Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Some Americans play the game very well; most don't. Neither do most Brits, Canadians, Frenchmen, Russians, Japanese, Chinese...But some of them do play it well. Two classic Ameican and Brit examples are Edward G. Lansdale and T. E. Lawrence.
"Played the game well" and "inflated legend" are not mutually exclusive.
Dayuhan
Must agree with Schmedlap about Lawrence. I would go further regarding Lansdale. Although I never met him, I do know people who did and found him impressive on a personal level. His book, In the Midst of Wars rings true to me regarding his experiences advising both Magsaysay and Diem. I say "rings true" from the perspective of one who has spent much of my career both as a soldier and a civilian in advising roles in Latin America. This is not to say that Lansdale was always successful at a strategic, operational, or tactical level. he had his failures as we all have. Success as an advisor, I would define, as being able to achieve a rapport with one's counterpart and mor often than not come to agreement on courses of action that advance both your causes.
Regarding your points 1 -3: I agree. I would only add that my experience with number 3 is that we all have our agendas and my goals were to advance those of my counterpart that advanced my own/my country's.
Cheers
JohnT
I've no doubt that Lansdale was very charismatic, and Magsaysay was of course eminently malleable. The defeat of the Hukbalahap, though, was I think less a consequence of Lansdale's ability to manipulate Magsaysay than of the inherent weakness of the Hukbalahap: unsophisticated, unskilled, internally divided, poorly led, geographically restricted, devoid of foreign support. The legacy left to the Philippine military was far from positive, and similar tactics applied in more challenging environments proved less than successful.
I was afraid that was where you were heading
Dayuhan, IMO the issue is not whether or why the outcome of the conflict was successful but whether a solid advisor relationship can contribute to a successful outcome. From my reading of Magsaysay, I would not use the word maleable to describe him - nor does Lansdale paint such a picture. But clearly, Diem with whom Lansdale also worked was not a maleable character yet Lansdale was able to build a successful advisor relationship with him. Note that the long term outcome of Diem's tenure was not a success but that was due to factors well beyond Lansdale's control.
But, again, I don't want to make this thread a defense of Lansdale. Rather, I would make it a defense of the way he did the advising business (according to his writing and that of others who knew him and worked for him - Rufus Phillips in particular). The essence of what Lansdale says is that the advisor needs to treat the people he is advising with respect. Building a relationship is a two way street - as I've suggested in other posts. Furthermore, advising is like leadership, an art. Indeed, it is a special kind of leadership where the leader/advisor has no power, only the ability to convince his partner that what he believes is the right thing to do is right for the partner because it is in his interest. (See Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power). While the US military insists that leadership can be taught, what can be taught are leadership techniques. Likewise, advising techniques (writ very large) can be taught but putting it together on the ground is always an art - and arts are based on natural talent which can't be taught. Talent can be developed but if you don't have it, you can't learn it. So, it is with advising. I taught in the old FAO course and I well recall a number of students who really had no talent for relating to foreign cultures. Most, found out quickly enough and moved on to other kinds of military careers but with an "appreciation" of the difficulty of dealing with a foreign culture (and advising counterparts). At least one went on to a successful career in the FAO field but one in which he was able to avoid any real interaction with counterparts. In his penultimate assignment, his lack of empathy for foreign cultures caught up with him and made him much less successful than he could/should have been in dealing with his American colleagues in an organization populated by FAOs.
Backto the source of all this: I hope that these discussions are helpful to Colin in addressing the problem he originally posed.
Cheers
JohnT
Ok, point taken... though it would be interesting at some point and in some more relevant place to compare the perceptions of the Lansdale-Magsaysay relationship that endure in the US to those that endure in the Philippines. Also worth noting that arguably Magsaysay and Lansdale were effectively worked by the feudal landowners of central Luzon, who created the entire mess in the first place. They emerged with exactly what they wanted: no more Huks and nothing beyond cosmetic reform. Of course they also ended up with another insurgency and a rather more durable one... but that too is another subject!
How do we define an "effective adviser relationship" if not by its outcome?
Many of those we advise are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they talk to us and we have a set of expectations and recommendations, then they talk to their own people, who may have a rather different set of expectations and recommendations. If we think our influence is greater, we're generally fooling ourselves.
The point, of course - again trying to return to something that might be vaguely useful to the OP - is that our tendency to focus on the mechanics of skills, systems, and material is often based on an assumption that we're all basically pulling in the same direction and accepting the same general idea of what needs to be done and how. That assumption is not necessarily valid, and we have to maintain continuous awareness of the other agendas that are in play.
We are in agreement...
I would respond to your super question that the advisor relationship is only a part of the story. The underlying issue is whether we (and they) have a strategy that effectively addresses the threat. If so, what part does the advising relationship play in it? Advising is never an end in itself. It is a way (in the ends, ways, means paradigm - a method for achieving the ends). the advisor is a means, a resource and an expensive one at that. Moreover, he can, as I said above, not be made but his talent can be developed. So, we measure advising effectiveness, IMO, by asking first if advising is an appropriate way. Then, we ask if it is having the effect on HN performance that we want it to have. Then, we go from there, modify....
So, I would treat your question in terms of the analysis of the strategic problem and the development of a strategy. You, of course, can see that my view is that advising is one of the most useful tools in our kit bag but a difficult one for senior leaders (civilian as well as military) to use effectively. The Lansdale story in Vietnam is a cautionary tale in this regard.
Cheers
JohnT
Thanks guys
Since the last time I replied, I've been busy following up some comments from my supervisor and trying to get hold of a number of other experts. So I haven't been following this discussion.
I very much appreciate your thoughts, and most of them will go into the thesis.
The point on the consistency of contractors echos something else I've been told by a U.S. army officer with Liberia experience, and later points Dayuhan about Westerners getting manipulated seem to be the same in Africa: Gerard Prunier: 'in thirty-seven years of studying Africa I have seen more Westerners manipulated by Africans than the other way around.' In Security Sector Reform terms a la the OECD, we need to prioritise local ownership. The problem is that Western style army reconstruction simply does not.
So, interim conclusions:
Drawing on set of cases including Zimbabwe (1980-), NAmibia, Mozambique, South Africa, Bosnia-Herzegovina, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, DR Congo, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and Nepal.
I can go through the list of key principles/framework in which I will add the ideas here and others I'm seeking from France and Africa.
But, after that:
*if Namibia does not have an effective army (data insufficient)
*then there are no cases in which a Western style / Western standard army has been sustained over the long term without large scale continuing Western financial and human assistance
*Underscores the reasonably obvious truth: very difficult to build Western standard armies in non Western countries
*Key difference, thanks to Mark Malan and Herbert Howe's book (Ambiguous Order: Military Forces in African States): There has to be a sense of urgency.
The only capable army in SSA apart from the South Africans is the Rwanda Patriotic Army, and they were faced with annihilation if they lost. Corroborated by Israeli and possibly apartheid-era South African experience
*Potential cases that disprove this argument are Namibia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Kenneth Pollack's book proves that Iraq has a history of very poor tactical performance. I have insufficent evidence to say whether the Iraqi Army now has improved it's strategic, operational, and tactical performance.
*Returning to the main reason for my dissertation: creating security for development to take place? Possible in two circumstances:
*For foreseeable future, only with incredibly disproportionate Western levels of effort. We should achieve much more, but because these are non-Western political systems, we cannot achieve half as much.
*Beyond? Only when there is a change in the nature of who the state serves, the wider masses rather than the politico-military elite. And/or when a functioning bureaucratic structure is put in place.
*What can we do about it now? This is not about armies, it's about the political evolution of the state - statebuilding. One has to improve the nature of the state before we can improve the army.
My focus is mostly on Africa, and many of these ideas reflect what I understand about African reality. Whether they reflect Iraq or Afghanistan is another matter.
Thoughts welcome.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks