Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
The paper looks at what worked - and didn't - in 7 US partnerships with irregular forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Forces ranged from entities like the ALP that were integrated into national security structures, to the SDF in Syria to Tribal Mobilization forces in Iraqpic.twitter.com/MAFmcaFJJz
The contrast between US action in Syria versus elsewhere is particularly striking. Politics played an outsized role in constraining the options for accountability and oversight – in a way that didn’t happen, for example, in partnerships in Afghanistan
Atop political constraints, there was a hulking bureaucracy to deal with. Some vetting efforts were so slow that they ultimately set partnerships up to fail Vetting is obviously important -- but purely bureaucratic, checklist-type approaches just aren't effective or appropriate
The interesting part about this is that the focus on tactical ‘due diligence’ basically allowed policymakers to avoid thinking about their strategic, long term choice in these contexts That was arguably the *biggest risk* of allpic.twitter.com/mI2VBE7YWn
For more on the practical challenges and what might be done differently, join me, @ericagaston, Carter Malkasian & Ivan M. Nielsen
Monday, June 14
15:00 CEST // 14:00 UK // 09:00 US/EDT
Register
https://odi.org/en/events/regulating-irregular-actors-in-afghanistan-iraq-and-syria/ …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
