An Unorthodox View of Insurgency/Counterinsurgency

[Sargent]

Ok, I've been working on this one since my first tour as a single-by-deployment parent. It's a bit cheeky, but as the old saying goes, many a true word is said in jest. This is the unorthodox view I referenced in the Yingling thread.

Comments and additional "slides" are welcome. Normally I'm opposed to power-point, but in this case, the visuals work -- lot's of good, visceral imagery.


"Babies and Insurgents: Why Raising Children Is Like Fighting a Counter-Insurgency"

Consider:

- Cartoon of parent throttling baby in a circle with a slash through it to illustrate the point that you don't win by physically crushing the baby. Even though you can. And sometimes really, _really_ want to -- sort of. It's that brief moment of insanity, in which we are all mostly lucky for not acting on the idea.

- A Little Rascals picture of one of them kicking an adult. Several shots from Home Alone. Etc. These illustrate the point that they can hurt you to their hearts content. With glorious impugnity.

- A picture of other people smiling over the cute baby. A freedom fighter would kill for this kind of press. Highlights the point that the insurgent is often ahead in the PR campaign, whereas the side with the preponderance of power usually finds itself coming up short on this front. If Van Creveld is correct (On Future War), the obviously stronger side is _always_ going to have a PR problem.

- A visual of a parent holding a crying baby in her arms, Tuesday on the calendar, with one of those thought clouds coming out of her head with another visual of the same set-up, except the baby is happy -- on a calendar in this view it says Monday. What worked yesterday may not work today, and today's victories could be tomorrow's tragedies.

- I can't think of a visual for this one, but it's where you solve one problem and simultaneously create another in its place. If you're a parent, I'm sure you've done this. If you find a route that is not laced with IEDs, it's probably got a few corners with ambushes.

- A corollary to the above -- just walking right into a problem all on your own. Like when you offer something and then can't do it and now you've raised expectations. You just step into the s*&t [FN] all on your own.

- A picture of a parent, done up like a Secret Service agent, doing the throw him/herself in front of the proverbial bullet dive. Even though they drive you crazy, you'd die for your kids. This is the idea that, even when the locals seem to be working against you, you have to be willing to do anything to protect them, so that they don't become insurgents. You have to prove that you have their security and well-being as your priority.

- How to train for the mission: Photo of a Marine PFC/Army Private in full combat gear holding an infant -- if he can keep that thing happy and safe for a month on his own he'll have an idea of what will be needed of him on a deployment to a CI. Scarier, in many respects, than SERE school.


Enjoy.


===================
[FN] I believe that reference to expletives in military history is both necessary, and one of the great bits of fun about the subject -- come on, we talk about some tragic stuff, let us have our moments of levity. I've referred to one of my favorite quotes, from Chosin, where the Marine, after being asked -- by a female reporter, no less -- what the most difficult part of the campaign was, responds, in a morphine induced haze, trying to get 4 inches of [grocery store muzak] out of 6 inches of clothing to urinate. As irreverant as reference to that quote might be, I do find it instructive. Another of my theories is the 4/6ths Principle -- that is, on the battlefield, all you'll ever get is 4/6th of what you need. The art is in making up the deficit. Exemplified by the John Wayne quote, "That's not all I've got, that's what I've got," from Rio Bravo. John Wayne could get away with it because his actual ass was on the line. It's not for the SecDef to say -- it represents his [albeit possibly honest] failure to do his job. The operational commander gets to make this sort of gruff comment that he'll make do with whatever he's given. [Rio Bravo being one of my favorite movies, with a great musical interlude by Martin and Nelson -- here's a link, but don't click on it unless you want to hear the song, because it comes up on its own.]
http://solosong.net/dino/rifle/rifle.html

[sullygoarmy]

Sargent,
GREAT analogies that I think even our youngest trooper can relate to, especially if he/she is a parent! For your one bullet without a visual (solve on problem and create another in its place), I imagine taking a toy away from one of my kids, put it down and the other takes the same damn toy! Always a problem!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I think you've hit on a relevant, easy to use way of describing how to win/lose in COIN!

