Nicely written piece...especially where he writes about, "Abstain from nation-building, transformation, and counterinsurgency..."
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20120705897205.html
Printable View
Nicely written piece...especially where he writes about, "Abstain from nation-building, transformation, and counterinsurgency..."
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20120705897205.html
This link requires .mil access.
Which brings us full circle back to "FID."Quote:
Originally Posted by socal1200r
Wall Street JournalQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
July 5, 2012
[clipped for copyvio]Quote:
A Primer For American Military Intervention
With the heart of an infantryman, the president must feel what Churchill called 'stress of soul' for each of the wounded and the dead.
By Mark Helprin
In either 2013 or 2017, a new president will take office. The economy notwithstanding, the world will remain a dangerous place, and military intervention may yet be necessary. Of late America has not fared well in this, and the new president should wipe the slate clean, making sure that we do not fight wars that we need not fight, or lose those that we must.
Although Democrats pretend to have won in Afghanistan so they may retreat, and Republicans so as to absolve themselves of laying the foundation for defeat, withdrawal under fire is not usually a sign of success.
I'm far from being an "expert" in this, but if you look at the current "phases" of a military operation, and overlap them with the D-I-M-E construct of the instruments of national power (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic), big M really only comes into play in the middle phases (Seize the initiative, Dominate, and to a lesser extent, Stabilize), not the ones at either end (Shape, Deter, Enable civil authority). All other phases need to have D-I-m-E as their driving forces, not M. Does the military conduct Shape, Deter, and Enable civil authority activities? Sure we do, but again, it should be in a little M, not big M, construct. I think FID would fall into the Shape/Deter/Enable civil authorities bucket of activities, and should be done with the minimum number of military resources required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob's World
As for "nation-building" and "transformation", the U.S. military clearly is out of our lane in those areas. We could provide for a secure environment for those activities to initially take place, but we should NOT be conducting those activities themselves, and certainly not be providing long-term security.
Sorry to have clipped that, but the full article is behind the WSJ "pay" firewall. We can't post the whole thing due to copyright. If it's republished elsewhere in a free format, then we can link to it.
Sorry about that...let me look around...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
No worries. It's a shame, because it wasn't a bad piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by socal1200r
No FID
WE can't resume training HN militaries & gov'ts to operate soley against their fellow citizens, as the "internal" in FID declares.
Actually, that is not what the "Internal" in FID means. It means what they do internal to their country to defend against threats of all origins, foreign or domestic. But I do agree that we need to make a major change in how we think about building partner capacity designed to primarily keep their own populaces in check (as we are doing so many places in the Middle East, and what the Army is currently hanging a large portion of their rationale for sustaining war fighting force structure in times of peace). Better the smaller efforts that focus primarily on building partner professionalism, which in my opinion is the most noteworthy aspect of what we have been doing in the Philippines in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Eagle
The opposite of FID is some notion that one needs to go abroad and pre-emptively attack nations or organizations that they think might attack them some day...
Did you find it? It is interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by socal1200r
Negative Ghostrider...my internet research skills are somewhat limited, and I haven't been able to find a "free", non-copyrighted version...guess we could always ping the author directly and ask his permission to reprint it here?Quote:
Originally Posted by call12223
From JP 3-22: Foreign Internal Defense: Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security. Also called FID.
As has been mentioned, the "I" in FID implies that the partner nation is trying to take care of its own business, from threats that are either external or internal in origin, with help from a foreign partner (i.e. the US). If the partner nation govt is an ally of the US, and if the threat is coming from an internal source, even if it's from its own citizens, that still meets the definition of FID.
Here's a twist on what's going on in Syria. If the US actively supported the anti-Assad forces there, by supply them with weapons, logistics help, intel, basically everything short of boots on the ground, would we be then supporting an "insurgency", as defined in JP 3-22? Insurgency: The organized use of subversion and violence by a group or movement that seeks to overthrow or force change of a governing authority. Insurgency can also refer to the group itself. (JP 3-24)
Based on that definition, I think we would be, so an insurgency could be a good thing or a bad thing. Just depends on which side of the Kalishnikov you're on I guess...