Defining Success in Counterinsurgency
I've been doing some research on the Chechen conflict as preparation for a paper on high value targeting and counterinsurgency that I'm presenting to the RAND Insurgency Board next month. I noted that by 2007, a combination of offensive actions and political reform/reconstruction had so beaten the movement down that it was basically a combination of terrorism and banditry.
It struck me how common that pattern is. U.S. (and U.K.) doctrine and strategy posit "peace"--the absence or near-absence of organized violence--as the end state in counterinsurgency. Is this feasible? Should we instead have doctrine and strategy that posits an end state where the insurgency cannot seize power or exercise total control over significant parts of the country, but where terrorism and banditry are still relatively common? I know that's not desirable, but is it the most realistic definition of success?
The difficulty of defining success in COIN
Hey Steve--
Good point/post. Back in 86 - 87 we (Max, me, and others in SWORD) were trying to define what COIN success in El Salvador would look like. None of us thought that it would end with a peace accord that gave the government nearly everything it wanted. :cool: So, we thought that success would probably be when the threat was down to the level of a police problem. That is, it would be essentially banditry that would not require the army to address. At most, the AF would have to provide some helicopter mobility and the navy would need to exercise its coast guard function.
Cheers
JohnT
As they say, "You won't like the answer."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattC86
I feel it's more than just idiot politicians. It's ingrained American identity...So what's the solution?
Still, you asked...;)
- Fix our education system to eliminate the froth and feel good self esteem foolishness, educate and train people who have no business going to college for other employment and instill a knowledge of the wider world, our governmental system and at least one foreign language. That MUST include the inner city and poor rural schools.
- Scale back so-called 'entitlements to a realistic and affordable level to assist in eliminating the culture of dependency that has grown in the US over the alst 70 years.
- Force the US media to return to journalism instead of celebritology and educate the ignorant on how their government works.
- Mandate English as the official language; commercial use of others is fine but all tests and governmental signs, anything remotely official, should be in English.
- Retool the Executive branch to get rid of all the foxes watching henhouses. The FAA, for example, cannot promote air travel, foster a secure operating environment, manage the airways and insure flight safety -- those things are conflicts of interest and the US government is rife with them.
- Restore some luster to the State Department and get the GCCs out of the pro-consul bit.
- Repeal all the idiotic incumbent protection laws like the FEC establishment and McCain-Feingold.
- Reform our dysfunctional budget process and force Congress to stop micromanaging, interfering and reacting whimsically to enforce what they (not the 'American people') want or think right but to do what is best for the nation -- starting with fewer special interest protection laws.
You asked. All that in the too hard box? Probably.
So what's realistically to be done? Vote out all incumbents at all levels and keep doing that until the idiots get the message. It'll take about 15 years for that for it to sink in but until we start electing competent people who are not professional pols, it'll continue to get worse instead of better.
Word...On Ken and Jefferson
Every generation needs a new revolution.
-Thomas Jefferson.