World Watch
December 18, 2009 8:21 AM

Afghan Elders to U.S.: Let Us Do Fighting

By
Kimberly Dozier
Topics
Afghanistan
(CBS/Kimberly Dozier)
CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier traveled with Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, through Kandahar and Helmand Provinces in Afghanistan. She filed this dispatch after landing in Basra, Iraq — her first trip back since Memorial Day 2006.


As we flew in to Forward Operating Base Frontenac, the terrain was mountainous — jagged hills cropping up suddenly in the middle of southern Afghanistan's lunar rocky landscape.

But the day — the whole trip — was like a flashback to Iraq. There was Admiral Mike Mullen speaking to the troops, telling them their new strategy is to protect the population, just as previous commanders had done with troops in Anbar, and Mosul, and Baghdad in 2006 and 2007.

"We can tactically win," the admiral said. "But if we're killing local civilians we're going to strategically lose."

He didn't have to argue the point. There were nods in the crowd. A Stryker Company he was speaking to had taken more casualties than any unit since 9/11 when kicking this new strategy into high gear – 21 KIA so far, one of the largest losses borne by a single unit in this entire war.

But the Stryker guys had been through this before. One told us how they'd been at the frontline of counterinsurgency in Iraq, and they'd seen it turn things around after initially being skeptical the plan would work.

"We've closed the gap on human intel," Lt. Col. Jonathan Neumann told us, ticking off what he saw as gains tallied against soldiers lost. He told a ragged group of reporters traveling with chairman Mullen that the intel from Afghans, which started flowing once locals were convinced the Americans would stay, meant his guys had been able to sweep up caches of weapons and stockpiles of explosives at a record rate.

He said they still faced a steady stream of IEDs — improvised explosive devices — but he said the construction and composition of the bombs was generally more primitive, and they were finding more of them. "We've hit them so hard, they're making mistakes," the colonel said. But he also admitted the drop in lethality of the bombs being used against them was probably also due to what he called the "snowbird syndrome," where top Taliban commanders, including bomb engineers, spend the winter across the border in Pakistan . . . planning the spring campaign.

He was also laying out his campaign in broad terms: to develop the relationships with locals so that they will turn their backs on the Taliban.

It's the other side of the "win trust and confidence" coin of COIN (or counterinsurgency): keep up the pressure on the remaining Taliban fighters with raids. The ultimate goal is that the Taliban leaders would find no one willing to give them shelter, food or aid when they returned, so they would leave — and the low-level Taliban fighters left behind, with no place to hide, would leave as well, or take off the black turban and go back to farming.

We asked how he felt about trying to accomplish all this by the President's target drawdown date of July 2011. His reaction to it, rather than the outrage by some in Washington, was one of relief. He said it gave his troops something to shoot for, and most importantly of all, he concluded, "It means we won't be here forever."

Camp Nathan Smith – Kandahar City

At our next stop, another flashback. Admiral Mullen sat down for a shura with five colorfully-dressed Afghan elders who had risked their lives just showing up for this meeting — just like Iraqi chiefs used to gather with U.S. commanders in Ramadi, or Tikrit or Kirkuk. Another five elders were invited but never showed.

For security reasons, they hadn't been told who they'd be meeting with (only that is was an "important American").

Mullen pulled up his chair to their table, instead of sitting across the room from them at the executive table set up for him. Then he pulled out a notebook, and asked them to tell him what they need.

They did not hold back. For two hours, while Mullen's staff kept cups of tea coming, the admiral heard everything from demands for a new dam (or two, if we Americans could swing it), to complaints that their young men need an army training facility built in Kandahar, instead of having to go all the way to Kabul, where the elders say their southern Pashtun ways make them the butt of abuse from Northerners.

But the most striking message of all was this: Stop fighting for us.

"You must understand our culture," one said. "It's insulting for you to die for us. We should be dying to take back our country, not you."