[120mm]

As well as a nearly endless supply of COIN warriors among the women who are raising children. Hell, I bet a bunch of them would volunteer to go to Iraq/Afghanistan just to be able to take a break from the kids.:)

The question is; would we have to pay them to go fight insurgents or would they pay us for the opportunity to do something more restful than raising children?:D

My wife uses a tactic known as "mommy's mad at the world, and it's time to be very, very good." There are certain nation-states that might need this tactic. :eek:

[Sargent]

Ok, you both made me laugh out loud with your responses.

I forgot another slide, and I don't know quite how/where it fits in. But it's the idea that, caretaking and taking a lot of difficulties aside, the parents also have to be a force for discipline in a child's life. They can't just let the children rule the roost -- ultimately that is only to the child's detriment, as they learn later in life that they aren't the be all end all of everything and that some people don't take kindly to spoiled brats. Maybe it's the "law and order" piece -- that is, as beneficent as you must be in certain respects, you also can't be too indulgent, you have to establish laws that must be followed by all or there will be consequences. Maybe the visual for this is a three picture scenario, first one is the child being told no cookies, second one is the child with the hand in the cookie jar, and third one is the child sitting in a corner on a time out (or, if it's not too offensive, holding his bum because it's just been spanked).

On the "take a bullet slide" I've got a scenario from OIF I'd like to put forward to illustrate and see what folks think about it. A fair bit of the grunt work of the insurgency is being done by regular Iraqi folk who aren't necessarily committed, but who need the money, and who don't want to get on the wrong side of the insurgents. You know, they emplace the IED or trigger it, eg. Or they're one of the prayers and sprayers who work in support of the A-Game guys. Now, let's say you catch the guy. What if, instead of putting them in jail, you offered them something better. You empathize with their situation, and you find out what they'd rather have. What did the guy do before? If he operated a little kabob cart, what if you offer a micro-loan or business grant to open a kabob shop? Maybe they won't all go for it, but some will, probably more than half. Once you get some going for it, I think you'd see a snowball effect. Or perhaps I'm just a bright-eyed optimist.

[carl]

A fair bit of the grunt work of the insurgency is being done by regular Iraqi folk who aren't necessarily committed, but who need the money, and who don't want to get on the wrong side of the insurgents. You know, they emplace the IED or trigger it, eg. Or they're one of the prayers and sprayers who work in support of the A-Game guys. Now, let's say you catch the guy. What if, instead of putting them in jail, you offered them something better. You empathize with their situation, and you find out what they'd rather have. What did the guy do before? If he operated a little kabob cart, what if you offer a micro-loan or business grant to open a kabob shop? Maybe they won't all go for it, but some will, probably more than half. Once you get some going for it, I think you'd see a snowball effect. Or perhaps I'm just a bright-eyed optimist.

I think it is a good idea. I've read that turning the enemy to fight for your side is one the hallmarks of small wars won.

[120mm]

In the very beginning of the "insurgency" we had developed an agreement with the locals. Some Fedeyeen strongman had kidnapped some family members, and dropped off a mortar and some rounds. If the farmers didn't fire the mortars on the base, they'd get their relatives back... one piece at a time. So, we allowed the farmers to fire on the "base", as long as the mortar fire impacted in an area that was "safe", our patrols wouldn't kill them.

I don't know what we could've promised the farmers to make them "not shoot" the mortar; as it was, after about 6 months, both the Fedeyeen and "Big Army" caught on to our "agreement" and it was back to being enemies again.

I'm a little disturbed by the Iraqi Populace = Children piece, (White Man's Burden and all that) but I have to say, you found an unexpected and accurate parallel with your unconventional view on COIN.

