Time for a FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency Update

[Bill Moore]

Two of Wilf's posts tend to ring true to me:

Not true. Cambodia in the 70's, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, A'stan under the Taliban, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, North Korea etc etc etc.
This "power from the people" is not a reality in the real world, unless they do a lot of killing to get it, and unless they are prepared to keep killing, they can loose it.

The political problem may continue, BUT you use violence (military AND Police) to ensure it remains a political problem that the rebels will not seek to resolve by force. The ONLY thing armed force does is stop the other guy (rebels) using armed force. That is the key thing FM3-24 doesn't get.

I read every page of FM 3-24 when it first came out, but have rarely looked at it since. The manual has much wisdom in it based on years of COIN experiences, but it also definitely has a slant to it that IMO is misleading by excessively focusing on the populace to the extent of almost ignoring the enemy. While I understand Bob's points about force being a temporary solution at best, I think Wilf trumps that point by stating until we get the enemy (in this case the insurgents) to stop using force, a political settlement will remain a pipe dream.

In Afghanistan the populace doesn't know who will win at this point, and again as Wilf stated in much of the real world "power from the people" without force doesn't exist. We won't have a Ghandi like peace movement in Afghanistan. For us to confuse less developed, non-democratic States with the U.S.'s mature democratic bureaucracy and associated social norms is a dangerous mistake on part, and will result in the development of ineffective policy. The Khmer Rouge and other thug groups didn't obtain power by waging a peaceful election based on new ideas, but rather by employing brute force. The Taliban post-Soviet era obtained power by employing brute force, and now they're attempting to do the same (although this time they're also applying a fair amount of political savvy). IMO you can't effectively counter brutality with a peace movement and economic development. I know others disagree, but again I ask for historical examples of where the counterinsurgent effectively offered an olive branch without first establishing tactical dominance?

At the tactical level do we really need more than a manual on how to "defeat" the insurgent militarily? We all recognize this is not a victory in the traditional sense, but it sets security conditions for a real political settlement. The key is to aggressively pursue and surgically kill the enemy without alienating the populace, and yes defending the populace remains a key line of effort. That means we need to kill the enemy, take and "hold" territory (not return to base camps), and protect the populace, and do so at a fast enough pace to overcome the enemy's ability to reconstitute.

This goes back to the tank issue, if the Marines want tanks, then give them tanks. They have a tactical mission to accomplish and they know what tools they need to do it. They're not the Soviets and any comparison with the Soviets is simply foolish and misleading. People questioning their request reminds of the experts in the rear who questioned the TF's request for armored vehicles in Somalia, and then the subsequent Black Hawk Down situation. Higher gives lower a mission based on policy, and then lower best determines how to accomplish it, which includes determining what tools they need. We don't need a snoty nosed State Department employee in his young 30's influencing that decision by stating sending tanks sends the wrong message. Put the kid back in his lane, the right message is ensuring our forces dominate the enemy militarily. That enables the diplomats to more effectively negotiate as required. Based on my relatively short experience in Afghanistan I can see several cases where tanks could be effectively employed and if I was in the Taliban I would be plently worried if the Marines brought in some M1's.

Where I disagree with Wilf is that there are many unique aspects of Small Wars that differ significantly from conventional combat, so a good Small Wars TTP manual and associated doctrine is required, but in the end the common military objective between conventional and small wars remains the same and that is to take away from the enemy the option of using force to obtain their goals. It is political and psychological warfare so there is more involved than just shooting, but on the other hand that doesn't mean the shooting war takes a back seat while we experiment with a broke IO program, civil military projects, and economic development. We sure has hell aren't going to deter the North Koreans with our civil-military projects and economic development (we tried). They understand the deterrence of might, and so do many hard core insurgents.

Back to Bob's excellent points, which ultimately are the right answer, but they're the right answer at the policy level, and while the lines between the military and policy wonks are admitedly gray, I think we would be better off if our military doctrine focused on defeating the enemy (the tactical fight), and then re-emphasizing (once again) the whole of government approach to achieving a a strategic political settlement. We seem to be out of balance with our current approach. I state the above with some apprehension, because I have little faith in the Department of State to develop effective in lieu of politically correct policy. DOS has some exceptional diplomats, but unfortunately that isn't the prevailing norm, and for one I hate to see our troops committed to a fight where they're trying to support a lame policy that feels good (democracy and economic development for everyone) instead of a policy that is achievable, so from my view it is understandable why the military has over stepped into this role.

In a more perfect world we would have realistic policies and an interagency doctrine based on realsim (not simly idealism) for these types of conflicts. Based on our political system, I realize that is a pipe dream, but I still think our doctrine for small wars manual should focus on how to defeat the insurgent at the tactical level. We would probably use 60% of what is in the current FM, but the slant would be different this time.