"ICOS/Senlis Report On Afghanistan Flawed Methodology"

A post by Raphael Alexander:

An international think tank is being cited in the media as having reported that the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72 per cent of Afghanistan "as the Taliban continues to expand its territorial influence". The report by the International Council on Security and Development [formerly the Senlis Council] says that it's up from 54% last year. Some of the other frightening developments say that Kabul is under siege, the current ISAF forces are woefully inadequate [true], and "the Taliban has rooted itself across increasing swathes of Afghan territory." "The Taliban are now dictating terms in Afghanistan, both politically and militarily," said the report.

Now, I don't have reason to believe the Senlis Council has a partisan bias or intent to spread propaganda for the Taliban as suggested by Ron Hoffmann:

"On one hand, the report points to the effectiveness of the Taliban propaganda efforts. But I have to say that whenever a Senlis report comes out, it must be a red letter day for the Taliban propaganda machine," Ron Hoffmann, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, told The Canadian Press from Afghanistan.

They supported John Manley's multipartisan recommendations to the Prime Minister during the assessment of the Afghan mission early this year. They also believe the solutions to the military conflict include an increase in NATO troops to quell the violence. No, what seems to be flawed here is their methodology:

It defined permanent presence as being the site of at least one insurgent attack each week.

[...]

The ICOS said ``the West is in genuine danger of losing Afghanistan'' and that the Taliban is gaining support because of poppy eradication, continued poverty and civilian casualties.

It recommends a doubling of NATO forces and more aid programs along, with greater efforts by the West to cut down on civilian casualties in the fighting.

I don't see anything partisan or propaganda about that, but I think it's safe to say that one insurgent attack per week does not constitute a control of territory. Brigadier-General Denis Thompson estimates insurgent groups command no more than 20 per cent of support from the Afghan people and disputes the claims made by ICOS/Senlis. Also from the comments of CTV, the true story from the boots on the ground:

A Canadian In kandahar,

I am there now. I call b******* on the report! I can show you first hand we are killing them at least 100 to our 1. I also shake hands daily with the local population and look them square in the eye. They want to win, and they are on our side. However, more Troops will show the local population, and the Taliban, that we are serious about securing Afghanistan and rebuilding its country!

I don't think we should be shunning the ICOS evaluation as propaganda, but using their recommendations as a means to promote the mission among NATO nation members and reminding this country of the imperative of success and the importance of finding some stability and security for the country. The fact is that much of the Taliban's "presence" is based on nothing more than intimidation and IED's. Canadian soldiers are never beaten in armed combat against the Taliban, nor are there reports they fight them openly very often. This is a guerrilla insurgency, and by using the methodology that one insurgent strike per week is what constitutes an area of "permanent presence" is not helpful to the true assessment of the situation.