Appearances can be deceiving...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Bottom line is we opened and held up the edge of the tent, the camel got his nose and then his body inside and now we don't know how to get him out -- and the rest of the world will, mostly, figure that out. Not least because we will very likely go to foolish lengths to be sure that government gets its own way on many things. Even to the point of self harm -- to the US... :wry:
...we can be likened to that big goofy kid who you have to keep an eye on because the wheels are turning in there even though he hides it well sometimes...fortunately he's big enough and young enough to recover from those hard hits resulting from inexperience....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Among other things, the US diplomatic coup of getting NATO to become involved has certainly been a double ed -- one of these (
LINK).
:D
Things are changing fast, we have passed the cold war thaw and are moving into a new spring in which we are really going to start having to pay attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
No body's going to win, there is no win in any insurgency; you can achieve most of your aims but you aren't going to win because lacking killing 'em all, the other guys aren't going away; they'll be back, one way or another and sooner or later. So winning isn't the issue. An acceptable outcome is the issue and that can be obtained without either of your alternatives.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Now, it's likely to be a mix of more COIN support -- and yes, that means fighting -- and 'nation building' without going full bore on either and getting to the point where there is borderline stability in the area and it's better than it was when we got there.
When we get to that point, we'll leave. Then we'll have four win-less wars in a row; I did the first two; these two are for you guys...
Where we gonna intervene and do COIN stuff next?
Ouch.
We are slowly extracting our head from our economic point of contact and it has been much less traumatic than it could have been...this gives me a bit of hope that perhaps, just perhaps, a willingness to try a hybrid/conventional/interagency/COIN/FID/hezbollah-kepi's blu fusion journey can get us where we need to go...no promises though (step 1 in all CA/CMO operations) :wry:
Michael, all very doctrinal, but ...
who is actually doing the "strategic and operational planning", and supplying the bulk of the assets for "tactical-level operations" ?
If the answer is the US, then according to another JP (not writing from my home computer, so I can't cite chap and verse; but IIRC, it's the JP on FID), that situation goes beyond FID with combat support and enters the realm of "war". That might be Bill's point - that's for him to say. But, it is my legal point - we are essentially a co-belligerent in the Astan Govt vs Taliban armed conflict. Similar legal situation as in Vietnam (IMO).
Here's your post on that topic and it is relative
LINK. And we did do all this before... :D
Who's doing the bulk of the work is not terribly material; who's at least in theory providing direction could be. You legal types can argue that; the practical matter is that if the Afghan govt complains about civilian casualties, we react...
There are all sorts of doctrinal boxes. There are also reality boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
... but if we're doing the bulk of information activities, the bulk of the PSYOP, the bulk of the fighting, the bulk of the economic development, who is really the assisted party? The Afghan government or the U.S. government?
Wrong question -- who's country is it?
Quote:
I'm sure jmm99 can help us on the legal front, but if you over throw a government and occupy a country in effect you are now within your borders. We conducted COIN in post WWII Germany (or COIN like tactics). You are legally bound to provide basic services to include security to the populace until your status changes. When does that status change? After you stood up a government, or after you stood up an effective government?
The former. Germany was occupied and governed from 1945 until 1949 by the Allied powers. The Occupation continued after the BRD Government stood up in 1949 for another six years, until 1955 and Germany was truly able to stand on its own. Ten years total. We've been in Afghanistan for eight and they've had a government for the last four. Like it or not, it's been recognized by everyone and NATO is there to help -- and that help is contingent on there being an Afghan government. They were not willing to help the US with what they saw as a US problem...
Quote:
We're doing FID in Columbia and the Philippines, but we were doing something else in Iraq and Afghanistan that was COIN like, but not COIN if Ken's and your argument is correct.
Since both those latter were and are several things aside from an insurgency, I think you could safely say we're fighting wars in both places -- no doubt in my mind that's accurate and should satisfy any purist.
Quote:
Are we conducting Stability Operations? Seems to be a little closer to definitional truth. Does it really change anything?
Works for me. As for change, not for you or me or the troops there but it probably changes something for both NATO and the Afghans and our relations with most of the rest of the world...
Quote:
WILF wrote something a while back roughly stating we're too eager to put something into a doctrinal box, instead of accurately framing the problem and addressing it effectively. Like Ken, I'm extremely leary of all the theories, especially those not grounded in history.
