COIN Book Club #10 : Three Cups of Tea
As Kip was once making an enthusiastic presentation to a general officer, an aide to the general said, toward the end of the presentation, "I like his [Kip's] enthusiasm."
The general quipped, "I have learned never to mistake enthusiasm with capability."
Greg Mortenson is one of those rare men whose brash enthusiasm is matched by tremendous capability. And if, as Dr. Dave Kilcullen would have it, counterinsurgency is armed social work, then Mr. Mortenson and his co-author David Olivier Relin have offered in Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace...One School at a Time an abject lesson on gaining influence in the world's most difficult and dangerous places.
For the counterinsurgent to read the book is a reminder of the challenges not only of seeking to influence an alien culture but also the patience and tenacity required to succeed in fostering social change. For any reader, it is a wonderful tale of adventure and turning tragedy into triumph as Mortenson is inspired by the death of his sister and his failed attempt to climb K2 to bring schools to left-behind villages of the Himalayas and Hindu Kush.
Perhaps the most important lesson that Mortenson learns is the patience and relationship-building required to effect change, from which the book takes its title:
"That day, Haji Ali taught me the most important lesson I've ever learned in my life," Mortenson says. "We Americans think you have to accomplish everything quickly. We're the country of thirty-minute power lunches and two-minute football drills. Our leaders thought their 'shock and awe' campaign would end the war in Iraq before it ever started. Haji Ali taught me to share three cups of tea, to slow down and make building relationships as important as building projects. He taught me that I had more to learn from the people I work with than I could ever hope to teach them."Mortenson offers some abject lessons throughout on how we can win the war against takfiri extremists, with guns, yes (Mortenson, a former Army officer, shares with Sarah Chayes an appreciation for the mutually generative properties of security, development, and governance) , but also with a large focus on development and education in particular. Aid, conditioned importantly on the assistance of the locals in providing for themselves, goes a long way:
That's why, despite how much talking about her ordeal has taken from her, Fatima Batool brushes aside her shawl and sits up straight at her desk, to tell her visitors one thing more. "I've heard some people say Americans are bad," she says softly. "But we love Americans. They are the most kind people for us. They are the only ones who cared to help us."Mortenson offers other valuable insights to our contemporary challenges in central Asia. Kilcullen tells us in his Twenty-Eight Articles to engage the women in our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Reading Mortenson provides insight into that on-the-ground, oft-ignored suggestion by Kilcullen and another one of the principles of counterinsurgency outlined in Field Manual 3-24: counterinsurgents should prepare for a long-term commitment.
"Once you educate the boys, they tend to leave the villages and go search for work in the cities," Moretenson explains. "But the girls stay home, become leaders in the community, and pass on what they've learned. If you really want to change a culture, to empower women, improve basic hygiene and health care, and fight high rates of infant mortality, the answer is to educate girls."From a counterinsurgent's perspective then, getting the girls into school becomes not just a matter of Western taste but also a matter of changing opinions and actions for the long-term, even if there may be resistance in the short-term. Of course, it helps to go about building local support among key leaders to gain such opportunities:
With due ceremony, Syed Abbas tilted back the lid of the box, withdrew a scroll of parchment wrapped in red ribbon, unfurled it, and revealed Mortenson's future. "Dear Compassionate of the Poor," he translated from the elegant Farsi calligraphy, "our Holy Koran tells us all children should receive education, including our daughters and sisters. Your noble work follows the highest principles of Islam, to tend to the poor and sick. In the Holy Koran there is no law to prohibit an infidel from providing assistance to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Therefore," the decree concluded, "we direct all clerics in Pakistan to not interfere with your noble intentions. You have our permission, blessings, and prayers."That, dear readers, is decisive information operations.
Kip encourages all practitioners of COIN, particularly those on their way to Afghanistan or Pakistan to read Three Cups of Tea. For a book that never mentions counterinsurgency, it is a masterpiece on gaining influence to effect social change, the essence of winning the long war.
UPDATE: (thanks AM's mom for pointing out that this is about more than COIN. To read more about Mortenson's institute, click the link.)
37 comments:
Excellent post!
My comment though regards blog functionality of your new template.
I'm not getting a link to the main page when I scroll over the blog title ( not the post title, that works fine). Nor am I seeing a " Home" or "Main" button to redirect. Maybe I'm just missing it and it's further down the sidebar ?
Kip,
AM's mom here. Thanks for this post. The independent school where I work read Mortensen's book last year and worked to raise over $60,000 to build a girls' school in Pakistan. We presented the check to him in January, and one of our rising juniors is in Pakistan now with her family visiting some of the schools. Obviously the book made a tremendous impression on our school community and we follow the Central Asia Institute's work closely. Thanks again for bringing this man's work to your reader's attention.
Funny, that quote about empowering women is almost word for word what my mother has always said - my mother being an immigrant to the US from India. Her youth in India was difficult, her family poor, her mother a widow doing everything she could to make sure all her children finished school because education was the only thing you could count on. Even land could let you down, even a farm, if you didn't know how to take care of it and couldn't protect it.
Anyway, the other thing I've heard my whole life is, 'if the kids stay with the mother all day that's their first education, and their first real emotional education. Educating moms filters out into everything else."
Excellent post. Can someone in the Beltway loop possibly hand carry a copy to the White House?
Nice new look on the blog.
It has long been recognized in the development world that there are greater returns from investment in women's education--the World Bank has done pretty extensive work quantifying the down-stream gains in terms of lowered infant mortality rates, increased education for future girl-generations, etc.
Regarding this, however, in a COIN context:
From a counterinsurgent's perspective then, getting the girls into school becomes not just a matter of Western taste but also a matter of changing opinions and actions for the long-term, even if there may be resistance in the short-term.
Frankly, there are some real trade-offs here that need to be faced.
First, policies to support gender empowerment can be particularly threatening to traditionalists, as witnessed by the Taliban's constant mobilization against (and burning of) girl's schools in Afghanistan. Handled poorly, gender equity policies can serve to fan rather than dampen the flames of social discontent, especially in some (by no means all) poor, rural, traditionalist areas. There needs to be some creative thinking about how best to address this.
Second, it shouldn't be presumed that gender equity is seen by local women as a priority--in the WB/Gaza, for example, polls that we did showed women consistently rating it as their lowest priority, lagging well behind such "practical" gender interests as access to healthcare and water. It is, however, much easier to sell it as child education.
Third, resources are scarce and fungible--I well remember one senior USAID official in a war-torn country telling me he had cut gender equity programmes "because its the unemployed young men with guns that we need to worry about at the moment." How does one weigh the alternative uses for reconstruction and development funds--and, critically important--who decides this (since the latter is often a central determinant of the former.)
This shouldn't be read as denigrating the importance of gender equity (heck, I teach gender and development)--but, as in all peace/COIN operations, it is essential to explicitly tease out the trade-offs and potential blowbacks, and to recognize that "not all good things go together"
Oh, on another pressing issue of the day: I actually liked the old blog skin better ;)
Mark--try running your cursor over the bold face "abu muqawama" in the green title field. My browser shows a link.
hi Charlie,
"try running your cursor over the bold face "abu muqawama" in the green title field. My browser shows a link"
Works fine in Firefox. Not working for iE7.
Nobody remembers the Soviets in Afghanistan, who had the support of urban women, while we supported the fundamentalist insurgents. Gulbadin Hekmatyar directed his men to throw acid in women's exposed faces.
The post is obscene.
"The post is obscene"
Huh?
I only heard about this guy a few months ago but he seems to be everywhere on google.
Adds another layer to an already smart policy I saw at work in Pakistan in the wake of their earthquake. The Australians were lifting emergency aid in there ASAP and were there 6 months later still helping out.
Apart from Iraq and cricket that's the only other advert they've seen for the country. And it's a fkn good one.
Just like that first book. 1 there's lot more valuable than 100,000 elsewhere.
You can have this.....
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/pakistan__doing_it_for_allah_130673
Or this....
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/pakistans_flying_doctors_130607
kilo:"huh?"
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1094
"The story of the anticommunist rebellion in Afghanistan begins in 1978, when the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, a pro-Soviet party, took over the country; this was followed by Soviet occupation in 1979. As resistance spread, a series of separate Mujahiddin groups were established, with base camps centered around Peshawar, Pakistan. These received massive external support from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, as well as from a variety of U.S. allies. The CIA tended to favor the most extreme of the Mujahiddin commanders, ensuring that the most fanatical groups were also the best trained and armed.
The group that received the most U.S. aid was Hisb-i-Islami, headed by Gulbadin Hekmatyar. In retrospect, there is little doubt that Hekmatyar had an appalling human rights record, every bit as bad as that of the communist forces he opposed. As a young political activist in Kabul, Hekmatyar directed his radical friends to throw acid at the faces of unveiled women. This ruthlessly violent approach characterized Hekmatyar’s later guerrilla operation against the Soviets."
None of this is news. None of it.
@Anon 1:44
Actually, CIA (and MI6) aid flowed through the Pakistani ISI, who got choose which muj groups got funded. The CIA didn't deliberately choose the most extreme groups, but in trying to keep their fingerprints off the whole endeavour, they allowed the ISI to hijack the whole project. Not sure if the Saudi GID money (IRC, they matched US money dollar-for-dollar for a while there) flowed through ISI, or whether they too were handpicking the nuts out of the crowd.
MK
MK
I provided a link.
Follow it.
Hmmm. By far one of the most interesting parts of Three Cups of Tea was his account. Mortenson was aksed to present a nice little powerpoint on the region (and what he did there) to a few fellows at the Pentagon. After his presentation, some Pentagon bigwig offers to give him thousands of dollars to build schools. He says no. Why? Because (and I am paraphrasing here) he would lose any local credibilty he had if the people in Pakistan learned that he was building schools at the direction of the U.S. military. This has serious implicatuions for any COIN practioner- if the very act of building schools and clinics isolates us from the populace, what is it we can do to change local perceptions? Our war is a war of public perceptions, and if we can't use our own tools to shape public perception, we are more or less screwed over, are we not?
~T. Greer
Read this recently and was extremely glad to see it reviewed by my favorite daily read. This book and Mortenson's account in general provide a great, detailed guideline for young idealistic folks interested in putting their money (or whatever else they have available to them) where their mouths are and should be a required interdisciplinary read since it touches on so many geopolitical, socioeconomic and cross-cultural points. But I guess that's what you get from a guy who dove head-long into a situation and had to swim back up through the consequences. My generation of young activists should read this as a manual.
I'm a huge fan of Mortenson's, but reading counterinsurgency practice into it strikes me as a mistake. Greg's example teaches us that we need to care for people for their own sake, and now as manipulable objects of exploitation for our own ends. Furthermore, he highlights the desperate need for years of close embedding with small communities, and building off from that—like a softer version of the ink blot strategy—which will never happen with our deployment schedules.
These people, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, are used to foreigners coming by, throwing around money, and then leaving. They are not used to outsiders caring about them for their own sake and not in the pursuit of some grander ideological crusade. Until we figure out that treating people like assets is a sure-fire way to engender nasty blowback, all of our "lessons" won't really come to much.
"None of this is news. None of it."
No, but your problem is it ain't relevant either.
You said this post here is obscene. From what you've now cited we're left to assume that you find it obscene for promoting the social empowerment of women otherwise treated as second-class citizens. You apparently have this objection on the grounds that it might make those committed to this oppression mad. Perhaps I got it wrong and you were referring to your own post.
To this end you cite the reaction of someone in another country a couple of decades ago reacting to something else. As opposed to, you know, the response Mortensen's works have actually received.
He's built 55 schools. People there have actually noticed what he's up to.
The US government supported, indeed helped to invent the people who became the Taliban, as it helped invent Saddam Hussein as a political force. It's supported Musharraf and Mubarak and The House of Saud, Now in Afghanistan the US government through COIN wants to help save those it helped destroy, while accepting responsibility for nothing.
The US government is not a feminist organization, and this is not an NGO blog this is a COIN blog.
kilo, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
Hekmatyar was and remains a bloodthirsty and cruel warlord.It would have been far better for the CIA to have built up Masood or at least stayed involved in post-Soviet Afghan affairs enough to moderate factional infighting ( preventing it entirely would have been impossible). The ISI too, bears much responsibility for making a bad situation infinitely worse.
That being said, the original implication by Anon that the Afghan Communists, either the Taraki-Amin regime or the post-invasion puppet rulers were friends of Afghan women is absurd. The Parcham/Khaq/Watan dealt in pillage, rapine and murder in the provinces.
Women were granted equal rights under the law.
Modernization was enforced violently from above, as the Shah did in Iran and Hussein did in Iraq. The US has supported both modernizers or tribalists depending on the context, and that context had little to do with the interests of the people.
"It would have been better"
Mistakes were made.
You take responsibility for nothing.
Actually, Anon, the USG had little to nothing to do with the rise of the Taliban. The actual, ideological leadership of the movement -- Mullah Mohammed Omar and his top Lieutenants -- never had any direct contact with U.S. Agents or money. More daming, however, is how we refused to hold ISI accountable for how it spent our money and the Saudi's money, and that is how the Taliban got the support it needed to take over Afghanistan.
But it's important to remember that the Taliban first rose to power when Omar led a revolt against the horrible warlords of Kandahar in 1994, and only received significant support from Pakistan once it took Spin Boldak. So in a very real sense, it is a homegrown group, and not all that historically unique considering Omar hails from one of those backward hill tribes that are renown for their violent midievalism.
