|
Is it possible to explain the
evolution and to predict the outcomes of conflicts as complicated as those that
afflicted post-1979 Afghanistan? Is it possible to use a common analytical tool
to explain the results of ethnic, religious, revolutionary, secessionist, and
liberation conflicts despite their treatment by scholars as distinct
categories? This book makes the case that this could be accomplished by
developing a new perspective and theory premised on the understanding that
societal groups, civilizations, classes, religions and nations do not engage in
conflict or strategic interaction—organizations do.
To engage in conflict means
to perform a number of complex processes—formulation and execution of strategy,
coordination, mobilization, etc—and amorphous entities such as classes,
civilizations or people cannot do such things. To assert that a given conflict
pits a politicized group against another is to use shorthand to indicate that
organizations that recruit among those groups are engaged in conflict. Words
influence where we look for answers, and such generally accepted but distracting
linguistic constructs have limited the ability of social scientists to develop
useful and powerful analytical tools to better understand complex conflicts.
The Organizational Theory of Group Conflict avoids misleading linguistic
constructs by focusing on that which truly explains the evolution and outcome of
conflicts: the ability of politicized organizations to outperform their rivals.
Successful overall performance results from the execution of a number of
essential organizational processes such as efficient mobilization, strategy
execution, coordination, the management of factionalism, and the processing of
information. An organization’s ability to execute these processes depends on
how its structure fits with its ability to keep its rivals at bay from a
sheltered space.
A sheltered space is a portion
of the contested territory where an organization’s rivals can not intervene with
enough force to perturb its operations. Centralized organizations are generally
more effective than non-centralized ones, but are more vulnerable to the
attempts of rivals to disturb their operations because of their dependence on
coordination among their different specialized branches. An organization—such
as the state, an occupier, or a strong insurgent group—which controls a
sheltered space that protects it from the easy disturbance of its operations by
rivals must therefore adopt a highly centralized and specialized structure.
Organizations that don’t have such a space must adopt a non-centralized
structure to increase their odds of outlasting their rivals. To have a
sheltered space is not essential to win the conflict, what is essential for the
organization is to organize properly based on whether it has such a space. An
organization that suddenly gains control of a sheltered space must therefore
transform itself into a more centralized and differentiated structure or risk
dissipating its resources.
The Organizational Theory
explains otherwise puzzling behavior or developments one normally encounters in
politicized group conflicts, such as the longevity of many unpopular regimes,
the surprising demise of some popular movements, why some seemingly advantageous
strategies are never adopted, and why some who share a common cause are often
more concerned with undermining their ideological kin than their ideological
enemies.
I test the theory by applying it to successive Afghan
conflicts after 1979 and then to a larger (42 conflicts and 134 organizations)
statistical sample, both of which confirm its predictive and explicative power.
Afghan conflicts are particularly conducive to test the Organizational Theory
because they feature a wide array of organizations with broad variation in
structure that facilitate the conduct of revealing critical tests that hold most
other variables constant. The Organizational Theory convincingly explains 1)
the resilience of the
Afghan resistance and the failure of both the Soviets and the Kabul regime to
overcome the mujahideen, 2) why the Najib regime survived well beyond everyone’s
expectations after the 1989 withdrawal of its Soviet sponsors and the suddenness
of its ultimate demise in 1992, 3) why only two centralized mujahideen
organizations tried to upstage each other while others largely disintegrated
afterwards, and 4) the post-1994 dramatic rise of the Taliban
that left all observers baffled. I use evidence from my own field research
and from primary and secondary sources. The last chapter argues that the
Organizational Theory is useful to analyze conflicts beyond Afghanistan by
verifying its predictive ability on a large sample of conflicts—all ethnic,
revolutionary and secessionist conflicts that lasted longer than three years in
post-WWII North Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. The epilogue
also explains initial U.S. military successes in Afghanistan following the
September 11 events, and argues that current American efforts at “state
building” in this country are likely to fail.
Praise for Organizations at War in
Afghanistan and Beyond
[Sinno] knows a lot about Afghanistan and offers
significant insights about organizations and strategy on which others
will want to build.
Professor Lawrence D. Freedman, War Studies
at King's College, (Foreign Affairs,
(Sep/Oct2008, Vol. 87, Issue 5, pp 169-170)
[Sinno’s] finding should end the current search of U.S.
policymakers for a “moderate Taliban” that can be broken off from the
insurgency...For the Taliban remains a formidable organization, and
Abdulkader Sinno’s Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond
is a formidable account of why.
Professor Barnett Rubin, NYU (Perspectives
on Politics 7, no. 1, pp 216-17)
Sinno has produced an insightful book. His emphasis on
organizational theory will arm those who study conflict with a valuable
perspective.