I agree that the problem should be accurately framed, as for addressing it effectively, jury's still out.
The history says that if you try to run a campaign as if it is your campaign and the 'host nation,' no matter how bad they are, no matter how little they may be contributing, doesn't buy into what you're doing, you'll probably lose. Trust me on that one.
Warden makes my head hurt
:D
Quote:
Bill, this whole thread is an example of why I became a Wardenfile as Bob's World would say. War is a system...understand it as that and you might figure out how to win, don't and you will get into all kinds of mentaly ill war concepts and stuff that just confuses the issue
How you been doin? haven't seen you here in a while. Slap
Slap, as always good to hear from you, and when I can I follow your posts on the other threads, always interesting, and the utube video links are always good for a laugh.
I think Bob's World identified an appropriate label for you :).
You have seen my posts countering "some" of Warden's arguments in other threads. I'm not vehemently anti-Warden, but I think he has a very narrow focus and is more of an advocate for his service than an advocate for developing the "right" strategy for our nation. Of course it can be argued that Army planners didn't do much better in Iraq or Afghanistan. As you may recall I am a fan of punitive raids, and of course we can do those most effectively with Air Power, but to demonstrate national resolve you still need to put some boots on the ground to show you're prepared to accept risk to pursue policy. As for leaving boots on the ground and trying to transform another culture that is another debate. In most cases I'm opposed.
Also I'm not convinced war is a system, it is conflict at the highest level, but are attempt to define things as systems have led us astray too many times. Look forward to more debates on this topic. Bill
Drink more bourbon, does wonders for slow brain cells...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
It concerns me when a senior citizen has a better memory than I do :D.
Also makes you dashingly handsome to the fairer sex...:rolleyes:
Quote:
I don't still don't agree with your opinion on this topic, because IMO the bottom line is if we are killing insurgents, we're doing counterinsurgency. I'm not sure that doctrine is sufficiently clear to determine the difference between when we're doing COIN and doing FID.
In one sense, I'm not sure it makes a great deal of difference to you, me or the troops -- war is war. OTOH, it does make a legal difference and, more importantly, a perceptual difference on the part of many. Including the Troops...
If you say the US is doing COIN in Afghanistan in the eyes of some, you're saying those folks are in an insurgency against the US. That doesn't compute to Joe, who also doesn't understand why he needs to care what the Afghans want since we're paying the freight...
Quote:
True we react when the Afghan government complains about civilian casualties, but let's me honest, these complaints have been going on for years, and our reaction was mostly a public apology, not a change in policy.
I think you just sort of made my case; "The delusion that we are -- or were -- 'doing COIN' is big part of the reason we're where we are eight years after we arrived."(emphasis added / kw)
Quote:
That seems to have changed with GEN McCrystal's new guidance.
True, thus, as I said, we'll see; "...as for addressing it effectively, jury's still out..."
Quote:
It doesn't matter to Joe on the ground doing God's work whether it is COIN or FID, but it does matter from a strategy perspective, because it determines how we're framing the problem and if we're framing the problem incorrectly we won't get the desired results.
Absolutely -- that's been my point. Like it or not, it is their country and we cannot go charging around as if it were ours. We did that once and it didn't work out at all well.
Quote:
I do think the COIN/FID debate should be addressed in more detail in another forum; probably in irregular warfare debate. It is being proposed that IW consists of COIN, FID, UW, SO, and CT, meaning these are the activities that "we perform", so if that is true, that sort of rains on the parade of those who say we don't do COIN. With that low blow, I depart the debate for the evening.
I'd agree that COIN is IW -- but that doesn't define who's doing what to who. That's what's important, the definition inside the IW continuum.
Not a low blow, just another example of our 'doctrine' problem -- too many cooks, all want their part of the pie included in everything and selection of terms is part of that. I don't particularly care about the terminology -- I do know that the "We are the US and we're here to help you, please stand back" mindset is not a good thing.
Saying we're doing COIN leads to that, the troops get frustrated because they can't understand why the host nation has a say in anything, the host nation gets their feelings hurt and won't cooperate and 'allies' who would help said host nation aren't all that happy to be seen helping the US. It's all politics and perceptions so the Joint pub folks better be smart in final their word selections and definitions.