To summarize...One mans's freedom fighter,
is another man's terrorist...
To paraphrase Dr. Tyrell, words mean things...semantics matter...
In my own thought, in deep practice outside theory, I disregarded defining the common environment, human terrain, and COIN dogma to simply talking to people, understanding who they are, where they come from, and what they represent...
For example...
1. Sheik A supported the gov't but controlled militia to attack Sheik B b/c they had a long-standing feud. Additionally, his militia would attack coalition forces as a target of opportunity even though they were cautioned not to harm me. His cousin was the governor so he garnered a bit of support from the national gov't...
2. Sheik B was an opportunist that swayed back and forth from the gov't support to AQ. He was mostly concerned about his economic trade and the benefits of gov't contracts. He disliked sheik A over his political connections.
3. Sheik C hated the occupation, and he could not accept the current gov't.
'
4. Sheik D was a die-hard wahhabist that supported AQ.
Everyone fell along the lines of each sheik...I solved the scenario my own way- I became the greatest sheik w/ a $10,000 bounty on my head...
60% of all my operations were spent on intelligence collection (recon, surveillaince, etc) to continually update the problem set.
How would you define the problem set???
v/r
Mike
Kingo, your post was too good to ignore..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingo1rtr
Saifullah - I dare say you don't have a library close by (if you do then alls the better) but if you can get hold of Frank Kitson's 'Low Intensity Operations' he offers a very good set of perspectives on various actors in these types of situations.
Some of those who you describe might be in a class that Kitson calls 'subversives'. He describes subversion as 'all measures short of the use of armed force taken by by one section of the people of a country to overthrow those governing....it can involve the use of political and economic pressure, strikes, protest marches and propoganda, and can also include the use of small cale violence...' He goes on to distinguish insurgency as 'the use of armed force by a section of the people against the government..'.
He also highlights Sir Robert Thomson (of Malaya fame) who observed that 'naturally, subversion and insurgency can take place in the same country at the same time...'.
Kitson goes on to observe that 'if subversion fails to achieve its aim, it merges imperceptibly into insurrection...'.
I hope these mild ramblings are of some help.
I think that maybe a few folks were too busy talking past each other.
As usual, Sir Frank K gets close to the mark. One of the best military minds to publish last century in my estimation,
Cheers
Mark
I understand that Sir Frank is still alive and retired to the country
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingo1rtr
Still very much with us. I'm hopeful that it might be possible to persuade a wee publisher to consider a bio of him while it is still possible to get first hand accounts with him.
I would say 'watch this space' but I suspect you all ahve better things top do.
Thanks for your comments Mark.
One or two of us have discussed the idea of attempting to contact him (perhaps through the Rifles' association) for a number of reasons:
1. A much discussed (late at night after the port has gone around) edited work / biography about COIN leadership;
2. A new monograph about his influence on COIN doctrine; and
3. (purely selfish) to interview him for one of the case studies in my dissertation...
Anyway, I digress, pound for pound I will take LIC and 'Bunch of Five' over any work by Galula. Any day.
Cheers
Mark
Many good observations here
MarkT and Dayuhan:
In particular I like Mark's overall summary, and I like this comment by our Philippines based friend Dayuhan, but everyone's inputs are very insightful and helpful individually and in total:
Quote:
Again, I'm not at all sure that lessons learned among the hill tribes of the northern Philippines have any relevance at all to the hill tribes of northern Afghanistan, but I think it's worth considering that in any given area, some insurgents may be fighting because of local, immediate issues, and that it might be possible to divide these groups from the national insurgency by addressing and resolving the issues that motivate them.
In Northern Pakistan the media, all their media, in genral use the terms "miscreants" and sometimes "extremists"
Based on several years now of reading, studying and writing in the Pak media myself, where I use the terms terrorists, Taliban, and al Qaida, I will create some confusion I suppose by nothing that the terrorists (my choice of words) have to rob, steal, and extort money nowadays to keep their fighting up and going. We are harming their main source of income whenever we taken on the poppy growers who will do business with anyone who can pay them hard currency, anyone, that includes us.
Shifting to remarks to me circa 2002/2003 from the Greatgrandson of a two times prior, based on the last King's tenure, of Afghanistan, who is retired from the Pakistani Foreign Service and was a protege of the late (executed) PM Bhutto (father of Mrs. Bhutto who was murdered by the Taliban agents it now seems clear to some of the world media in that the UN is formally invetigating now her murder/assassination)...the Afghans tribally are just that, tribes, loose confederations with a weak overall central governance system "until" the Taliban came long.
Thus I think the PsyOps folks using VOA and related channels of communications should pound away at the past and future intentions of the Taliban, and AQ, to "take away" local tribes initiatives and freedom of local governance, to create the in fact true picture that if you think you have got it rough now (remember, these tribe folks have never, ever known nor do they understand democracy or western style governance) just wait until the Taliban and AQ should get back in power and first thing that happens is "off with your heads" as you immediately are a threat to "their" soverignty that would take away the budding system of local governance we are fighting to give back to you.
How is that for another point of view without hanging up on technical military dictionary operating terms?
Simple is always better to me, at least.