Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Should Learn From Canada, Allies in Afghan Mission: Adviser
The U.S. could be stuck fighting in Afghanistan for a long time because its army doesn't have the training to connect with the population or understand that country's complicated culture, a senior NATO adviser warns.
A schoolgirl sits in a classroom at Syed Pasha school, which was built by Canadian troops, near Kandahar Air Field September 8, 2009. (REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly) Stephen Henthorne says the U.S. army puts too much emphasis on combat while paying lip service to working with civilian agencies and Afghans, and figuring out a plan to establish stability in Afghanistan.
In a letter to President Barack Obama's national security adviser, Henthorne notes that army commanders are well trained in kinetic operations, a term used to describe combat, but don't understand how to successfully use their resources to provide for civilian-military co-operation.
"The real problem is that almost all of these U.S. army generals are 'War Fighters,' " writes Henthorne, an American and the senior adviser to NATO's Civil-Military Co-operation Centre of Excellence in the Netherlands.
The Ottawa Citizen has obtained a copy of the letter he sent to retired Gen. James Jones.
Henthorne, who stressed his comments didn't reflect the views of his employer or NATO's member states, said other countries have had more success in making inroads with the Afghan population.
"The Canadians, the British and the Dutch do better at this because they do listen and they understand the culture," Henthorne said in an interview. "We claim we have tons of culture classes for our soldiers and even for our civilians, but we really don't have a clue. We think one Muslim is just like any other Muslim."
He noted the U.S. "hearts and minds" campaign in Afghanistan is designed only for the short term. True civil-military co-operation is working with civilians in disputed areas, Henthorne added.
The U.S. army provides most of the troops in Afghanistan.
For Americans, Henthorne said, an overemphasis on combat means "we'll be spending a lot of time, money and resources going back constantly redoing things or we'll be stuck where we don't want to be stuck for long periods of time."
Henthorne said U.S. operations, such as eradicating the opium trade, do not take into account the long-term effects on the Afghan population who rely on that harvest for their livelihood.
"We're not just dealing with Taliban. We're dealing with people who need to grow the crops, we're dealing with people who sell them the seed, we're dealing with drug lords who we originally paid to create stability in 2001 and 2002, and we can't wean these people off of this stuff. It is a form of currency ingrained in their everyday life. We're not doing anything realistic about that at all."
The Pentagon is working on designing a civil-military campaign plan for Afghanistan over the next 16 months, but he pointed out that the team consists of one senior public servant and an officer, with little staff or budget. "I really believe that it's doomed to fail and its failure is intentional," he added.
Col. Daniel Roper, director of the U.S. army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Centre, said he hadn't seen Henthorne's letter so he could not comment.
But Roper noted the U.S. military is continually improving its training based on lessons learned from places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The military uses sociologists and cultural anthropologists to help it understand local cultures, he added.
Roper noted that since 2001, U.S. military doctrine has changed. There is emphasis on what is called "clear, hold and build," meaning that insurgents are killed off or forced to retreat from a region. After that, U.S. units control the particular area and provide support to local communities.
"The holding and building is where you win," Roper said. "It's no longer offensive and defensive. It's offensive, defensive and stability."
Roper said a counter-insurgency campaign is a long-term undertaking, and that while combat gets noticed, it is much more difficult to perceive subtle changes in attitudes of the local populations since those take place over a lengthier period.
But Roper said there is always room for improvement in the cultural training soldiers receive, and he added that local politics and alliances require time to understand.
"For instance, understanding the politics in Ottawa is not the same as understanding the politics in Toronto," he said. "It requires time to adjust and learn."
Henthorne said dealing with the Afghan population should not be a case of the quantity of what can be provided, but should be more focused on the quality of the aid.
"From the American perspective, we build you a school whether you want one or not," he explained. "You may need something else, but we don't care. If it's on our shopping list to build a school for you and you've only got two kids in the community, you're going to get a two-level school with 18 classrooms and colour TVs and that's just the way it is because it's on our list of things to do today."
