http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/13/khalil-nouri-afghanistan-revision-to-major-jim-gants-doctrine-%e2%80%9cone-tribe-at-a-time%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-45067

Thank you for your comments and questions. There were many times when we traveled to and from Mangwel at night. The terrain in this particular part of the Konar was such that when you left the firebase you had two options: go north or go south. That’s it. The base was watched 24/7 and leaving in vehicles of any type would have been noticed. Also we hit multiple IEDs that inflicted serious casaulties…driving in anything less than an up-armor (unless allowed to go in full Afghan garb in a IOV of some sort, which was very rarely allowed) was suicide. Hmmmm, training by proxy could have been an option, however, the catch here would have been – who? Their was a very good Afghan force on our firebase with us, but using them would have put the situation out of our hands. As I say in the paper, we should have moved down there on a 24/7 basis. Then all of the tactical problems of their security and our main problem of having to fight to get there and then to return to our firebase would have been null and void.

As for question number two, at the time, I just didn’t see any other options. There were other people I could have gotten involved, but was just not comfortable with their participation.

Take care and please keep writing…you have brought up some good points and it has gotten me thinking.

Thanks.

STRENGTH AND HONOR

Jim Gant

- ditch any coalition partners are can’t/won’t step up to the plate, and/or won’t comply with the theatre strategy. This is not peacekeeping where the number of different flags waving in the wind outside the theatre HQ is a reportable metric: this is warfighting with no time for passengers or social members.

- confirm the campaign objectives; identify the lines of operation to achieve those objectives; and then implement the tactical operations necessary to progress those lines. This isn’t COIN/CIT-specific – it must be 101 material from just about any military school in the Western world.

- Implement the best Information Operations campaign on the planet to seize the new high ground – Al-Jazeera will fight you for it.

It’s all very easy to pick holes in concepts like Tribal Engagenent Teams and that’s how I started. BUT it is even easier to pick holes in the current strategy where we once again seem to be winning all the battles and losing the two wars (in-theatre and homefront).

My professional experience is quite like yours, and I reckon your TET concept is right on the money. I’m actually in the early days of working to develop a remarkably similar “Seven Samurai Redux thesis” and hence am looking forward to your paper greatly. The ‘boots on the ground’ mantra is, I agree, becoming all too prevalent as THE panacea to our COIN woes. We’ve got to drive down our profile and empower locals, but give them the help they need in an appropriate manner.
Two quick questions if I may:

1. You mentioned a familiar problem;

He said “people” (between the lines it was personnel from HIG) had come down in the village and accused him of allying with the Americans and that he and his village were becoming “Christians” and that Allah was going to make them pay for their actions.

Did you give any thought to minimising your profile even further than it was already? e.g. only visiting at night, adopting a fully ‘local’ guise during infil/exfil, training by proxy or at deniable distance?

2. You also mention your response to an ever present dilemma;

We could not stay in the village 24 hours a day due to our other mission requirements and in retrospect and many more years of experience under my belt, not moving to Mangwel was a mistake. Since we could not maintain a 24 hour presence in the village (which they had asked for on two separate occasions), I decided to give them as many weapons and as much ammo as I could get my hands on.

Did you consider and reject any other ‘remote support’ options that could have been honoured by your small ODA?

Regards,

Al

This is via The Captain’s Journal commentary, so it is a bit round-a-bout, but he raises some good points in contrast with Major Gant’s ideas.

****************
On October 20, 2009 at 8:55 am, BruceR said:

TS: I can only speak for the Kandahar experience, of course. I actually think Afghanistan’s big enough to support a multiplicity of approaches. Same as Iraq: “arming the tribes” made sense in the Anbar context, and “strong central army” made sense in the Basra context.

In the Kandahar context, the “Afghan National Auxiliary Police (ANAP)” experiment, our version of the “arming the tribes” solution in 2007 was, it is generally conceded now, a dismal failure: to the point where the entire experiment had been disbanded by late 2008 when I arrived. It still wasted a lot of ISAF’s time and energy.

Kandahar City itself is not currently a city of tribes. Swelled by massive refugee flows and recent immigration, it’s more like a “Gangs of New York” era American city. Saying “arm the tribes” in that context is kind of like saying “arm the Irish,” or “arm the Sicilians.” The country around does have some areas of strong mono-tribal affiliation, such as Arghandab, and where possible those have been respected in the creation of trained ANP units for that area. That has its own problems of course: some of the best ANP we saw were the Hazara imports in Zhari district, who were not imbedded as deeply in local politics. But mileage certainly varies on that score from place to place.

One reason arming the tribes tends to fall apart in Afghanistan because of the “clear zones of fire” problem. There are more than enough people running around with guns now. At least with the “good guys with guns” limited to mentored ANP and ANA, and private security guarding road convoys, we have a reasonable chance of providing some “green” positional awareness. But an arming the tribes solution broadly adapted would extremely limit the ability of attack helos, UAVs, fast air and artillery, as the positional awareness checks required to avoid fratricide (are they Taliban, or tribes?) would become next to impossible. So we give up a lot of our technological advantages in exchange for dubious benefits. And you tend to risk more situations like earlier this year where the Kandahar Chief of Police was gunned down by an unidentified armed crew passing through the AO. (Here’s another question: say a tribal policeman captures a bad guy… now what? Tribal jail? Sent to the central court system and thrown out for the inevitable lack of evidence? A stern talking-to to his elder? You need to define these sorts of things better before you can put it broadly into practice.)

I think an Arming the Tribes experiment could well work in a tribally homogeneous low conflict area which is in relatively pro-government hands now and has an extremely limited Western presence, such as the Hazarajat or parts of the north, and any further experimentation on that score should be done in those areas, before trying to import the idea to a hot zone like Kandahar Province once again.

PS: In the Kandahar context, I’ll tell you right now that the first locals to get new guns, etc. from any new arming the tribes project we envision will be the already heavily armed local cronies of the President’s brother. There is no way to avoid that. You can’t ever “bypass the Karzai government” in K.C., any more than you could “bypass the Mafia” in Palermo.

The second I get to Fort Bliss I will reply. All great points and you obviousely have some great insight.

Take care and thanks for writing.

STRENGTH AND HONOR

Jim