PDA

View Full Version : What would you do/say?



Strategic LT
09-02-2007, 09:15 PM
I just recently participated in an OPD on IO and FM 3-24. We were quizzed on a couple of questions.

1. You are at an initial meeting with a very influential sheik. He asks you why you are here and what you are trying to accomplish. How do you respond?

2. During your meeting an explosion happens up the street. In route you are intercepted by a journalist. He asks you about the explosion. How do you respond?

Very generic questions I know, but I believe they were written to generate discussion for the next OPD. We wrote our answers down for the staff to review.

My question for the council is "how would you handle this?" It seems simple, but I'm sure the experience of the council can conjure up some specific lessons that will help educate the inexperienced.

Chris Albon
09-02-2007, 10:20 PM
I am 100% civilian, so forgive my ignorance in advance.

1. You are at an initial meeting with a very influential sheik. He asks you why you are here and what you are trying to accomplish. How do you respond?

Offer to show him. The political science literature makes it clear that to humans "talk is cheap", this is even more true in a conflict environment. Anything you say will carry minimal weight. The alternative is to send a "costly signal", meaning take him around and personally show him the tangible humanitarian / stability projects you are currently undertaking.

The benefit is twofold. First, you send him a "costly signal" that you mean business and am capable of going beyond words. Second, your reputation is boosted by being seen with an influential sheik.

2. During your meeting an explosion happens up the street. In route you are intercepted by a journalist. He asks you about the explosion. How do you respond?

Once again, offer to show him personally. Reporters write their stories with limited information. If the only quote he has is of you saying "there has been another explosion by unknown groups" you can be pretty sure the tone of the story will run long those lines. However, if he accepts your offer there is a greater probability he will write about YOUR ACTIONS ("US Quickly Secures Bombing Site and Treats Civilians") rather than the EVENT itself (Another Bombing in Samara").

Cavguy
09-02-2007, 11:48 PM
I just recently participated in an OPD on IO and FM 3-24. We were quizzed on a couple of questions.

1. You are at an initial meeting with a very influential sheik. He asks you why you are here and what you are trying to accomplish. How do you respond?

My experience is generally that he wouldn't do something like that at a first meeting, at least in Arab culture. And unless he's an idiot in 2007 he already knows what you are doing, because your previous units would have engaged him already since he is a very influential sheik. In general, you are there to provide security for his people so the government can stand up and provide services to his people, in a basic nutshell.

But answer truthfully and straighforward. Never failed me in any sheik or local engagement. Tell him exactly what you are trying to do, and even better, how it will benefit him. You won't get agreements at a first meeting if this is a new BILAT. You are there to make foundations for trust and respect in future meetings. Trust has to be built over time.


2. During your meeting an explosion happens up the street. In route you are intercepted by a journalist. He asks you about the explosion. How do you respond?

Ummm... what kind of journalist? On today's streets there is rarely a wandering journalist. But I'll bite. Best answer is again, the truth. Respond with what you know, and state that you are going to investigate and will be happy to brief him after you know more facts. Don't ever speculate to a journalist. If he's an embed with you, take him along. They all have ground rules that they follow that should keep you out of trouble. As long as you speak fact, remember opsec, and stay in your lane, what's the worry?

A second question, is why are YOU responding to the explosion, and not calling your LN forces first, and getting them to investigate, or rendevous with them and proceed jointly. Remember, COIN is best done "By, with, and through the host nation." Re-read chapter 1 of FM 3-24, because I fear your questions indicate you are missing the major points.

At this point in OIF/OEF, you should have your HN Security force leaders and perhaps someone from the local government with you in your BILAT. The point is not so much to build confidence in YOU as it is in THEM.

Strategic LT
09-03-2007, 03:42 PM
...In general, you are there to provide security for his people so the government can stand up and provide services to his people, in a basic nutshell.

...Respond with what you know, and state that you are going to investigate and will be happy to brief him after you know more facts. Don't ever speculate to a journalist.

...A second question, is why are YOU responding to the explosion, and not calling your LN forces first, and getting them to investigate, or rendevous with them and proceed jointly.

