Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - 7:13 AM

Here is a comment from Paula Broadwell, who is just your typical Army Reserve officer who is doing a PhD and writing a biography of General Petraeus on the side.
David Martin probably also should be on her corrections list.
By Paula Broadwell
Best Defense guest columnistSome pretty smart columnists have written this week about a "shift in the strategic effort" in Afghanistan under Gen. David Petraeus from a counterinsurgency (COIN) approach to a counter-terrorism (CT) effort, but that strikes me as an overstatement.
Fred Kaplan of Slate states that "a shift in emphasis is… altering the character of the war." David Ignatius of the Washington Post writes, "Petraeus is experimenting with another mix," and says that over the last four months, he has become "a CT wolf in a counterinsurgent in sheep's clothing." He hypothesizes that the "protean" Petraeus has rewritten "the playbook." Time's Joe Klein cites the same alleged "change" from counterinsurgency (COIN) toward heavy counterterrorism (CT), stating that CT is separate from COIN. What these guys don't get: CT has always been a part of Petraeus's comprehensive COIN strategy.
Here's what Kaplan, Ignatius and Klein should actually be observing: Since Petraeus has arrived in Afghanistan, he has increased the intensity of every element of a comprehensive civil-military COIN campaign, not just the so-called CT element. After my trip to Afghanistan last month, during which I visited at the battalion, division, and ISAF headquarters levels, it is clear to me that the "shift" is not one of focus, but of energy and increased intensity across all lines of the counterinsurgency effort. The Kaplan, Ignatius and Klein observations are based loosely on a recent increase in both air strikes and Special Operations Forces (SOF) targeted killing -- and they are certainly right about that. But take a deep breath, guys: CT operations have always been a key part of the kinetic component of COIN. In his speeches, articles, and doctrine over the past nine years, Petraeus has always been clear on this point. It was evident during his command in Iraq, and is equally so now in Afghanistan. For the record: CT is a subset of COIN. Here's a visual explanation:
![]()
As the Anaconda Slide illustrates, there is more than just a CT effort. The COMISAF Anaconda Strategy's seven lines of effort include kinetics, politics, intelligence, detainee operations, non-kinetics, international issues, and information operations. Collectively, these efforts seek to "choke" the eight key "needs" of the insurgency
The following provides some evidence of Petraeus's increased initiatives along each of these critical lines of effort:
The kinetic line of effort includes CT operations, and in this arena, as Kaplan, Ignatius and Klein point out, one cannot deny results. In a 90-day accumulated effects roll-up in late September 2010, ISAF SOF had conducted 2,795 "kinetic" operations (including targeted killing night raids and air strikes), captured or killed 285 insurgent "leaders," captured 2084 insurgents, and killed 889. As impressive as these numbers are, caution is always advised in determining their precise meaning when dealing with an insurgency as determined as the Taliban.
In any event, killing and capturing are not the only component of the kinetic line. From July to late September, ISAF SOF forces also conducted 1,823 population-centric non-kinetic operations. Petraeus's comprehensive COIN strategy clearly states that these CT and population-centric operations must be complemented by clear/hold/build operations of conventional forces, training of host nation elements, and local security initiatives. This comprehensive approach is a mantra Petraeus continues to push on his battlefield circulations and in his morning update briefs to field commanders. And ISAF troops appear to be doing it, though some would clearly prefer a steadier diet of kinetics.
During my visit with the 3/187th Rakkasans in Ghazni Province last month, a "CT plus conventional clear/hold/build approach" seemed very much in evidence. Task Force Iron, led by Lt. Col. David Fivecoat, has worked hard to clear the new area of operations and dismantle insurgent networks in the Ghazni area. They did this in cooperation with their Special Operations brethren, Task Force 3-10. But they quickly followed that CT and "clearing" efforts with "hold" and non-kinetic "build" initiatives right out of the Petraeus playbook. In the last eight months, the Rakkasans have spent over $150,000 in economic development, basic service provision, and jobs program efforts to rebuild Khezer Khell School, support Mata Khan Clinic, and institute other important capacity building efforts to empower the sub-district governors.