- Posted in

8 Comments so far
Show All-For Americans, Henthorne said, an overemphasis on combat means "we'll be spending a lot of time, money and resources going back constantly redoing things or we'll be stuck where we don't want to be stuck for long periods of time."
"we'll" be spending..."we'll" be stuck
All that time, stuck spending all that money,...where does the (taxed and borrowed) money go, to Jupiter? No. Coincidentally, it goes to the same weapons makers that pay huge bribes to US politicians and offer those same politicians lucrative futures as lobbyists.
So is there really a point to rehashing what we already know (or should know) about the futility of this occupation, when we know (or should know) that decisions are being made not based on military strategy but on the securing of bribes and future employment for the strategists?
"Hearts and minds" campaigns don't work in colonial occupations.
Out now!
That's the trick: build the school for girls close to the fortified airbase so that the propaganda stooges can make a quick stopover for photo ops.
A new and persistent spotlight is now also needed on President Obama's overt intentions to dick it out with Ahmedinejad. Let us keep in mind that blockades of any kind of another country which have not been approved by the UN Security Council are acts of war. If our CIC orders the interdiction of gasoline into Iran without UN approval he will declare war not only on Iran but also on Venezuela which has offered to ship gas to Iran. All of this smells like 2001.
The USA and Canada should learn from their predecessors; they cannot win a war that is 'intended not to be won'.
The billions of dollars being spent on the 'war' is meant to be 'taken in' by the Plutocratic Oligarchy simply because the 'PO' is in control. All of the other members from the politicians to the Generals are simply participating whether they are aware of the 'PO' being in control or not. They are slaves as well, to the same 'master' the rest of the USA are slaves to ; the Plutocratic Oligarchy.
The irony is that the US Military and the US people are slaves to the 'PO' and they themselves need to be 'liberated'.
"If the USA were another nation, the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified"
Read the book, "The Unsteady March". I'm sure it is behind a lot of what President Obama is doing in regards to war. You see, when all is said and done, President Obama would like to do something to help African Americans. I think he's going about it the wrong way but what I think doesn't count.
The conclusion of this well researched and scholarly book on the role of African Americans in the USA from the moment slaves were brought to the colonies to the present is that African Americans have progressed in their liberty, freedom and rights in the USA ONLY during periods of hot or cold war. In each war, from the revolutionary war when they were promised emancipation (only the British side honored this promise) to the cold war when Russia was using the treatment of blacks as a propaganda tool against the USA, whenever blacks were needed by the government, a campaign was put in place to convince them to help and that after they helped, they'd be treated as citizens. Most of that was bullshit but, with each war, a little was gained. With each period of peace, some of what was gained was lost by crap such as Jim Crow laws. So here we have a bright African American who is "needed" by the establishment to con the folks some more. He says sure but privately thinks that he's got to help the black part of his family too. So he won't let go of war because he firmly believes that the moment americans are not giving "rag-heads" the evil eye, they'll go back to the business of demonizing and marginalizing minorities in general and blacks in particular. It's as american as apple pie!
Don't argue until you've read the book.
THE UNSTEADY MARCH
The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America
by Philip A. Klinkner with Rogers M. Smith
published 1999
Here is a surefire way to end the war. Remove all troops, and after a month or so open a new civilian agency in Kabul called (say) "Reconstruction Group." Advertise that this group is not connected to the Pentagon but is a civilian group whose only aim is to help. Hand out money for projects that Afghans propose. Any project must pass a committee of Afghans, and submit monthly progress reports to them, but otherwise no restrictions would be placed on either the choice of project or costs. Let them make mistakes, cost over-runs, and any other folly without comment. Keep funding all legitimate projects.
Such a venture might cost a lot but certainly would be far less than the present war-fighting. After a yesr or so, the Afghans would flock to the agency and would treat it as a friend.
Should we expect any different from a violent nation that believes in "bringing democracy" at the end of a gun barrel?