...I fear your questions indicate you are missing the major points.



Your response was almost identical to what I had written for my answers. So I guess I'm not missing the major points. Remember, I didn't write the questions, haha. It may be that somone above me may be missing the point or they just worded the question to generate discussion. We'll see. Thanks for your response.

soldiernolongeriniraq
09-05-2007, 12:03 AM
And unless he's an idiot in 2007 he already knows what you are doing, because your previous units would have engaged him already since he is a very influential sheik.

Oh, I should wish that would be true! Want to know how many LTCs we can even get to finish their RIPTOA AAs before going on leave?

Your first point is that you are there to protect him. He is a node in a networked culture that has existed in many different iterations that is ages older than ours.

He won't tell you this directly (look for his third answer), but you must know whom he fears. It won't be phrased in that way, but for now, your Ali Babas are his Ali Babas. They most probably won't be foreign salafi nutjobs. They will be organic salafi nutjobs seeking to usurp traditional authority, and they are being helped by certain others in that culture (mosques are a common way to militarize a local insurgency -- within an Islamic framework, but not exactly Islamic).

Who wants to usurp his traditional way of leadership? His is a form of leadership that makes kinship and clan affiliation important, but also relies on his ability to protect his people, to dispense favors, and to extend his influence against other kinship-based networks.

In my little corner of Anbar, we had sheikhs who wished to return to an older pattern of leadership, one that returned civil society to pre-war norms, one that realized that criminal syndicates were ultimately the same as insurgent networks, and that foremost we had to protect them so that they could protect us.

Never lie. Be upfront with him. Never promise him anything you can't deliver. Tell him that any dispute with previous US officers has been an honorable dispute, but that you want to make him realize that you work for him. You protect him. You want to make him remain an important symbol to his people.

Ask HIM how you do that. Don't be afraid to concede that previous units might have employed an escalation of force/ROE that did NOT protect innocent people. Listen to his complaints. Don't be afraid about him taking credit for operations you accomplish.

Pledge to change what you can, and make sure if he really is important that he spends far more time talking to your bosses (and NOT at the company level). You can't change his culture. You might make only a small dint on yours. But your leaders at bn and above should be talking to this man. Often.

If you are young, ask that he allow you to work with his sons more directly. They have an interest in protecting him, and you can learn a lot from them.


2. During your meeting an explosion happens up the street. In route you are intercepted by a journalist. He asks you about the explosion. How do you respond?

There are many different journalists addressing many different news consumers in many different cultures. You're PAO is far too incompetent (by lack of training, not lack of intelligence) to understand these animals.

Having been a journalist before returning to become a strategic corporal (and having to translate Arabic for asshats before they shot the wrong people), any advice I would give you would be wasted because the question posed to you is an idiotic one, and one that involves a spelling error anyway.

In general, if it is an American embedded reporter, he wants something from you that is true. If he's been spending much time around a PAO, he might not be getting anything false, but he's getting it slant. If he's a combat correspondent by training and temperament, he is used to covering a wide range of chaotic events around the world. He understands if you say, "I don't know."

Stay in your lane, tell him only what you know. Don't speculate. If you can safely bring him with you, then do so. Explain to him limits of what you can say involving operations security (OPSEC). As an American, he values the lives of your Soldiers, too. If he's an experienced combat correspondent, he probably was a combatant once, too.

If he's an Iraqi stringer, you need to see his press credentials. If he accompanied? Is he on the scene covering the explosion, and you're the first figure of authority to arrive?

How much Arabic do you know? How much English does he know?

The rules are the same. You can either become the story by lying, slanting the truth, or hedging. Or you can be a strategic LT and tell him that his profession is vital to making Iraq a democracy, that any reporter who tells the truth is a friend, and that although you can't tell him everything because you don't know, you won't lie to him. You will tell him what you do know.

This, by the way, should NOT be accomplished until your mission is completed. If you're there to meet with a Sheikh and your foremost goal is to protect him, perhaps you should first find out about his condition. Ask him what he thinks of this journalist you found.

