Time for a Strategic and Intellectual Pause in Afghanistan

Abstract

After eight years of increasing involvement in Afghanistan, the US-led Coalition appears to be at an intellectual crossroads. Despite progress in a number of sectors, the tipping point in favor of an irreversible momentum toward functional governance remains elusive. As frustration mounts, Coalition members have become more vocal about their desire to withdraw by a certain deadline rather than seeing the effort through to completion. Ironically, the growing impatience emanates not from any successes by the Taliban but from political and strategic missteps by Afghanistan's international partners. This article focuses on three misconceptions that deserve greater scrutiny: associating Hearts-and-Minds with government legitimacy, using correlation of forces as the foundation of strategy, and assuming unity of effort is a natural consequence of multinational endeavors. As the insurgency in Afghanistan continues to smolder, a strategic pause in thinking is necessary to assess US strategy and its underlying principles, but due to various political pressures, time is of the essence. The purpose of this article is not to propose definitive solutions so much as to raise the debate on premises that have a substantial impact on America's strategic approach. One thing is clear, though; the current strategy is not working. Government Legitimacy Apparently, during an insurgency, the meaning of government legitimacy changes drastically from traditional political philosophy. In this alternate universe, the social contract between the government and its citizens is displaced by the nostrum of Hearts-and-Minds. If winning the Hearts-and-Minds of the population is the most assured means to defeating an insurgency, what does it exactly mean? Originally, the phrase epitomized the ideological struggle between communism and liberal democracy. The idea was to convince indigenous populations in threatened nations that their lives would be much improved under a liberal democratic political system compared to Communist socialism. Over time, however, Hearts-and-Minds appears to have degenerated into a popularity contest with giveaways as the means of gaining popular support. Unsurprisingly, this tacit policy approach has not reaped the expected results in Afghanistan or anywhere else. The Hearts-and-Minds mantra is most often bandied about as the sine qua non of government legitimacy, which is the main focus of a counterinsurgency strategy. Unfortunately, the term means all things to all people, and it is this inherent ambiguity that limits its practical application pursuant to a credible strategy. When viewed as a laundry list of divergent silver bullets, a strategy that tries to do all things will ultimately achieve nothing. Ironically, a double standard appears to pervade editorial comments on Hearts-and-Minds, and effectively stacks the deck against the Afghan government. Theoretically, political legitimacy should favor the side that wins the Hearts-and-Mind struggle. (2) In practice, however, only the established government is taken to task for shortfalls, whereas insurgent efforts, no matter how slight or brutal, are cited as proof of a growing legitimacy. Incidentally, insurgents have no difficulty aligning loyalties within their areas of control because brute force and coercion are powerful mechanisms. This fact is not intended to imply that authoritarian rule is the key to legitimacy. By their very nature, tyrannical regimes are brittle and eventually crumble as a result of inherent flaws and contradictions. In the final analysis, Hearts-and-Minds is really a proposed shortcut to securing government legitimacy and avoiding intellectual rigor to get fast results. Because the framework of a political system has an enduring impact on functional governance, understanding the essence of political legitimacy is necessary. The concept of government legitimacy has evolved over time and is closely aligned with sovereignty. …