Talk about painting yourself into a corner:
At least two Afghan villages have been blanketed with leaflets warning that if an American soldier kidnapped by the Taliban two weeks ago isn't freed, "you will be targeted."
Villagers near the border of two volatile provinces, Ghazni and Paktika, tell CBS News' Sami Yousafzai that aircraft dropped the leaflets during the past several days.
Military spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias confirmed that the leaflets were produced at Bagram Air Base, the primary U.S. installation in Afghanistan, and distributed in the region. She told CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark, however, that they were distributed by hand, not aircraft.
The papers show on one side an image of a soldier with his head bowed so that his face is not visible (above). A message in the local Pashtun language over the image says, "If you do not free the American soldier, then..." 
On the other side, an image shows Western troops breaking into a house. The rest of the message is printed across the photo: "...you will be targeted".
CBS goes on to note--and this is the important part:
While American military and intelligence services have dropped leaflets on Afghanistan for years, most of them have clearly targeted militants -- frequently carrying photos or caricatures of Taliban leaders.
The new leaflet represents a broader, direct warning to local people in the region where the U.S. soldier was seized.
Here's the deal: You don't pull a gun on someone unless you're willing to use it. Likewise, you don't threaten to "target" an entire village unless you're willing to do, well . . . some serious damage. And make no mistake: These leaflets are threatening civilians. They weren't hand-delivered to local Taliban leaders or opium warlords. They were spread throughout two villages. And this isn't a practice that's typically utilized.
Now, whether the U.S. intends to actually target civilians is another question. It won't happen. But it's the threat that counts. And vocally threatening to do something without a willingness to back it up leads to problems in conflict situations--whether it's an argument in the back of a school bus or a war in the Middle East.
So, one of two things happens here. If it works, the Afghan village elders, coerced by the threat of potential air strikes on their village--and suddenly more afraid of the Americans than the Taliban--decide to step in and either hand over or negotiate for the release of the American soldier.
On the other hand, if it doesn't work, the Afghan villagers can choose to do nothing and essentially dare us to get heavy-handed. Or, even worse, whoever has the soldier can take one look at the leaflets and then decide to deliver us his head with a note that says, "Go ahead and bomb the village." At which point we can either go against the new McChrystal strategy and move through like the Green Tornado--and risk crucifixion in the media--or we can walk back the bellicose threats in the leaflets and come off looking extraordinarily weak. Either way, we've put ourselves in a bad negotiating position.
Obviously gathering human intelligence in the area is not easy--and I don't envy those who are operating there now. But one thing we'd probably be wise not to do is to go around threatening to "target" civilian Afghan villagers unless we're willing to do just that.
Ultimately, I think whoever came up with the idea to print these things didn't really think it through. While the likelihood of success using a technique like this is slim, the chance of inflaming the locals even further is much higher. This whole thing seems clumsy and ham-handed, and will almost certainly do more harm than good. I'd love to be proved wrong.
Our thoughts are with the captured soldier. |
