Population control is an illusion…
Governments remain in power by providing effective security, economic, and governance services through good times and bad. By doing this they can only influence the population, over the long-term governmental population control is just a dream. Taking a western centric view we could consider the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the breakup of the Soviet Union just to name a few instances of the illusion of population control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
This highlights one of the key problems in our current interventions: our exit strategy depends on an evolutionary process that we do not control. That process may be far more complex and difficult than we initially assume it to be: in Iraq in particular, our intervention was supported by some quite naive underestimations of the challenges of developing a government that would be functional and acceptable to all of the major groups. Something to consider before intervening, certainly: realistic assessment of challenges is a useful thing.
Steve (Dayuhan/the Foreigner?), in my western mind at least, you have identified some of the key components of the problem set we face in Afghanistan and Iraq: US staying power in the field is limited; only local populations can truly define the acceptability of local governments; only local populations are placed (they are the true owners of the AO) to deal with long term changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
All of this of course is on a wider scale and is of little use to those facing local problems such as those discussed in the OP. In these cases I'd only add that one obstacle to seeing a solution to an ill-defined problem set is our tendency to define problem sets in our own terms and according to our own framework, which may mean we're trying to solve the wrong problem.
Truly wise words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
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 would suggest that these are short-term measures and that local police forces, ranging over a spectrum of beat cop to gendarme, need to be an integral part of this tactical security centric solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
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 punitive 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.
An advisory role focused upon security, economic, and governance services may be the most sustainable model out there. From my civil affairs centric viewpoint, I believe that it is much more cost effective to influence the influencers. There will always be more locals present in country than coalition personnel.
A hybrid vehicle: Predictive models (Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?), OGA, SOF, Robust PRT’s, Trade Policy, Diplomacy, and GP Military Force as a last option?
We need to get back to a long term focus, which includes a balanced combination of these and other components, which serves to minimize costs and meet our national goals.