“The hearts and mind (HAM) theory is identified as winning the hearts and minds of the population which is a technique based on the implementation of the counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy of persuading the population to support the government and reject the insurgents.” The counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy as outlined by President Obama and General Petraeus’s most closely embrace is the heart and minds (HAM) theory. President Obama speech identified the United States strategic approach with Afghanistan in three elements. The three core elements addressed by President Obama during his speech on the strategy in Afghanistan are identified as: 1) utilize the military effort to create conditions for transition, 2) a civilian surge that reinforce positive actions, and 3) an effective partnership with Pakistan.” These elements align with the premise of HAM and the strategy of COIN. Furthermore, in General Petraeus’s COIN strategy he specifically shifts the focus from the enemy and toward the empowerment of the Afghanistan population and its government.
The population-centric nation building requires large numbers of American ground forces, dispersed and living in the local population in an effort to win hearts and minds away from the insurgent, and build a nation. President Obama speech is aligned with what General Petraeus’s wrote in FM 3-24 on counterinsurgency through the use of tenets. General Petraeus’s key tenets of COIN are identified as 1) focus on protecting civilians over killing the enemy 2) assume greater risk and 3) use minimum, not maximum force. The focus is on the Afghanistan people as the center of gravity. The people involvement is a key element of the hearts and minds theory and the COIN strategy. Afghani...
... middle of paper ...
...eavors but the Afghan people need renewed pride in providing for themselves. The negatives are whether or not the enemy is waiting for the United States and its allies to depart before they challenge the people of Afghanistan and their government. The positive side is that when the United States and its allies are gone, the Afghanistan people will have a viable government with economic growth and trained security forces in place to deter and prevent the enemy from infiltrating their country.
Works Cited
Gian P. Gentile. “A Strategy of Tactic: Population-centric COIN and the Army”, Parameters (August, 2009), 9.
President Obama. “Address to the Nation on the Way Forward In Afghanistan and Pakistan”, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation, 3.
Gentile, “A Strategy of Tactic: Population-centric COIN and the Army”, 6.
Rumsfeld, D. (2004, September 10). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks about Iraq at the National Press Club in Washington. Retrieved September 11, 2009, from
On May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama delivered the speech announcing the death of the former leader of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was responsible for thousands of deaths on the September 11th terrorist attacks in the US along with leaving children without a father or a mother for the rest of their lives. The speech was what Americans were waiting for after all the evil that bin Laden has done in the world. Throughout the speech, Obama uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, pathos, and logos to address the nation saying that justice is served by killing Osama bin Laden and making the speech effective to the audience.
"Afghanistan is the land of Pashtuns. It always has been, always will be. We are the true Afghans, the pure Afghans, not this Flat-Nose here. His people pollute our homeland, our watan. They dirty our blood."
Mo Tzu was a well-known Chinese writer, philosopher, military strategist, and the founder of Mohism, a school of thought that preached “universal love, or the love of all human beings” (Austin 253). In Against Offensive Warfare, one of three works written by Tzu in opposition to the civil wars taking place in China, he criticized man’s ability to praise offensive warfare and commend it as righteous, while condemning lesser acts of civil crime and violence and denouncing them as unrighteous. He argued that all acts of offensive warfare and aggression against a fellow human being should be considered unrighteous and that no distinction should be made between the two. As a military strategist, Mo Tzu was no stranger to the atrocities of military conflict and adhered to the belief that war should be avoided unless fought in self-defense. Mo Tzu believed that war was sinful and the immeasurable sacrifice both of lives and resources were a waste that would eventually destroy the world (Osborne). War is a horrible and perilous affair that shatters the lives of millions and rips apart the threads that knit our society together. It separates families and divides countries and leaves only death, disease, and destruction in its wake. While war is always terrible and should be avoided at all costs, sometimes war is necessary to restore order and freedom in a lost and broken world.
In the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, continuing through Madison’s term, the United States initiated a policy to retaliate against the seizure of ships by the British and French. These three dominant nations entered a period between 1806-1810, known as Commercial Warfare. The Commercial War was a response by Americans to maintain their right of neutral commerce. The Acts by the United States, the Decrees by the powerful Napoleon I, and the Parliamentary orders, throughout the period of Commercial Warfare directly led to the start of the War of 1812, and helped build the commercial future of the United States.