BTW - Would it be okay to yell at the Iraqis something like "If you guys say one more word, I'm going to turn this war around and go straight back home. And we're never going back!";)

[Sargent]

In the very beginning of the "insurgency" we had developed an agreement with the locals. Some Fedeyeen strongman had kidnapped some family members, and dropped off a mortar and some rounds. If the farmers didn't fire the mortars on the base, they'd get their relatives back... one piece at a time. So, we allowed the farmers to fire on the "base", as long as the mortar fire impacted in an area that was "safe", our patrols wouldn't kill them.

I don't know what we could've promised the farmers to make them "not shoot" the mortar; as it was, after about 6 months, both the Fedeyeen and "Big Army" caught on to our "agreement" and it was back to being enemies again.

I'm a little disturbed by the Iraqi Populace = Children piece, (White Man's Burden and all that) but I have to say, you found an unexpected and accurate parallel with your unconventional view on COIN.

BTW - Would it be okay to yell at the Iraqis something like "If you guys say one more word, I'm going to turn this war around and go straight back home. And we're never going back!";)

Interesting about the mortars... I don't really know how this all works in reality, it's more of a directional idea (a la Builder and Dewar's idea of "planning" from an article in Parameters back in the 90s).

I totally get your point about the "white man's burden" aspect. I suppose that piece works better when you are fighting an insurgency within your own country. But really, it just goes to the point that law and order are necessary in the process of ending an insurgency/establishing a secure setting. In Iraq, this part might have to be done by the locals.

[Sargent]

BTW - Would it be okay to yell at the Iraqis something like "If you guys say one more word, I'm going to turn this war around and go straight back home. And we're never going back!";)

Only if you promise not to use an "I'll give you something to cry about!" No kidding, I've actually said that -- and delivered on the promise, once -- to my son. Ooops.

[VinceC]

"Are we there yet? Are we there yet?":)

What I love about this brilliant analogy is that it is something every human being on the planet can relate to as obvious common sense, because even if childless, we've all been children.

I desperately wish this idea wasn't so deeply enmeshed with the "white man's burden" notion of paternalism/maternalism, because the actual techniques are among the oldest behavior-development tools in the human arsenal.

Perhaps you can get beyond the paternalism/maternalism idea by relating this to group dynamics and social persuasion ... where success also requires repetition, restraint, simplicity of message, and an ability to relentlessly focus on the long-term goal in every day-to-day activity. Everything I need to know about COIN I learned in Kindergarten.

As I read through this, I keep being reminded of Fallujah in the spring of '04, when the four contractors were butchered. My unorthodox view of this is that one of the reasons the U.S. government hires the security contractors and pays them six-figure tax-free salaries is because they are risking their lives with the implicit understanding that, if their bodies were dragged through the streets, the news footage won't show dead American soldiers. In Fallujah, we collectively lost sight of this pragmatic reality and instead declared war on a city. It's as though we became guilty of shaken-baby syndrome.

[wm]

While I find the analogy to child-rearing compelling, I think you may have focussed on the wrong age group in your analysis.

I believe that we are dealing with something more akin to teenagers rather than younger munchkins. I think an approach like that used by Kevin Kline with his son in the 2001 movie "Life as a House" might be worth investigating.

BTW "Rio Bravo" may be the Duke's best picture, IMHO. I'm particularly partial to the scene where Stumpy's (Walter Brennan's character) complaining about conflicting guidance from Marshall Chance.

[Sargent]

While I find the analogy to child-rearing compelling, I think you may have focussed on the wrong age group in your analysis.

I believe that we are dealing with something more akin to teenagers rather than younger munchkins. I think an approach like that used by Kevin Kline with his son in the 2001 movie "Life as a House" might be worth investigating.

BTW "Rio Bravo" may be the Duke's best picture, IMHO. I'm particularly partial to the scene where Stumpy's (Walter Brennan's character) complaining about conflicting guidance from Marshall Chance.

The teenagers are more like dedicated AQ -- there's nothing you can do about them!

Seriously, part of the point of using the baby/small child as the object is to make clear the physical/strength disparities -- and how they don't matter. The initial point of comparison that occurred to me was that you are bigger and stronger than the baby, but killing the baby isn't victory, it is most definitely defeat. It is the similar situation to a Counterinsurgency -- you don't win by applying your overwhelming force -- in fact, that's often how you lose. That is, you can't lash out because they've made you insane.

