COIN for Dummies written by former ISI Chief Lt-Gen (r) Asad Durrani
From the International News in Pakistan Lt-Gen (r) Asad Durrani wrote a piece entitled COIN for Dummies. It is about the Pakistan Military's offensive against the Taliban.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=183348
The intro:
"One should see the whole before the parts" – Fredrick the Great
Indeed, one should. The problem is that faced with imminent threats, the whole was of no use. If the Taliban were all set to break out for Islamabad, the only part that mattered was whether they would take the motorway or come over the Margalla Hills. Some in that case would have 'called-in the Marines', or the Drones. We have neither, so we yelled for the army. Well it is there, once again; this time to root out this evil once and for all. A reasonable desire, but coming from us sounds a bit strange. After all, we are the ones who have been reminding all the rest that insurgencies could not be wiped out by force, and the B-52s were ill-suited to chase the likes of Osama and Omar. I have no idea what chance Fazlullah and Muslim Khan have to escape the crosswire of the F-16s, but the military action does provide us with yet another chance to find out how the "COIN" (counterinsurgency) works.
I've known excellent conventional officers who did quite well in a COIN
or similar environment. I've also known SF officers who did not do well in a COIN or similar environment. Good and bad people abound in all walks of life. Amazingly, some who don't 100% agree with me on many things or accept the gospel according to Saint Ken seem to be able to do good work and achieve great results. :eek:
I still cannot believe that it doesn't have to be done my way to work... ;)
That said, Durrani's article makes sense to me and reflects his realistic understanding of a governmental milieu that is not too swift -- and of the willingness of Armies (ANY bureaucratic organization) to sluff hard jobs and make excuses...
Lot of that going around. :rolleyes:
He's the LINK to the CSM Article "Why the Taliban Won’t Take Over Pakistan." Agree with you that it is a good and accurate article. I also think it effectively supports the Durrani Op-ed... :D
In convention as opposed to un convention is better than no convention...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
...As to WILF's comments, I would simply say that you appear to be taking my comments as "absolutes."
Wilf is not alone, many of your comments seem to be absolutes which when and if questioned, are modified. :wry:
It's sort of like throwing a Grenade in the room. If it kills all the bad guys, good enough. If it does not, then you adjust. Nothing wrong with that, it's a technique that adapts well to boards like this. Many of us do that and make no bones about it, mostly because everyone can figure it out as well as we can... :D
That, however, can lead to 'misunderstandings' like this:As to Ken's comments, I never said conventional guys can't do COIN, I said he was expressing a very conventional approach...Actually, what you said was:
Quote:
"He sounds like an excellent conventional officer.
Which is an innocuous comment on the surface but coming from one who takes great pride in his branch and who has routinely derided the 'conventional' approach can come across as an insulting comment. At least to me and I'm sure not the target of the comment, I just read it on a discussion board...
When you follow that with this:
Quote:
"If given free reign to execute this within the paradigm he describes, the actions of the Pak army would do far more than the actions of the Taliban to destroy his country. Like all armies, they need to focus on the insurgent, not the insurgency. But only if the Civil leadership understands the difference and has divided the civil and military tasks accordingly. Only if the Civil leadership is focused on the insurgency itself in a wholistic approach.
Which is certainly a valid opinion but something of an absolute and not really all that much at odds with what Durrani wrote, it makes the initial comment at least suspect if not a bit more of a derisory comment...
Quote:
To me at least, the difference is considerable.
To others, perhaps not so much.
Conventional and unconventional are neat, facile and really sort of silly and much overused buzzwords; using them implies that only the properly anointed (or funded and manned) can do one or the other.
The hard truth is that the decently trained can do both with equal facility.