Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 4, 2011
The Taliban As Clausewitz’ “Landsturm”

In the other thread today I linked to the (rather flowery) piece by Anna Badkhen, which describes how the Taliban are slowly and rather silently move into and take the districts in the northern Afghan province Balkh, around the city of Mazar a Sharif.

On Sunday, a police official recited to me a grim roster. "As of 10:30 this morning, we no longer control the villages of Karaghuzhlah, Khairabad, Karshigak, Zadyan, Shingilabad, Joi Arab, Shahraq…." The list went on; the officer named about two dozen villages. Some of them quiver in diffraction only a few miles away from Mazar-e-Sharif, the provincial capital.

Four weeks after the Taliban announced the beginning of their annual spring offensive, the insurgents have quietly taken over most of Balkh.

What the Taliban are (again) implementing in Balkh, practically in the backyards of the German ISAF garrisons there, is a classic "Landsturm" campaign as envisioned by the often mentioned but little read German officer and strategist Carl von Clausewitz around 1810.

When Prussia, then still powerless, was threatened and later occupied by Napoleon's army, Clausewitz proposed to the king the "arming of the nation". This was a quite new concept as at that time usually only standing armies would fight each other. But the Prussian king did not like the concept of enabling the peasantry and instead signed a humbling peace deal with Napoleon. Clausewitz, incensed about this national treason, resigned from the Prussian army and joined the Russian one which was next on Naploeon's list. There he implemented his concept and it thoroughly defeated Napoleon's army.

C.v.Clausewitz, On War, Chapter 26 – Arming the Nation (this is one paragraph in the original here split for readability)

National levies and armed peasantry cannot and should not be employed against the main body of the enemy's army, or even against any considerable corps of the same, they must not attempt to crack the nut, they must only gnaw on the surface and the borders.

They should rise in the provinces situated at one of the sides of the theatre of war, and in which the assailant does not appear in force, in order to withdraw these provinces entirely from his influence. Where no enemy is to be found, there is no want of courage to oppose him, and at the example thus given, the mass of the neighboring population gradually takes fire. Thus the fire spreads as it does in heather, and reaching at last that part of the surface of the soil on which the aggressor is based, it seizes his lines of communication and preys upon the vital thread by which his existence is supported.

Armed peasants [..] when broken, disperse in all directions, for which no formal plan is required; through this circumstance, the march of every small body of troops in a mountainous, thickly wooded, or even broken country, becomes a service of a very dangerous character, for at any moment a combat may arise on the march; if in point of fact no armed bodies have even been seen for some time, yet the same peasants already driven off by the head of a column, may at any hour make their appearance in its rear.

If it is an object to destroy roads or to block up a defile; the means which outposts or detachments from an army can apply to that purpose, bear about the same relation to those furnished by a body of insurgent peasants, as the action of an automaton does to that of a human being.

The enemy has no other means to oppose to the action of national levies except that of detaching numerous parties to furnish escorts for convoys to occupy military stations, defiles, bridges, etc.

In proportion as the first efforts of the national levies are small, so the detachments sent out will be weak in numbers, from the repugnance to a great dispersion of forces; it is on these weak bodies that the fire of the national war usually first properly kindles itself, they are overpowered by numbers at some points, courage rises, the love of fighting gains strength, and the intensity of this struggle increases until the crisis approaches which is to decide the issue.

Disperse into the provinces, inflame the population, attack logistic routes and small patrols, coerce the occupier to disperse his force further and hit hard on those small dispersed elements. Rinse, repeat. It works. Remarkably and unlike in other cases Clausewitz provides no recipe against this strategy. There is none.

I find it somewhat ironic that the German (and U.S.) army will get kicked out of Afghanistan by an enemy that follows, by the book, the 200 years old ideas of the best known German military-strategic thinker.

Comments

I think it has to be more complicated than that. Normally, the Taliban are not popular in Northern Afghanistan, as they are Pashtun, and the north is Tadjik/Uzbek.
In the 90s, they conquered the north militarily, and fled easily.
If they are taking over the north village by village, they must be convincing differently, but very convincing. Anti-NATO should be the argument. But this needs more research, to be sure it’s that.

Posted by: alexno | Jun 4 2011 19:42 utc | 1

Sorry b,
There is a strategy employed in WWII to defeat insurgent movements. Kill all males of fighting age and occupy the provinces. Set up a government that is fairly democratic and point to an enemy across the border that is more feared. The USA still has troops in Germany and Japan.
It was hugely expensive and took all the able males of Russia, Britain and USA to do. To fight the wars of insurgency, on the cheap in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, as you point out, does not work. Also, an invasion of a nation with atomic bombs is impossible thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). All the attacks since WWII are on small under-developed/failed countries.
My opinion is that the wars are not to fought to win but simply to keep the war profiteers in the money and to carry the biggest stick.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 4 2011 19:49 utc | 2

It could be that only Pashtun villages are being taken over – they do exist in the north. It would be a big move, if Tadjiks and Uzbeks were joining the Taliban.
By the way, the name is correctly written Mazar-i Sharif. The ‘i’ is not written in Persian, but pronounced, indicating a genitive (in Latin), to be translated as ‘the place of visitation of the noble’, meaning the visited tomb of a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. They visit tombs of saints a lot in Central Asia, as I saw this spring in Turkmenistan.

