Much has been written about counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies and tactics being used in Afghanistan and Iraq – or rather not. Back in my army days in Kandahar in 2007-2008, I remember  commanders endlessy bragging about how “we totally nail that COIN thing,” keeping on gargling out quotes from the likes of COIN scholar David Galula, a French army officer who fought in the Algeria Independence War and is considered the leading COIN theoretician. (Galula was cited as an inspiration to David Petraeus’ “Surge” strategy in Iraq, which helped make that war a little less of a fiasco than it eventually became.)

Except we weren’t. At all. This is the last of a three-part series of articles that addresses serious issues about the way US, Canadian and other NATO countries conducted what they thought were COIN operations, and suggests new approaches that, in current and future conflicts, may improve efficiency and minimize civilian deaths so that wars can no longer be, in the words of my former PSYOPS platoon commander, “about buying time.”

Part 3: PSYOPS

Like I previously mentioned, fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means is an accelerated pathway to a strategic defeat against an enemy that, despite possessing far less firepower and equipment, makes up for these shortcomings with deep cultural knowledge and fighting on its own ground. They stem from the very population that Western countries claim to be helping and, therefore, know people’s vulnerabilities, sensibilities and everything that makes them tick.

They can effortlessly influence civilians and gain their support, fuel their hate of the “foreigners” and showcase their tactical victories, such as a successful yet carefully-edited suicide bombing of a NATO convoy, for sale on DVD at Panjwayi’s bazaar. They can strike local leaders with fear if they support NATO forces or official governements by posting “night letters” – death threats – on their doors.