Your point about the U.S.'s amoral foreign policy is, however, appropriate, and one we would do well to remember here.
The whole issue of military-driven emergency aid is a subject some of the people I know who work in NGOs can talk about for weeks. The old position of the Red Cross and others was that by mixing aid and military action, you effectively politicize the aid-workers and render them legitime status as targets. Much the same argument went about embedded reporters. Again and again, it is very curious to see how invisible the UN seems to have become as a potential factor for legitimizing aid and schoolbuilding, in order to fight extremism.
Yeah yeah, i know , pedophiles and tyrants and eurowimps and criminals all of them.
Anon,
"Women were granted equal rights under the law."
And the Stalin Constitution of 1936was the most democratic in the world.
On paper. Substantively and procedurally, reality was somewhat different, yes?
The same can be said of the
Parcham-Khalq whose extremism in the villages belied paper promises and even went against the advice strenuously urged upon them by the USSR's representatives on the spot and from Moscow as well.
And even for the "modern" women of Kabul, relatively fortunate that they might be, did their equal rights give them any legal protections if they fell into the clutches of Assadullah "King Kong" Sarwari's police? Or Amin? Or Najibullah? No?
I'll gladly "accept responsibility" - whatever that means - for American aid to the Mujahedin. Will you do the same for the Afghan Marxists and Soviets whom you seem to believe had admirably feminist qualities?
You don't read what I write, you read what you imagine. I don't defend the Soviets or Najibullah, or Reza Pahlavi, or Saddam Hussein or the Saudis of "Chip-Chop" Square, or Hekmatyar... the list goes on.
Assholes like you have, and still do.
"I'll gladly "accept responsibility" - whatever that means - for American aid to the Mujahedin. "
It means you helped destroy a country in order to save it. We've been through this before. I'm bored by moralizing criminals.
anon 3:51 : YES, some of us know. But the world is where the world is, this is not a place for fingerpointing but for problemsolving. Write something positive, dammit.
Anon
Ah, the ad hominem attack - but let's not be distracted:
You originally wrote:
"Nobody remembers the Soviets in Afghanistan, who had the support of urban women, while we supported the fundamentalist insurgents. Gulbadin Hekmatyar directed his men to throw acid in women's exposed faces.
The post is obscene."
Your implication was quite clear to everyone here.
I don't blame you for not wanted to directly defend the Soviets or other left-wing tyrannies, it's a thankless task. So you do it obliquely with cocked-up, grotesquely out of context comparisons. Then later, you try to throw up dust and rhetorically slink away from what you were really arguing.
Unimpressive.
mark: I think you read anon wrong. Hes just another lost soul howling impotently against the injustice of the world. Wich is a fair point. Have you seen naked by Ken Loach? Recommended, there is a scene there where the main character just looses it on the roof of a shopping mall, howling "Yes, the barcodes reallly do mean 666" into the wind. His aim is not to change, but to state. Declarative sentences, etc. Columbia high...
Obi Wan,
Between the communists and what's happened since I'd pick the communists.
Out of context? Let's get down to the present and to brass tacks:
Iran has a form of representative government, and an active civil society, under duress. It's the one country in the region where fully open elections would bring in moderates. It has the largest jewish population in the mideast outside Israel, still about 25,000, It has Jewish hospitals and kosher butcher shops, and even one (mandated) jewish member of parliament. last I heard he was on the energy committee. It's not easy and it's gotten harder recently under Ahmadinejad (Yazdi's boy). Still I'd rather be a jew in Tehran than a Palestinian on the west bank. 60% of Iranian university students are female, and they're allowed to drive.
Against them and all moral common sense we back the Saudis. Why? Hint: it's not humanitarianism.
We back extremists who pay us protection against anyone even moderates who refuse. In the the long term struggle for independence democracy and the rule of law in the middle east we're on the wrong side as we were against Mossadegh. You want to talk about Israel.
And by the way, why did we demand Karzai when the old king would have been a more stabilizing figure?
Correction. And this was stupid:
I wouldn't "pick" the communists, I'd back supporters of democracy against them and anyone else. But US military support had no place there. It was a stupid move.
Anon,
Negotiations for normalization of relations with Iran and resolution of all outstanding issues is fine with me as it would be a strategically useful move for the United States. Lack of western contact and exchange only strengthens the hand of the worst elements of the Iranian regime (which ain't a representative democracy but is closer than most of the states in the region).
Israel and the Palestinians are not going to make a functional peace until most of the current generation of hardliners on each side are elderly or dead.