On a separate note, regarding the paternalism piece, I do not mean to suggest that the Counterinsurgent side is the "parent" in the conflict. I mean only to suggest that many of the same ideas that govern parenting also governing the conduct of a counterinsurgency. I want to shake the notion that winning is fighting and killing insurgents and other similar activities.

[VinceC]

With teenagers (I have experience on both ends here), it's really a test of how well you've done during the pre-teen rearing phase, with the caveat that there are too many variables for you to have had control over the outcome. Plenty of good adults had lousy parents, and vice versa.

The goal is to have given teenagers the behavior tools and experiences for them to have a greater chance of success as they respond to their hard-wired need to drive away from the group that nurtured them and find a new social group of their own. This remarkable evolutionary trait accomplishes two things -- physcially, it minimizes inter-breeding; and socially, it provides a mobility that allows each generation to take a critical look at the received wisdom and knowledge of the larger culture.

Or, as my wife would say, they go insane at age 14 and, sometime around 22, get over it.

It's helpful to understand this social dynamic from a COIN point of view, because our soldiers are teenagers or recent teens who have broken away from their nurturing group and have found a new social group in which to belong. At this age -- 18 to 22 -- humans can be intensely passionate about believing in and defending their newly adopted group and its values. On the other hand, their potential insurgent adversaries are of the same age cohort and believe just as fervently and inflexibly in their chosen values.

[wm]

Seriously, part of the point of using the baby/small child as the object is to make clear the physical/strength disparities -- and how they don't matter. The initial point of comparison that occurred to me was that you are bigger and stronger than the baby, but killing the baby isn't victory, it is most definitely defeat. It is the similar situation to a Counterinsurgency -- you don't win by applying your overwhelming force -- in fact, that's often how you lose. That is, you can't lash out because they've made you insane.

On a separate note, regarding the paternalism piece, I do not mean to suggest that the Counterinsurgent side is the "parent" in the conflict. I mean only to suggest that many of the same ideas that govern parenting also governing the conduct of a counterinsurgency. I want to shake the notion that winning is fighting and killing insurgents and other similar activities.


My reason for suggesting the teen rather than the younger set is rooted in a view of the whole person. Parents of teens can apply overwhelming force in two different ways--they have the superior mental/rational card
(also known as "age and experience") which they can use to browbeat those teens. They also still have physical power over the teens quite often ("age and cunning will beat youth and brute strength every time")

On a separate, but related, note you seem to have been hoisted on your own pitard here.
While you say you want to shake the notion of winning via violence, your analogy seems largely to focus on just that aspect of the parent-child relationship. Your stated goal leads to another reason for my response focussed on teens: they, at least sometimes, are amenable to reason (while the babies and toddlers in your hypothetical slides are not). Parents just have to figure out what kinds of reasoning works with their teens. This is sort of like a clash between two cultures, which seems to characterize most COIN efforts that are not completely run from inside the affected country by its own forces. BTW, many teens are caught in the same conundrum: trying to figure out how to talk to their parents about their issue, they lack the common ground which causes their all-too-frequently-heard outcries of "Mom (or Dad), you just don't understand." Parents quite often do understand the issue; they just don't share the language (AKA cultural commonalities) to be able to express that understanding.

[Sargent]

My reason for suggesting the teen rather than the younger set is rooted in a view of the whole person. Parents of teens can apply overwhelming force in two different ways--they have the superior mental/rational card
(also known as "age and experience") which they can use to browbeat those teens. They also still have physical power over the teens quite often ("age and cunning will beat youth and brute strength every time")

On a separate, but related, note you seem to have been hoisted on your own pitard here.
While you say you want to shake the notion of winning via violence, your analogy seems largely to focus on just that aspect of the parent-child relationship. Your stated goal leads to another reason for my response focussed on teens: they, at least sometimes, are amenable to reason (while the babies and toddlers in your hypothetical slides are not). Parents just have to figure out what kinds of reasoning works with their teens. This is sort of like a clash between two cultures, which seems to characterize most COIN efforts that are not completely run from inside the affected country by its own forces. BTW, many teens are caught in the same conundrum: trying to figure out how to talk to their parents about their issue, they lack the common ground which causes their all-too-frequently-heard outcries of "Mom (or Dad), you just don't understand." Parents quite often do understand the issue; they just don't share the language (AKA cultural commonalities) to be able to express that understanding.

