome.
Author’s Note
Whenever I make criticisms, particularly those directed at the military establishment, I feel the need to point out that the men and women I serve with are very professional. Their desire to “win”, to perform at the best of their abilities is without peer. They are the finest soldiers, sailors and marines on the planet. If dispersions are being casts here, it is not in their direction, but toward the training and doctrine of the military as an institution and its seeming inability to move beyond its stolid, conventional mindset and its fierce loyalty to the defense industry. Let us not fool ourselves. The military in its current form, and the defense industry built around it, are manifestations of our collective fears and of profit motive, not of our desire to help those in need around the world. I don’t see that changing any time soon. The military will always be good at halting foreign aggression and bringing tyrants to their knees, but for real change my faith lies in the peripheral cultural exchange and economic connectivity that ultimately results from military intervention and the requisite establishment of the rights of the individual.
*The term does not connote a lack of sensitivity to each individual loss which is obviously a catastrophic event for friends and family of those who have fallen. No disrespect is intended.
6 Comments:
my favorite article so far, baby!
Wonderful article. Your writings continue to educate me. I particularly admire your ability to criticize, with precision, systems that needs repair while supporting the arts of it that work. You wield no ideological sledge-hammer, you just seek to fix what needs it. So, thanks.
Where was your picture taken? We are at war against fanatical cowards.
I always love your perspective on things. Even when we don't agree on everything, I love that your opinions are always well-informed. (And, frankly, there's nothing in this particular article I disagree with.)
I thought the term "Haji" referred to someone who had made the pilgrimage to Mecca. I guess I'm mistaken.
Your link to the science bit about us all being the same is broken.
As for "Chief RZ", the real war is against fanaticism and cowardice itself, not merely the people who have those traits. If you fight tyrants but not tyranny, all your work is undone in a few years.
Great article, my man. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that some of the most sane writing about the war and the human condition in general is coming from the guy who taught me how to make a buttercup. Keep em coming! (The articles, not the buttercups)
Can someone please explain why the word haji took on a bad meaning?
Post a Comment
<< Home