‘Precise Synchronization’ Part II

By
Friday, July 17, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Building on yesterday’s question of how “precisely” Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Afghanistan strategy is “synchronized,” take a look at Brandon Friedman’s post at VetVoice. Brandon reads a CBS report about U.S. troops distributing a flyer to two villages in eastern Afghanistan that appears to tell the entire villages they “will be targeted” unless a captured colleague is freed. He observes:

Ultimately, I think whoever came up with the idea to print these things didn’t really think it through. While the likelihood of success using a technique like this is slim, the chance of inflaming the locals even further is much higher. This whole thing seems clumsy and ham-handed, and will almost certainly do more harm than good. I’d love to be proved wrong.

How does threatening villages — even implying that villages will be targeted — comport with McChrystal’s message that mission success is measured by population protection?

For more questions about the “precise synchronization” of McChrystal’s strategy, see Josh Foust in World Politics Review.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

2 Comments

‘Precise Synchronization’ Part II | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted July 19, 2009 @ 4:26 am

[...] Visit Source [...]


Bad approach « Later On
Pingback posted July 20, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

[...] in Afghanistan War, Daily life, Military, Obama administration at 9:48 am by LeisureGuy Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent: Building on yesterday’s question of how “precisely” Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s Afghanistan [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.