JP 3-24 is a useful political-military publication
Several recent and earlier items in Small Wars Journal have apparently been stimulated by the re-issue of JP 3-24 in November 2013. After skimming through it and also reading some entire pages my first attempt to describe that new JP 3-24 was satisfied by one word: ‘ turbid ‘: defined in Macquarie Dictionary as “ 3. disturbed; confused; muddled. “ and first-up in Chambers as “ disordered; muddy; thick. “
But that description was facile and did not do justice to the people responsible for preparation and issue of JP 3-24. They would surely have been alert to defects and aware that a small editorial group could reduce any bulky committee draft to a more instructive and readily assimilated version.
The conclusion to the Executive Summary is carefully worded. It consists of one sentence: “ This publication provides joint doctrine for the planning, execution, and assessment of COIN operations. “
The purpose of JP 3-24 could be clarified by modifying that conclusion. It might then commence with a sentence such as “ This publication provides joint doctrine for theatre-level command and staff elements, and to assist command issue of doctrine in a format suitable for use by units in a particular military theatre.” It might also mention that the publication is not itself intended for purposeful use by tactical units.
Nowhere in JP 3-24 is it mentioned that subliminal but major goals are to demonstrate scholarship, and achieve a wide span of socio-political acceptance at home and abroad.
JP 3-24 is unlikely to be modified to include any of the above for that would make it less generally acceptable. Nor is it likely to be revised in the near term to become less turbid or to include anything suggested in the streams of comment that continue in SWJ and elsewhere. Nevertheless ‘ useful ‘ could be an appropriate descriptor for the new JP 3-24.
That applies particularly because external comment may result in some useful input to other publications and instructions that are classified military-eyes-only. Hence, SWJ and suchlike even though some of their content will be or will seem to be turbid.
There are, however, two fundamental defects in the new JP 3-24. One: it fails to address the nature, distinction and prosecution of the concept or concepts of operation that is/are currently known as COIN as a component of PO, FID and anti-guerilla operations. Two, it endorses the employment of SOF for strike/DA away from population centres and hence promotes under-use of linguistic and pop-centric training and skills which are routinely concentrated in SOF, and alternately available (to a lesser extent) in intelligence elements.
FM 3-24 is Posted on the Web
The document is published. It is available now at
https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html . That is an internal
site, but it will populate to the external site
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/Active_FM.html tomorrow morning.
FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency for Foxes
I saw this article and thought it was pretty interesting because I think it picks up what is the strength of the new FM 3-24.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...s_field_manual
Quote:
The new manual takes the critique seriously and makes points once understated more explicit. It notes that "counterinsurgency is not a substitute for strategy." Rather, "[t]he strategy to counter an insurgency is determined by the ends the U.S. wishes to achieve, the ways it wishes to achieve those ends, and the resources or means it uses to enable those ways."
There is a saying attributed to the Greek poet Archilochus, "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." The drafters of the new manual have embraced the fox. And this is perhaps the most important lesson of the new manual. The hedgehog's mindset is indifferent to context, misses the diversity of tools we have at our disposal, and is insensitive to evidence of (in)effectiveness. When countering insurgencies or making foreign policy more generally, a smart strategy requires foxes.
What the United States should do to counter an insurgency is the dependent on the nature of the insurgency. Counterinsurgency is not the cookie-cutter application of tactics. An insurgency where one needs to enable a host nation in stopping influence of another state will be different from an insurgency that is regionally based with no outside support. Those will be different from other insurgencies. The context of involvement and the strategic approach matter in what tactical units are doing in an insurgency.
It isn't about "nation building". It is about matching tactical tasks to the mission given and the tactical tasks one performs will be dependent on the context of the involvement. While that may be true for any type of operation, that is especially true when policy makers decide it is in our interest to counter an insurgency.
