Of Jedi Knights, Death Stars, and Afghanistan

The U.S. military strategy of the moment in Afghanistan is counterinsurgency, or COIN. It involves winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people by protecting them, as well as by offering them hope, primarily in the form of billions of dollars in aid. It involves moving our troops in closer contact with the locals, of partnering with them in ways that are attuned to their culture and priorities. It's an approach tailor-made for our Special Ops forces: the equivalent of our Jedi Knights, who travel lightly and who have a knack for knowing the right tactic (often nonviolent rather than "kinetic") to adopt at the right moment.

At the same time, however, the U.S. has adopted a different, far more aggressive and massive, approach to "winning" in Afghanistan. Call it the imperial or "Death Star" approach. Here, we build huge embassies and bases, changing the very face of the Afghan countryside, as Nick Turse so stunningly reveals at TomDispatch.com. We then heavily garrison our bases and largely isolate them from the Afghan people (in the name of "Force Protection"). We even equip them with Burger Kings, Popeye Chicken restaurants, and other reminders of America: hence they become, in a way, "Little Americas."

Amazingly, few people seem to sense the tensions -- indeed, the contradiction -- inherent in these approaches. Can one truly be both Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, both cunning and courteous Jedi Knight and Dark Lord of imperial power projection?

The answer, I believe, is "no." By its nature, a large, heavy imperial boot print effaces the low-impact, softer COIN foot print. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect the good deeds and skills of your Jedi to erase the looming presence of imperial Death Stars in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

If the strategy is to fight austere and carefully calculated COIN operations, let's do that. But let's not be weak-minded and fool ourselves that our ever-expanding and truly foreign imperial bases in Afghanistan are consistent with this strategy.

 

Comments

[MrGill]

You could not be more correct. We cannot do both.

I think there is a higher level discussion though, and that is, what is the end game? Is there a point in time where the people of Afghanistan are safe, secure, and happy by their own estimation (not ours), and we politely leave their country?

No. We are either there in perpetuity, or we leave. If in the end, things go back to the way they have been, then every single loss sustained by us and them was for nothing.

Russia went before us and failed, despite being a juggernaut at the time. Same with the french in Indochina. We are doing little more than repeating the sins of our Fathers. There is nothing there to "win".

[glarblBlarbl]

Did you watch Episodes 1 through 3? Darth Vader started out as a hero of the Republic and Jedi Knight. The whole point of those movies is that even a robust, free, Republic can easily turn into an Evil Empire when it trades freedom for perceived security.

It's a frakking allegory for US, dammit.