One potential capacity building "game changer," adopted this summer under President Hamid Karzai with Petraeus's "relentless prodding," is the Afghan Local Police (ALP) initiative. The long-term impact of this program remains to be seen, but early reviews seem encouraging as it moves toward a goal of 20,000 recruits. Along with the Village Stability Operations, Petraeus has pushed hard to promote the ALP. The ALP program, for which there are 68 sites identified in eastern and central Afghanistan, now has around 250-350 police located at each site. Run by the Afghan Ministry of the Interior and mentored by U.S. Special Forces teams, the ALP have already helped with the disruption of insurgency IED networks. The ALP has yet to hit a tipping point, but it is an important component of the stabilization and transition plans that didn't gain traction under previous ISAF commanders.
The training of host nation elements is another critical component of the Anaconda Strategy that Petraeus has promoted over the past 100 days, especially that of professionalizing the force. Again, there are signs of progress, though much still remains to be done. One of the big ideas Petraeus embraced when he moved to Afghanistan last summer was "the need to change the COIN math, to figure out how to increase the numbers of ISAF/ANSF and to reduce the numbers" of fighters. The kill/capture roll-up rate mentioned above is one side of that ledger, and the other side is the now-complete surge of ISAF troops and the increase in ANSF troops. Though questions remain regarding their quality, the military and police training program is, in fact, ahead of October 2010 goals (Afghan National Army, Goal: 134K, Actual: 139K; Afghan National Police, Goal: 109K, Actual: 122K). As Petraeus acknowledges in his own presentations, thanks are due in part to the ground work laid by General McChrystal and ongoing efforts by Lt. Gen William B. Caldwell, but Petraeus has also accelerated efforts on this front. His trip to Brussels, London, and Rome this past week, and his effort to rally international support (especially for military and police trainers) seem to be yielding results. Back in Kabul, staff officers in the CJ5 claim that while sometimes it feels like "NATO has culminated," Petraeus is working to energize and refocus the contributions of allied nations. Again, time will tell how successful he is. And he's certainly not going to bat 1.000, with Italy, Holland and Canada already having announced near-term departure dates. But his efforts seem to be having an effect with most other NATO members.
To garner additional international support, Petraeus has formed a healthy partnership with his civilian counterpart, Ambassador Mark Sedwill, as he did with Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Iraq. This week, the two conducted a "relentless communication" campaign in Europe, briefing NATO/ISAF Ambassadors in Brussels. Petraeus met with the Belgian and British prime ministers. He also met with the Belgian, British, and Italian ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs; and various chiefs of Defense in their respective countries. In Italy, he briefed the senior representatives for Afghanistan and Pakistan at an International Contract Group on Af-Pak in Rome. It appeared a dizzying pace, but maybe not for vintage Petraeus, who puts as much emphasis on diplomacy and strategic communications as he does on counterterrorism. This belief in communication continues in routine meetings with coalition ambassadors in Afghanistan.
These efforts have been complemented by an accelerated political line of effort that include reconciliation, reintegration, governance, and -- under Brig. H.R. McMaster -- a focus on inclusivity, transparency, and anti-corruption. One initiative where Petraeus has focused immense attention and effort, for example, is a focus on fixing COIN contracting. As Petraeus's new October COIN Contracting Guidance says, "With proper oversight, contracting can spur economic development and support collective Afghan and ISAF objectives. But by spending large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, some of those funds have unintentionally fueled corruption, financed insurgent organizations, strengthened criminal patronage networks, and undermined our efforts in Afghanistan." Petraeus made anti-corruption efforts "commander's business" and has focused equal attention on this aspect of the campaign as he has the CT effort. Now, in partnership with Karzai, he's trying to hold contractors accountable. It's a task that has defeated most everyone who has taken on corruption in Afghanistan, but Petraeus remains determined to make progress.
