This is a discussion on What strategy can we use to win in Afganistan? within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by STURM
The Pakistani Taliban, who subcribe to the same ideology and share the same goals of the ...
The Pakistani Taliban, who subcribe to the same ideology and share the same goals of the Afghan Taliban have been a threat to Pakistan for quite a while. The key question IMO is whether the Pakistan government went into the tribal areas because it was really in Pakistan's interest or because it was due to pressure from Uncle Sam?
If the Pakistan government was really serious in taking out the local Taliban why hasn't it rooted out the jihadist elements in the military? Despite the Pakistani Taliban being a serious threat to the lnstability of Pakistan, why does the Pakistan government continue to turn a blind eye to militant activities in Pakistan which include active recruiting and fundraising, not to mention the thousands of madrassahs which continue to churn out volunteers for 'jihad'? Pakistan's major problem is on one hand it has to please Uncle Sam who provides financial aid and some level of protection against India, but on the other hand, it has elements in its military and population who openly sympthatise with the aims of the Afghan Taliban.
Well analysed and well said.
That is the crux of the issue.
We have to look at the overall picture and not the cosmetic!
I like the framework provided by Herodotus, therefore, I'm quoting him here before sharing my thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herodotus
...Afghanistan is what Buzan, (within Regional Security Complex Theory) defines as an insulator. A state that is situated between different regional security complexes, but not specifically in any of them. It straddles the South Asia Regional Security Complex, the Middle East Complex, and the (former) Soviet Region, not to mention the East Asia Security Complex is nearby.
What that means is that Afghanistan sits at the nexus of Russia, (1), China, (2), India, (3), Iran (1a), Pakistan, (2b), -three Great Powers and two regional powers together with the United States, which has a vested interest in the region, (or at least forced its way into the region, thus entitling it to interests). This is why Afghanistan is important, not necessarily because terrorism has, and may in the future, spawn from there (terrorism is an asymmetrical threat that does not kill many people...historically), but because of its geography...
1. If we want to continue to engage in an exchange of ideas, we need to recognise that Pakistan, China and India all have legitimate geopolitical interests in Afghanistan and that the interests of these three immediate regional states interact with other interested parties - like the Americans, the Russians and the Iranians and of course the other ISAF contributor countries and aid donors like Japan (who promised in Nov 2009, US$5b in aid over the next 5 years - Japan's MFA states that they have already given US$1.8b from Sept 2001 to Nov 2009). If we frame the problem in Afghanistan as just fighting the Taliban, it may result in a failure to understand the local political dynamics in relation to competing land use. These local political concerns may be part of ethnic or even tribal rivalries which in turn interact with the actions of external actors. And I'm fully confident that the choices that the various Afghan tribes will make are a matter of local strategic calculation rather than out-right defeat of the Taliban - as long as we understand this, the ability of external actors to further destabilise the situation in Afghanistan will be constrained.
2. How these geo-political interests play-out may be subject to different characterisat- ions. Speaking generally, we need to recognise that perspectives of people of different nationalities may differ and that there could be historical and/or cultural reasons why the difference exists.
3. At this point, I would encourage fellow forum participants to avoid the use of emotion laden characterisation of people not of your nationality. Please avoid baiting other members, rather let us discuss concerns. These concerns would include the use of conventional, irregular, criminal and terrorist capabilities, which are employed asymmetrically by the Taliban to counter ISAF capabilities deployed in Afghanistan. Remember that there are non-state actors who would benefit from the suffering of the Afghan people - beyond the Taliban, these would include also foreign fighters and criminal elements.
4. No intelligence service is omniscient, though some are clearly capable and resourced to act in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Intelligence services monitoring the situation would include the CIA and even they have suffered some losses from possible trade-craft lapses. Evidently, the CIA had tapped the expertise of their Middle-Eastern friends. IMO, any attempt to characterise the capabilities of the intelligence and security services of a specific country as omniscient would be inaccurate (click here for US ISR advances).
5. Since there are competing geo-political interests, it is only natural for the various security agencies to watch each other with care. This is not unexpected, given the regional rivalries and complexities of current ground situation there. How competing interests interact in Afghanistan may also be of benefit of non-state actors - so remember that mutual distrust may manifest itself in ways that helps the Taliban. IMHO, we need to find another way forward. I do not pretend to know the best way forward but I know that hating and mutual distrust is not the most productive way forward. There are legitimate concerns and they can be discussed. I would just ask that everyone remember that there are more perspectives than our own and it would be good if we can learn from one another.
6. Interestingly and against a backdrop of mounting violence, 70% of the Afghan population believe their country is heading in the right direction, up from 40% in 2009, according to a poll for the BBC, ABC News and the German broadcaster, ARD (BBC link here - click here to see 2010 poll data). And if you look at the answers to Q17, only 3% strongly fighters from the Taliban and a further 7% somewhat support fighters from the Taliban. In other words, the Taliban only enjoy a total of not more than 10% support (sightly up from 2009 figures of 8%), so for me there is still reason for optimism.
Last edited by OPSSG; March 13th, 2010 at 07:20 PM.
Reason: included links and amended typos
I appended that to indicate the mindset prevailing in Pakistan so that one does not base one's views on merely what we think is the mindset prevailing based on our reports. That report of this journalist is a mild one. Read the vernacular media and you ears will burn with the bile being spewed and the vernacular media is the true Pakistan! It is my personal opinion that unless one knows what moves the people, one cannot formulate a plan to achieve one’s aim.
Again, that is your assumption that the vernacular media is full of bile. Ofcourse there are those who write bile but the majority of vernacular media in Pakistan actually consists of mostly sane heads - now that may not necessarily mean that they have to 'agree' with your western mindset to appear 'sane'.
Quote:
It is a common adage in most armies - Know your Enemy. And you cannot know your enemy without knowing how he ticks.
Sun Tsu said
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles.
Thus, in my wisdom, faulted that it may appear to you, I appended it. We have to know the mindset so that we can cut our coat as per the cloth!
yada yada yada.. this is not a Strategy 101 lecture.
Quote:
To believe that Pakistan is doing a whole lot against the Taliban, let us ponder a wee bit. Pakistan could crush the Baluchi rebellion which was equally bad as the Pakistani Taliban, therefore, why are they floundering in FATA and NWFP that too when the US drones are picking up the most dreaded of their militants? Could Pakistan not do it when they are but home grown and known ‘enemies’?
The US drones are the most effective ones which have really eliminated the leaders and not the Pakistanis, who are supposed to have the boots on ground and the intelligence inputs. Why did they fail and the US succeeded who have no equations with the locals overtly?
U.S drones target attacks after Pakistani human-Intel on the ground pinpoints 'em out; intel that is relayed to the Americans by Pakistanis - who, if given the drone technology - would be thrilled to take out the militant leaders themselves. U.S succeeded? U.S got lucky with the whole drone strategy; they gave it a shot when they were out of options and it produced some results, hence it was adopted as a full-fledged strategy. Let us not forget the fact that, ever since the serious COIN Ops by Pakistan Army began in Swat & now South Waziristan [with serious amount of commitment and boots on the ground, they have had 100x more success than what ISAF or the U.S have achieved in Afghanistan in more than 8yrs. No wonder American military officials were lining up to visit Swat before launching their major Op against Taliban in Marjah on the Afghan side; they wanted to replicate Pakistan's success in Swat.
Quote:
No matter what the international media would want one to believe, it is obvious that unless the Pakistani population is with the war on terror, which they are not, there is no solution and the Govt of Pak can only mouth pious platitudes.
That is a highly ignorant claim. Given the fact that I just spent 6months in Pakistan interacting with people and reading daily print-media and watching T.V talk shows on local politics; I can easily claim the Pakistani population is standing together with their government against the militants which is why the Army has been able to go in and clean up SWAT & South Waziristan.
Quote:
Pakistan has to be on board since the supply route goes through Pakistan or else as Armstrong said, they would be history!
Pakistan has to be on-board for Afghanistan's sakes and the Western alliance's face-saving in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not going anywhere. The ones to be condemned in history will be those Western boys & girls naive enough to lay down their lives for a war with no clear objective if no solution to the Afghan debacle is attained - something that requires Pakistan's approval.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
Last edited by mysterious; March 12th, 2010 at 11:44 AM.