That was the lead in to his demand that the Americans start sending more money and training their way. "One of your soldiers costs a million dollars a year. One of ours costs $6,000. So spend that money on us, and we get 165 of our soldiers for one of yours." Mullen told him he had a good point, and carefully wrote it down in his green spiral notebook.

Of course, the elders did add that they wanted their forces to continue fighting alongside U.S. forces, because the Americans have air support. "If we are fighting with you, and we need an air strike, it comes right away," one elder said. "If we're on our own . . . "

Not so much, he essentially shrugged.

I'd never seen a four-star admiral taken to task like that. But that's exactly what Mullen was looking for — the unvarnished, sometimes unrealistic demands of the locals that he doesn't hear all the way back in Washington.

Later, on a plane bound for Iraq, Mullen told us that what struck him is Afghans' "desire to take control of their own destiny," especially "the one statement that said essentially, 'Put us in the lead. We are appreciative of the sacrifices we have made but those need to be our sacrifices,'" Mullen paraphrased.

The other thing that struck the admiral was "the emphasis on corruption, corruption, corruption," he said. "That really didn't surprise me, but the strength of it" (as in the sentiment) did.

The third thing that made an impression on the chairman was the elders' "Not now, but right now," attitude. "We've got to stop talking and we've got to start delivering," he said. "That's all of us. So one of the things I did was commit to come back and see them. And obviously I'll work as hard as I can to generate results. That's what they need to see."

Patrol Base Jaker, Helmand

At our last stop, Patrol Base Jaker, Marines at a small outpost at the edge of the village of Nawa toured Mullen through the town market.

They'd stopped some of the traffic to the market, just to make sure it was manageable, as they brought the top American in uniform through their A.O. (area of operations). And despite the blocked road, the market was still hopping.

They said it was even busier on market Fridays, with up to a hundred shopkeepers cramming a long row of stalls, set up along a canal facing the Marines' base. One Marine officer told me that was a tenfold surge in activity, since the time of the Taliban.

Come spring, the Marines planned to take the fight to the last major unconquered town in Helmand — Marja, expanding the "inkspot" of security for the locals.

It was another Iraq flashback of sorts for me and the officer I was speaking to, as we stared at the buzzing market from the watchtower at the corner of the base. It was the same thing his guys had done in al Anbar in Iraq.

First they took Fallujah block by block and left, turning it over to overly-green Iraqi forces. The insurgents came back, welcomed by the locals who now hated the Americans for the first campaign's bloodshed. So the Marines had to take the town again — another hard fight. It took a while before the people saw them as providers of security — helped, of course, by the fact that Sunni militants who'd been attacking the Americans a) split with al Qaeda over its demands the province be run under strict Islamic rules, and b) needed the Americans as allies, as their tribes were increasingly attacked by Shi'ite militants. (But that's another story.)

The Marines say the principle of convincing the Afghans they're here to help — as these young men believe they convinced the Iraqis they're here to help — is the same.

I spoke to another Marine officer who'd also done a couple tours of Iraq. He was coming down off the adrenaline high of walking the admiral through town, relieved and thrilled that nothing bad had happened. He'd done this before — walked other officials through towns his guys had won back and won over in Ramadi and Fallujah. "It's a bit like 'Groundhog Day,'" he said. "But at least I know what I'm doing. I've done this before." Like his battle buddy, he thought the strategy would work, because he'd seen it work before.

The chairman said he got the same steady stream of cautious optimism from those he met — where he'd been looking for criticism or any signs of negativity. "I pushed hard, and had my people push hard," to root out complaints about the president's speech or General Stanley McChrystal's way ahead for the Afghan campaign, Mullen said. But he couldn't find any grousing — even among the Stryker unit that had taken so many casualties.

"Nobody said to me this is impossible," he said, describing a closed door meeting he had with a dozen of the troops, with none of their officers present. "Usually when I get them to a point, they'll open up, and they'll say, 'Are you kidding me?' about this or that plan," he said. "And there was none of that. That aligns with, I think, where MacChrystal has been, which is this is doable, this is what we need to do. They understand that."

