"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

"Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climate challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.  His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

"Oslo, October 9, 2009"

A FRONTLINE investigative report set to air on PBS, October 13, gives a rough sketch of the Pentagon's new thinking on counterinsurgency. In so doing, it manages to dramatize a window's view of how this approach is being enforced in Afghanistan. 

While U.S. strategy has been marketed as people-centric, it appears in practice to be somewhat different. What the report reveals is an abstract, top-down, military-centric approach aimed at controlling the behavior of a population. The tactics that are used fail to flow naturally out of the day-to-day decisions made by a community of indigenous people. They are imposed. Thus they are guaranteed to lack legitimacy.

If this report is true, America's new approach to counterinsurgency is thoroughly wrong-headed. It makes success contingent upon the ability of the the U.S. military to implement a policy of control over the behavior of the Afghan people. It transforms U.S. counterinsurgency operations into a contest of wills with the very people we are trying to help.

Yet tactical control over the Afghan people and their tribal traditions cannot be realistically anticipated. It is an impossible task. It places far too much reliance on the practical ability of the American military to exercise control over the hearts and minds of a population. It gives only faint recognition to the imperatives of Afghan history and traditions.  The lynchpin of success rests too heavily on an ability to control the people's behavior. Such hubris is almost certain to be the Achille's Heel of the new American strategy.

It is imperative that American tactics be freed from efforts to exercise control over the Afghan people. Otherwise, the struggle in Afghanistan will degenerate into Obama's War. Should that happen, the U.S. will be caught amidst a myriad of opposing forces, unable to extricate itself. As in Iraq, Gulliver will have been made impotent relative to the task at hand.

Already the report has unmasked America's military presence as a force that creates doubt, uncertainty, and confusion in the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. U.S. troops interfere with the Afghan's daily lives and their sense of personal security. The Afghan people have become wary of American help. They are unable to interpret U.S. demands and when they do they have to balance them with those of the Taliban. Day after day, they live in fear of U.S. military capability and the shadowy threats posed by the Taliban. Afghans are entangled in a predicament that can only breed resentment, anger, and hostility. 

The Afghans are a frustrated people.  It is as though they have become little more than grist for the ideological mill.  They are unsure how to satisfy the Americans. They feel compelled to placate the Taliban. No matter how they turn, their future is contingent on changing circumstances, contradictory intentions, and the unknown fortunes of war. Eventually, they will have to fend for themselves.

The Americans will be in Afghanistan for a period. But they will be gone before long. The Afghans know this to be true. They also know the Taliban will remain in the area indefinitely. The question is this: Can U.S. military forces guard against the eventuality of a growing Taliban presence? Is it reasonable to expect they can? Or is there need for a new strategic arrangement?