Posted by: alexno | Jun 4 2011 20:07 utc | 3

Brings to mind Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” although I don’t know it well enough to make direct reference. I wonder if Clausewitz was a student of Sun Tzu? I believe I remember someone else at the bar that seemed to know the classic fairly well. Uncle $’ maybe?
I may be a little dense V’ Vet but your post seems to me vague and I don’t understand what you are specifically referring to. Are you implying that citizen resistance and snipe and run where practiced is ineffective in thwarting invading armies? I’ve often heard and believe that Switzerland has been relatively free from invasion just because of an armed and trained populous. It would take a lot of boots on the ground with a lot of territory to cover to neutralize the Swiss, IMO. I don’t see how you have negated b’s point? Although I tend to agree with your last postulate. War profiteers of the American Defense (Military Industrial Complex) industry seem to be doing quite well.

Posted by: juannie | Jun 4 2011 21:53 utc | 4

@VV – in WWII there weren’t German or Japanese insurgent movements; these develop typically (at least in Clausewitz’s sense) where an overwhelming force occupies a country without a real military decisive victory. The weaker part’s army dissolves and starts a guerrilla war.
But I’d be interested in other examples you might provide. At the moment I can’t think of a successful counter-insurgency except maybe Philippines 1898 (I should look it up), or in the context of a colonization movement at the expense of an under-developed country, or with insurgencies that didn’t (or failed to) represent the whole population, so that occupiers could play a tribe / party /religious group against the other (the tactic at which the Europeans always excelled, starting with the Portuguese)

Posted by: claudio | Jun 5 2011 0:09 utc | 5

“I find it somewhat ironic that the German (and U.S.) army will get kicked out of Afghanistan by an enemy that follows, by the book, the 200 years old ideas of the best known German military-strategic thinker.”
Posted by b on June 4, 2011 at 02:25 PM
I hope you’re right b, this is another war we deserve to lose.

Posted by: ben | Jun 5 2011 0:40 utc | 6

juannie,
I disagree with b in that Counter Insurgency can work but it comes down to numbers and takes enormous resources. An example; to pacify Rio’s favelas (shanty town) takes one police officer for every 40 residents. Costs that will never end until the women are educated and all have jobs that pay well. The Philippines were pacified but the costs of the colony forced the US to promise independence in 1946 prior to the start of WWII.
Iraq’s population in 2003 was around 25 million. Divided by 40, this is means that 625,000 troops were required to pacify the country. General Shinseki’s figure of 500,000 was low ball. The invasion was doomed to failure from the moment the first Abrams Tank crossed the Kuwaiti border with only an invasion force of around 265,000 including 70,000 Kurds. The insurrection took hold and will rekindle if the Shiite government cannot put 30,750 policeman/soldiers into the Sunni Anbar Province forever to keep it pacified.
Iraq and Afghanistan wars are winding down as American citizens come to recognize that Medicare and Social Security are on the chopping block to pay for the wars. As propaganda increases for intervention south of the Mexican Border, according to these calculations, to pacify just Nuevo Leon Province and its capital Monterrey with a population of 4.1 million would take at a minimum of 102,000 troops. The costs would be enormous in lives and treasure as long as Americans were in country. Yet, anything less would be a replay of General Pershing’s futile Incursion of 1915.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Jun 5 2011 0:55 utc | 7

If an enemy doesn’t exist, you must invent one. The Taliban, as well as Al Qaeda, have been invented by the West. Sure, the majority of those who consider themselves to be Taliban may not know this, but the majority don’t have to know for them to be useful. Controlled Chaos is the name of the game in Afghanistan, for now, and so the Taliban must be seen as at least a half-assed opponent in order to justify a meddling military presence to secure the Pipeline, keep the Heroin flowing, and keep China from the oil and gas via the ports. All this is done at a profit, further concentrating the wealth of the Global Plutocrats at the expense of the diminishing wealth of the taxpayers. So long as China floats the U.S. trade imbalance, this charade will continue, but once that ends, the U.S. will have to print, print, print to keep it going….and as we know, that will be the end, my friend.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jun 5 2011 1:43 utc | 8

It is not only Balkh. Nuristan is also going.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2074910,00.html
It seems they are pursuing a strategy of seeping into lightly or undefended provinces while using their main forces to take on the Americans in the South.

