The Elusive Civilian/Political Solution Posted by Heather Hurlburt

So why can't we talk about Pakistan?  Let me suggest a couple of paradoxes and one central problem:

after eight years (and more, if we're honest) of flabby discussion and flabbier media coverage, the chattertocracy in its left as well as center and right variants is much more comfortable talking about military responses than other kinds.  So Afghanistan has American lives at risk and units of "measure" -- troops killed, enemy killed, land cleared or held -- that our writers and readers feel much more comfortable addressing.  The fact that this is as true for the left as for the right is, I think, indisputable -- certainly I've moderated enough panels on the subject.  People are fascinated by the military.  The things it does, as I just noted, are more measurable and tangible.  An educated girl looks just the same on the outside -- assuming she ever gets outside her family compound -- as an illiterate girl.  A dead insurgent is easy to tell from a live one.

This has a bunch of sub-effects:  Pakistan is harder to talk about because the solutions don't involve American troops directly.  Civilian activities in Afghanistan get short shrift... because who really understands what they are?  Nobody can make a political career demanding better civilian activities... and, on the flip side, when people make claims for the efficacy of civilian activities, most of the commentariat is ill-placed to evaluate them.  

As a result of today's panel, I've begun nagging the IRC and similar groups to develop and publicize benchmarks on the civilian effort in both countries -- to give armchair commentators an easy follow-along tool.  But it's worth remembering to ask that question one's self -- and to develop a broader, deeper theory of the case about what civilian efforts actually can and can't accomplish.  More on that another time when I am not trying to elbow my way onto a flight. 

Comments

[SNLII]

"This has a bunch of sub-effects: Pakistan is harder to talk about because the solutions don't involve American troops directly."

This was mere muddle.

Pakistan is harder to talk about because there's almost nothing we can do -- using either miilitary force or other forms of suasion -- to affect the center of gravity in the AfPak war, which is the Pasthun population in west Pakistan.

Regardless of whether one is discussing force or other forms of achieving one's foreign policy goals, it won't help you to discuss "civilian" metrics (they actually exist, even in public fora) if these measurements are tied to Afghanistan, so long as the true focus should be the population in Pakistan.

I think you know this, but that you've decided to be provocative.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[acekard ds]

Hi,
As far as I know in the past few decades several developments have threatened this Nehruvian legacy. Increasing ethnolinguistic violence coupled with the venality of local police forces have led to increasing reliance on the Army to maintain civil order. Its tactics and strategy are designed to fight organized forces not urban mobs or elusive civilian terrorists.