The Pakistani Taliban, who subcribe to the same ideology and share the same goals of the Afghan Taliban have been a threat to Pakistan for quite a while. The key question IMO is whether the Pakistan government went into the tribal areas because it was really in Pakistan's interest or because it was due to pressure from Uncle Sam?
Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban have two different goals. While the Afghan Taliban want to expel Western forces out of Afghanistan, the Pakistani Taliban are made up of rival gangs of thugs who temporarily bonded together and in-so-doing, have solicited the help of Al-Qaeda, which has long stated its goal of over-throwing Pakistan's Western leaning successive governments [whether military or civilian].
Ofcourse it took some American prodding to nudge Pakistan towards action but you'd be mistaken to believe that Pakistan went in to tribal areas to take on the Afghan Taliban - a key demand made by Uncle Sam. That is NOT the case, as can be seen by the frustration expressed by countless high-ranking American officials from time to time. Pakistan Army has been clearly engaging Pakistani Taliban and crushing them.
Afghan Taliban remain an asset for Pakistan and finally the U.S is wrapping its head around the fact that there is NO way out of Afghanistan unless Pakistan is taken onboard & discussions held with the Taliban and they are made partners in terms of power-sharing - since Afghanistan is NOT Iraq where the U.S simply let most Baathists flee to Syria & set about to re-organize the political spectrum with friendlies only. Tajiks & Uzbeks cannot be allowed to rule Afghanistan without any Pashtun representation- and that comes from the Taliban.
Quote:
If the Pakistan government was really serious in taking out the local Taliban why hasn't it rooted out the jihadist elements in the military? Despite the Pakistani Taliban being a serious threat to the lnstability of Pakistan, why does the Pakistan government continue to turn a blind eye to militant activities in Pakistan which include active recruiting and fundraising, not to mention the thousands of madrassahs which continue to churn out volunteers for 'jihad'?
I would appreciate if you can space out your posts. Pakistan's government is serious about the local Taliban; infact the entire Pakistani society is. I was in Pakistan for 6months just recently and you'd be amazed at how much awareness campaigns are running across country. For example: citizen-watch programs are being constituted in areas they did not exist and revived in areas where they were in use before.
Jihadist elements in the military have been consistently sidelined, fast-tracked to retirement or even simply court-martialled since Musharraf's time. The practice continues till today. Ofcourse, nothing is fool-proof. Some residual elements will take time to get rid of.
And your statement regarding 'madrassahs churning out thousands of volunteers for jihad' is the same stereotype hyperbole that a Western-oriented mindset is still afflicted with on a daily basis. According to PEW Research Centre, Pakistani madrassahs attract only less than 3% of all school-going children and out of those madrassahs, less than 1% have any sort of extremist leanings, let alone the ones that actually churn out 'militants' which are a handful at most. The 'madrassah myth' is cliche now and very much tossed out of the equation by the academia. So dont bother.
Quote:
Pakistan's major problem is on one hand it has to please Uncle Sam who provides financial aid and some level of protection against India, but on the other hand, it has elements in its military and population who openly sympthatise with the aims of the Afghan Taliban.
Ahem! Uncle Sam doesn't provide any protection against India. Pakistan Army and its nukes do. Pakistan is not about pleasing the U.S, its more about not having many options since the global financial crisis hit the country hard & the problems compounded with the Western debacle in Afghanistan next door, consequences of which, Pakistan has to deal with.
Sympathy is not enough to run a country's overt and/or covert foreign policy objectives. Afghan Taliban are an Ace in Pakistan's deck of cards. U.S, ISAF, India, Karzai have none left. Fact of the matter is - it may be hard for you and other Westerners to swallow but without Pakistan - you cannot succeed in Afghanistan. And that is a very simple fact.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
Last edited by mysterious; March 12th, 2010 at 12:04 PM.
Ahem! Uncle Sam doesn't provide any protection against India. Pakistan Army and its nukes do. Pakistan is not about pleasing the U.S, its more about not having many options since the global financial crisis hit the country hard & the problems compounded with the Western debacle in Afghanistan next door, consequences of which, Pakistan has to deal with.
