Companies. After the US retreat from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, the lack of resistance from the Afghan army had not been anticipated by official reports. Shortly before the defeat, the latter still presented the image of a well-trained and well-trained Afghan army. In addition, on the basis of these observations, an abundant and modern armament had been provided to it by the American army.
These facts did not escape the notice of the United States Senate Committee of Inquiry, which questioned the highest military officials at length on the reasons for such an error in judgment (United States Senate, ” Hearing to receive testimony on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan and plans for future counterterrorism operations », September 2021). However, in the explanations reported during these hearings, we find all the deceptive effects – well described in management science – induced by reporting and indicators, when these are not based on a real understanding of realities. that they are supposed to describe.
From the outset, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin did not hide that the collapse of the Afghan army had indeed been a total surprise and that this event revealed “Uncomfortable truths”, that had not been taken into account and needed to be better understood. Sharing this position, General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff, can only explain the facts by the withdrawal of American advisers from the Afghan army. He added that we can “Count planes, trucks, etc.” “ but that it is not possible to “Read the hearts of soldiers without being there”.
And when an investigator noticed that many alerts on the ground contrasted with the continuing optimism of official reports, it was General Kenneth McKenzie, Commander-in-Chief, to admit that he “Accepted this criticism” and that the “Gap between the field and the hierarchy” deserved a thorough investigation to remedy it.
Drifts and perverse effects
The specialists of this war will perhaps dispute these explanations. But they closely correspond to the excesses and perverse effects to which a fetishistic and bureaucratic use of reporting leads. Phenomena already well observed in all types of organization.
Because between controller and controlled, between executor and manager, no reporting can replace dialogue and critical analysis of local situations. In their absence, reporting changes function. It no longer acts as a knowledge sharing tool. It tends to produce an artificial image intended to protect the base and to reassure leaders who are reluctant to understand reality.
You have 19.03% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.