The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)

[Schmedlap]

What I notice in many discussions that involve ethics, law, and war is that there is a common error made among people who a) have legal backgrounds and b) get their knickers in a twist over inevitable civilian casualties and collateral damage that occurs in war. That error is that they completely forget all principles of respondeat superior and agency law. They assume that every decision made or action taken by a Soldier is one within the scope of that Soldier's job, within the bounds of the "normal course of business" for the organization, and within the Soldier's actual/implied authority. Often times, clearly, none of those are the case. Abu Ghraib comes to mind. There is still a large group of people convinced that that specific prisoner abuse was a policy directed by the administration. That would be like blaming me if I hire a guy to mow my lawn and, instead, he abandons the job, walks down the street, kidnaps a woman, and rapes her - and then concluding that I am a villain who justified the decision to have my lawn mowed by lying to the American people.

[M-A Lagrange]

Haven't got time to look at the link, but I pretty much despair once people start trying to put "ethical" frame frame works into these discussions. It leads you down a blind alley that utterly fails to account for the realities of operations and imagines that these things are somehow choices or even controllable - they are not.

100% agree with. But saying that, I still believe that there is a need to have a deeper look on "ethic" and specially when it comes to counter-insurgencies.

Using civilians as weapons can be done in various manners. Sending them after diffusion of false informations to re-establish government supporters presence in non-secure areas is, by my definition, non-ethical.

Debate on what is acceptable and what is not to do about civilian involvement in the build phase should be open or at least re-examined.

[William F. Owen]

Two things:

a.) Can an Admin correct the spelling of "Kilcullen" in this threads title - otherwise it will not come up on searches

b.) See here

Why I have not seen this before I do not know, but I was having a conversation about the best way to protect a population is to kill those who would harm them, and someone pointed this link to me.

Around 27:00 it gets good. Basically for all Dave says, and even at the end, I just cannot see the down side with focussing on killing the insurgents, so as the people can implement what ever system works for them, sure in the knowledge the bad guys are not coming back. As Dave points out, support follows strength!

You cannot support people who are dead and the dead cannot govern. Once they are dead/defeated you do not have a competition. The killing of the insurgent is the way, not end state.

I see no need for a dialogue between those eliminating the insurgents and those building the peace afterwords. Two different jobs done by two different folk. - a bit like Fireman and decorators. "Fires out. Begin repairs," - or as they said in Dhofar, "defeat the insurgency so as we can begin development."

[SWJED]

Fixed.

[MikeF]

Two things:

a.) Can an Admin correct the spelling of "Kilcullen" in this threads title - otherwise it will not come up on searches

b.) See here

Why I have not seen this before I do not know, but I was having a conversation about the best way to protect a population is to kill those who would harm them, and someone pointed this link to me.

Brilliant speech, Thanks Wilf. Of particular note, Dr. K addresses the issues of local governance. The Taliban, while harsh with social matters, is GOOD at trade and land disputes. Our soldiers and marines can destroy the Taliban, but if the A'stan gov't cannot provide governance, then no one can win.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

Our soldiers and marines can destroy the Taliban, but if the A'stan gov't cannot provide governance, then no one can win.

For sure. That's THE point! Force is the journey, (-ways and means,) not the destination, (-ends). The only point in getting rid of the Taliban is if something better can be put in it's place.

....and "Better" merely means acceptable to US Foreign Policy. They do not have to be good people or even good a governing. Just good enough....

[Rex Brynen]

I see no need for a dialogue between those eliminating the insurgents and those building the peace afterwords. Two different jobs done by two different folk. - a bit like Fireman and decorators. "Fires out. Begin repairs," - or as they said in Dhofar, "defeat the insurgency so as we can begin development."

Rather more like the dialogue between firefighters and contractors/civil engineers, I think. Firefighters fight fires with broader concerns than simply putting out flames. Civil engineers design buildings and obey "best practices" (fire codes, etc) to make sure fire risks are minimized.

No one suggests that engineers should grab hoses, or that firefighters should learn AutoCAD. It is vitally important, however, that each learn from the other.

[William F. Owen]

It is vitally important, however, that each learn from the other.

OK, I can dig that. Learning is rarely counter-productive, but why the dialogue during the military operations? A competent military knows who to kill and why. I don't think they can really seek outside opinion on that and they can never get it right all the time. They just have to get it "right enough," - as the amount of civilians NATO is currently killing shows. - and I think that's a real problem for the type of folks you find associated with the reconciliation process.

I think there are very sound reasons, at least perceptually, to separate the fireman from the decorators.