"Protection' certainly was the wrong word to use and it's was my mistake. When I used the word ''protecton'', I meant it more in the diplomatic and poltical sense rather than literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysterious
Pakistan's government is serious about the local Taliban, infact the entire Pakistani society is
All due respect but are you sure that ''the entire Pakistan society'' is serious about the local Taliban or supported the move by the army to go into SWAT and Waziristan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysterious
Fact of the matter is - it may be hard for you and other Westerners to swallow but without Pakistan - you cannot succeed in Afghanistan. And that is a very simple fact.
I have always mantained that Pakistan is very big a part of the problem and most of my posts in this thread would reflect that.
Last edited by STURM; March 12th, 2010 at 12:09 PM.
Currently, India is doing just that in Kashmir and with far less technology than the ISAF or having the advantage that the US has wherein, the US can at will extend the operations beyond the Durand Line and take on the Taliban on Pakistani soil. Also the US will not have the disadvantage that India has wherein owing to political reasons, India does not use the Airforce (except transporter), missiles, Combat UAVs, artillery or armour etc to take on the terrorists in Kashmir
While terrorism in Kashmir continues, yet it has been to a great extent brought under control.
India has forces on border manning posts that are tactically sited running all the way from the Chamb in the South and northward to Punch, on the Pir Panjal mountains to Uri and onto Tangdhar and then easterly to Gurez and thereafter to Kargil, Leh and Siachen. To do this, has four Divisions and a Brigade. The rural areas are manned by Army Rashtriya Rifles and paramilitary (BSF). Towns are guarded by police forces.
I am sure the US and ISAF with better technology, weapons, surveillance means, air, helicopters, gunship, artillery, armour, Special Ops troops and so on, can control terrorism. However, the moot point is that troops unless in abundance will find it difficult and that is what is the real chink in the armour.
The US has controlled terrorism in Iraq, and even though remnants of terrorism are making things difficult at time, the situation is better and the Iraqi government functioning.
Ray, please spare us your 'analysis' with tongue-in-cheek comments on Kashmir. Half the Indians are ignorant about what really is happening in Kashmir. If you want to draw parallels, Kashmir has more in common with Gaza & West-Bank than with Pak-Afghan border.
Uncle Sam doesn't like to see & cannot politically handle more body bags coming home wrapped up in the American flag, thats why the Durand Line is respected & treated as a red line as far as boots on the ground are concerned. Ofcourse Indians cannot be expected to understand such sensitivities considering their actions in Kashmir.
And lets leave the definition of terrorism to the academia.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
I have always mantained that Pakistan is a part of the problem and most of my posts in this thread would give support that.
And that is where you are flat wrong. Pakistan is part of the solution. Short-sighted Western policies and antics have been the problem, which is why the Afghan war has dragged on for this long. What the Americans realize today, had they done it 5yrs ago, things would've been much different.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
I have always mantained that Pakistan is a part of the problem and most of my posts in this thread would give support that.
With over 80,000 troops deployed, thousands of people died of terrorist attacks INSIDE Pakistan in 2009 and continue to die on daily basis (just two more today in Lahore), yet some lie to the world that Pakistan is part of the problem? Which other country has 80,000 troops on the ground fighting these scumbags? Not even NATO, considering size of the alliance, can muster up that many troops when US is desperate for more troops!
WITH Pakistan's help, we have caught hundreds, it not thousands, of Taliban and Al-Qaeda LEADERSHIP. Many lower rank goons were killed as well. Pakistan has launched over 3 operations INSIDE its territory against TTP and other entities that are responsible for suicide attacks and bombings on civilians. Yet, we have some who lie to the world that Pakistan is the problem. It boggles my mind, sorry.
Guys, lets stick to the facts here and support our theories or "facts" with some form of media coverage, preferably, something respected and known.
Yet, we have some who lie to the world that Pakistan is the problem. It boggles my mind, sorry.
Guys, lets stick to the facts here and support our theories or "facts" with some form of media coverage, preferably, something respected and known.
Thank you.
No one, is disputing the fact that Pakistan is suffering from the effects of terrorism or that Pakistani is playing a huge and positive role in the 'War onTerror''. Everyone here is aware that the Pakistani military is heavily engaged in eradicating the threat and as a result civillians are paying the ultimate price.