Re: Afghanistan
The USSR destabilized what had been a weak and friendly neighboring monarchy, encouraging first Daoud's coup then his overthrow by the Marxist Parcham-Khalq, whose fratricidal governance proved so unsatisfactory that Moscow invaded, killed their leaders in the Tajbeg palace and replaced them with Karmal-Najibullah. US/KSA aid helped the Mujahedin stay in the field and then take out the Soviet air superiority but the mujahedin would have been fighting the Russians regardless ( Masood was probably the most effective commander and he had the least American aid). The Soviets lost the war and I think you'd be hardpressed to find many Afghans who wish the Russians had won.
Zahir Shah was a decent ruler by Afghan standards who let others do most of the ruling, what little there was back then, while he reigned, but he was not a democrat by conviction or practice.
Had he been made King again instead of Karzai's regime, the central government would have gotten a somewhat better "bounce" out of the Loya Jirga but the effectiveness (and democratic norms) of the government would be about the same as it is now. The tradition there is weak central authority with a few exceptions ( Abdur Rahman etc.)
Formal democracy should be cultivated but a reasonable short term goal is a government in Kabul that is reasonably decent, minimally competent at basic functions and has the widespread support or at least the tolerance of a majority of Afghans.
We're working with the Saudis and Israel[!] against both Iran and democratic reform elsewhere. The US just supported Musharraf against the courts. Did you follow that?
"Israel and the Palestinians are not going to make a functional peace until most of the current generation of hardliners on each side are elderly or dead."
Again, you read and read in what you want to. The Palestinians are realists compared to the Israelis.
"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
David Ben Gurion
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are more practically minded than Likud. I respect the first two as adversaries. I have no respect for the Israeli political class, and they deserve none. And I have family members among them.
The logic of COIN is a self-serving moralism. Your cause and that of this site is vulgar nationalism propounded as benign universalism. This is all about oil, and behind that, control.
There's my ironic awareness in your choice of avatar than in anything you've written. The authors here are more subtle but not smarter.
I might as well post this here as anywhere. From Pat Lang, who should be on the linklist for this page.
And more fun with the Saudis
"The US government is not a feminist organization, and this is not an NGO blog this is a COIN blog.
kilo, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown."
Full of shit about what you muppet ?
I told you what you were talking about wasn't relevant. You've responded to that by telling us the US supported Saddam (!) then writing this.
Awesome stuff.
We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
Lucky that whole problem of talking shit was nipped in the bud early on, wasn't it.
Got any thoughts on Ghana you wanted to share while avoiding any defense of what you were asked to ?
"while avoiding any defense of what you were asked to ?"
WTF? What is is I'm supposed to be defending:
your claim that you're defending- as in protecting- me.
I refuse. You're not protecting anyone from anything. You're making ti worse,
Anon,
I'm not certain how you manage to reconcile your delusion of enlightened objectivity with comically one-sided opinions regarding people and subjects that you don't actually know.
You wrote:
"The logic of COIN is a self-serving moralism. Your cause and that of this site is vulgar nationalism propounded as benign universalism. This is all about oil, and behind that, control.
There's my ironic awareness in your choice of avatar than in anything you've written. The authors here are more subtle but not smarter."
The authors of this site, who have no connection to me whatsoever, can speak for themselves but here's my view.
Your understanding of COIN, as well as the particular historical context of this thread, is sophmoric and shallow. As a result you like to retreat to irrelevancies and inflammatory asides rather than constructing a logical argument that can sustain scrutiny.
In short, a troll who isn't really interested in a serious discussion.
I listened to a podcast of Mr. Mortenson addressing a university where he highlighted several aspects of his book. I found it an interesting presentation. His focus on women contrasts sharply with most military approaches.
Bruce Hoffman wrote about a similar approach that focused on women (rather than education) in December 2001, in the Atlantic Magazine. The article is titled “All you need is love.” The short piece describes how the dilemma the PLO faced with terrorists from their own organization who were a part of Black September in the 1970s. Having performed their mission, the PLO now needed these terrorists gone. The PLO arranged to marry the young men off, set up apartments with some start-up money, and reward them if they had a baby within a year. It seemed to work.
Mr. Mortenson started his first school in 1996. Does anyone know what the effects are of providing education in the long term? Egypt and some other Arab countries have offered education to many of their citizens, but upon graduation many of them feel stifled and powerless.
Maj Matt Little, US Army
"The Willy Lynch letter". they arn't real, but its subject is pertinent to this discussion. especially the use of women.
Post a Comment