General Instructions for Interdicting in Denied Areas
The feedback in this thread has allowed me to consolidate and shape some of my thoughts on general guidance for a company commander should approach interdicting into a denied area. Over the next several weeks, I'm going to try and consolidate it into an essay explaining how my troop did it. Below is the outline. It combines some existing COIN principles, a bit of Dr. Gordon McCormick's Mystic Diamond Model, and other advice received from SWJ and other mentors. If you have a moment, take a look at it, and let me know if I've missed anything.
1. DEFINE THE ENVIRONMENT
a. Conduct Covert Infiltration and Reconnaissance
b. Conduct Leadership Engagements
c. Develop hypothesis of current situation
2. CLEAR and SEIGE
a. Establish a Patrol Base
b. Control the Terrain
c. Control the Population
d. Destroy the Counter-State's infrastructure and support networks
e. Disrupt the Counter-State's influence over the population
3. HOLD
a. Transition to Foreign Internal Defense
b. Destroy the Residual Enemy Presence
c. Confront the Sheiks
d. Restore Essential Services
4. BUILD
a. Restore Governance
b. Restore Essential Services
c. Establish a Police or constabulary force
d. Conduct reconciliation
e. Conduct humanitarian assistance
Thanks,
Mike
Yay, Bob's World -- Phrase of the Week!!!
"Effective genocide program!" I love it...
Your point is well made and mentioning the western US (Eastern, too for that matter...) shows that genocide may leave residual problems which as Steve Blair pointed out with respect to earlier Spanish experience, "...didn't do them much good." :eek:
Which is why I pointed out above that 'population control' is not likely at all and in any even if implemented, will not last long -- lacking the Phrase of the Week. :wry:
Bob adds this:
Quote:
"This does not mean cut and run, it means that if we are so set that we have national interests in these places that demand our presence, lets use our influence to enable a relatively controlled evolution of these governments and not simply help them keep their populaces in check."
Truly good statement. More to the point, influence is better than force -- and once you've escalated to the point where you've committed the GPF it is not ever going to be nice or tidy or easy or cheap. Ever...
2 Attachment(s)
So much political, but also military ...
it would be easier accomplished by a military with political commissars and heavily filled with political cadres (also doubling as military cadres). We don't have that - and I'm not recommending it.
The attached snips I ran into from some early evening reading tonite. They seem applicable and general enough - even though we lack political commissars. And, they do come from the "winner's playbook" (01 and 02) :(
Please note that Giap considered the RVN to be the insurgents ("rebels", "puppets", "lackeys"), with the US supplying the external muscle power. So, Giap was practicing "counter-insurgency" by combining guerrilla and conventional forces - or, unconventional warfare in occupied territory.
Bill, few on this forum can apprciate why I respect your opinon over others, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
That may be true, but it isn't germane to those in the fight. My point is you rejected population control as an effective COIN tactic, and my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. At the tactical/operational level it is essential. A counterinsurgency strategy must address populace control (it is the only means to isolate the populace from the enemy), which is always tailored to each individual situation. It rarely means employing the methods utilized in Malaysia or Algeria, which are the most frequently cited case studies because they were so extreme (but also effective). It seems you believe there is acceptable political middle ground that will be acceptable to the Islamists and those more moderate, and somehow this middle ground will emerge through some sort of natural political evolution under our gentle guiding hand. Sharia law and the extremists who want to impose a strict version of it are not going to accept anything less, so where is this compromise or evolution you speak of? If we're going to fight it (assuming that remains our policy in select locations such as Afghanistan), then we're (coalition/HN/US) going to have to exert some degree of control over the populace. You can't state that the population is key terrain then simply surrender that terrain to the enemy. For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.
I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.
Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems. We strive for utopia, we don't live it.
When was the last time you preferred to be "controlled" in some context, rather than been "supported.?"
The U.S. has interests. These must be supported, that is our job. But, if we do so in such a way that we offend the populaces of the countries where those interests lie, we harm our cause, rather than support it.
Interests will rarely match up, so this requires that we make reasonable compromise. Others before us have used their historic positions of power to ignore popular concerns and to enforce their will over others. Those power are all now minor players on the global scene. We can avoid their fate by refuting their tactics. We must, must, live up to our American heritage by being the one nation that marches to a different drummer.
The age of European dominance over others is over. We held their place to win the Cold War, but now that is over too. Now we enter a new age, and we can lead the way and prevail, or seek to obstruct the way and be over ran.
To me, the choice is obvious. We must lead.
Population control or population shaping?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
...For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.
I don't support arguments against populace control -- I merely say we cannot as a third party intervenor do it very well and therefor those who insist on it being done are asking for something that cannot be produced other than briefly and in a finite area -- in other words, lacking being the government and opting for Algerian or Malayan solutions, you are not going to control the populace of a nation today. Yes, the Talibs are attempting to do that but they can and are doing things we cannot do -- and they are slowly but surely turning more people against the Taliban solution.
Quote:
I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.
I agree with that -- I did not and do not say do away with it -- I do say it is beyond difficult to do, so try we must but the probability of success in that aspect is not great. Been there, done that...
What can be and is being done is local, short time control and long time shaping. Makes the job harder but as you say, ain't no Utopias out there...
Quote:
Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems.
Really? Well, the added (east) was simply to remind Bob's World that there were Indians in the east as well as in the west of the US but to get to your comment, let me repeat the salient point of that post of mine for you: ""with respect to earlier Spanish experience, "...didn't do them much good." " (emphasis added / kw). I believe Steve whom I referenced was pointing to the fact that the Spanish beat the US of A hands down in the genocide business and they got run completely off the continent so it didn't do them much good. So, yeah, Really... :cool:
Connotation kills the real meaning Populace Control
Quote:
Posted by Bob's World: The age of European dominance over others is over. We held their place to win the Cold War, but now that is over too. Now we enter a new age, and we can lead the way and prevail, or seek to obstruct the way and be over ran.
To me, the choice is obvious. We must lead.
Agree with your last post, and in the end we may be talking past one another. Population Control has a terrible connotation, and we need a new term for a new era that reflects what we're actually trying to do. I don't like being controlled, but the fact is I'm controlled to a large extent by a number of laws (and regulations since I'm in the military). I sure as hell wouldn't like it if some foreigner was imposing those controls over me in my country, so we're in agreement.
Two counterpoints:
Population and Resource Control is focused on separating the populace from the insurgents, and the majority of this effort should be focused on providing security to the populace so they cannot be coerced by the insurgents. (If they support the insurgent's ideology, then we're on the losing side and shouldn't be there to begin with unless we're practicing UW). This includes check points, intelligence operations, combat outposts, patrols, information operations, etc. However, when you mention Population Control everyone has visions of the moving people away from their villages and confining them in a camp like the Brits did in Malaysia or we did to the American Japanese in the U.S. during WWII. From my optic that is not the intent, we do this as gently as possible, but we do implement the necessary measures based on the situation. I'll meet you half way, and agree we need another term for this, but you still have to achieve this effect to be effective.
Second counterpoint: You suggested supporting over controlling, and that would be ideal in a real FID scenario, but in Iraq and Afghanistan we are/were an occupying power and that changes the dynamic from where we support to where we must do, until we can evolve the situation to a point where we can really transition to a supporting role. This why I think severe punative raids may be a better option in some cases instead of occupying a country and trying to transform their society at great cost to "all" concerned. In my opinion we over emphasize what we can accomplish with soft power.
I think you forgot your irony pill this morning...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
...others like protecting the population must endure for the length of the crisis.
Agree, problem is getting enough people to do that. Million and a half troops in Viet Nam could not even begin to protect more than about a fifth of the population of 16M or so in a nation half the size of the Philippines land area and a quarter the size of Afghanistan -- where there are less than a quarter million troops of all coalition types in terrain far more rugged and compartmented than was VN.
I'm pretty sure that the likelihood of having enough troops to do the population control thing thoroughly in any nation larger than Belize or Singapore is unlikely unless we get a whole lot of Allies willing to work. :wry:
Quote:
Population control is not a "strategy", but rather a means to set conditions that will allow the political strategy to be implemented. In my view, population control creates a window of opportunity to do the real work that needs to be done. It isn't the end game.
Not to be nit picky but if you cannot control them totally, aren't you talking more about providing security to the extent you can and shaping their thoughts and goals also to the extent you can?
I think we're pretty much in agreement on what has to be done if you're there and we both know if the Pols say go, we're going -- but I do agree with Bob's World that we should try our best not to be in that position. In this era, it is a no-win proposition, not least because of the lack of ability to control the population to a great extent. Population centric COIN is a good book theory, it just doesn't work at all well in practice -- and that lack of population control is the reason; only works if conditions are ideal or in a relatively small area.
Quote:
I don't think we should confuse genocide with population control, and I'm sure you agree with that.
I do agree, of course. However, my subject line comment about your irony pill was at taking that whole genocide train of thought -- which started with a purely and surely ironic statement by Bob's World, followed by one by Steve Blair and one by me -- as being something meriting serious comment. It wasn't meant as anything other than 'Well, we aren't going to do that...' and it doesn't work that well in any event (as you said also) so no one was seriously or even in jest proposing it...