You mentioned about sticking to the facts.... Well the fact is that Pakistani support for theTaliban prior to 9//11 played a major role in the Taliban becoming a dominant force in Afghanistan. And according to some respected and known writers/journalists, elements in the Pakistani government and the military continued to provide support to the Taliban way after 9//11.
Please note that I'm not placing the blame solely on Pakistan for all the troubles effecting Afghanistan..
No one, is disputing the fact that Pakistan is suffering from the effects of terrorism or that Pakistani is playing a huge and positive role in the 'War onTerror''. Everyone here is aware that the Pakistani military is heavily engaged in eradicating the threat and as a result civillians are paying the ultimate price.
You mentioned about sticking to the facts.... Well the fact is that Pakistani support for theTaliban prior to 9//11 played a major role in the Taliban becoming a dominant force in Afghanistan. And according to some respected and known writers/journalists, elements in the Pakistani government and the military continued to provide support to the Taliban way after 9//11.
Please note that I'm not placing the blame solely on Pakistan for all the troubles effecting Afghanistan..
Pakistan isn't the issue but since we are at it, lets just get it over with.
What was Afghanistan like before Taliban and after Soviets left? What was Afghanistan and Afghan-Pakistan border like during Taliban rule? Before anything else, national security of Pakistan comes first so if I were responsible for that, I would make sure western border is as secure as possible because Pakistan's main threat is from the eastern border. What happens inside Afghanistan isn't my concern, as a person responsible for nations national security, I need to make sure it does not carry over across the border. Thats what the Pakistani intelligence did, they supported a group of people who brought peace within Afghanistan and in-turn, the region. Otherwise, we would have been fighting a different kind of war today. A war that would have resulted in thousands of Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras dead and millions of refugees in guess what? Pakistan.
If we can support dictators of middle east to ensure our national security (oil) and India for its national security can ally a communist country for over 40 years, why can't Pakistan ensure its national security by supporting a party that brought peace in Afghanistan, regardless of what they do within their borders.
Today you have drug problem in Afghanistan, there are warlords and war criminals who are ruling parts of Afghanistan who should be shot dead for their crimes against people of Afghanistan. There is a big difference between Pakistani Taliban and those inside Afghanistan. They have never collaborated, however, TTP has tried to associate themselves with Afghan Taliban but their barbaric tactics, their statements say otherwise. Have you ever noticed why NATO/ISAF/US are trying to TALK to the Afghan taliban while they continue drone attacks on TTP? That says alot about their differences and how ISAF sees them! Even the security forces recognize the difference while we have some who continue to shove theories and made up stories to the rest of the world.
Pakistan has done enough in war against terror and continues to do so, more than any other country. I think, we, here in the US should be grateful of that. We have cheerleaders who got on this anti-terrorism band wagon but have not done a thing to help with forces on the ground or through other means. When it comes to paying the ultimate price, we did and so are the Pakistanis - so other nations (cheerleaders) with 20 embassies and countless agents in Afghanistan acting like they are doing something should shut up and not hinder progress by supporting Takfiri groups inside Pakistan and use Afghanistan as launching pad for efforts against Pakistanis.
The strategy makers and those who understand the dynamics of the region as well as the situation need to keep sensitivities of Pakistan in mind, otherwise Afghanistan will never be stable.
The fact that the Emergency was only officially declared over in 1960 was I believe due to a number of factors and not due to mishandling during the start of the Emergency.Indeed it was mishandled from the start.
If it was not mishandled in 1948 the insurgency may not have lasted until 1960...check the data there was still violence into 1960. In fact, Chin Peng did not officially surrender until 1989.
Quote:
But then again, most governments faced with an insurgency threat, tend to start off underestimating the nature of the threat and the counter measures needed. IMO the difference in Malaya was that the British were relatively fast in formulating their ''hearts and minds'' programmes by winning over the Chinese population and having a clear chain of command under civilian control with various intel bodies complemeting one another and operating in unison. A major advantage the Brits in Malaya had over the Coalition in Afghanistan was a much better understanding of the local culture, customs and mindset. In pre-independance Malaya, it was common even for junior level British district officers to speak the Malay language and also in many cases Chinese.