Petraeus has also placed increased emphasis on reconciliation and reintegration efforts in his first four months. "Reconciliation" focuses on senior Afghan leaders, most of who are hiding in Pakistan leading by cell phone. News of recent negotiations with senior Taliban this week indicates that small reconciliation efforts may be underway. "Reintegration" is conducted with those who are on the ground in Afghanistan -- mid-level leaders including district shadow governors and below. The objective, Petraeus said in a recent interview, "is to take away as many of the rank and file, take them off the battlefield again turn them from bad guys to good guys" or at least prevent them from "trying to kill our troopers and our Afghan partners and civilians." Intel chatter interdicted via low-level voice intercepts has shown that some senior-level insurgents feel coalition force pressure across their networks. Some reports indicate they may be willing to "cut a deal," as the recent negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban portend. Speculation about negotiations has cast some doubt in the minds of low-level insurgents who speculate that "senior insurgent leaders are defecting," according to a senior ISAF official in October.
Gathering that type of atmospheric about the Taliban has only been possible through increased intelligence efforts, another area of emphasis. Some of these intelligence initiatives were initiated under McChrystal while Petraeus was still CENTCOM Commander. These efforts included acquiring 2,000 more intelligence officials for the command, and pushing intelligence analyst out on raids because "if you want them to know what is going on, they have to know what is going on," according to CJ2, MG Mike Flynn. Petraeus has also promoted the "fusion cell" concept from the strategic to the tactical levels; he deems this more important even than the other enablers like ISR platforms, SIGINT intercepts, and full-motion videos. Additionally, the biometrics program, which overlaps with the detainee operations line of effort and now has over one million Afghans registered, has helped empower the Afghan government in its correction, detention, rule of law efforts, and local intelligence gathering efforts.
The comprehensive COIN effort would not be complete without credible voices and strategic communications plan, both of which fall under the information operations line of effort. In that vein, Petraeus's COIN guidance says simply that U.S. forces should "be the first with truth." His Information Operations Task Force has condemned the brutal Taliban killing of sub-district governors or Taliban attacks on sacred mosques, and he has ordered an investigation into the botched rescue attempt that killed Linda Norgrove. Petraeus is also candid about the many challenges in this war, admitting that his 15-hour days, 7 days a week are sustainable but he doesn't have "much of a reserve." Petraeus conscientiously avoids the word "optimistic," labeling himself instead as a qualified realist.
For the other realists who are watching Afghanistan, there has not been a shift in the war strategy. The strategy that President Obama sent Petraeus there to execute hasn't changed, and neither has Petraeus's momentum: this is a multi-pronged comprehensive COIN strategy, intensified across all lines of effort -- and Petraeus is "all in."
Paula Broadwell, a West Point graduate, is the author of the forthcoming book, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus (Penguin Press, 2011). The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, or Derek Jeter.
Paula Broadwell’s essay on the impending victory in Afghanistan reminds me of the film ‘All That Jazz’ where Ann Reinking and Erzsebet Foldi did that delightful song and dance number ‘Everything Old is New Again’. About 44 years ago in Saigon MACV did the original act in their heavily loaded chart and statistical briefing’s clearly indicating that we were on the path to victory led by William Westmorland.
There is an old adage on Wall Street that basically says that the real value of an investment idea that is purported to encompass great opportunity is usually inversely related to the amount of its explanatory language, statistical analysis and colorful graphics. The second chart in Broadwell’s essay is a classic example of such a warning (largely true from my experience).
Personally, I think every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman should get a copy of this chart so that they would have a better understanding of the thinking of the high command to give them a better understanding of why and how they are fighting as they are. And if any far-flung FOP runs out of toilet paper it could also be used for that purpose too!
Well put
I've been skeptical about the whole 'strategy' in Afghanistan ever since 'COIN' became common parlance among pundits. Everyone wants to talk about what it is; no one wants to talk about what they really expect it to do. I find it hard to get anyone to explain to me what "stabilizing afghanistan" really means; to me it translates to 'boiling the ocean'.
