So we lost Gen. McChrystal. No matter his diplomatic wrongs, there is one piece of him we need to keep in Afghanistan: his emphasis on civilian protection. As he arrived to meet with President Obama, the New York Times was suggesting the general was losing his troops in Afghanistan over that very issue. The Rolling Stone article (and subsequent Charlie Foxtrot) has become an opportunity for frustrated soldiers to vent about how McChrystal's focus on civilian protection is getting in the way of their war-fighting. Unfortunately for those soldiers, McChrystal's replacement is unlikely to rescind the civilian protection philosophy. That's because,
"...you cannot achieve your strategic goals, your strategic objectives, if tactical activities result in the loss of innocent civilian life."
Straight from the new general's (Petraeus) mouth. General Petraeus defined U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. A thinking-man's war, counterinsurgency requires building trust and support among the population. In a fight with radically decentralized decision-making and an enemy that hides out among the people, soldiers must understand that every decision will affect their mission to wrest the initiative. Nothing impairs that mission more than killing civilians. One soldier, frustrated with the restraint on massive fire and air power told the NYT:
"I wish we had generals who remembered what it was like when they were down in a platoon. Either they never have been in real fighting, or they forgot what it's like."
I get it. You're engaging with an enemy and you want all the tools at your disposal: airstrikes, artillery, rockets. I've spent time with soldiers in Afghanistan and their desire to call in the big guns, pun intended, makes implicit sense to me. I've also talked to many Afghan civilians who've been maimed or lost family members as a result of those big guns. That perspective -- one of anger and burden -- is one the soldiers don't often see and it's just as important to a successful mission. Let's also get straight that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan do not prohibit soldiers from self-defense or from force protection when there is a real or perceived threat. If they're being fired on, they can fire back. If they are in a tough spot, they can call in an airstrike. What McChrystal has asked of troops in Afghanistan is to think twice before using lethal force. Petraeus is likely to ask the same. He's not going to blow villages to bits in order to root out the insurgents or cripple the population into submission, á la Dresden. Collateral damage is like dominos. Civilians are killed. Their families are left suffering. The anger builds. Secretary of Defense Gates said,
"If we kill an innocent civilian, we recruit a member for the Taliban."
A scholar at the London School of Economics recently found that when international forces cause civilian casualties "they generate a serious uptick in violence for up to five months. When the Taliban causes them, they generate an uptick in violence for about three months." That's Admiral Mullen quoting the study, by the way. Soldiers complain that the Taliban don't have to observe any rules in the fight. That U.S. and allied forces are compelled by their values and policies to be better than the insurgents is a given. But beyond the argument that we shouldn't stoop to the egregious tactics of the Taliban, it's clear insurgents are also losing Afghans thanks to their complete lack of regard for civilian safety. Just this week, the town of Gizab in southern Afghanistan took up arms and booted out the Taliban. The Taliban had destroyed schools, seized property and commandeered the hospital. Lalay the shopkeeper said, "We had enough of their oppression, so we decided to fight back." That is the point of not asking the civilian population to bear the brunt of U.S. or allied military force. I'm not advocating for protecting civilian lives at the expense of soldiers' lives. (And the "medal for restraint" idea was silly, so let's not go there.) Nobody wants to see an "increasing the number of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base" as the New York Times put it today. But military advantage has to be balanced against humanitarian and strategic objectives. In Afghanistan, protecting against civilian harm is a military advantage, as well as a humanitarian and strategic objective. The balance on the ground should be constantly assessed, so that neither civilians nor soldiers get the short end. As McChrystal heads out, I hope (and believe) that Gen. Petraeus will keep the part of him alive that endeavors to keep more civilians alive.