I don't disagree with your critique of the idea. But I would submit that we don't even have a good, commonly understood starting point. Consider the "teen" piece as advanced Counterinsurgency, whereas the "baby" piece is remedial. We have such a strong tradition of force=war=winning, and that needs to be broken down in order to begin the process of learning how to do COIN correctly. Alternatively, the "baby" piece might be how to deal with the part of counterinsurgency where there is still quite a bit of violence afoot, and the "teen" piece is how to navigate the point when you've gotten the insurgents to stop fighting (for the most part) and now you have to deal with them politically.

Does that lower my petard?

[marct]

Hi Sargent,

I don't disagree with your critique of the idea. But I would submit that we don't even have a good, commonly understood starting point. Consider the "teen" piece as advanced Counterinsurgency, whereas the "baby" piece is remedial. We have such a strong tradition of force=war=winning, and that needs to be broken down in order to begin the process of learning how to do COIN correctly. Alternatively, the "baby" piece might be how to deal with the part of counterinsurgency where there is still quite a bit of violence afoot, and the "teen" piece is how to navigate the point when you've gotten the insurgents to stop fighting (for the most part) and now you have to deal with them politically.

Why not combine them and, at the same time, add in some "grand parent" figures as the local sheiks? After all, one of the serious problems with the baby issue is that "White Man's Burden" imagery and that could be corrected with having the local elders in a grandparent role - it also reinforces the idea that it is okay to ask for advice (aka babysitting) and you are a twit if you don't.

Marc

[wm]

I don't disagree with your critique of the idea. But I would submit that we don't even have a good, commonly understood starting point. Consider the "teen" piece as advanced Counterinsurgency, whereas the "baby" piece is remedial. We have such a strong tradition of force=war=winning, and that needs to be broken down in order to begin the process of learning how to do COIN correctly. Alternatively, the "baby" piece might be how to deal with the part of counterinsurgency where there is still quite a bit of violence afoot, and the "teen" piece is how to navigate the point when you've gotten the insurgents to stop fighting (for the most part) and now you have to deal with them politically.


The baby treatment piece is not really remedial. Rather it is part of a graduated response depending on where one is in the insurgency. It goes with Baby insurgencies (I think they used to call them Phase I--those that are just starting and/or have very little popular support). Being too heavy handed with anti-insurgency tactics sways public opinion towards the insurgents. Humor the bad behavior, and we hope it goes away. If it doesn't (as with Baby Dumpling now not only blowing raspberries, but blowing raspberries with a mouth full of food every time s/he's fed), perhaps more coercive measures need to be applied. But, as the Wicked Witch of the West says in The Wizard of Oz ,"These thing have to be done delicately." Graduated responses go along with the various phases of insurgency--I think the current operations in SWA require a more teen-parent-like solution since this is no Phase I Insurrection (and probably never was).
BTW, I think categorizing insurgencies as Phase I, II, II, etc. is a mistake. Insurgencies occupy a continuum going from limited popular support to massive popular support.
Does that lower my pitard?
Petards (my bad for previous uncaught misspelling) usually cannot be unhoisted, just as, more germane to the alleged origin of the phrase, "gas, once passed, cannot be recaptured."

[TROUFION]

pe·tard
–noun 1. an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.
2. a kind of firecracker.
3. (initial capital letter) Also called Flying Dustbin. a British spigot mortar of World War II that fired a 40-pound (18 kg) finned bomb, designed to destroy pillboxes and other concrete obstacles.
—Idiom4. hoist by or with one's own petard, hurt, ruined, or destroyed by the very device or plot one had intended for another.