That and the fact that the majority population-Malaya-did not join the insurgency, and the British were not always soft in their COIN application-forced removals of the Chinese population.
Quote:
A major advantage for the Brits was that the presence of British and Commonwealth troops in Malaya was not unwelcomed by the majority of the local population, who were in no hurry to see a speedy withdrawal of these troops. The timetable for British troop withdrawal from Malaya was dictated by results in the field against the MRLA and internal British politics, not by the need to sooth any fears amongst the Malayan population.
The Gurkhas were not considered colonialists though, and well you should know when the British actually set their policy. Its application was designed, at least in part, to prevent the Malayans from joining the insurgency.
Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt, here are some references:
The Malayan emergency and Indonesian confrontation : the commonwealth’s wars 1948-1966 / Robert Jackson. Barnsley, England : Pen & Sword Aviation, 2008.
Hearts and minds in guerilla warfare : the Malayan emergency, 1948-1960 / Richard Stubbs. Singapore : Eastern Universities Press, 2004.
Dialogues with Chin Peng : new light on the Malayan Communist Party : dialogues and papers originating from a workshop with Chin Peng held at the Centre for the Study of the Chinese Southern Diaspora, Australian National University, Canberra, 22-23 February 1999. Singapore : National University of Singapore, [c2004]
The Malayan Emergency, 1948-60: the domino that stood / Donald Mackay: 1st English ed. London; Washington [D.C.] : Brassey’s, 1997.
Anthony Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948-1960 (New York: Crane, Russak, 1975).
Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency; the Lessons of Malaya and Vietnam, Studies in international security 10 (New York: F. A. Praeger, 1966).
Continuing with my previous post:
-i see that borders between countries are very difficult to control, but borders for each town or city it is much simpler, two weak points, one the entry of people, we can use the airport scanners to inspect well, avoiding explosive belts etc, second the entry of vehicles, we can have official vehicles which take you out and in of the city, and you can have your car parked out the border, if you want to enter it in, to use it inside the city border you must wait for an inspection and keep parked inside the city if you want.
-other things are the routes for going out and entering to the cities or bases, we can monitore them with cameras, using as first vehicle of the row a drone for the mines, and with the frequency inhibitors..
The basis of the terrorism is the rencor, the rage from an unhappy people, with a maxima expression of the suicide, "i get rid of my life, but i kill some people" (the ones that do it voluntarily), so if we are in xxi century and we are very clever with technology and luxury for some but in terms of social system, economical system we are still inside the mess of the no-control economy. So maybe militar people could introduce a way of sustainable growth, based on self-town-city production of the basics, food, textiles, if there is poor people, very unhappy people, it will create more suicide bombings...if you are happy planting your fruits, and coming back at midday home and have a pleasurous afternoong and evening, this type of facts are stronger than any rage against "occidental" societies or jihad matters.
Cheers.
Last edited by agc33e; March 12th, 2010 at 06:44 PM.
If it was not mishandled in 1948 the insurgency may not have lasted until 1960...check the data there was still violence into 1960. In fact, Chin Peng did not officially surrender until 1989.
I fully agree, like most counter insurgencies, it was mishandled from the start. I was wrong, stating in an earlier post that it was never mishandled. Again I could be wrong here but I believe the Brits were relatively quick in formulating a sound response and strategy. Either way, success was bound to take time, it was never expected that the campaign to defeat the MRLA would be short. Part of the problem apart from the 600km border with Thailand is that Peninsular Malaysia is roughly the size of England and hunting down small groups of MRLA in the jungle was no easy task.
The original intent was to declare the Emergency over at least 2 years before 1960 but the Malayan government at the advice of the Brits waited till 1960. There was violence up to the 80's, but the key difference is the MRLA in the 70s and 80's never posed the level of threat they did in the 50's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herodotus
Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt,
Herodotus, there's no need for references. I never thought for a minute that you were ''talking out of your butt'' . As you mentioned previously, you used to work for a think-tank.
Last edited by STURM; March 13th, 2010 at 06:18 AM.
Well with the way information is distributed throughout the coalition and the way it is interpreted by the power point slide i can see why all is not going well.
. As you mentioned previously, you used to work for a think-tank.
