Maybe I missed something but to my mind, this was never and is not
an issue:
Quote:
"...But what we are doing there, while absolutely taking place in the middle of an Iraqi Insurgency, is not COIN. COIN is what the Iraqi government is conducting, and it is as much about improving their own governance of the populace as it is about containing any manifestations of those that challenge that governance.
If anything the role of the intervening party is the most complex of all, because it is the intervener who in fact must make what often is treated as an "irrevocable choice" about which aspect of the populace he will support in this complex dance among "The Populace.""
as Bob's World said...
Only thing I'd add to that is that the intervenor's 'irrevocable choice' reverts to CavGuy's assertion with regard to the population:
Quote:
That phrase was borrowed from Kilcullen. You are probably right, but you want the population to "get off the fence" and side with you in such a way that it becomes difficult to switch back. Anything can switch back, but we want it to be painful to do so.
The intervenor has made a choice when he enters the fray, it can be irrevocable -- or not... :wry:
As Mike F summarizes:
Quote:
1. A person, group, actor that is external or foreign (i.e. AQI, NVA) is a partisan force. This force is attempting to arbitrate in the state's affairs.
2. The state is the one that conducts COIN. As an outside force (i.e. in Iraq) we can assist through FID, SFA, etc...)
3. Our actions in Iraq thus far should be charaterized as an occupation using COIN principles or tactics."
Other than preferring Bob's 'intervene' to Mike's 'arbitrate, I thought -- and think -- most were thinking that and that it is correct. Though I see no problem with saying that we were or are conducting COIN operations (with the implied 'in conjunction with HN forces.').
The importance of nuance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
summarizes:Other than preferring Bob's 'intervene' to Mike's 'arbitrate, I thought -- and think -- most were thinking that and that it is correct. Though I see no problem with saying that we were or are conducting COIN operations (with the implied 'in conjunction with HN forces.').
If I were a shrink, I'd probably see this as a "breakthrough moment." :)
My big issue with this, is that small things matter. If you say you are doing COIN, you begin to think you are doing COIN. Soon you forget or minimize the "in support of" or "in conjunction with" HN forces part of it.
Plus, Americans are not the most patient people in the world. No, really, this is true. We also sometimes think we have the corner on good ideas. Again, I kid you not.
So what happens is that American unit that thinks its doing the same mission as the HN unit soon moves from behind, to beside, to out in front because the HN is too (pick your excuse) to do it on our timeline to our standard. Soon the HN takes a knee. If you aren't listening to what he says, and if you are willing to do it yourself, he often is willing to let you. Before you know it that handful of "US Advisors" has ballooned to a major US operation; and we're trying to figure out how it ever got out of hand in the first place, and how we can extricate ourselves with our honor intact.
So, yeah, I really do think that clearly distinguishing and defining what you are doing up front as distinct from what the HN is doing is very very important indeed.
Usually where we avoided this problem and achieved great results it has been some place where political sensitivities drove extremely constrained parameters for any military involvement (El Salvador, Columbia, the Philippines). Where we have not constrained our actions, we have acted unconstrained, and that has often as not gotten messy.