What Is The Dual Approach

Part Two – The “Dual” Approach

In the face of these flaws, this essay proposes a “dual” approach would be more effective in enhancing both human and state security. This “dual” approach recognizes the synchronicity of Human Security and State security, meaning that the relationship between the two concepts is less of a “cause and effect” relationship, but rather that the advancement of one is likely to relate to the advancement of the other, and the degradation of one will likely result in the degradation of the other. As a “dual” approach, state security and human security and viewed as twin primary objectives, and therefore, policy should be made considering both state-centric and human-centric factors. The former regards advancing sovereignty, …show more content…
By accepting the synchronous dynamic between Human Security and State Security, policy makers could have better addressed the issues facing Afghanstan. The conventional warfare, only then followed by the Bonn agreement and counter-insurgency measures reflected the traditional “state-centric” approach, reflected in the disproportionate amount of military assistance compared to civilian aid, attempting to address human and state security as independent issues. This greatly undermined the goals of the operation. Had international policy makers taken the “dual approach”; attacking the situation on the premise that, as long as human insecurity existed, so would state insecurity, reduction of poverty and civilian casualties would have been given the same priority as neutralizing the Taliban. This would have combated the insurgency on two fronts; by working on enhancing human security and therefore reducing the temptation for Afghan citizens to turn to the Taliban and also by directly targeting the Taliban, though with the goal of fewer civilian casualties, in order to disrupt the organisation, by addressing both the cause and effect, this helps to break the cycle. This approach would additional prevent resentment of foreign forces as considering “human-centric” factors would result in fewer …show more content…
By relegating human security to a secondary goal, policy makers failed to recognize the synchronous dynamic between human and state security, leading to inefficient and often counterproductive results. A “dual approach” seeks to view human and state security as equally important objectives, seeking to secure the state and individuals with a more “grass roots” approach that addresses the causes and effects of conflict in a more “human-centric” manner. As scholars assess the successes and failures of the intervention in Afghanistan in the years to come, perhaps policy makers may address future conflicts in an alternative