Foreign Internal Defense (Indigenous Forces)

[Dayuhan]

In the 70s and 80s there was certainly a broad perception that US FID and military training condoned human rights abuses or didn't do enough to stop them. There may be some substance to that. In the post-Vietnam environment a lot of Americans still felt that we lost because we had to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, and respect for human rights was still widely (and bizarrely) seen as a disadvantage in the war against communism.

Still I think that the trend is generally overstated. The people we were working with needed no instruction or assistance to abuse their people; they'd been doing it for years on their own... and it's not likely that anything the US would say or do was going to stop them.

Today of course this is largely ancient history, except to the Chomsky-wing left and others like them. In the Philippines the US has attained a fair degree of popularity in areas where we're doing field FID, and that's less because of development work than because of a perception that the Philippine military behave better when Americans are around. Can't speak from direct experience of other areas currently, but I'd be curious to hear of any recent claims that US FID is aiding and abetting abuse. No real point in warming over the old stuff yet again.

[Bill Moore]

Seems like we may be confusing CT, COIN and FID. Foreign internal defense (FID) is the participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization, to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to their security. The focus of US FID efforts is to support the host nation’s (HN’s) internal defense and development (IDAD), which can be described as the full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and protect itself from the security threats described above.

I agree that the French and Brits both influenced our COIN doctrine in the 70s and 80s, even if they didn't get credit for the influence. And yes, rougher methods were generally more accepted during the Cold War as the cost of doing business. Perhaps not a stated policy, but in practice we did follow the he may be a bastard, but he's our bastard rule. Our objective was to contain communism, and the ends were generally more important than the means. However, as Dayuhan pointed out no one needed to teach these guys how to torture or abuse anyone, they were abusing their people and prisoners long before they met any American advisors.

Did the U.S. teach these methods? I can only speak from my experience in the 80s (we cleaned up our act in the 90s). The short answer is no, but I accept there "may" have even some U.S. persons involved who promoted these methods based on their personal views, but I'm not aware of doctrine that promoted these abuses. I'm referring to the military only, the three letter agency folks can speak for themselves. I recall seeing a few abuses over the years in more than one developing nation, and during that time frame we had no mandate to intervene like we do now. None the less, I did intervene in two separate incidents in two separate countries to stop (at least for the moment) foreign troops from abusing their own people (such as beating up a local civilian to get information, when he wasn't even a suspect, it was just normal practice). We would attempt to mentor them later on why that behavior was counterproductive, but we had no mandate to stop it or disengage with them if they did, like we do now. My general impression was no one in the USG was supportive of this, and worked patiently to change this behavior. What the CIA may have done the 70s in Latin America is another story, but like most of us on SWJ, we only know what we read, and suspect a great deal of that is inaccurate.

The bottom line is these were cultural norms, and since in FID we were advising and assisting we didn't make the rules, but mentored and in some cases instructed. We were teaching the importance of a proper relationship with the populace long before population centric COIN became vogue in 2006 or so. The focus wasn't the population, but defeating the insurgency, but realizing you couldn't do that effectively if you alienated the population.

All that said I'm not opposed to a tough interrogation run by a true professional. Intelligence is critical, and the best intelligence for these types of conflicts is human intelligence, especially in those days. A tough interrogation conducted by a professional is not torture.

Finally, the brutal tactics employed by the French worked, so it would be naive to dismiss them as ineffective, but that isn't point, it simply isn't the way we fight based on our national morals, which are for the most part codified into law.

[White Rabbit]

Dayuhan, Bill, thank you for sharing your experiences.

Without going too much into the philosophical, they confirm one of the rare facts of life as far as I am concerned: nothing is black and white, everything is grey.

[ganulv]

Finally, the brutal tactics employed by the French worked, so it would be naive to dismiss them as ineffective, but that isn't point, it simply isn't the way we fight based on our national morals, which are for the most part codified into law.

If the reference is to Algeria, I have never understood the reasoning behind the assertion that what the French did there was effective. I know that had politics not taken the turn they did that the FLN would likely have been soon reduced to a non-factor, but the conflict in Algeria helped generate the political context that brought de Gaulle to power.

[ganulv]

Seems like we may be confusing CT, COIN and FID.

As someone with no background of military service my intuition regarding the three would be something along the lines of the following. During my Reagan Era childhood, Delta/1st SFOD-D/CAG was described as a/the counter-terrorism unit, so in my head I associate hostage rescue, snatch and grab, and assassination with CT. Having first learned of the concept of counterinsurgency as a 20–year–old living in Guatemala in the early ‘90s my reflexive thought when I read or hear discussion of COIN is in line with W. George Lovell’s statement that “[k]illing Maya Indians and laying their communities to waste does not solve the problem of reluctant native labor. But it has served effectively to traumatize survivors into submission.” I sort of take the adoption of the abbreviation to be a rebranding while having a vague notion that what used to be a bludgeon is now more like a stick and that some substantial carrots have been added into the mix. As for FID, I happen to have known a fellow who was with the Special Forces in Vietnam (he walked away from a football scholarship at Marshall en route—some guys have all the luck! ) so when I see reference to that term I think of some version of my friend out in the bush/hills/jungle running drills with some version of the Montagnards. So I did a quick search for the doctrinal definitions to see if I was anywhere in the neighborhood and I turned up the following:

• CT Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism. (JP 1–02)
• COIN Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency. (JP 1–02)
• FID FID programs encompass the total political, economic, informational, and military support provided to another nation to assist its fight against subversion and insurgency. (JP 3–07)

Am I accurate here? I kind of hope I am not, because given the amount of overlap amongst them it is almost as if the definitions were created to engender confusion…

[Ken White]

You're accurate and so are the definitions.

Warfare is not only overlap, it is confusion writ large. That is not really a problem except for those who don't cope well or who wish to make it one...

[ganulv]

In my dealings with others I take as received wisdom something my mother once told me—“Matthew, some people are only good for following directions.” Pro: Such people are much more likely to do as they are told than are other folks. Con: This may include driving into the building the GPS does not know is there.

Warfare is not only overlap, it is confusion writ large. That is not really a problem except for those who don't cope well or who wish to make it one...

And what employee of a large bureaucracy would ever want to make anything a problem?

[Ken White]

And those are the folks that don't cope well and / or who wish to make most everything a problem (occasionally so that only they can offer a solution...) and who relish or hide behind the bureaucratic approach.

Coping with complexity requires minimal direction, a major problem with "clear directions" is that, as with GPS, one can develop target fixation to a dangerous extent...

(Not to mention that one conditioned to GPS has great difficulty coping when the system is down... )

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ganulv

If the reference is to Algeria, I have never understood the reasoning behind the assertion that what the French did there was effective. I know that had politics not taken the turn they did that the FLN would likely have been soon reduced to a non-factor, but the conflict in Algeria helped generate the political context that brought de Gaulle to power.

To point out that is complicated is an understatement and a statement of the obvious. I'm not going to debate the morality or the strategy at the national level, because there are many sides to each that can be rationally argued to no real end. On the other hand the tactics the French employed did militarily defeat the armed wing of the insurgency.

The insurgents/rebels were just as cruel as the French, so there were no good guys. Neither side effectively rallied a majority of the populace to its side, so the decisive factor on the battle field was intelligence and fighting ability (mobility, fire power, tactics, etc.).

Strategically the French were defeated for a lot of reasons, most of them had to do with politics on the home front.

I have no issues with your definitions of CT, COIN and FID, and yes the lines between the three are often blurred, and while can involved more providing advise and assistance, FID is generally viewed as such, while COIN and CT are largely doing (of course that isn't accurate, but that is the general assumption). My point is if the HN is torturing people while conducting COIN and CT, that doesn't mean we advised them to do so while conducting FID.