- Bigger Split Within U.S. Leadership The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe say Eikenberry "reflects a broader difference of opinion at the highest levels" over the issue. They write that military leadership wants a "decentralized grass-roots" approach focusing on local Afghans and circumventing the troubled Kabul government. But civilians like Eikenberry worry that "unless there is a detailed plan to connect these village security forces to Ministry of Interior oversight, they could fuel the rise of warlords and undermine the already fragile government in Kabul."
- McChrystal Never Addressed Concerns Spencer Ackerman notes that he has long wondered about the strategy. Ackerman wrote when it was first introduced, "What will stop the Community Defense Initiative from yielding militias and warlords? McChrystal professed, a lot, to awareness of the hazards of partnering with local militias outside the bounds of the Afghan army and police. But he didn't explain how he'd mitigate those risks." And he still hasn't.
- More Strategic Wishful Thinking Democracy Arsenal's Michael Cohen scoffs that we "don't understand" militias enough to make it work. He thinks it was another example of counterinsurgency theory coming before results. "Military tactics and political strategy should be based, at least in some measure, on what you can actually achieve - not merely what you want to achieve. U.S. policy in Afghanistan today sure feels like more of the latter than the former; and that's not a good thing."
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at mfisher at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.



User Comments
Please type your comment and click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be prompted to log in or register