Remember, if this is a bonafide Iraqi journalist, he is an amazingly brave man. He has made enemies, is hunted them, and represents a hope for a readership that craves honest, straight-forward answers. All you can do is tell the truth. What he does with it after that isn't your fault.

And if he's a journalist operating in that area, he's far more connected than you ever will be! Pump him for information, too!

If you think about it, your role in COIN is the same as his. You want to find something out. You want to create a narrative that makes sense to your bosses. You do this by asking people (sources, some of whom are confidential) what they can tell you. You analyze the information, judging the veracity of it, and produce a version of the truth you believe is most accurate. You want to know the key nodes in a network of people: Some of these are insurgents, some criminals, some the very same thing, some important leaders, some followers who might be swayed one way or the other.

His job is to determine the same things. You can learn from each other if you establish a relationship. Don't give away opsec. But also don't ruin a relationship that could be of very great benefit to you.

Frankly, if all your team leaders were journalists; all your squad leaders were anthropologists; your SFC Plt Sgt a cop; and a few of your PVTs spoke Arabic, you would have the makings of the best taskforce ever assembled. All of these people routinely deal with cultures alien to their bureaucracies; they are tasked with solving problems using tools they take for granted; and they can report what they learn to you in a format easily understood.

Obviously, we can't expect this to naturally form in a rifle platoon or a company of MPs. But you can notice traits in the teams of Soldiers or Marines who are uniquely gifted at certain things they obviously learned outside the military.

They are your friends. They will be more of your friend than any of your bosses. Learn from them. Orchestrate their activities on the battlefield, and they will learn from you, too.

soldiernolongeriniraq
09-05-2007, 12:04 AM
Stream of consciousness from too much chai.

Rank amateur
09-05-2007, 02:04 AM
I'd say, "To find out what you want." Assuming you know what he wants is one of the worst mistakes you can make. (I recommend taking a similar approach with your spouse when you return from a long deployment.)

Uboat509
09-05-2007, 08:14 PM
1. He already knows the big picture about why you are in Iraq, or a least has his own notions about it. What he really wants to know is what you can/will do for him. He will lose interest very rapidly if he thinks the answer is nothing.

2. "Do you see that short, vaguely bewildered looking guy over there? That is my Team Leader, Captain XXXXXX. He will answer your questions. Have a nice day."

SFC W

RTK
09-05-2007, 09:06 PM
I'd say, "To find out what you want." Assuming you know what he wants is one of the worst mistakes you can make. (I recommend taking a similar approach with your spouse when you return from a long deployment.)

If assuming you know what he wants is one of the worst mistakes you can make, asking him what he wants might have just bought you an 8 hour one-sided discussion.

I like Uboat's second answer.:D

Rank amateur
09-05-2007, 10:31 PM
might have just bought you an 8 hour one-sided discussion.


I told you it was just like dealing with your spouse.;)

St. Christopher
09-07-2007, 12:24 PM
I'm coming at this from a completely different direction as my background is more in advertising, sales, marketing, strategic communications, blah blah blah. So it might be off...

One caveat: With no objectives in these scenarios laid out, I can only tangentially speak to some of this. So I'm taking a lot of liberties here. If I was going in with a specific mission to accomplish, it would be different I'm sure.

1. First off, if I haven't done my homework on the sheik before walking in his door, I've failed already. I should already know what his desires, fears, and priorities are at least in general terms. Does he have a family? How big is it? Is one of them in prison? What do his public statements say about him, if any? I need to know exactly what type of man (or men, if he relies on a council of people in his dealings) I'm dealing with before I even broach the The Sale. It may be that the gent is so anti-American or anti-Coalition that I might want to rethink putting a lot of time and energy into swaying him to whatever my objective is.

With all this under my belt, NOW I'm ready to answer the sheik's question. And the answer (90% of the time) is going to be, "I'm here to help YOU." Using what I know (or should know) about him already, I'd offer to him a number of things that demonstrate why maybe -I- might be someone he wants to deal with perpetually: I could fix a broken home for one of his tribesmen; I could look into the imprisoning of one his family members and potentially negotiate his release; I could take on a debt he owes to another tribe. ANYTHING I can do to show him that I'm someone he might want to do business with.

The result might be as little as the sheik saying "thanks, but no thanks," but that's OK. I've planted a seed. In a couple weeks, I"ll try again, this time perhaps bearing a gift, something he wants or needs. The bottom line is that I need to convey one thing at all times: YOU YOU YOU. It's all about YOU. Enabling and empowering the sheik in any way I can. After a while, he may come to form a dependence on whatever enabling I'm giving him, be it security, goods and services, or mere credibility.

Everyone WANTS something and everyone FEARS something. Balancing those things appropriately in negotiations is how influence is measured, traded, and exacted.

2. The journalist. I tell him, "I just heard about it myself. Wanna come check it out with us?" EMBED him/her. You have to co-opt media at every opportunity. You want that guy/gal to WANT to ride with you wherever you go. You want him drinking your Kool-Aid. So make it easy for him-- give him an escort into a danger zone, let him ride on patrol with you... but recognize that after throwing him these carrots, you'll want something in return. Maybe you want to review his story before he publishes. Maybe you even want to co-write it with him. It's part of the Art of the Deal-- influence the message by influencing the messenger. You'll never be able to control it, but you have to spend the time and energy to shape it or that journalist will do it for you.

slapout9
09-07-2007, 01:25 PM
I think everybody that goes to Iraq ought to have this tattooed on the inside of their skull.

Qoute by St. Christopher
Everyone WANTS something and everyone FEARS something. Balancing those things appropriately in negotiations is how influence is measured, traded, and exacted.

jcustis
09-07-2007, 04:10 PM
I think everybody that goes to Iraq ought to have this tattooed on the inside of their skull.

Qoute by St. Christopher
Everyone WANTS something and everyone FEARS something. Balancing those things appropriately in negotiations is how influence is measured, traded, and exacted.

Wow, how can I best dog-pile on what slapout has said? Spot freaking on St. Christopher! I learned a little about this stuff at a Karrass seminar.

The answer you provided in bullet #1 is something I could have read out of the Small Unit Leader's Guide to COIN, and reinforces Rob Thornton post about why we need this breadth of diversity on the Council.

Great post.

Rank amateur
09-07-2007, 04:35 PM
I think everybody that goes to Iraq ought to have this tattooed on the inside of their skull.

Quote by St. Christopher
Everyone WANTS something and everyone FEARS something. Balancing those things appropriately in negotiations is how influence is measured, traded, and exacted.

Very true, but as someone who has sold a number of different things, I'd suggest never assuming that you know what the person wants. You sell more by listening than talking.

We assumed they wanted democracy; it didn't work. We assumed that they wanted security; it didn't work. We listened and learned that what the sheiks really wanted was to make sure that AQI didn't marry their daughters. That information - "customer insight" to use a marketing term - has lead to the most success we've had in 5 years.

goesh
09-07-2007, 05:23 PM
just be sitting on his left side, make sure some traditional food and beverages are on hand along with some fancy foreign sweets, ask about his sons and extended family members, present him with a quality knife from the US as a present and tell him you are here to get to know him and want to meet with him again as soon as possible to get down to business - this way he knows you don't fear him and can't yet completely trust him and it gives him a legitimate reason to tell his people you weren't yet ready to talk about the real problems. Who in the hell would want to make concessions in the first meeting with the occupiers or for that matter with those you are trying to become allied with?

when that freakin' IED goes off, laugh just a bit and say "somedbody doesn't like us" and ask him to try one of them fancy foreign treats laid out in front of him and keep talking

St. Christopher
09-07-2007, 06:20 PM
Very true, but as someone who has sold a number of different things, I'd suggest never assuming that you know what the person wants. You sell more by listening than talking.

We assumed they wanted democracy; it didn't work. We assumed that they wanted security; it didn't work. We listened and learned that what the sheiks really wanted was to make sure that AQI didn't marry their daughters. That information - "customer insight" to use a marketing term - has lead to the most success we've had in 5 years.

That's kinda what I was getting at-- do your market research and your audience segmentation BEFORE you try to sell your product. The whole "listening to YOU" skill is an art not commonly found in the military. It's almost an intel function, but the intel weenies I know just CAN'T fathom how to do this. It's not a skill they're trained to employ in the field.

Besides, I don't think suborning this type of interaction under intel is a good idea anyway. In the Information Age, intel and ops are suborned to INFORMATION and its EFFECTS. In this type of situation, I'd rather a civilian be doing the interactions with the sheik, particularly one from a reputable NGO, PVO, or even private corporation. In the Info War, we lose a lot just because there's a uniformed soldier/marine/airman/sailor standing on Muslim ground.

BTW, jcustis & slap, thanks for the cheers.

Du4

Chiropetra
09-07-2007, 10:33 PM
Generally good ideas, but

but recognize that after throwing him these carrots, you'll want something in return. Maybe you want to review his story before he publishes. Maybe you even want to co-write it with him.

Not bloody likely! Even asking for this kind of stuff is going to cause problems. The reporter is going to interpret this as an evil attempt to buy off the media, hide the truth, etc. It doesn't matter that that isn't your intention. It's the way he/she will see it and youwill end up being the story -- and not a favorable one at that.

You've got to understand that in his or her own way, a reporter, even a scrupulously fair one, is as different from you culturally as that Iraqi sheik. If you want to handle the media successfully you've got to understand those cultural differences.

If reporters are doing their job, you're not the enemy. But you're not their friend either. The thing that any reporter, good or bad, prizes above all else is the independence of their view. Anything that looks like it might possibly tamper with that is going to produce an explosive reaction. Kind of like offering the sheik a ham sandwich.

Dealing with the media in a situation like this involves two things. First, it's a trust building exercise. Any halfway decent reporter is by nature and training a skeptic, especially about institutions. This comes from being lied to repeatedly, constantly and consistently by experts. (They're called politicians, PR types and other nasty names.)

Getting a reporter to trust is you is like taming a half-wild animal. It takes patience and work on building trust. Above all don't lie to the reporter. If you don't know, say so. Don't guess. If you're passing the word you've got from elsewhere make sure the reporter understands this is only what you have been told. If you can't answer the question, don't answer the question in as non-informative a manner as possible. (Oddly, reporters respect that.)

Keep in mind that trust is a personal thing. It is not transferable. The reporter trusts you, not the job slot or the uniform. Generally people in the military are a lot better at this today than they were in Vietnam and it has paid off.

The second thing is to educate the reporter. While reporting (with the exception of some on-the-air talent) is not a game for stupid people, you'd be astonished at how ignorant some reporters are. Even an embed in Iraq is not usually a military expert. You need to provide information and in doing so help shape his or her perception.

I said reporters were skeptics and they are. But they can also be terribly naive, especially when they're starting out on a beat. Often the person who gets to them first ends up shaping a reporter's entire world view of the situation.

Above all, be authentic. Reporter are almost as good as spotting bull#### as enlisted men. If you yourself, it prejudices the reporter in your favor.

How do I know all this? Because I was a reporter and editor for about ten years and then built up experience dealing with the media from the other side committing public relations.

goesh
09-08-2007, 02:59 AM
"In this type of situation, I'd rather a civilian be doing the interactions with the sheik, particularly one from a reputable NGO, PVO, or even private corporation. In the Info War, we lose a lot just because there's a uniformed soldier/marine/airman/sailor standing on Muslim ground."

It's just my opinion to disagree with that, nothing more - I'm not claiming or projecting any expertise. What if he had specific and direct questions about security and was expecting an immediate answer? What if he were a Christian or muslim by name only? What if he expected something on the spot, something concrete from the occupiers, like a Hummer painted red for his favorite son and some rifles for his other boys? What if he told the civilian desk jockey designated to meet with him that his status, standing and power rated the respect and dignity accorded by a high ranking Officer of the most powerful military force on the planet that had seen fit to enter his land and remain there? With guys like the hypothetical sheihk, nothing less than a full bird should be meeting with him. To do otherwise would be like two pro football teams having a game and one team sends their water boy out to flip the coin. It would be an insult for a high ranking representative of the occupying force not to meet with such a Sheik.

RTK
09-08-2007, 12:28 PM
Besides, I don't think suborning this type of interaction under intel is a good idea anyway. In the Information Age, intel and ops are suborned to INFORMATION and its EFFECTS.

Unless there is a new definition of suborn I don't know, this will turn into a circular logic thread.


sub·orn (s-bôrn) tr.v.[Latin subrnre : sub-, secretly; see sub- + rnre, to equip] 1. To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act.

I don't think there is any of that here. In the letter of the definition, I disagree with the word's usage here.

I submit to you that intelligence and operations DRIVE information and effects; that information and effects are the resultant byproducts of good intelligence and operations.

In this situation, I see bilateral engagement as a sort of non-lethal support-by-fire position. In order to progress towards the desired endstate it must be done, and done correctly. Bilateral engagement is just part of the overall plan, a shaping operation or supporting effort to the main effort, if you will. There must be something waiting in the wings to follow up the engagement down the road in order to make the bilateral engagement worthwhile. Otherwise it's simply a dinner date.

If the bilateral engagement is a non-lethal support by fire position, then any follow up actions (CA projects, reconstruction, etc) become the follow-on assault. Much like maneuver warfare (and as I tell my students), "Suppression without maneuver is stupid; maneuver without suppression is suicide."

If there is no follow on plan to the engagement with the shiek, then what's the point in the first place? You're playing lip service to a powerful leader in your AO. What are you going to do about it? Conducting an engagement without a follow on plan is like maneuvering on a well prepared defense without prepatory fires, engineer support, or a direct fire plan. It's just plain dumb.


As for "rather a civilian be doing the interactions with the sheik..."

I mean no disrespect when I say that most couldn't handle it. It's not like selling a vaccuum in Slapout, Alabama door-to-door. In my two years in Iraq, I saw (besides KBR) exactly zero NGOs in my neighborhoods (Ramadi, Fallujah, Al Qaim, Tal Afar) at the lower tactical levels. They were around the FOBs and helping the Regimental staff and higher for the operational level stuff, but I never saw one break the gate unless they were headed to Kuwait. This isn't like Scott Boras negotiating Alex Rodriguez' next contract.


In the Info War, we lose a lot just because there's a uniformed soldier/marine/airman/sailor standing on Muslim ground
In the information war we stand to gain a lot by breaking the stereotype that the Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor are only there to kill. Counter the insurgency IO with better IO. If I'm the one operating in a particular AO, I'm not going to let some organization that has no stake in success, no reward for being there, who is not accountable to me, and who can leave whenever they choose shape the battlefield for me. In short, I'm not letting the civilians do my job because in the 5 years we've been in Iraq (IMHO and the opinion of the shieks, religious leaders, politicians, and tribal leader's I've worked with), the NGOs have a worse reputation for failing to deliver than the coalition forces. It's easy (and routine) for an NGO to go into a bilateral engagement, promise the world, and never come back. Then I have to deal with it. Now what have we lost.

Much of what we're talking about has been discussed before. Please review the below threads and revive them, if necessary.

Good discussion.


Guerrila Center of Gravity Discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3147)

Other CoG discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=3085)

Hearts and Minds Discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1673)

Information Operations Discussion (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2486)

St. Christopher
09-08-2007, 05:25 PM
It's just my opinion to disagree with that, nothing more - I'm not claiming or projecting any expertise. What if he had specific and direct questions about security and was expecting an immediate answer? What if he were a Christian or muslim by name only? What if he expected something on the spot, something concrete from the occupiers, like a Hummer painted red for his favorite son and some rifles for his other boys? What if he told the civilian desk jockey designated to meet with him that his status, standing and power rated the respect and dignity accorded by a high ranking Officer of the most powerful military force on the planet that had seen fit to enter his land and remain there? With guys like the hypothetical sheihk, nothing less than a full bird should be meeting with him. To do otherwise would be like two pro football teams having a game and one team sends their water boy out to flip the coin. It would be an insult for a high ranking representative of the occupying force not to meet with such a Sheik.

You're presuming we're sending in a "desk jockey" and not an experienced diplomatic officer, of which, I admit, there are little to none on the ground. What I'm trying to illustrate is that the full bird, even if he has the authority to give the sheik everything he wants, is STILL negotiating from the occupier's position... and I argue that even the tactical gains he may make with the sheik are meaningless in terms of the larger ideological loss demonstrated by images of American soldiers "offering" things of value to "the occupied."

But I see what you're saying in terms of the leader-on-leader interactions.

St. Christopher
09-08-2007, 05:33 PM
Unless there is a new definition of suborn I don't know, this will turn into a circular logic thread.



I don't think there is any of that here. In the letter of the definition, I disagree with the word's usage here.

Typo on my part-- I mean "subordinated."


I submit to you that intelligence and operations DRIVE information and effects; that information and effects are the resultant byproducts of good intelligence and operations.

They do NOW as a matter of practice. But I believe this is the wrong way of going about waging an Information War.


In the information war we stand to gain a lot by breaking the stereotype that the Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor are only there to kill. Counter the insurgency IO with better IO. If I'm the one operating in a particular AO, I'm not going to let some organization that has no stake in success, no reward for being there, who is not accountable to me, and who can leave whenever they choose shape the battlefield for me. In short, I'm not letting the civilians do my job because in the 5 years we've been in Iraq (IMHO and the opinion of the shieks, religious leaders, politicians, and tribal leader's I've worked with), the NGOs have a worse reputation for failing to deliver than the coalition forces. It's easy (and routine) for an NGO to go into a bilateral engagement, promise the world, and never come back. Then I have to deal with it. Now what have we lost.

That's a very good observation. In the ideal world, yes, civilian-led ops are probably the best way to go, but given what we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is being forced to improvise. That leads to a much larger debate over the ability (and even authority) of the military to perform roles and responsibilities in conflict zones that it was not designed to do.

All I'm getting at is that despite the realities of the tactical situation you portray, the grand strategic picture is negatively affected by images of uniformed and armed Americans in the ummah. I don't think many of us, myself included, truly understand the psychological, socio-cultural, and behavioral effects of that yet.

skiguy
09-09-2007, 12:22 AM
To go along with what St Christopher said, wouldn't a civilian be better, perhaps even more desired, in certain situations? (religious and education issues are 2 things that come to mind). Yes, you could get a Chaplain, but someone in civilian clothing would probably seem more "neutral" to them. (especially if that civilian really knows and understands Islam)

Why aren't there more experienced diplomatic officers over there? Is it lack of training? Is it because the military doesn't want them there yet? (which I would find hard to believe) Or are there too few volunteering to go?

RTK
09-09-2007, 12:44 AM
Why aren't there more experienced diplomatic officers over there? Is it lack of training? Is it because the military doesn't want them there yet? (which I would find hard to believe) Or are there too few volunteering to go?

We asked them to come to the party 4 years ago. We're still waiting for them to show up...

Uboat509
09-09-2007, 07:06 AM
We asked them to come to the party 4 years ago. We're still waiting for them to show up...

Didn't you hear? There's people shooting and blowing stuff up over there.

SFC W

St. Christopher
09-09-2007, 08:19 PM
Why aren't there more experienced diplomatic officers over there? Is it lack of training? Is it because the military doesn't want them there yet? (which I would find hard to believe) Or are there too few volunteering to go?

That's a long and complicated answer to your question, ski. Uboat and RTK are right on the money though-- the State Department, for a host of different reasons, is at the mall.

redbullets
09-10-2007, 02:01 AM
Though there were some State folks who wanted to be part of the "in crowd", and whom ORHA (under Garner) wanted invited to the party, but as I understand it, DoD rescinded the invitations.

There were smart folks running around over there in 2003 saying we should be doing what the tribal leaders wanted us to do for them, instead of what WE wanted to do for them, but it took a lot of pain before that sorted out.

Letting the Shaikh know what you're there to do, hearing what he needs, and finding some way to meet some of those needs comprise a sound way to get something started on the ground.

Cheers,