Rolling Stone magazine
has a provocative article on the streets right now, alleging that U.S.
commanders in Afghanistan ordered "information operations" specialists to use
their techniques not on the Taliban or on Afghans, but to help persuade
visiting U.S. politicians to keep backing the war effort. When one of the officers involved
questioned the policy, he found himself under investigation in what seems to
have been a spiteful act of punishment. (For additional commentary on the story, check out FP's Tom Ricks here.)
Assuming the story is accurate, it's pretty disturbing. But the issue isn't an individual
general's overzealous effort to sell the war back home. The real issue is whether any of us can
tell how the war is actually going, given that the people closest to the battle
have obvious incentives to portray their efforts in a positive light.
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of
prominent stories suggesting -- if guardedly -- that the war effort in Afghanistan is
going better than most people think. Not surprisingly, these stories emerge from people who have recently
visited the theater under the auspices of the U.S. military, or from U.S. commanders themselves. Yet just today, the New York Times reports that U.S. and NATO
forces are now abandoning the Pech Valley, a remote region that was once deemed vital, despite
serious misgivings that it will quickly become a safe haven for the insurgency. And the Times story also contains this telling quotation:
What we figured out is that people in the Pech really aren’t anti-U.S. or anti-anything; they just want to be left alone," said one American military official familiar with the decision. "Our presence is what’s destabilizing this area."
So how can you or I tell if the war is going well or
not? For that matter, how can
Barack Obama be sure that he's getting the straight scoop from his commanders
in the field? Even if the military
was initially skeptical about a decision to go to war, once committed to the field its job
is to deliver a victory. No dedicated military
organization wants to admit it can't win, especially when it is
facing a much smaller, less well-armed, and objectively "inferior" foe like the
Taliban. Troops in the field also
need to believe in the mission, and to be convinced that success is possible.
To the extent that they need to keep civilian authorities
and the public on board, therefore, we can expect military commanders to tell
an upbeat story, even when things aren't going especially well. I am not saying that they lie; I'm
saying that they have an incentive to "accentuate the positive" in order to
convince politicians, the press, and the public that success will be ours if we
just persevere. Indeed, this
was one of the key "lessons" that the U.S. military took from Vietnam: Success
in modern war -- and especially counterinsurgency -- depends on more effective
"information management" on the home front. And this tendency is not unique to the United States or even to democracies; one sees the same phenomenon in most wars, no matter who is fighting.
Regular readers here know that I think our military effort
in Afghanistan is misguided and that our overall national interests would be
better served by a timely withdrawal. Reasonable people can disagree about that issue, and it is
bound to be debated until the day the war ends (and probably for long afterward). But my point today is a broader one: It
is nearly impossible for any of us to know for certain exactly how well or
badly the war is going. But when
we read a story like the one in Rolling
Stone, we're entitled to be more skeptical about the good news we're being fed.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE