By Steven Pressfield | Published: November 23, 2009
[This is going to be a long post. What follows are just some of hundreds of e-mails received by Maj. Gant in response to his paper, "One Tribe At a Time." The first is from Luke Murray, who lost his leg in an IED strike near Sarkhani, Afghanistan on 18 July 2003 as a member of Maj. Gant's ODA 316. He gave permission to post his e-mail to the blog.]
Jim, (more…)
By Steven Pressfield | Published: November 16, 2009
If a Tribal Engagement Strategy (TES) were to be tried in Afghanistan, how exactly would it work?
Last week, in the first part of this “Size Matters” post, we spoke with Maj. Jim Gant about the optimal size for a single U.S. Tribal Engagement Team (TET)—that is, the tactical unit that would be attached to a single Afghan tribe. Maj. Gant strongly advocated the position that smaller is better. Six to twelve men, no more. (more…)
By Steven Pressfield | Published: November 9, 2009
[Today we have a special follow-up interview with Maj. Jim Gant, on the subject of how big (or small) a Tribal Engagement Team should be—and what kind of large-scale support it would need. But first I want to say thanks to the many, many readers who have responded to Maj. Gant’s paper “One Tribe At A Time” and to all the members of the military, policy and journalism communities who have helped to circulate it. Special thanks to James Dao of the N.Y. Times (“Going Tribal in Afghanistan”), James Meek of the N.Y. Daily News (“Memo to Obama: Talk to Jim Gant or Risk Losing Afghan War”), to Small Wars Journal and to Col. Dave Maxwell, to BlackFive and Andrew Exum at Abu Muqawama, and to Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) and Mark Safranski (Zenpundit.)
[Now to our interview:] (more…)