[Origin: 1590–1600; < MF, equiv. to pet(er) to break wind (deriv. of pet < L péditum a breaking wind, orig. neut. of ptp. of pédere to break wind) + -ard -ard]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pe·tard (pĭ-tärd') Pronunciation Key
n.
A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall.
A loud firecracker.

[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pēditum, from neuter past participle of pēdere, to break wind; see pezd- in Indo-European roots.]

Word History: The French used pétard, "a loud discharge of intestinal gas," for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. "To be hoist by one's own petard," a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means "to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices." The French noun pet, "fart," developed regularly from the Latin noun pēditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd-, "fart."

[Sargent]

Yipes, tough crowd. No more word jokes from me.

[Van]

The 'teen' analogy in COIN: Not a bad analogy; rebelling at everything for rebellion's sake, irrational, driven by hormones rather than conscious thought and reason, seeking affirmation and validation from their peers and the world at large, willing to use destructive methods to satisfy short-sighted desires, seeking causes greater than themselves and thereby falling in on self-serving and manipulitive leaders. And insurgents are pretty difficult people too.

One key piece that reinforces the analogy; shaped by the media. Teens (at least American teens) and insurgents are victims of the mass media. They see self-destructive behavior rewarded with media attention and approval, and they just have to get some of that for themselves. Granted, different media have different motivations. American media are about the profit margin first, last, and always, and sometimes allow personal issues to intrude. Middle Eastern gov't managed media are about stability of the gov't that manages them, so creating issues outside their own borders to draw attention from corruption inside their borders is the order of the day. The end effect is the same - less than mature viewers learn dangerous and destructive lessons from the talking heads. I would wager that the average American 14 yr old and the average insurgent foot soldier (not leader) have similar levels of emotional development. A scary thought.

Re: "White Man's Burden" - there's a big stigma on that phrase, but when you're dealing with populations that won't acknowledge cause and effect, or instantly ascribe "Will of God" as the only cause to all effects, it's hard not to slip toward that role. How do you get a population to accept responsibility for their actions without taking something of a patriariachal or matriarical role?

[tequila]

Re: "White Man's Burden" - there's a big stigma on that phrase, but when you're dealing with populations that won't acknowledge cause and effect, or instantly ascribe "Will of God" as the only cause to all effects, it's hard not to slip toward that role. How do you get a population to accept responsibility for their actions without taking something of a patriariachal or matriarical role?
Interesting. I think this idea represents a genuine blockade in any attempt to really wage "empathetic" warfare. If one knows what is better for the population than the population itself --- moreover, that one understands the population and their varied situations so well that this sort of judgment appears valid --- then how can one not treat the natives as "half-devil and half-child (http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/922/)"?

[Sargent]

I am concerned that the concern regarding the "White Man's Burden" suggests a too literal interpretation of the "parent" analogy. The point is not to say that forces deployed to COIN should think of themselves as parents. Rather, it is to say that the two endeavors -- parenting and COIN -- present many similar challenges and require a similar skill set to succeed. The comparison is metaphorical, at least in my mind.

[marct]

I am concerned that the concern regarding the "White Man's Burden" suggests a too literal interpretation of the "parent" analogy. The point is not to say that forces deployed to COIN should think of themselves as parents. Rather, it is to say that the two endeavors -- parenting and COIN -- present many similar challenges and require a similar skill set to succeed. The comparison is metaphorical, at least in my mind.

Good point but, like many metaphors, large numbers of the target audience will assume it is true - with all of their connotations. That was one of the reasons I suggested using images of Sheiks as grandparents - it can modify the White Man's Burden theme while, at the same time, re-inforcing the message that working with the Sheiks is an excellent tactic.

Marc

[Sargent]

Good point but, like many metaphors, large numbers of the target audience will assume it is true - with all of their connotations. That was one of the reasons I suggested using images of Sheiks as grandparents - it can modify the White Man's Burden theme while, at the same time, re-inforcing the message that working with the Sheiks is an excellent tactic.

Marc

Marc, I think we're getting way ahead of anything my little metaphor is meant to accomplish. I don't have many pretensions that this goes much further than collegial discussion amongst myself and my varied colleagues. I certainly don't think this should ever be used as doctrine, as written. Rather, at most it is to set a frame of reference, give someone an idea of the sort of mindset that COIN requires. It's a way to understand COIN as different from conventional warfare. Nobody thinks that warfare is really _like_ football, but if you want to describe aspects of linear warfare, the football analogy works. (Although, I think rugby is a better analogy, but that's another point.) Even if it were taken "literally" there is perfectly good military language that describes the points without the ma/paternalistic slant.

[wm]

Interesting. I think this idea represents a genuine blockade in any attempt to really wage "empathetic" warfare. If one knows what is better for the population than the population itself --- moreover, that one understands the population and their varied situations so well that this sort of judgment appears valid --- then how can one not treat the natives as "half-devil and half-child (http://www.online-literature.com/kipling/922/)"?

Perhaps this reponse really belongs in the empathetic warfare thread, but I tend to agree that the whole idea of a paternalistic approach to solving the problem is a mistake. I further think that an appeal to Kipling is rather mistaken. IMO, a better voice from British South Asian colonial rule, one which points out the problems with a paternalistic approach, is found in George Orwell’s essays from his time in Burma. I heartily suggest reading “Shooting an Elephant” (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/) and “A Hanging” (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/888/)

[slapout9]

There are a lot of good points in using a family analogy particularly when it has a backdrop of tribal type warfare because family and Kin Folks are heavily involved on both sides. As for methods of attack it is extremely close to stalking and counter-stalking situations because you have that aspect of hidden or secretive enemies that often have extreme freedom of movement because they are hidden or unknown.

[VinceC]

Nobody thinks that warfare is really _like_ football, but if you want to describe aspects of linear warfare, the football analogy works.

Sports analogies for warfare have had tragic results. They give the impression that the civilians and non-combatants sit on the sidelines and aren't involved. A better analogy might be rugby with hand grenades in a crowded multi-level shopping mall.

[Sargent]

Perhaps this reponse really belongs in the empathetic warfare thread, but I tend to agree that the whole idea of a paternalistic approach to solving the problem is a mistake. I further think that an appeal to Kipling is rather mistaken. IMO, a better voice from British South Asian colonial rule, one which points out the problems with a paternalistic approach, is found in George Orwell’s essays from his time in Burma. I think the appeal to Kipling is rather mistaken. A better voice from British colonial rule is, IMHO, George Orwell’s essays from his time in Burma. I heartily suggest reading “Shooting an Elephant” (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/) and “A Hanging” (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/888/)

Again, I will say that if these are the criticisms of the idea, then I am not being adequately clear. I do not at all mean to suggest that there ought to be a paternalistic or patronizing slant to this. I don't think that a force fighting a counterinsurgency ought to think of themselves as "parents."

Go back to the first point in the "presentation" -- you can't kill the baby, that's not being a successful parent. It is neither successful in COIN to kill the locals. If a baby is always fawned upon, then in COIN you have to remember that the insurgents and locals will always have better PR. If as a parent you would do anything to protect the baby, then in COIN you have to see your role as protecting the locals, and sometimes even the insurgents.

For example, in a real life case: an IED trigger puller is captured, the jundi are beating the guy, probably going to kill him, and an American Lt. advisor jumps on the prisoner, as if to hit him, and stays there, thus stopping the beating. I doubt the Lt. thought of himself as a parent, but he used an instinct that is common to parents, to protect the "object" despite all the terrible things it may have done in the past. There was no paternalism involved, but the actions were similar.

I suppose it's time to get back to the drawing board to set the idea properly.

[marct]

Sports analogies for warfare have had tragic results. They give the impression that the civilians and non-combatants sit on the sidelines and aren't involved. A better analogy might be rugby with hand grenades in a crowded multi-level shopping mall.

I love that! You're quite right about the mis-use of analogies and metaphors. They are, however, probably the best communicative devices our species has worked out for a "quick and dirty" type of communication.

Marc

[wm]

Sports analogies for warfare have had tragic results.

Sports analogies aren't the only producer of tragic results. Misapplication of lessons learned from analogies in general can have tragic results. I submit that far too often the analogical relationship between two things is mistaken for something much more like an identity relationship. That is, instead of saying that "A is sort of like be in certain respects," folks seem to forget that analogies show only similarities and jump to a position that "A is just like B," forgetting the dissimilarities between the two things being compared. Using analogies should be limited to applying them as a heuristic device that may aid in producing better understanding of an otherwise-hard-to-grasp subject.

[marct]

Really good point WM. When I teach using analogies, which I do a fair bit, I usually try to use two differing analogies and then ask the students how they interpret the results - i.e. what is the intersection set of the analogs. It avoids some of the analog = identity problems while, at the same time, getting the students to think in terms of set-theoretic based topologies.

Marc

[wm]

Again, I will say that if these are the criticisms of the idea, then I am not being adequately clear. I do not at all mean to suggest that there ought to be a paternalistic or patronizing slant to this. I don't think that a force fighting a counterinsurgency ought to think of themselves as "parents."

Go back to the first point in the "presentation" -- you can't kill the baby, that's not being a successful parent. It is neither successful in COIN to kill the locals. If a baby is always fawned upon, then in COIN you have to remember that the insurgents and locals will always have better PR. If as a parent you would do anything to protect the baby, then in COIN you have to see your role as protecting the locals, and sometimes even the insurgents.

For example, in a real life case: an IED trigger puller is captured, the jundi are beating the guy, probably going to kill him, and an American Lt. advisor jumps on the prisoner, as if to hit him, and stays there, thus stopping the beating. I doubt the Lt. thought of himself as a parent, but he used an instinct that is common to parents, to protect the "object" despite all the terrible things it may have done in the past. There was no paternalism involved, but the actions were similar.

I suppose it's time to get back to the drawing board to set the idea properly.

I thought you were being quite clear in the original presentation. As I hope my more recent posts on this thread point out, I think your point has been misconstrued by misapplication of your analogy. You were making the point, I thought, that a major piece of a successful COIN operation is similar to the protective role that parents play with children. My original counterpoint was that the protection required might be more like a "tough love" approach to the world view of a teenager. That is, we don't need to be overprotective and coddling, as parents tend to be with very young children. Instead we need to teach self-protection in a protected environment (think of the sex ed lectures you got in junior high school--oops, sorry, another analogy).

My point about not being paternalistic, a la Kipling, Cecil Rhodes and the "White Man's Burden" was made to suggest that maybe the wrong lessons were being extrapolated from your original "protective parent" analogy. We ought not be paternalistic in the sense of trying to do others thinking for them. Rather, as I think the Orwell essays point out, we need to become more understanding of the viewpoints of those we are trying to help. Again, the "parenting of teens" view comes out. I don't want to tell my teens how to think. I want to understand how (and what) they think so I can more effectively help them make their own way in the world.

Don't flog yourself for lack of clarity. I thin this thread exemplifies the point about getting better understanding from and about the "target" (and that is a really poor choice of words) population. For another interesting example of multiple interpretations of the same piece of writing, take a look at the "Non Cents" thread under Doctrine & TTPs.

[120mm]

Ah, yes, the beloved "distinction without a difference". Pole-vaulting over mouse-turds again.

[Armchairguy]

I think the family analogy is useful because it paints the other guys as humans for a start. Without that it's too easy to look at them as things. No hearts and minds to win there. Learning names and some of the details about locals lives would be useful, if possible. I like the microloan idea. I think that would be a good one to leave in local commanders hands. Give them an amount of discretionary funds to loan or give out. This would need some thinking to not look like someone just trying to buy good will. perhaps the local commanders after being in an area for a time could help fund projects that the community most needs.