Frustration on the military side of the international intervention at the slow rate of planning and implementation of civilian-led projects led to an increasing military involvement in a series of rule-of-law projects, which is historically not an area that the military has been heavily involved in. he increasing emphasis on counterinsurgency led to a focus on local engagement and on building relationships with community leaders. Such "soft" approaches are at the heart of what some have described as the military's "shura strategy."76 he sense of urgency and the pace of counterinsurgency efforts meant troops were often much quicker to embrace the concept of informal justice than their civilian counterparts. he capacity of the military to provide security meant that the military was in fact better suited to deal with project implementation in unstable areas. At the same time, however, the military's focus on short-term stabilization over long-term development and its lack of experience working in some of these areas led to a series of projects that saw short-term gains but ultimately complicated local dispute resolution.77
There has been little central direction on how military units deal with informal justice mechanisms. here is no coherent policy for those units on the ground as to how they should think about or approach informal justice mechanisms. The international military has also issued few statements or directives to troops on how they should interact with informal dispute resolution bodies. One of the few exceptions to this is a document pulled together by the Interagency Planning and Implementation Team that outlines some basic issues with informal justice mechanisms but gives little concrete direction.78 his ambiguity leads the young troops on the ground to deal with local leaders as they see fit, something that they have been effective at in many cases.
The military's focus on short-term stabilization over long-term development and its lack of experience working in some of these areas led to a series of projects that saw short-term gains but ultimately complicated local dispute resolution.
Two examples of the general types of programs the international military has set up are prisoner review shuras and prisoner release shuras. he international military has embraced both these mechanisms in the hopes of creating a more effective detainee system that both processes prisoners expeditiously and is supported by local communities.
Prisoner review shuras bring together a mix of ISAF officials, representatives from the Afghan security forces-such as the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and NDS-the district governor, and community representatives to review evidence against prisoners, many of whom were detained by