One Reason You Shouldn't Go to Afghanistan With a Beard

Your facial hair says something about you in Afghanistan -- especially if you're a foreign soldier.

BY ANTHONY BUBALO, SUSANNE SCHMEIDL | NOVEMBER 3, 2009

It is so shameful that some Afghans have cited the searches as the reason for their joining the growing ranks of the internally displaced. As one former resident of Khas Uruzgan recounted to local researchers, "I went to Spin Boldak to save my dignity. We don't want to see our wives and daughters without their shawls, searched in front of us. We were humiliated."

Further, these missions sometimes end in arbitrary arrests and indefinite detentions at Bagram Airfield, where the moral, legal, and political conundrums thrown up by the prison there perhaps equal those of Guantánamo Bay, but with much less public attention. And, in the past, the missions have even caused problems for regional International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commanders whose efforts to build trust with locals were complicated by controversial special forces operations about which they knew nothing in advance.

This should provide those advocating a renewed narrow focus on the counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan with food for thought. It may seem a cheaper and cleaner alternative to the counterinsurgency approach the Pentagon advocates. But it would come at a high cost for the local population and for the West's reputation, relying on the most resented soldiers, compromising the United States' goal of winning hearts and minds.

It is significant that the man now charged with turning things around in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, was previously the head of U.S. Joint Special Operations Command and oversaw these types of direct-action operations by special forces. By some accounts, McChrystal has adopted the Army's broader counterinsurgency mission with all the zeal of a convert. Serious questions remain about whether even a fully resourced counterinsurgency approach will work in Afghanistan, but a key measure of its success will be one that McChrystal has himself established: the protection of civilians.

This goal has led McChrystal to place, very publicly, limits on the use of air power by coalition forces. The high civilian death toll in the recent airstrike on a hijacked oil tanker in Kunduz province demonstrated both the importance of this new injunction and the difficulty of implementing it.

An equal measure of McChrystal's commitment to protect Afghans will be how he uses the special operations forces he once led and whose activities remain shrouded in secrecy. In a recent speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the ISAF commander emphasized yet again that Afghans need protecting: from the Taliban and other insurgents who kill, maim, exploit, and extort, as well as from the warlords whose predatory instincts have not been dulled by the fact that some are today ministers in the national government.

But as McChrystal made clear, if the West is to win in Afghanistan, sometimes the allied forces will "need to protect [Afghans] from our own actions" as well.

Scott Nelson/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: AFGHANISTAN
 

Anthony Bubalo is the program director for West Asia at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. Susanne Schmeidl is the co-founder of the Liaison Office, an Afghan nongovernmental organization that since 2003 has worked with tribes in southeast and southern Afghanistan on governance, stability, and security.

GBNT73

9:40 PM ET

November 3, 2009

A bit of confusion of Special Forces and Special Ops Forces

The authors have made a very common mistake -- Special Forces is not synonymous with Special Operations Forces. Special Operations Forces, or SOF, include Rangers (Army), SEALs (Navy), Special Forces(Army), Civil Affairs (Army), Psychological Operations (Army) and Special Tactics Squadrons (USAF). A new appendage to SOF, but not a niche-holder like the others, is MARSOC (USMC). Also included is the Joint Special Operations Command, which is highly classified, but responsible for much of what the authors talk about in the negative. Special Orces (SF) conducts primarliry Unconventional Warfare (UW). No one else conducts UW and is geared toward the social side of warfare. Direct Action (DA) is what the authors discuss, and is what JSOC specializes in and conducts almost exclusively. The conflict between the UW and DA communities within SOF is at the heart of the article, but it is not directly stated.

The SF guys who were there in 2001 grew beards not just to blend in ( many could not hope to "blend in" even with the biggest beards), but because it was socially and culturally the norm. Manly men wore beards. Those who were wise and in charge wore beards. Any other image was socially and morally questionable to the Pashtun and other groups. The others (such as SEALs and JSOC guys) who grow the beards are not doing it for those reasons. I'm not completely sure why they grow beards because it does not enhance their mission effectiveness in any way and it creates confusion and distrust, just as the articles describes. It is what creates the conditions and effects which spawn articles such as this. And the SF guys -- the UW experts and true unconventional warriors -- who get caught up in the wake and political backlash of the dynamic the authors describe.

 

BEOWULF3

1:01 PM ET

November 4, 2009

fear of fur

Hilarious article. Thanks FP , for publishing it. Those horrible insensitive contractors! One wonders what the elders in Kandahar would make of a visit from ZZ Top.

 

THOMASRUTTIG

12:28 PM ET

November 15, 2009

bearded special or whatever forces

the notion that to show up unbearded amongst pashtuns 'was socially and morally questionable' to them is far from the truth. in years of meeting and working with pashtun tribal elders and communities in afghanistan i never was rejected because i did not wear a beard. even most of the taleban - officials and simple fighters - i met in 2000 and 2001 refrained from asking whether i did not grow one - and when such cases occured they mainly were made half-jokingly. but my general expression is that pashtuns and other afghans usually judge based on the behaviour of their guests not on their facial hair. probably, speaking pashto also helps. best from kabul

 

ERIC_STRATTONIII

11:53 AM ET

November 4, 2009

UW vs DA

What the SF does really well is what is called FID (Foriegn Internal Defense) that is there forte. They train locals, set up camps, do cultural exchanges, MEDCAPs, etc..all part of UW.
DA falls under Direct Action-Raids, Ambush, etc...ie; Fighting in direct contact with the enemy (whoever that may be) SEALs, Rangers and other Army Units perform these actions. This is not an SF forte.
As for the SF getting "caught up in the wake and political backlash of the dynamic", nice try. SF is often just as much at fault in that area as anyone. Also, COIN involves taking out players on the other side, UW, DA, FID, etc..all play a part in COIN and one does not work without the others. The SF Community is Huge and if you think that they are without sin I suggest you look again. SF is more of a key to winning COIN conflicts than DAs due to what they are used for but DAs are needed, will continue and beards are not just for "other" reasons, most DAs are done with an Afghan face.

 

MIKULASRING

8:10 AM ET

November 28, 2009

I think that I wouldnt go to

I think that I wouldnt go to the Afghanistan, my 2 cents.
Mike the red ring of death fix dude.