Posted by: FB Ali | Jun 5 2011 3:13 utc | 9

@FB Ali – Nuristan and the Kunar side valleys are impossible to hold and the U.S. military has given up on them. It is very complex place, lots of tribes and languages – see Richard Strands site. It was also the first province that rebelled against the Soviets.
In the north there are a bunch of reports now that Afghan Tajiks and Uzbeks have joined the Taliban. It is no longer a purely Pashto movement and Balkh isn’t the only place in the north that is troublesome.
In the south the insurgency has moved away from the places the Marines have, with incredible brutality and at insane costs ($1.3 billion for Marjah, an irrelevant place with max 80,000 inhabitants), conquered. They moved into the cities esp. Kandahar where it is more difficult do go after them: Taliban Move Into Kandahar City.

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2011 13:17 utc | 10

The word Taliban is misleading. What appears to be happening now in Afghanistan is a wide uprising of groups which have in common, only a hatred of the occupiers.
It must be said that the US/NATO forces have worked hard to bring this about: their indiscriminate killing, their use of drones, the widespread use of death squads and their employment of criminal gangs and warlords as allies, have made it clear to large numbers, of those whose memory of Taliban rule, and the long civil strife preceding it, is far from fond, that in order to survive Afghanistan must expel the invader.
In fact Afghanistan presented a text book case of the conditions in which counter insurgency tactics could work: the Empire had strong allies in several communities. The Taliban were seen as a sectarian rather than national government. The country was exhausted by decades of war. And the supply routes into the country were controlled by the Empire.
The guerrillas were few in number, ill supplied and isolated within the population. All that was needed was a restrained and careful occupation regime, emphasising police rather than military tactics and a campaign to win the hearts and minds not of a few kingpins (whose hearts and minds are always for sale) but of significant sections of the village populations.
Instead the Empire waged a classic ‘our soldiers are stronger than yours; anyone in the country is liable to die at any time; we can do no wrong” campaign.
The odds against the resistance, ten years ago, were very long. It took great talent for the Empire not even to come out of this with a half credible puppet, like Maliki, in charge, but they surprised us all by completely blowing it.
b’s recalling of Clausewitz is interesting, as a minor point: this is probably the only time in history that Petraeus and Bonaparte will be compared.

Posted by: bevin | Jun 5 2011 14:31 utc | 11

I have been reading quite a few reports of helicopters ‘crashed’ in Afghanistan in the last weeks. Did they got better AA weaponary?

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 5 2011 17:09 utc | 12

I have been reading quite a few reports of helicopters ‘crashed’ in Afghanistan in the last weeks. Did they got better AA weaponary?
Eight helos/planes down since April. Certainly looks like an increase compared to earlier fighting seasons. The only thing I have read about new weapons was a report of some anti-air guns (14.5 mm) which the Taliban took away from the Pakistani army. Nothing about heat seeking missiles yet. But as many of those got “lost” in east Libya recently, I’d certainly expect some of those to turn up in Afghanistan,

Posted by: b | Jun 5 2011 17:57 utc | 13

re: helicopter crashes.
It was a bit weird to read something about Daoud’s killing or some afghan story in the NYT and the last para in it offhandedly mention 2 helos went down in the last couple of months.
The trend I see in the afghan news reporting goes like this; some random ‘success’ story; some Islamic practice like child marriage story; some grit and hardwork of the GIs story….
And the last para in it will have something like
‘…delayed CENTCOM report of an soldier injured’
‘ vehicle overturned and soldier dead’
‘died due to injuries during patrolling’
Basically, scroll to the bottom to find out what and who got fragged.

Posted by: shanks | Jun 6 2011 17:15 utc | 14

Clausewitz is very popular in Switzerland with ppl who bother themselves with that kind of history and thinking. Mostly by Radicals and Liberals (who have now melded into one party because of voter losses, with not much success) if from different ideological roots, both in the traditionalist center today.
Neo-Nazis and strong People’s Party adherents (populist right) are keener on…Napoleon! Ha ha.
Some ppl say the Swiss army is a complete farce. That is certainly true in a way.
Others maintain that indeed an invader would have a very hard time of it, in the case of an old-fashioned occupation. (Note the terrain is very particular and thus homebodies have an advantage.)
If so – and I can’t possibly judge – having a lot of guns about and ppl who are trained in military matters, catastrophe rescue, civil protection, food management and distribution, communal cooking, basic communications, would provide a possible wedge…
However, everyone realises the crux would be solidarity, collaboration and selflessness – which the ‘Taliban’, as resistors to occupation, in their own way, possess in spades.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 7 2011 22:46 utc | 15