US Military, Taliban Share Same View of Aid Workers

Published August 27, 2009 @ 08:15AM PT

Not the best of times to be an aid worker in Afghanistan. Or, for that matter, not the best of times to be in Afghanistan, period. Unless, of course, you're a fan of vote-rigging and potentially fraudulent elections. Then it's Valhalla.

Anyhows, Afghanistan is far and away the most dangerous country in the world for aid workers - 18 aid workers have died in the country this year, including a Red Cross engineer killed earlier this week. One reason why aid workers are so vulnerable is that the Taliban doesn't so much buy the entire "aid workers are neutral and independent and, really, on the side of angels" argument.

As one member of the Taliban recently explained: "The UN and aid organizations are not impartial. If they are truly impartial why do they use armoured cars, armed guards and hide behind barricaded walls.They receive funding from the US and Britain; support the puppet government in Kabul; and damage our Islamic and Afghani values."

Which isn't exactly a surprise. Back in August 2008, the Taliban slaughtered four aid workers in Logar province. Soon after the killing, a Taliban spokesman explained that aid workers aren't neutral at all, but in fact part of the "foreign invader forces".

So, probably not a good time for the US military to announce its intention of collecting intelligence from aid workers. Right? Can I get a witness? Anyone? Anyone?

Alas, not so much.

General Petraeus recently announced plans to open an "in-house intelligence organization" at US Central Command, to be known under the wonderfully Orwellian name of The Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence. (No comment.) It will be led by retired Colonel Derek Harvey.

In an interview with the Washington Times, Mr. Harvey helpfully explained that "the intelligence community tends to rely too much on information from human sources such as spies and from signal intercepts such as wiretaps, to the exclusion of reports from people on the ground such as military officers and aid workers."

Which is depressingly similar to comments made by Richard Holbrooke - the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan - back in April, when he said the US would seek to improve its intelligence capacity by tapping into aid groups. Holbrooke estimated that 90 percent of US knowledge about Afghanistan lies with humanitarian and development organizations.

I'm not sure what upsets me more - that the military wants to gather intelligence from aid workers, or that any number of senior US officials feel the need to mention said plans in public.

Either way, looks like Afghanistan just became that much more dangerous for aid workers on the ground. Thanks Harvey.

For more on the debate around humanitarian neutrality, see here.

[US military patrol in Afghanistan in 2004 - image from the 25th Infantry Division]

Share this Post

Comments (7)

In an effort to provide some context to the assertions made above, I wanted to offer the following, from my own experience and understanding. As has been largely reported in the press, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has realigned the primary mission for his forces from hunting insurgents to protecting the Afghan people. This is in line with the new U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual which states, "the protection, welfare, and support of the people are vital to success." Given that population security is now the primary mission, all other missions to include intelligence operations should support that goal. Indeed, recent press reporting has stated that U.S. forces are shifting the focus of intelligence operations in Afghanistan from identifying enemy targets, to identifying influential members of tribes and villages with whom coalition forces can work to improve security.

In addition, the U.S. military now recognizes that in-depth understanding of Afghan culture and society is hugely beneficial to our chances for ultimate success. In keeping with this goal, as reported by the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/petraeus-to-open-intel-training-center/), U.S. Central Command is establishing a "Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence." One of the key missions of the center, according to the article, will be to train officers in language and culture and will focus on long-term, in-depth analysis of the region. It will also address a frequent criticism of intelligence organizations that they tend to focus too much on classified information and disregard open-source information. As such, the article suggests the center will encourage officers to utilize reports from "people on the ground such as military officers and aid workers." This does not mean that aid organizations will become "sources" or "informants" or "spies" for U.S. forces. Rather, their reporting will be studied and analyzed in conjunction with all other available information in order to obtain the most comprehensive picture of the security environment, enabling U.S. and coalition forces to perform their most important mission -- protecting the Afghan people.

Posted by James Cogbill on 08/27/2009 @ 08:45PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- 1 person likes this comment. Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by James
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
James - no arguments at all about the importance of understanding Afghan culture, and I hope that General McChrystal's strategy is a success. Also, I hope the Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence proves useful in helping train US soldiers.

That said, as you well know, in a war like Afghanistan, perception is everything. And poorly worded, vague communiques from CENTCOM implying that aid agencies - willingly or not - serve an intelligence function are incredibly problematic, to say the least.

Further, CENTCOM is saying that aid agencies will serve as sources - even if this is just collection of unclassified material. And even if the aid agencies never themselves agree.

Publicly announcing this fact only puts aid workers further at risk. If the Taliban assume the information gets back to CENTCOM one way or another, why wouldn't they attack NGOs working on the ground?

Posted by Michael Bear on 08/27/2009 @ 10:31PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
You make a very good point that CENTCOM and U.S. military planners need to be sensitive to the fact that they are implying some sort of direct connection or collusion between aid workers and military intelligence. Although, I don't think that is what they really intended. On a positive note, an article from this morning's L.A. Times notes that McChrystal's strategy of protecting Afghan civilians may be working (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-afghan-civilians28-2009aug28,0,84903.story).

Posted by James Cogbill on 08/28/2009 @ 04:15AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Michael
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
On a less positive note, have a read of Registan's take on that same LA Times article http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/08/28/the-numbers-behind-general-mcchrystals-tactical-success/ and, regarding the first comment here, his comments on why McChrystal's much vaunted new tactics might just be the same old after all: http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/08/27/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/

Posted by Harry Rud on 08/28/2009 @ 10:26PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
Harry - many thanks, and quite interesting. And, how much longer are you in Kabul-town?

Posted by Michael Bear on 08/29/2009 @ 10:29AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Harry
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I think the text of the original post and subsequent comments is/are useful and constructive. But I found the title to be both sensationalist and even offensive.

Having been part of both the military and an aid organization/NGO, I ~really~ wish interlocutors on all sides of the various debates would work to err on the side of tranquility rather than generating (unnecessary) angst.

But hat-tip for a good discussion none-the-less.

Posted by George Burdell on 09/08/2009 @ 07:56AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
George,

Thanks for the comment, and point taken - nothing like the tension between constructive debate and actually trying to draw readers to an article.

MBK

Posted by Michael Bear on 09/08/2009 @ 09:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Like
Reply to thread
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by George
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Michael has worked for NGOs in Afghanistan, across east and central Africa, and Iraq. Prior to going overseas, he worked on a project providing assistance to the United Nations on the application of International Humanitarian Law to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.