Brigadier General H.R. McMaster (Survival
50, no. 5, October-November 2008, 204-06)
This book is a fascinating and serious piece of
scholarship that carries implicit policy warnings… The book presents
very important conclusions, but is clearly written for an advanced,
specialist audience… Highly recommended.
Professor M. D. Crosston, Clemson University,
(Choice, September 2008)
For anyone interested in insurgency and
counterinsurgency, Afghanistan and Pakistan, or late-period Soviet
military history, the book is worth the effort…The book accomplishes a
crucial social science goal: it develops a parsimonious and
generalizable theory that explains a wide range of behavior, without the
need to resort to other variables (such as religion, ethnicity,
ideology, or unique factors of anthropology or history). Sinno concludes
with a set of predictions about other cases, using his findings to
provide useful advice for policymakers. While he only mentions in
passing the relevance of his findings for the Middle East, it is
striking how well his arguments seem to explain ongoing conflicts
everywhere from the Palestinian territories to Iraq. For all of these
reasons, this book has great value
Professor Kimberly Marten, Barnard College,
Columbia University (Political Science
Quarterly Volume 123, 2008, issue 4, pp. 478-79)
Sinno does a remarkably thorough job of analyzing the
Afghan insurgency and tribal interactions from 1978 through the present.
This section is insightful, thoughtful, and exceptionally valuable; he
reveals a deep knowledge of Afghan politics and rivalries,
personalities, and agendas. Sinno’s organizational theory approach to
explaining success and failure of rival groups during this period is
persuasive. His tables and analysis are clear and direct and provide an
excellent starting point for anyone wanting to understand the
complexities of events in Afghanistan from the end of the Soviet
occupation through the collapse of the Najib regime and the rise of the
Taliban. It is doubtful that there is an analysis of events in
Afghanistan that is better, more complete, and more useful to a military
commander, diplomat, or Provincial Reconstruction Team chief than what
can be found in chapters 6 through 8 of this book. This analysis should
open some eyes and minds to reassessing the purpose and direction of the
current operational activities in Afghanistan.
Keith D. Dickson, retired Special Forces
officer and a Professor of Military Studies at the Joint Forces Staff
College. (Joint Forces Quarterly,
issue 53, 2nd quarter 2009)
Ce livre surclasse bon nombre des
publications actuelles parce que l’auteur applique des théories
organisationnelles complexes aux participants en conflit, explique
pourquoi des régimes à la moralité douteuse peuvent prendre le pouvoir
et pourquoi des groupes qui semblent considérablement plus faibles que
leurs adversaires peuvent être victorieux. C’est un ouvrage solide sur
le plan théorique, fondé sur des renseignements obtenus de source
directe et des données statistiques, qui repose sur un raisonnement
clair et est bien organisé.
Heather Hrychuk (Journal
de l’Armée du Canada)
This book is not only different in the way that it
examines conflict in Afghanistan and other countries, it also breaks new
ground with an innovative thesis about the importance of ‘organizations’
in these wars.
Shams Afif Siddiqi (The
telegraph, India, Friday, January 2 , 2009
Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond should be
mandatory reading for Afghanistan analysts, counterinsurgency
specialists, conflict and civil war scholars, and even for the
leadership of groups that are engaged in conflict.”
Christian Bleuer, Australian National
University (Asian Politics & Policy)
As well as being a useful source for postgraduate study,
Organizations at War should also be made compulsory reading for any
military officer, diplomat or NGO official heading for Afghanistan.
Dr. Rod Thornton, University of
Nottingham, UK (International Studies
Review)
Abdulkader Sinno’s book, employing a combination of
organizational models and typologies with an extensive analysis of the
strategies and circumstances of many of these actors, is an ambitious
and innovative effort to make sense of these dynamics. The work is
important for its depth of research and for demonstrating that many
aspects of Afghanistan’s apparently chaotic situation can be understood
using general principles of organizational theory."
Professor Philip Schrodt, Pennsylvania
State University (International Journal of
Middle Eastern Studies 42, 2010, 709-711)
[Sinno's] book is a valuable contribution to
organizational theory, strategic analysis, and strategic planning. It
offers a coherent approach to assess the impact on conflicts of
particular organizational structures. It should be read by students of
strategy and built upon by experts. Sinno’s understanding of past Afghan
conflicts is first rate, and his explanations of the outcomes of past
Afghan conflicts will be of equal interest to regional experts.
Stéphane Lefebvre, Defence R&D Centre
for Operational Research and Analysis, Canada (Strategic
Studies Quarterly 2010)
|