Maybe that won't convince the skeptics back in Washington, but it was a common theme: the troops we all spoke to sound convinced this will work. And winning over the guys doing the fighting is half the fight.

The other half of that: convincing the folks you're fighting for. The Afghans, like the Iraqis once upon a time, are going to prove a much tougher audience.

Add a Comment See all 22 Comments
by gdzornes December 20, 2009 10:42 PM EST
What a great article...Interesting to know what's really happening on the ground between all the various factions of people.
Reply to this comment
by Omni-Present101 December 20, 2009 4:30 PM EST
I agree, that's what the Sheiks did in the Anbar Awakening.

Bush & Cheney's Stategy was No Strategy for 8 years and it Cost Many American Lives.

They'll soon get there Chance.

We're not going to be there.... FOREVER.
Reply to this comment
by pukaskid December 18, 2009 8:39 PM EST
dallisman:

I'd like to know where you got your information from? If I could. The ANA stealing equipment? From who? The old Russian **** lying all over Afghanistan? Certainly not from our military. The Afghan forces as well as the Taliban/Al Qaeda do not fight at night, soooo why are they stealing NVG's?....Rifles? From who? The US paying the Taliban to escort our equipment? We have our own soldiers to do that. If what you say is true about Hamid Karzai, I agree with you. Don't just hand the money over, but, he is still trying to bring the country together. Which is our goal. Unite Afghanistan and drive the Taliban out. I never said that Afghans are the most honest people on earth. It's dirt, third-world. What do you expect? Not many, all of the Afghans are high on drugs. They don't have tylenol there, they use opium for everything. Which by the way accounts for 30% of the economy in Afghanistan. Why don't we stop it? Because there is no way to build the country up if there is no money coming in. The DEA/CIA just has to sit there and watch. They have vast resources, but no way of using them. There is also two different groups of the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan with two different agendas. If what you say about Pakistan is true, well then they have a big problem. As far as the money spent in Afghanistan it is only a fraction of what we pay for National Defense, which is i think in the neighborhood around 680-700 billion. BTW we don' JUST get our intel from the military or rely on Afghans themselves. We have other reliable sources.
Reply to this comment
by dallisman December 18, 2009 7:27 PM EST
I am certainly glad to see the can do attitude from the troops, I don?t know if the Admiral told them that the Pakistani military is not interested in attacking the Afghan Taliban in their country. A key element to success in the coin (counterinsurgency) is the Pakistan going after the Al Qaeda/Taliban in the tribal areas.
I don?t think Admiral Mullen told the troops that our diplomats are not getting their visas renewed to stay in Pakistan which appears the Pakistani government does, in fact, want our people out of the country.
What really seems absurd, is that the Afghans want to lead the fight against the Taliban. From what is reported the Afghans cut and run when the fighting starts. Only about 30% of the secular Afghan society may actually hate the Taliban but it is more out of fear because they pointed the Taliban out during the 2001 campaign against the Al Qaeda/Taliban, particularly, after 9/11. There is No Doubt, the Taliban do hate those Afghans, who help and support the west and those who are not Islamic. You might rightly ***** that the Afghan Taliban are from, well, Afghanistan. It seems unusual if not stupid to keep the Taliban out of the villages in the rural areas were they were born and grew up. In fact, the Taliban are cousins, brothers, uncles, to the villagers and tribesman in these rural areas. Indeed, It seems our commanders do not have a handle on the psychology and culture of the people who live in these villages which are essential components of a counterinsurgency program. Compounding the effort, it is believed that Afghan President Hamid Karzai may prove unable or unwilling to reform his corrupt ways and the Pakistanis have proved unable or unwilling to commit troops to battle the Taliban in the northwestern territories nor the tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also disturbing, the Afghan Army is stealing equipment, rifles, night vision goggles, and munitions with no end in sight. Additionally, we are paying the Taliban indirectly or directly as escorts to insure the safe shipment of our equipment to the troops. Somehow we need the leadership to better secure all our military equipment, perhaps, chains, locks and keys. The U.S. needs to ensure that we are not financing the Taliban. Also, pilfering is widespread among the Afghans, KLEPTO?s for certain. Even our Afghan Police forces are stealing from the people their supposed to protect and many of the recruits take drugs. Adding to the frustrations, Senator Robert MENENDEZ estimates the Karzai government skims off between 20 to 40 percent of the U.S taxpayer?s money. This is not to mention the 8 million housing project that was built were there are no jobs and there is no water, its empty, falling apart out in the middle of no-where. It would be best if the U.S. and Coalition nations who send millions if not billions of dollars not to give it to the Karzai government directly. I believe it would be best to pay the contractors and the other bills directly to those who render services after scrutinizing the receipts and indentifying the providers. I do not see anything positive about our engagement in Afghanistan nor do I see any possibility of success for the future. One thing that is certain, our leaders must continually adapt to the Afghan environment or we stand to lose a lot of good soldiers and a lot of money we have to borrow.
Reply to this comment
by pukaskid December 18, 2009 5:52 PM EST
My two cents. This is a very different war than the Iraqi war. Afghanistan is at least 100 years behind Iraq. Hamid Karzai has no power outside his palace. Yes he is the president of Afghanistan, but the country is broken into provinces. These provinces are ruled by the jirga, or elders of tribes. This is whom we will give the power back to when we leave in 18 months, aka the "government". These elders are trying to work with Hamid Karzai to bring peace to Afghanistan. We the soldiers are working with a much more difficult barrier with the ANA than the Iraqi Army/police. The Afghan Army is the least educated force in the Middle East, Iraq the exact opposite. I only wish Ahmad Shah Massoud was still with us.
Reply to this comment
by rightbehind December 18, 2009 4:19 PM EST
We would just be funding a civil war between neighbors. They would be fighting amongst themselves for territories. Some are just farmers that have little contact with the outside world. The better solution is to stop all the fighting and set up Air Force bases along the length of Afghanistan. Would take about 4 of them but we would be within 10 minutes of any target that needed attention. We shouldn't fund an internal civil war.
Reply to this comment
by tibu987 December 18, 2009 3:32 PM EST
Good idea. Let Arabs kill Arabs instead of our young Americans.