[Rex Brynen]

why the dialogue during the military operations?

Col. Snuffy: "If we destroy that bridge, we can interdict insurgent resupply operations during our forthcoming operation."

Ms. Fixit: "If you destroy that bridge, you'll cut 11 villages off from their markets. Moreover, the main electrical, telcom, and water trunk lines run under that bridge. It will make it difficult for the follow-on police contingent to patrol the area, and will force people to detour through a difficult, bandit infested area controlled by the Knights Who Say Ni, who will force passing travelers to give them shrubberies. It will piss the hell out of the locals, and may actually assist insurgent recruiting."

Col. Snuffy: "Well, in that case, perhaps we have another interdiction option that, while marginally less effective in a narrowly military sense, doesn't have the second-order social, economic, and governance implications that you're pointing out."

[William F. Owen]

"It was announced today that Brigadier Ken Odom-White has relieved Col Archibald Snuffy of his command for being terminally stupid......"

Like I said "competent army," who do not go around dropping bridges.

My concern is that Brigadier Odom-White points out to Mr Fixit that he needs to take out (kill-capture) Sally Aba-a-bad-girl, as she is the insurgent head of intelligence for the area, and gets told he cannot cos she is as cute a bag of puppies, never carries a gun, and the assessment is just based on photographs and HUMINT reports.

"..... in other news, NATO air strikes against the Knight Who Say Ni, accidentally killed 12 African Swifts by a mistake......."

[Tukhachevskii]

"..... in other news, NATO air strikes against the Knight Who Say Ni, accidentally killed 12 African Swifts by a mistake......."

That IS a tragedy, meanwhile in other news "the 12 North African Swallows wanted for a series of coconut bombings are still at large"

[MikeF]

Here's some additional thoughts on Dr. K's message that may be relevant.

1. I liked his father's interpretation of Herodatus and small wars. Reminds us that these wars are not new, and in some ways, we're try to relearn them.

2. One thing Dr. K did not address is the impact on the local governance structure after a protracted war. This is extermely important, and it further complicates why turning A'stan around may prove a bit tougher than we think think. During Phase Two operations of insurgent infiltration, the Taliban will conduct Reduction of the Prestige or targeted assassinations. This weakening or destroying the existing tribal leadership creates a huge power vacuum that is not easily filled when we re-take the area. During this A'stan surge, we should expect to see a counter-attack along similar lines- elders that support the coalition being targeted for assasination or harrassed.

I see no need for a dialogue between those eliminating the insurgents and those building the peace afterwords. Two different jobs done by two different folk. - a bit like Fireman and decorators. "Fires out. Begin repairs," - or as they said in Dhofar, "defeat the insurgency so as we can begin development."

3. Wilf, unfortuately, right now, the commander clearing the area is the same dude trying to govern and build the peace afterwards. It's a young army or marine company commander. I had to do this in Iraq. We reorganized our company structure- Each PL had a neighborhood, one PSG was the mayor, one PSG was the Police Chief, one PSG worked civil projects. Initially, we had to do this b/c the village leadership structure was too weakened from the protracted civil war as I mentioned in point one. We did our best to try to negotiate land disputes and trade issues, get the schools and clinics reopened, etc, but a maneuver unit is not properly configured for these type of issues. Additionally, I lacked the wisdom of Solomon . I had to cross off benevolent dictator as future job prospects.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

1. I liked his father's interpretation of Herodatus and small wars. Reminds us that these wars are not new, and in some ways, we're try to relearn them.

Eaxctly! So we do not have to make up silly new words. I am very happy with "Crushing Rebellion."

During this A'stan surge, we should expect to see a counter-attack along similar lines- elders that support the coalition being targeted for assasination or harrassed.

...and the best way to prevent this is..... dialogue or armed force?

...... unfortuately, right now, the commander clearing the area is the same dude trying to govern and build the peace afterwards. It's a young army or marine company commander.

Why - when we all know that this makes no sense and you've been doing it 5+ years?

[MikeF]

Eaxctly! So we do not have to make up silly new words. I am very happy with "Crushing Rebellion."

Concur

...and the best way to prevent this is..... dialogue or armed force?

It doesn't have to be zero-sum. I actually would crush dudes one day and talk to their boss the next day. At each meeting, I would ask, "have you had enough yet?" There are other indirect ways. I'm intrigued by a combination of Jim Gant's plan and Greg Mortenson's saving the children approach.

Why - when we all know that this makes no sense and you've been doing it 5+ years?

Brother Wilf, I think you gave me some advice about six months ago. You suggested that I just roll with the chaos and not try to fight it. I took your advice, and I'm not going to ask questions that I cannot directly influence.

I'm also listening to our chinese brother:

It takes a person of civil virtue to bring peace to the empire, it takes a person of martial virtue to quell disorder in the land. The expert in using the military has three basic strategies that he applies: the best strategy is to attack the enemy at the level of wisdom and experience, the second is to expose the injustice of the enemy's claims, and the last is to attack the enemy's battle position.

and trying to contrast that with the Roman's warnings:

Armis Exposcere Pacem. They demanded peace by force of arms.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

At each meeting, I would ask, "have you had enough yet?" There are other indirect ways.

If it breaks will it works

Brother Wilf, I think you gave me some advice about six months ago. You suggested that I just roll with the chaos and not try to fight it. I took your advice, and I'm not going to ask questions that I cannot directly influence.

I'm all for working with the chaos, but that does not mean accepting things as just being just the way things are because people are too stupid or lazy to change. That's why you get Rebellions!

[MikeF]

If it breaks well it works

Concur, but eventually, somebody has to figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

I'm all for working with the chaos, but that does not mean accepting things as just being just the way things are because people are too stupid or lazy to change. That's why you get Rebellions!

I know. I just wanted to poke the bear and get you riled up .

[Dayuhan]

I am very happy with "Crushing Rebellion."

Two considerations here...

First, before crushing a rebellion it seems reasonable to ask why there's a rebellion in the first place, and whether removing the motivation might be easier and less costly than crushing the rebellion. If your populace is rebelling because you've banned alcohol and they want to get drunk, its quite likely that the total cost of crushing the rebellion would be less than the total cost of letting them do what they want to do.

Second, crushing rebellion might work if you're facing a rebellion. Are we? Rebellion, per compact OED, is: "an act of rebelling against an established government or ruler." Is that what's going on in Afghanistan today? I'd suggest not. The semantics of the question do matter. When we classify irregular resistance to foreign occupation as "rebellion" or "insurgency" we call up reflexive responses which are based on assumptions which may not be at all valid in this case.

[William F. Owen]

First, before crushing a rebellion it seems reasonable to ask why there's a rebellion in the first place, and whether removing the motivation might be easier and less costly than crushing the rebellion. If your populace is rebelling because you've banned alcohol and they want to get drunk, its quite likely that the total cost of crushing the rebellion would be less than the total cost of letting them do what they want to do.

a.) I'm not ever actually going to use the term "crushing rebellion."

b.) If the populace has resorted to violence to protest then I'm going to force them to give up violence. - and that is not to say they do not have a legitimate cause IN THEIR eyes, or that the cause really is the cause - something folk seem to keep missing.

[ptamas]

I'm picking up on an old thread here...this is RTK commenting on the 28 articles...

Iraq, despite the men's perspective, is a matriarichal society. Getting into the women's networks influences the family network and gets 14 year old Joe Jiahist grounded and beaten with a wooden stick by his mom. Aside from the pure comedic value of these types of events, the women's circles are often the untapped venues of success in this type of society.

Has anybody had a good look at the effect sending our young men into the field, who will do the sorts of things that young men do while dressed up in and driving soldier kit using the kinds of power that soldiers have, has on the ongoing negotiations about whose on top and what kinds of power are more important in the societies where we are deployed?

I'm starting from the assumption here that there are ongoing fights in every society about what kinds of power are important and who gets to wield those sorts of power. The folks and capabilities we field are a partial subset of the range internal to our society. I'm worried that the specifics of that partiality may induce changes on the other side that we might not like that much if we thought about it.

The intro line comes from a deeply essentialist read of Canadian history. Apologies in advance...and here it is.

When Europeans showed up in Tlingit areas the matriarchs told their proxies (old men) to send their disposables (young men) out to talk with our disposables (again, young men). The short version is that our young men played with their young men and the proxies that looked like their chiefs in ways that totally screwed up their norms and governance structures.

We're still eating the consequences of this 300 years later.

-peter

[marct]

Hi Peter,

I'm starting from the assumption here that there are ongoing fights in every society about what kinds of power are important and who gets to wield those sorts of power. The folks and capabilities we field are a partial subset of the range internal to our society. I'm worried that the specifics of that partiality may induce changes on the other side that we might not like that much if we thought about it.

"may induce changes"? Hmm, I would have said "will", but...

I would suggest that any interactions will cause perturbations in the various cultures involved and, sometimes, those will realign power balances. It's certainly happened before and I don't see it not happening this time. I think it's more a case of if we didn't, then what changes / vectors would there be, and would we like them less?

Cheers,

Marc