Waging War in Waziristan: The British Struggle in the Land of Bin Laden, 1849-1947 [Hardcover]

"Waging War in Waziristan" examines British security operations on the North-West Frontier in an effort to find parallels to - and lessons for - the West's current engagement in Afghanistan today. Largely absent the "Great Game" or "Ripping Yarns" flavour of most military-themed works on the topic (not only is there little in the way of individual heroics, but there is very little examination of tactical experience below the brigade/battalion level), this is really a discussion of British practice and policy in Waziristan from the operational perspective. The authors' discussion of how strategic policy choices were made is sound enough (Defend forward, back or in-between? Contain or pacify and transform?), but the real emphasis is on how the Army of India and Indian Political Service sought to execute and enforce these strategic policy choices. To this end, developments in policy and the diverse perspectives of soldiers and "politicals" are clearly explained and engage the reader's interest.

Despite being well written, interesting and informative, I am not convinced that the author has achieved his stated aim with this work - his argument that the British system of border control was effective relies on the assumption that the measures which best supported the strategic objective of containment at the least cost equalled effectiveness. Noting that Britain faced essentially the same security dilemma in 1947 as almost a hundred years before - and that social conditions in Waziristan remained virtually identical - it can be argued that the combination of containment and forward defence wasn't the best long-term strategic choice after all and that British operational practice at best mitigated the effects of these strategic choices. The authors view of Waziristan as a military security dilemma is reflected in the military-centric analysis which leaves other perspectives and potential options unexplored - the Army, IPS and (in later years) the RAF all have a voice, but external influences such as the media, western NGOs (largely in the form of missionary movements) or foreign governments are discussed in passing only. Finally, while I found myself agreeing with some of the authors discussion of lessons learnt (the observations relating to tactical organisation and practice between pages 215 and 227 seem pretty relevant today), the previous lack of examination of small-unit action and practice makes me wonder how the author arrived at these conclusions - and why I so readily agreed. Would a reader not shaped by similar professional experience be so readily convinced?

While it is refreshing to read a book on this topic not focused on ex-public schoolboy heroics, some more discussion and detail from the tactical perspective would have been useful (try Bugles and a Tiger (Cassell Military Paperbacks) by John Masters for an excellent first-person tactical perspective). For lucidity and research (not to mention making more productive use of his time between Afghanistan tours than I did), the author gets five stars, while his arguments get three - average of four stars overall. I would be very interested in the thoughts of a reviewer without a military background - perhaps I have been a bit inclined to see things from the authors' perspective.

[Roe] "explains how they sought to counter Russian expansionism in Central Asia, which was seen as a threat to tribal autonomy in India's North-West Frontier;"

Ah, that's what it was, the British sought to counter Russian expansionism in Central Asia, the Russians' backyard, because the British were so concerned about the wellbeing of the natives they took over.

Perfidious Albion, of course, was interested in tribal autonomy. There was no self interested expansionism involved when the British left their dirty island to take over larges swathes of the world where people were too weak to resist.

The Christian missionaries on the other hand, like William Carey, did care about the well being of natives, especially their eternal well being. That aspect of British imperialism, colonialism and expansionism has to be commended, though from what I've read, missionaries were a fly in the ointment for British imperialists.