But don't send them money, they will only steal it.

Leave about 50,000 U.S. troops to train the Afghans.
Don't give them any sophistcated weapons just guns.

It is a civil war and we do not belong there.
Reply to this comment
by NowBeWithThat December 18, 2009 1:27 PM EST
by inketolstoy December 18, 2009 11:31 AM EST
A useful skill. Do you also speak politician?
____________________

No, but I do speak realpolitikian. War is a business enterprise.

The Afghans have no great love for or trust in American intentions in their country. Why should they? If our POTUS learned anything at the G20 summit it's that he is eyed warily by the leaders of other nations. All that bowing and apologizing were wasted efforts.

America is not trusted. From their standpoint, we're the ones who mucked up the environment, crashed the world economic system, infected their societies with our political, moral and cultural influence while we snub our noses at the poorest nations of the world.

Ideally it would be great for America to take a more passive role while the Afghans do the fighting except that historically they've been doing more dying and running away than winning.
Reply to this comment
by JJHH3000 December 18, 2009 12:19 PM EST
Good to hear they want to take more of the responsibility for fighting the Taliban. Now, how do we make sure this bloody conflict does not come to our shores thru immigration?

How can you have open immigration in the middle of a global war? It's no longer a question of whether some politicians are taking bribes from rich Radical Islamist organizations to look the other way on immigration but how many and can they be identified. Getting as many supporters as possible into Western nations is a primary aim of Radical Islam.
Reply to this comment
by dontknowitall December 18, 2009 11:44 AM EST
The last time the Elders did the fighting they whooped the Russians. Then the fought amongst themselves pushing the country into a Civil War. Ultimately leaving the country to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Sounds like a full circle to me.
Reply to this comment
See all 22 Comments
.

Follow World Watch

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook