I'll look it up, but I'm honestly not familiar with his work. I haven't come here to refresh myself in terms of counter-insurgency theory and doctrine, which is in part what one does when you start to quote principles.
That said, the comments you made, just based on what you've said, certainly resonate with me. Those make sense to me in terms of the kinds of things one must bear in mind. On the degree to which they are or are not addressed in Afghanistan, I'm less clear.
But I think one point is very important here. We are in a coalition, an alliance. This is a NATO operation. We are under NATO command. It is at that level that those things need to be applied, not at every level all the way down. There may be arguments for some of that. To my knowledge, it is civilian controlled. NATO is civilian controlled. The operation in theatre, the UN mission there, is civilian controlled.
As to the division of command and control, I'm not clear on that in terms of what is implied there. The difficulty is that when you get into the Canadian area of David Fraser and the particular task force there, it may have a different complexion. The principles shouldn't be violated, but I'm not sure in the context--again, I haven't read the article--whether they are.
Therein lies the difficulty of drawing conclusions on a coalition effort and applying them to a national force. We're part of a bigger whole.