unit discipline and behaviour towards the local population
An interesting study on unit discipline and behaviour towards the local population. I'm afraid I don't have access to the original, however, so this is a report on a report on a report :D
I must say, however, that it doesn't entirely square with what I've heard from many Palestinians, namely that older reservists are less likely to engage in brutality or humiliation than younger IDF conscripts. The study seems to have used Palestinian complaints as its indicator--which, given how very, very rarely Palestinians would bother complaining to the IDF, may be a rather suspect measure...
Quote:
Study: Sloppy soldiers more violent against Palestinians - length of tour
not factor
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 22 March, 2008
Correspondent Chagai Huberman reports in the 18 March edition of Makor
Rishon that a study by the Behavioral Studies Department of the IDF of over
a thousand soldiers who served in the West Bank found no correlation between
the length of duty and the propensity for a complaint to be made against
them for violence against Palestinians.
The study did find a strong correlation between the sloppiness of units (for
example gear missing/not guarded properly) and their propensity to get
complaints about violence against Palestinians.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS:
imra@netvision.net.il
Website:
http://www.imra.org.il
all the more reason they should
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
units (not everyone plays by FM 3-24 rules).
Those who represent order to others cannot do so without being accountable to order themselves. Lead by example or don't lead. Anything else leads to temp fixes without long term benefits
Just my 1 1/2
I submit it holds true regardless
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
This holds true, of course, when the unit command views abuse towards the local population as undesirable--as opposed to a situation where it is considered or accepted part of a general strategy of intimidation, and encouraged.
However, I suppose it boils down to what one's definition of a 'good' unit is...
I'll acknowledge that a strategy of intimidation might alter that bit but my guess is that such change would not be significant.
Quote:
A friend of mine, who served as an IDF paratrooper in the late 1980s, once noted that in this sense there were very different ROEs in the West Bank and in Lebanon. In the former, there were both formal and informal constraints on brutal behaviour. In the latter (pre-withdrawal), a much higher level of intimidation was standard procedure, even among the elite and highly disciplined units (not everyone plays by FM 3-24 rules).
Elite is generally a misnomer applied to combat units and carries no connotation of especial competence or quality. I've seen 'elite' units that were tactically incompetent and most of 'em tned to breed disciplinary problems. Based on what I've seen, highly disciplined and the Israeli Army are sort of incompatible -- that BTW is no insult, all citizen armies tend to be understandably a little lax, goes with the territory. The US Army was from 1941 through 1972 officially and, today, 36 years later is just coming out of that.
I agree with Ron, that's really the determinant.
Organizing other formations for COIN
Gentlemen,
Fairly new to this forum so I'll keep it short.
In Iraq, a great amount of our deployed formations are heavy brigade combat teams. There are only 4 infantry companies in these brigades. These companies are relatively (key word) easy to 'organize' for COIN since they are robust and fairly large. However, there are also 4 tank companies (62 men, pure), 3 cav troops, and an engineer company, to list the maneuver companies. Any specific thoughts on how to maximize our manpower to achieve similar effects?
I will tell you from personal experience that the tank companies have to be significantly boosted through task/organization IOT maintain continual operations, even to include self security and a constant patrol presence.
Appreciate some thoughts here.
Tankersteve
At the risk of going off on a tangent...
I was surprised by the recasting of the Engineer presence in the Heavy BCT's, from a company in each of the two maneuver battalions, to just one company for the entire BCT (with markedly fewer "blades" than what I was used to, in the AOE designs / L-series TOE's - and admittedly in the 3rd ACR, we had a larger than usual Engineer company organic to the regiment, and sometimes a Combat Engineer Battalion attached).
In a light BCT, I think that you could get away with just one engineer company for the BCT, but in the heavy world, I think that you need one per maneuver battalion.
Admittedly, the total number of engineers didn't change by much (and seems woefully inadequate), but it has few Brads and fewer "farm implements", and no AVLB's from what I saw. I would think that engineers would be just as useful in COIN as they would be in high-intensity combat - so I am surprised that Engineer branch seems to be, if anything, shrinking. (Not all engineers are EOD (12E, IIRC) but at least an engineer can build things, and carry a weapon on patrol, as opposed to the seemingly bloated MI corps that, from what I have heard, is producing little additional intel, even with all of the extra personnel that we throw into that branch.)