Naw Bahar District 2010–11: A case study of counterinsurgency Conducted by Naval Special Warfare in Afghanistan - Article

Us, development types, rarely look at the military's experience in stabilization and counterinsurgency (COIN). It is unfortunate because many of the dynamics and constrains they face are not that dissimilar from our work in Community Driven Recovery and local peacebuilding. Briggs' article "Naw Bahar District 2010–11: A case study of counterinsurgency Conducted by Naval Special Warfare in Afghanistan" is a case in point where cross-learning may be of use.

Abstract

"This article provides a critical analysis of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan at the tactical level. The efforts of several Naval Special Warfare detachments deployed to Naw Bahar district in Zabul Province, Afghanistan are examined in detail to identify key successes and failures in planning and execution. It defines the operating environment in which the detachments worked and identifies the goals and outcomes of the first and second phases of the counterinsurgency effort. The article concludes by placing the tactical effort in the context of the overall strategy in Afghanistan and suggests that time is the limiting factor to success"

Key take-away notes.

Know your context: Tribal governance, relations with both insurgents and central government, and conflicts within the district are key to understand what is going on.

Population? which population?: COIN claims that is population centric, and that is fair enough. However, as the article points out, the center of gravity regarding insurgency in the district was actually not at the district center. We tend to focus on visible sources of 'power' like concentration of houses, markets or official buildings around which we build our activities... and while this locations may serve multiple purposes for the community, it may not be as relevant for the issue at hand (be that counterinsurgency or building a water well). Also depending on how we define population (and their representatives) we run the risk of mis-identifying or ignoring key stakeholders.

Local Economy: While local sourcing seems like a great idea, in practice it can lead to inflation and higher costs for local population (let alone dependence). How external resources are injected into a local economy is very important.

Governance: There are already governance mechanisms in place, however many of the linkages are broken and are a source of mistrust and conflict. Reestablishing those links, specially around dispute/grievance resolution, dialogue and information flow is paramount.

While this article per se is not telling us much new (if I were to venture a guess, the major outcome of this is bonus points for the author for publishing), even from the military point of view (how relevant is Naval Special Warfare to the article, I still don't know); it also highlights common issues that we encounter in conflict or post-conflict areas. This requires us to design and implement with very context-based lens (that allegedly we already do!!). 

The article also shows that the military, like the development business, keeps reinventing the wheel time after time... but that is whole different debate regarding organizational learning, mission setting and leadership.