And yes, as former WS analyst, the most compelling and original research almost always fit in the front-page bullets of a 2-3 pager, the 2nd-3rd pages being nothing but adding details to each key point. It was the 10-25 pagers full o' charts and graphs that usually had nothing original or valuable to say at all. It's not such a hard idea to understand; smart things can generally be translated into simple terms - stupid things require lots of bullshit to bury themselves in so that it isn't quite so obvious how stupid it is. Anyone who's ever graded college term papers should know this instantly.
Interesting article, but I'm surprisingly impressed by the strategy powerpoint slide. 90% of the time, PP makes us dumber, as T X Hammes and others have pointed out. This one actually condenses a complicated strategy to fight a complicated phenomenon into something useful. It should not replace a campaign plan, of course. That should have words and paragraphs and rigorous strategic thought (in theory). But, the slide does put a lot of ideas together well.
The Anaconda imagery is nice as well. It implies that we squeeze something or shrink something, not kill it. Like a police chief can never eliminate crime in a city, but it can tamp it down to a manageable level. I'm halfway through the "Defeat" vs "Disrupt" debate in Woodward's book and this looks like a well done Disrupt campaign.
Reminds me of Harvey's old "Cycle of Violence" slide from Iraq or Capt Patriquin’s Stick Man brief. Its is good to see staff work done well.
Actual anacondas not only kill their prey, they swallow it whole. I don't see quite the same imagery here Ironcapt does. In any event, the Powerpoint slide doesn't look like an anaconda to me. It looks more like the Ring of Power. Maybe that should have been the title of the briefing.
As I read the Ignatius piece on this subject and several others, what is different about Gen. Petraeus' campaign is the point of intensifying counterterrorist strikes against the Taliban leadership. He's not just trying to suppress terrorism, but to encourage Taliban leaders to negotiate with ISAF and the Afghan government by demonstrating the price for not doing so. This reflects, I think, Petraeus' acute understanding that the time available to him is limited; with that understanding, he's trying to raise the costs to the enemy of "waiting out" the Americans.
There is bound to be a lot of discussion about whether this is consistent with counterinsurgency doctrine. Those who can't do, teach, and those who can't teach argue about things like this. The fact is that much of the points of the briefing referred to here involve quantitative metrics with built-in trap doors -- e.g. questions about the "professionalism" of Afghan police -- that in the best case would take several years to address. We don't have that kind of time.
I don't know if what Petraeus is doing will work; I expect he'll have Pakistanis trying to discourage Taliban leaders from engaging with the Afghan government, and there are other obstacles as well. But one thing counterinsurgency advocates have sold me on is the idea that doing COIN properly requires a lot of time on the clock. Petraeus would be less able than I think he is if he weren't prepared to leave some aspects of his own doctrine by the roadside to adjust to a situation where that much time isn't available.
Mr Zathras,
I’m not suggesting that is a good strategy or one that will succeed. I’m merely suggesting that this was a well made slide explaining the strategy. Again, I’m halfway through Woodward’s book, but it was disturbing that he could ask a few dozen troops what we were doing or trying to do in Afghanistan and he’d get a few dozen answers. That slide is a good way to explain the strategy to a Marine corporal, Air Force Major, or reporter, depending on their GT score.
It is true that Anacondas kill and eat their prey. Still, it’s a better title than “Mustang Flex” “Grizzly Forced Entry” or “Rainbow.” Cracked.com has a great article on bad military operation names. The squeezing imagery is apt for counter-insurgency and, in any case, I don’t think the success of the plan hinges on evocative prose.
You are right about the problems of quantitative metrics and trap doors. I’m less concerned about whether it is in keeping with counterinsurgency doctrine than I am it actually working. I’m sure I’m not alone in that either.
I would have said Circle of Trust rather than Ring of Power. Taliban and AQ, and other insurgents would be outside the circle, Karzai on the edge, and allies inside of the circle
Some slides are best left unprojected
I really don't want to see a slide illustrating the strategy of "Grizzly Forced Entry". Are you trying to get Steve Colbert riled up?
Bootlickers of the world, Unite and Take Over!
At:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/10/20/whats-happening-in-afghanistan/
Best,
Tom
That slide is about well nigh useless in its top-level-ness. That said, wouldn't it be better if we weren't publishing those type of slides for the world to see? I can see Osama or Omar in their plush Pakistan digs checking off his counter-strategies right now. Duh
Team Petraeus' ISAF is at the mid- 2007 crossroads
Why release that slide here, why now? Look at the timing, 2-3 weeks from critical mid-terms that will shift us right, back towards ever-war. Whatever is around the corner, we're losing an unsustainable 3/day right now, Without victory in Kandahar, and heroin following us home.
Gen. Petraeus providing access to 'good news' and strategy briefs is strategic. The center of effort is on the Potomac/NYC axis, in the national news budgets- the network minutes and page-1 captions / column inches.
If the war on the bad Pashtuns (always referred to as Taliban) doesn't get traction and credibility at home, and/or our critical interests in the Gulf and Levant heat up, then ISAF's tenuous call on troops and money will dry up.
Note that AQ doesn't appear on that slide. That would direct attention over the IRP border, and back towards our slippery contra-mutual Saudi allies. Places the ISAF counteroffensive can't reach.
When will Petraeus take fight to the enemy in Baluchistan?
As General McChrystal reported in his August, 2009 assessment to the President: ‘The Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) based in Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan, is the No. 1 threat to US/NATO mission in Afghanistan. At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Mohammed Omar (Afghan Taliban Chief) announces his guidance and intent for the coming year‘.
All American officers in southern Afghanistan know that they can not prevail in the ongoing military operations, unless Taliban strongholds across the Durand Line in North Waziristan and Baluchistan are neutralized. Adm Mullen and Gen Patraeus evidently do not want to acknowledge that hard options have to be considered if their soldiers are not to die at the hands of radicals, armed and trained across the Durand Line.
When will Petraeus stop mollycoddling Kayani’s Pakistan and take fight to Mullah Omar’s QST safe havens in Baluchistan by ordering drone attacks there?
Foreign occupations and suicide terrorism
MM, having put our troops in the Kush to defend NYC, we're now to invade Bushistan in defense of those troops?
We've now got enough data to answer Rumsfeld's 2004 question, 'are we creating more suicide terrorists than we kill?'
Yes we are. We are achieving a negative result, the opposite of a war on terror. We are conducting a war that increases terror.
Suicide terror is the class-IV metastisizing cancer of terror. It occurs in strong correlation with defense of territory.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295953-4
Robert Pape on Suicide Terrorism
Oct. 7 2010
--
http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty/pape.shtml
Are you McNamara reincarnated?
I just looked at that slide for first time
That may be the dumbest piece of shit I've ever seen, a substitute for strategy and an apology (apologia) for failure.
In the back of my mind I have this picture of the soul-numbing count of hours good people must have put into making all the slides for all the briefings in all the days of our two forlorn wars. What a treasure we would have if that effort and thought had gone into executing the mission.
A suggestion: let's try a crew swap. We'll send some of our guys over to the Taliban to help them improve their slides and they can send us some folks to teach us how to prevail in low-intensity conflict.
Was referring to the Anaconda slide. The other one I like: proves we're winning. Hooray. Am waiting for the one that shows we're outta there.
I meant Baluchistan, what you said. Can't blame Pakistan on W.
We're all frustrated at a 10 year war that doesn't follow the trail to the source MM. But mollycoddling?
What effect on our many ISAF alliances do you think even a regiment-sized combined move towards Quetta would have? Fuel cut off, embassies burned, hostages... I'd guess that Islamabad wouldn't have to order their troops to fight us, but if they didn't there would be mass desertion from the IRP army to support insurgent resistance.
Surgery's really not an option, in dealing with that septic nuclear islamic state. What's your plan B?
