Look, I’m a fan of Noah Shachtman’s work at Danger Room. One of the reasons I pick at it all the time is because I read the damned thing every day and generally enjoy it. Hell, Noah even links to me. I should also say I’m fan of David Kilcullen. I may think he oversimplifies the COIN discussion sometimes, but the fact that he can actually get people talking about it is of immense value—and he can certainly do that much better than I can.
Even so. Today Noah linked to this essay David wrote on Small Wars Journal (which is an edited version of his remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), in which he says the following:
Note – and I’ll return to this point – that unilateral strikes against targets inside Pakistan, whatever other purpose they might serve, have an unarguably and entirely negative effect on Pakistani stability. They increase the number and radicalism of Pakistanis who support extremism, and thus undermine the key strategic program of building a willing and capable partner in Pakistan.
Do I see anything wrong with this statement? HELL NO. In fact, it needs to be said more, and much more loudly. I just feel I should note that it sounds suspiciously like the op-ed I wrote with Jeb Koogler for the Christian Science Monitor over six months ago:
Most destructive of conventional thinking is the notion that targeted assassinations of militant leaders in the FATA is an effective counterterrorism tactic. In fact, this strategy has not deterred Islamic militancy.
In 2004, directly after the signing of the first peace accord in Waziristan, the prominent militant Nek Muhammed was killed by a US strike. But his successor-to-be, Mehsud, was not cowed, vowing to continue hostilities.
Other strikes, such as those against Abu Laith al-Libi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, have been similarly ineffective in undercutting Islamic militancy. The deaths of militant leaders rarely discourage additional violence; on the contrary, there is always a successor willing to step up. Just as NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan have bolstered popular support for the Taliban, targeted assassinations in Pakistan – with the inevitable deaths of civilians that result – lead to greater sympathy for radicalism and increase grass-roots support for violence.
It also sounds a lot like a piece I wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review in September:
As viscerally appealing as such actions may be back home—Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has promised to strike targets inside Pakistan if need be—it is impossible for the U.S. to come out of these raids looking good.
From this follows a fundamental tenet of counterinsurgency: a population-centric strategy. Current U.S. strategy does not focus on the FATA’s people; it only tries to kill its leaders. These routine insertions also carry the risk of American soldiers dying at the hands of the Pakistani Army—an event that would almost assuredly make matters worse. If the U.S. is to regularly violate Pakistani territory and preemptively strike targets suspected of having launched cross-border attacks, then the rules of the game change.
So, please—if David Kilcullen telling this to the Senate is what it takes for word to get out, then I am all about Kilcullen shouting it from the rooftops. It is vitally important we get our Pakistan (and Afghanistan, for that matter) policy under control now, while there is some policy flexibility in the White House and an opportunity for change. I really hope the SFRC listens to Kilcullen’s thoughts on the matter, and follows through on them.
For previous examples of things I say not mattering until someone more important says them, especially when hosted by the SWJ, see (for example) here. Told you this was (sort of) sour grapes.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust