What does the Military do in COIN?
OK, so the clue is in the title.
a.) I am extremely sceptical of the “80% political” aphorism applied to so-called COIN.
b.) I do not believe – and my short time on this board is reinforcing this view, - that COIN is a valid area of worthy of discrete study, and separated from conflict in general. It’s like talking about policing from a purely counter-narcotics or traffic viewpoint.
So, I submit that the military contribution to what we choose to call COIN is primarily providing security for the activities (government, police, normal commercial and social activity/reform/change) and facilities that the insurgency chooses to target, as part of their campaign aims.
I would welcome views that contrast or conflict with my own.
In one way I might agree with you
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
OK, so the clue is in the title.
a.) I am extremely sceptical of the “80% political” aphorism applied to so-called COIN.
b.) I do not believe – and my short time on this board is reinforcing this view, - that COIN is a valid area of worthy of discrete study, and separated from conflict in general. It’s like talking about policing from a purely counter-narcotics or traffic viewpoint.
So, I submit that the military contribution to what we choose to call COIN is primarily providing security for the activities (government, police, normal commercial and social activity/reform/change) and facilities that the insurgency chooses to target, as part of their campaign aims.
I would welcome views that contrast or conflict with my own.
Military doesn't "do" COIN only in the sense that an insurgency is against a government and thus the government does COIN. Now if we look at the tools of government then very easily that translates down to political, social, physical interactions and thus a military just like local, state, and govt police must be the counter insurgent.
In this sense I agree :D
My stove doesn't "cook" food I do but without it I probably wouldn't get much cooked. Over-simplification I know but I do love OS'ing stuff ;)
Now as to the validity of studying it in context I think I must respectfully disagree. To say that it doesn't require discreet, and /or distinct study separate from that of large scale warfare is I submit placing all ones eggs in one basket.
I would assume were one to speak to most those who specialize in Traffic or Counter-narcotics they would informed quite heartily of how different those jobs really are.
Running a restaurant requires both a Shef and a manager but I'm pretty sure those two and what they have to study to be effective are worlds apart as well.
Putter around until they get it right, Wilf?
And do that with each new generation??? :wry:
a.) If by skeptical of the 80% you mean that any fixation on a specific number or even range is suspect, I agree. The political involvement can range from 0 to 100% and the old METT-TC bit applies. Target fixation is dangerous and led to a number of the military screwups mentioned above...
b.) It isn't worthy of discrete study -- but it is worthy of integrated (and integrating) study. Basic combat skills are universal. To successfully conduct a withdrawal under enemy pressure at night requires additional skills; to successfully conduct a day attack of a defensive position by infiltration requires a slightly different set of added skills. To conduct a conventional attack in a built up area requires yet other skills and to successfully employ force in a tailored fashion for a COIN operation still other skills. All require practice as well as study -- if, for no other reason to insure the practices home on the proper and needed skills.
Rank Amateur was on the right track (if a bit simplistically because neither his first or second points are always true). Then he got to his last bullet, that one ain't nearly that simple and even if it was, that human terrain is exceedingly complex and can lead one astray. :D
Gotta watch that target fixation syndrome...
And that's why COIN really isn't to be separated from conflict in general but must be integrated as merely one set of a number tactics, techniques and practices in a total training and employment of force regimen aimed at the application of armed force in conflict.
Two thoughts from a guy so old he's irrelevant...
Or irreverent. Or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hacksaw
...
As a side note, we were discussing in the office what is the true "takeaway" beyond OIF/OEF. Is it that we need to maintain COIN competencies? Maybe, but we certainly will not/should not maintain the same level of competenciy (full spectrum requirement)...
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that we should train for all spectrums of combat and realize that by so doing, none will be at optimum or the highest level of competence level and that is acceptable because we will always have to tweak depending upon METT-TC -- then I agree and suggest that history is on my side, the Army has in fact done that before and did it fairly well...
Quote:
...Is it that we need a seperate advisor and/or COIN corps? again probably not, will need to accept risk somewhere...
True in broad measure, certainly not an advisory corps. However, a small crew at CAC and in the field -- ala the TMAAG concept -- would be wise and prudent. What we emphatically should not do is try to bury the unpleasant monster again; we saw how well that worked.
Quote:
We continued our mental master... until we arrived at this as the best expression of what we've learned (and it applies across the spectrum).... If we've learned nothing else it is that we need to empower tactical leaders, encourage initiative and well considered risk taking, and underwrite honest mistakes, ...(emphasis added /kw)
Target. Out.
You guys do good work... ;)