Selective Use of History in the Development of American COIN Doctrine

[Schmedlap]

First, in the midst of all this enthusiasm for insurgency study, COIN, etc, it might be worth recalling that our core antagonist in the fight of the day, AQ, is not an insurgency at all.

But our policy makers have chosen to prop up a new government and defend it against the Taliban. Not saying that was wise, but just observing that's the reality. That is what we need to deal with.

I agree with most of what you wrote, as I'm sure most who have no imbibed the COIN bong water will also agree. But it seems that the solution you offer up is to put wise men into office and to conduct actual strategic planning. I suspect the odds of that happening are far less than the odds of us destroying the Taliban.

[Dayuhan]

But our policy makers have chosen to prop up a new government and defend it against the Taliban. Not saying that was wise, but just observing that's the reality. That is what we need to deal with.

Very true, and certainly the management of that situation is part of our present and our immediate future. Just pointing out that this was our choice, it wasn't inevitable, and that we may be able to avoid such situations in the future by making different choices.

I agree with most of what you wrote, as I'm sure most who have no imbibed the COIN bong water will also agree. But it seems that the solution you offer up is to put wise men into office and to conduct actual strategic planning. I suspect the odds of that happening are far less than the odds of us destroying the Taliban.

Also very true, and I've no good ideas on how to weasel out of that one. One way might be to drink the bong water and merge with the Borg. Another might be to run off to self-imposed exile on a remote mountaintop and rant on the internet... but I already did that

[William F. Owen]

It always appears to me that the only people abusing history are those with something to sell. MW and EBO both used very bad history to try and sell their wears. I see the COIN agenda as no different.

If you read military/strategic history in both depth and breadth, you really see nothing new, in terms of basic form. Wars and rebellions flow from the politics of their time. Until someone stands up and admits that the Army should ALWAYS have been skilled at irregular war, and nothing has changed, we will make little progress.
The end of the Cold War should have been a far more seismic shock to the World's Armies that 911.

[Schmedlap]

If you read military/strategic history in both depth and breadth, you really see nothing new, in terms of basic form. Wars and rebellions flow from the politics of their time.

I'm definitely in agreement with you there, but I wonder what chance this argument has of talking the cult members out of the cult, or at least pumping the kool-aid out of their stomachs.

Until someone stands up and admits that the Army should ALWAYS have been skilled at irregular war, and nothing has changed, we will make little progress.

I don't see that happening until the flaws of pop-COIN in Afghanistan can be thoroughly discredited to a degree that most people with an interest in the topic can comprehend. Sadly, I don't think we're there yet.

[William F. Owen]

I'm definitely in agreement with you there, but I wonder what chance this argument has of talking the cult members out of the cult, or at least pumping the kool-aid out of their stomachs.

None. - which is why I try and avoid cult members - and agenda monkeys!!

I don't see that happening until the flaws of pop-COIN in Afghanistan can be thoroughly discredited to a degree that most people with an interest in the topic can comprehend. Sadly, I don't think we're there yet.

Agree, but I don't think they ever will be. There is a huge emotional need to believe in the solution, as all things good will be part of the solution in the eyes of those adhering to POP-Coin.

[iveschris]

Gentile himself uses history selectively to beat the too-much-COIN drum. One common theme rooted in history that influenced the French in their wars to preserve their fading empire and the US in Iraq by the early 2000s was defeat or near defeat: both were losing. Establishing context - like a zeal for practical solutions fired by losing - is a critical historical task and seems rarely to make into history-using TTPs.

Much of the American work on COIN until recently was actually explain-the-defeat history of second wave Vietnam War historiography. Much of that history concluded the US Army got the war wrong because it didn't "do" COIN right. The French school, if you will, was one place to start. But what of that American school represented by Andrew Krepinevich's The Army in Vietnam? Fast forward to the most recent works of Andrade, Birtle, and Moyar that argue that maybe the previous conclusions about the army in Vietnam were wrong.

One reason the army's COIN-manual writing team had to work fast (and accuracy often suffers when speed has become necessary) was the intellectual voids left by the army in terms of doctrine and honest historical inquiry into small wars in the shadow of the perceived failures in Vietnam. Those voids speak to larger issues of both intellectual intensity and PME as well as the long-discussed role of military history in PME.

[Bob's World]

People use phrases like "that's Maoist insurgency" the same way they use phrases like "that's a good tactical approach, but is not strategic." Both are typically phrases meaning nothing intended solely to undermine the position of their opponent.

Insurgency is insurgency; many tactics can be applied, but the root causes are pretty damn constant. Address the root causes and the counterinsurgent will prevail, ignore the root causes and the counterinsurgent will either fall into a cycle of re-occurring insurgency or will lose.

Did the majority of the COIN crowd draw the wrong conclusions from Galula's work? Probably. Population-Centric COIN is too focused on sad attempts to buy the populaces support while keeping the offending government in power; rather than on addressing the problems of governance and supporting the populaces right and duty to stand up to despotism.

COL Gentile makes some valid points that should be listened to. We need a US military that is fully prepared to deter major state-based threats and to deal with warfare. Insurgency really isn't warfare at all, and as such, COIN should be a supporting mission for the military that falls in the category with the rest of MSCA.

When we do, however, get drawn into the insurgencies of others, we will indeed need some unique capabilities, authorities and funding to engage. We also need a new COIN manual that is based on a clearer understanding of Insurgency than the current one.

[William F. Owen]

One reason the army's COIN-manual writing team had to work fast (and accuracy often suffers when speed has become necessary) was the intellectual voids left by the army in terms of doctrine and honest historical inquiry into small wars in the shadow of the perceived failures in Vietnam. Those voids speak to larger issues of both intellectual intensity and PME as well as the long-discussed role of military history in PME.

Well there is considerable debate as to why they even had to write a COIN Manual. Why was it needed? Did it actually make any difference? The British Army never produced a COIN manual. They had theatre doctrine. It worked and worked well. Only now, are they sadly writing COIN-doctrine and it's a mess.
I submit that there was no intellectual void when it comes to "COIN". There was considerable ignorance, but no void.
Most folks just never bothered to read the material or to cherry pick the material they did, based on fashion. Personally I can see nothing written about COIN in the last 10 years is either insightful or new.

[Pete]

MW and EBO both used very bad history to try and sell their wears.

Wares, Wilf, wares.

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction by now should be antique.
If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do,
Why, you might be selling flowers, too.

[William F. Owen]

Wares, Wilf, wares.

ThanX mate! My dyslexia and spell checker never cease to amaze me. - but you understood what I meant?