Aimless in Afghanistan

The New York Times' C.J. Chivers says that counter-insurgency instructions handed out to officers in Afghanistan will stress that the aim of the U.S. military is to convince the Afghans that they should side with the government:

The mission, the commander says, is to protect the Afghans. The war will be won not by destroying the enemy, but by persuading the people. The international forces will have succeeded when the government of Afghanistan is supported by the population.

Again, this is a very far cry from stopping a terrorist attack against the United States. We're now using our military to protect Afghans and to convince them that their government - which Chivers' paper informs us is riddled with corrupt drug lords - is a force for good in their lives.

Spencer Ackerman adds some more context to General McChrystal's counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan:

He demands that his troops think about how they’d feel if a foreign army operated in their hometowns. A section called “playing into their hands” compares a unit that lumbers toward an engagement with an insurgent group to a bull chasing a matador’s cape. Civilian casualties “sow the seeds of our own demise.” Parables offered as sidebars urge commanders to respond to rocket attacks with school supplies.

That first sentence is important because it underscores the basic trouble with the mission as it is currently conceived. Countries almost never want to be occupied by a foreign military power. Do we have any idea how many school supplies it will take to change that?

(AP Photos)