In this piece of writing “What We Are Fighting For,” Rex Murphy outlines the most persuasive reasons for the existence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Murphy commences with the description of annihilation of Taliban government by Canada is not only because of Canadian affiliation with the USA but also because our people got killed on 9/11. Furthermore, Afghani citizens need assistance in structuring a new type of government in order to guard against potential attacks. He continues that Canadian troops stay behind in the Afghanistan to aid in the construction of the essential elements- schools, a justice system, infrastructure, roads- that any society must have. Moreover, Murphy also considers our countries support in Afghanistan from conflicting
Obama, Barack. "President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address." The White House. Office of the Press Secretary, 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.
Afghanistan, home to a population of roughly 30 million, has undergone some very harsh conditions. In a place that has witnessed horrific incidents due to Taliban invasions, constant warfare, and violence, Afghanistan may seem hopeless. People, particularly women and children, have been deprived of an education, and basic rights. As a result, there was a great plunge in the economy. Now, Afghanistan continues to struggle with the ruins of its land. Countries have teamed together and started to deliver aid in hopes to restore Afghanistan. The U.S. alone has sent over an estimated $100 billion in aid since 2002 (Seigel 1). However the essential question is: Is it worth it? Is it worth sending billions of dollars to a government that does not know how one-third of humanitarian aid has been spent since 2001 (Waldman 5)? Is it worth sending money when it has been confirmed that $1 billion of the $8 billion donated in the past year has been lost to corruption (Labelle 1)? Because of corruption, the United States should lower the amount of aid donated to Afghanistan and prevent waste and abuse. However, there is a possible downside to lowering aid distribution. On the contrary, if the U.S. reduces aid drastically decreases, Afghanistan may become dependent on the Taliban once again. Initially, the Taliban rose to power because they used the vulnerability of Afghanistan to their advantage after Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union. Afghanistan could go through a relapse and another Taliban Era if aid is no longer given. If the Taliban take control of Afghanistan again, which is very likely since the government already has Taliban officials, Afghanistan will suffer greatly and surrounding ...
On September 11, 2001, the most disastrous terrorist attack in U.S. history left a countless number of innocent Americans both dead and missing. The Taliban’s assault on the Pentagon and annihilation of New York’s World Trade Center caused the entire country to wonder what was going on in the rest of the world to cause so much animosity toward our great nation. Little did many American citizens know that this shocking catastrophe was the result of years of unrest and chaos in the Middle East. The tragic events of September 11th occurred as a result of the recent, political history of Afghanistan, the development of the radical Islamic group, the Taliban, and the monetary and military support that the Taliban has received.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Joint Warfare Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment.
Along with the financial costs, there is human cost with the loss of life of civilians, Canadian soldiers. The invasion of Afghanistan is only a short term solution to a bigger problem. When Canada and other nations leave the country, the Taliban and the warlord tribes will continue to insight fear on the Afghan citizens (Endersby, 2011). Conclusion Canada’s involvement has brought about a continuous debate on whether or not they should be in Afghanistan fighting a war that is half a world away. The events of September 11, 2001 in the United States reinforced the need to fight terrorism on a global scale.
In conclusion, overall I agree with Gentile that nation building at the barrel of a gun is, “hypothetical, pure fantasy and the political will of the American people will not stand for this multi-generational nation building effort.” Counterinsurgency cannot be devoid of politics, people, policymakers, or military conventional and unconventional forces. The world is complicated with a delicate balance of power that can be shifted by war, natural disasters, such as drought, famine, floods, disease. It seems, however, man is his own worst enemy.
Thinking historically while conducting counterinsurgency in the 21st century poses questions regarding how to develop political and strategic plans. This bibliographic essay will examine the political and military aspect of fighting counterinsurgent warfare by 20th century theorists Galula’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” and Trinquier’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice”. Strategy in fighting guerilla wars will be discussed by comparing conflicts in battles and ideologies from the past to current day. Moreover, ways to avoid the one size fits all war mentality when combating modern day insurgents will be recommended.
In the past ten years the Afghan Government has been dealing with a number of issues that have caused problems for the country, problems such as illegal drug trade, terrorism and violence. But nowadays they are fighting a problem that has long existed between people, and quite recently has taken a whole new aspect to it. Ethnic conflict is the destructive factor that has caused problems between people for generations, often leading to fights, outbreak of violence and grudge between different ethnicities.
Jarvenpaa, M. (2013). Making Peace in Afghanistan: The Missing Political Strategy. United States Institute for Peace, Peace brief, 3-9.