First: I welcome Paula's pointing out that, despite all the media swirl about COIN, General Petreaus was never actually about nation-building or winning hearts and minds---just getting a military mission accomplished for which some element, component (veneer?) consisted of supporting the folks who will help us and/or protecting our flank after we cleared an area.
Second: This secret treasure map contains everything but the "X" that marks the spot of any convincing treasure. As MG Flynn pointed out last year, MI knows all the bad guys and all the bad stuff---but that doesn't get you anywhere. Wack-a-moling and mowing the grass, now matter how intensely, does not address or resolve the issues in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, Inclusivity, Transparency and Anti-Corruption are only two small points in this slide. In fact, if you could address those, the rest of the slide would become irrelevant. Tail wags dog.
In shop class many decades ago (when things were still hand drawn and lettered) we got extra points for attention to "neat lines." This slide deserves extra credit for neatness.
Another thing about that slide
Why "Anaconda Strategy?" Wouldn't it be wiser to not recall that abortion of an Operation where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? I would think Python or Boa Constrictor would do just as well.
Maybe that's our real problem, we don't have any creative people in the military these days - cough, cough present company excluded of course.
I thought the reference to Anaconda had to do with the sprawling Balad Air Base (Iraq), and the need for at least two large PXs and a few ExPat Turkish Bazaars.
Nothing like a shopping mall to change the context of everything.
Alternative: Teach the enemy to use Power Point, then they will be as confused as we are.
Double and triple meanings abound.
'Anaconda Plan' was Winfield Scott's Civil War strategy?
I didn't get beyond the Britannica version, but it looked like strategic strangulation of the South's ports, before all became resigned to the destruction of the ANV and battles of attrition.
I'm not getting any quick hits on 'Anaconda Strategy' for pashtunistan, so maybe someone is keying off of the President's public association with Lincoln, that 'team of rivals' thing?
Obfuscation is a tool in the info toolkit, so maybe an uncomfortable backhanded link to the March 2002 operation was intentional. Kinda like when an advert designer includes a dissonant distractor, to help the 'buy now' message slip thru uncensored?
A great piece. I can understand why it doesn't sit well with the "we're losing" crowd.
Actually, no.
I came to the same conclusion as Broadwell, albeit with less data. COIN entails securing the population. There are two ways to do it: Build a fortress around them, or driving off the insurgents. The reason for restraint in pursuing insurgents is to avoid civilian casualties. That's a lot easier in Afghanistan's countryside that Iraqi cities.
Of course Petreaus is selling us his version. Good generals generally do. Back in 2007, he told us his goal was to speed up the clock in Iraq and slow it down in Washington. Why would we expect any different goals in Afghanistan?
Conflicting reports are par for the course. It is perhaps my strongest memory/impression of the Vietnam conflict, the near impossibility of determining whether we were winning or losing. The answer only became clearer over time. I'm willing to see what it looks like in June of 2011 to gauge momentum.
Even at the turning of the tide..
With your pseudo-intellectual arguments.
Some of you folks really need to work on separating your reactionary emotional aversion to war, with all it's heartbreaking messiness, from that part of your brain that rationally collates and analyzes information.
Pretty good Don, but let the record show that I no longer own the Mustang. Even though this particular Mustang was a good car (5 Speed 5.0) for many years, my emotional attachment to it was never linked to a decision to keep or sell.
And that was the point of my post.
I had a 440 Superbird w/6 pack but I'm still no fan of wasteful war.
Been there, done that, seen too many young soldiers (as I was once) placed on the alter of domestic politics and confusion.
Saw Tom's Fiasco first-hand, and the chapters that followed.
Steve
but the article wasn't a commentary on whether war is bad, or if these particular wars are wasteful. It doesn't address the question of stay or go. It was a treatment of one particular aspect of a very involved subject.
Why people feel the need to mix up emotions with rational thought processes is beyond me. Why can they not just read what the author wrote and comment on that? Instead they say stuff like you did. "I was there, and war is bad." Well, I was there too. And I know war is bad. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that Paula is making some good points in this particular piece.
(28)
SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE