People, all people can use whatever terminology they're comfortable with.
I mean that -- but that does not mean I have to agree with them on some terms. For this one, as Wilf said,
Quote:
Human Terrain is a meaningless phrase, or should be. There is terrain and their is the population. They are very different things. The population has social, political and religious beliefs - call it.. er culture?
To my mind, the Human Terrain phrase is demeaning to people (either friends, foes or neutrals), is terribly imprecise (and words can be important) and it can send a bad message in several respects not least that people can or should be mapped or cataloged (they can but you better be real careful how you do that and have a lot of people working on updates). IOW, I think it is not a good selection for a title of an effort required in COIN and similar ops. That said:
Quote:
...disabusing one Of such silly notions as attributing supposed knowledge of the human condition as being on par with awareness of the balance of power in the weapons and physical terrain.
I don't think I said anything nearly like that. I just said humans weren't terrain. I did not say in any way that one did not absolutely have to know the people in ones AO and what their effect on the mission will be. OTOH, in that post you quoted, I did say this:
""Thus to try to equate people and the ground is to delude one self that a cursory recon will allow a great route to be chosen...""
That means that if you try to simplify people into a 'terrain' or general recon and use item; you're going to screw up. My gripe with 'human terrain' is that it can lead the ill informed to underplay the importance of the human dimension. It's a silly misleading phrase.
Quote:
In other words just because I know where the weapons caches, airfields, command and control facilities, ports, etc are doesn't mean that I might not need to be aware of how I talk or interact with "X" human. Or that ignoring that may not cost me a whole lot more than I want to pay.
I agree. Please tell me how that interaction or talking equates to terrain in any way.
And remind me what the first 'T' and that 'C' in METT-TC represent, perhaps explaining in the process why they are two separate items... :wry:
Still lost in the fog ...
but at least I found a starting point for something I understand - Human Terrain Mapping, as most simply exemplified by the map of Sunni, Shia and mixed areas (p.19 of article); but more specifically:
Quote:
Defining Tactical Human-Terrain Mapping
TF Dragon executed its data-collection effort through systematic people-to-people contact. The staff planned decentralized platoon-level patrols, conducted during daylight hours, that sought answers to specific questions about the population. These specific “information requirements” (IR) about each separate village and town included—
The boundaries of each tribal area (with specific attention to where they adjoined or overlapped).
Location and contact information for each sheik or village mukhtar and any other important people (government officials, Iraqi Security Forces, etc.).
Locations of mosques, schools, and markets.
Identification of the population’s daily habits (when they woke up, slept, shopped, etc.).
Nearest locations and checkpoints of Iraqi Security Forces.
Economic driving force (i.e., occupation and livelihood).
Employment and unemployment levels.
Population flow (i.e., people moving in or out of the AO).
Anti-coalition presence and activities.
Access to essential services (fuel, water, emergency care, fire response, etc).
Particular local population concerns and issues.
This seems a valid enough use of applying graphics (overlays, etc.) to show demonstratively the relationships between the population and its terrain (geography).
IIRC (always dangerous), something akin to that was suggested within the last two decades in Egypt by some civilian assistance agency re: the problem of collecting taxes, property ownership, etc. Seems Egypt had no records id'ing who lived where, owned what, leased what, etc. Solution (which I can't recall whether implemented or not) was what any rum-dum county tax equalization department has - a database of property "cards" mapping the data against the terrain (plat maps).
Seems that "Human Terrain" has morphed beyond those concepts into something I don't understand.
Agree with slap:
Quote:
You don't need 14 college degrees either. I know some double clutchin detectives that could run most intell ops with 3x5 cards and I don't think there is a college degree between the whole bunch of them. But if you ended up on there to do list....they would map your terrain alright.
Not really; some folks experimented and reinvented a wheel
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
Seems that "Human Terrain" has morphed beyond those concepts into something I don't understand.
and good for them for doing that kind of mapping, as Slap points out and as anyone who served above Rifle Platoon level in Viet Nam (knows not to mention above Cav Troop in the Indian wars or the Philippines in '01 -- 1901) it works.
While they did well to reinvent it (even though techniques are in several Intel Pams and Manuals or used to be...), they or someone somewhere did not do a good job of naming it.
You're correct, it has taken on a life of its own; jargon will do that -- and it is seldom helpful.
Sorry if my comment seemed somewhat snarky
While I recognize the wisdom in what you all are stating and yes as many have mentioned the current reinventions have been markedly less than stellar that unfortunately still leaves us with how come it had to be reinvented in the first place.
If somethings important enough how else do you get it back so those who knew it best can reshape it correctly than to throw it on the table in whatever form or format you can?
Reinvention is a constant human phenomena.
It is particularly bad in the Armed forces and more particularly in the Army -- and that will not change until three things occur. (1) We inculcate in schoolkids the importance of history and the NEED to avoid wasting effort on reinvention. (2) The personnel system stops insisting on up or out; on moves every three years (to better train and round out the troops -- or to justify jobs for the Personnel Managers? Try to lay off the excess in the Hoffman Building and Congress will be breathing down your neck); that forced lack of continuity is why we don't have six years in Iraq -- we have six one year tours in Iraq. (3) We can tune egos and the overwhelming desire to 'do it my way' can be stifled. Commanders think they 'own' units -- they do not (the term "My Soldiers" was made obsolete by A. Lincoln some time ago) and they 'own' battlespace -- they do not, they operate on it.
That owenership shtick makes them reluctant to accept advice or help -- particularly from anyone they out rank, don't know or don't like or whose PME credential are less. They also, in too many, not all, cases reject the written word because as one Colonel told me "...you can't trust that stuff; I remember when I was a doctrine writer at Benning, I didn't have a clue what I was doing." Let me emphasize that there are many -- most -- to whom those comments do not apply but they do apply to a great number (and the CSMs are worse :D ).
So, really long way of getting to the point -- you're probably never going to be able to tune the egos. Fixing the Per system is in the very hard box. Fortunately, the schools are getting better. Short answer -- reinvention will likely be with us always.
The answer to your important question:
Quote:
"If somethings important enough how else do you get it back so those who knew it best can reshape it correctly than to throw it on the table in whatever form or format you can?'
Is, I think, a two parter. First, who decides if it's important -- critical question, allies to all my garbage spouted above.
A lot of stuff that isn't important gets 'saved' by people over impressed with their or a unit's accomplishments or who just have skewed values or perceptions; that stuff clutters the system and can obscure the really important stuff. That is not to say that lessons learned and recorded aren't important or necessary -- they are, it's just that human nature is going to put some filler in there and the initial items will almost be overlong due to recollections of where Heebley was when the RPG hit -- which may not really be germane to the lesson. If it's a good lesson, it get's retained, edited and improved over time..
Secondly, you use CALL, the forums on AKO and such -- so we are getting a whole lot better. It's not perfect but it works pretty well. More importantly, we recall that every NCO and every Officer are trainers -- so the good stuff that works gets passed on and most of it gets captured as doctrine or in training material. It is not fool proof but for humans, it works pretty well.
Take Human Terrain. I once knew who coined that but I'm old and have forgotten. It made some sense at the time and it is a form of shorthand, it's jargon, just not very good jargon. Wilf and I aren't the only ones to knock it.
So. It'll likely get changed or die a natural death (and no major harm done if it does not) -- but demographic mapping, knowing your AO and having enough cultural knowledge to know what to avoid and what to look for have been around for centuries. Any Army that does a lot of COIIN doesn't lose that skill; one like ours that deliberately avoided COIN for many years will lose those kinds of skills.
They come back quickly, the key is not to try to put them back in the attic post-Afghanistan -- and I have this vague recollection Jedburgh earlier commented on the process and mentioned a pub...
Get me started on a lazy Saturday, will ya... :D All that can be summarized with 'reinvention is a human foible we have to live with, the system ain't broke, it's even getting better -- it's just really slow and has the hiccups.' :wry: