Green on Blue: causes and responses (merged thread)

[Bob's World]

Great speech, but, not true. At least according to the study referenced, and according to common sense.

The reason you cited is political, Taliban noble resistance and all of that. These are murders. Murders are personal. You were a DA. You know that. People have things that they resent and those build up until they decide they have been dissed enough then they murder. There may be some merging there, resentment at the latest air strike gone awry or last night's raid that killed the wrong people (again) but those are still things that get to the murderer on a personal level. Not many commit a deeply personal act like murder because they don't like the way the constitution is written.

But all that doesn't really matter too much. The murders are happening. Do you think Taliban & Co can use this pattern or exacerbate it and direct it?

What is "murder" in an insurgency?

Is it murder when we shoot a kid off his motorcycle for failing to slow down when we flash a light at him?

Is it murder when a head of household rushes to see who is invading his home with an old Russian single-shot shotgun in hand, only to be cut in half by the lead man of a team looking for some HVT?

Is it murder when an IED blows up non-combatants of any ilk?

Comfortable civilian peacetime constructs of law and justice do not readily apply. To write off even most of these Green on Blue events as murders of individual and personal purpose and intent is, IMO, naive at best, and intentionally disingenuous at worst.

They should be considered as yet another powerful metric of the inappropriate nature of our actions and the unlikelihood that current approaches and polices can produce the results we hope for.

[carl]

Bob:

Nice stump speechifying. You know what we are all talking about even if you don't approve and want to steer things in another direction.

[carl]

Fuchs:

I have another question. Some of the displaced persons that my Mom knew and worked with here in the US in the 10 years or so after WWII said German troops were much better behaved than American troops. (This is not counting reprisals and thing like that.) They said that in the normal course of events they preferred having German troops in the area. I think I read that elsewhere also but can't remember where.

Do you know if that is true? If it is, did specific training cover that or was it just a part of the overall system of discipline and training?

[Fuchs]

Fuchs:

I have another question. Some of the displaced persons that my Mom knew and worked with here in the US in the 10 years or so after WWII said German troops were much better behaved than American troops. (This is not counting reprisals and thing like that.) They said that in the normal course of events they preferred having German troops in the area. I think I read that elsewhere also but can't remember where.

Do you know if that is true? If it is, did specific training cover that or was it just a part of the overall system of discipline and training?

The Wehrmacht grew to about nine million men, plus Waffen-SS half a million or more. Both were large enough to be bound to have both good and bad apples among their ranks.

Moreover, the quality of a military unit is largely being determined by its commander. There's no reason to believe that an overall poorly-reputed army hasn't some nice units and no reason to believe that an overall well-reputed army hasn't some really stinking bad apple units.

So an entirely well-mannered unit was probably the consequence of fine and well-intentioned leadership of that unit. The same applies to an entirely bad unit.


Military organisations are highly authoritarian, and lots of psychological experiments (edit: example) have shown that many humans are incredibly obedient even to fake authority. Add in the power of enforcement of orders that a military bureaucracy has and it's easily visible how a commander can shape a unit to either evil or well-mannered. It's even possible within few weeks if the unit is a reservist unit or had previously been rather neutral on the good/evil scale.


Last but not least, Nazi ideology (which was increasingly fed to troops beginning in 1942 because of the harshness of warfare in the East and possibly because the Wehrmacht had to compete with the expanding Waffen-SS for political favour) did not treat all foreign nationalities the same. The Dutch, English, Danish and Norwegians were considered almost equals, while even the allied Hungarians were looked down at (by ideologues) as supposed descendants of the Huns.


That being said, the most likely candidate for well-reputed German units were probably Luftwaffe troops, for they did not act so much as enforcers of occupation as they did act as spenders. The typical problems involving Luftwaffe troops were probably about girls or booze.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs asked:

What's the share of Muslims in the Indian army?

After sometime researching via Google it appears that:
1) no official figures for today exist
2) in 1947 Muslims accounted for 30-35% of the army
3) 13% of Indians are Muslim
4) reported in 2011-2012 3% of the army were Muslim, approx. 29k

I find that a rather low number, especially since I've seen reports on locally recruited Kashmiri infantry units.

As they say I know someone who should know, so will ask.

[Ray]

Fuchs asked:

After sometime researching via Google it appears that:
1) no official figures for today exist
2) in 1947 Muslims accounted for 30-35% of the army
3) 13% of Indians are Muslim
4) reported in 2011-2012 3% of the army were Muslim, approx. 29k

I find that a rather low number, especially since I've seen reports on locally recruited Kashmiri infantry units.

As they say I know someone who should know, so will ask.

You all don't understand the language, but try getting these translated.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3EHD...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_M0S...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26lC3...layer_embedded

[TheCurmudgeon]

Fuchs:

I have another question. Some of the displaced persons that my Mom knew and worked with here in the US in the 10 years or so after WWII said German troops were much better behaved than American troops. (This is not counting reprisals and thing like that.) They said that in the normal course of events they preferred having German troops in the area. I think I read that elsewhere also but can't remember where.

Curious if the level of discipline is a factor. Again, I am oversimplifying, but assuming the German Troops were more disciplined and therefore less likely to mouth off or curse at the population, could that be a factor.

Along a similar line it is worth noting that the Marines were seen as less offensive.

U.S. Marines were viewed as having better attitudes and being more respectful and respected

The same was said about ETT members and females, so it is difficult to say that it was a discipline issue alone. Could have been a training difference. Of course, the other assumption that could be made is that ETT members would probably be older and more experienced.

[Fuchs]

...but assuming the German Troops were more disciplined and therefore less likely to mouth off or curse at the population, could that be a factor.

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

German troops had almost no motor vehicles for occupation duties, so they were probably much less present in rural areas than the more mobile Anglophone troops on occupation duty.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

I am sorry, I was referring to the WWII comments on civilians found German's less offensive then Americans. Guess I should have made that clear.

But in the interest of "cultural" considerations, I suppose I should blame the Kamaz instead of the Jeep

[Fuchs]

I am sorry, I was referring to the WWII comments on civilians found German's less offensive then Americans. Guess I should have made that clear.

Me too. American occupation troops were more motor vehicle-mobile, thus likely more present and more points of contact = more friction. You can also be a much better bully on a rural street if you have a 60 hp jeep with a signal horn than when steering a horse cart.

edit: Carl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J4RjwVA-PI
This is an old video, 2009 at the latest.

[carl]

Aside from leadership and random variations, why not blame the jeep?

German troops had almost no motor vehicles for occupation duties, so they were probably much less present in rural areas than the more mobile Anglophone troops on occupation duty.

Fuchs I think you may be saying more than you know. We got into trouble in Iran way back when because of the way American troops drove. I read that ARVN troops got into trouble because of the way they drove. In both Iraq and Afghanistan one of the major complaints was/is the way Americans drove and convoy pro force type procedures. I got thoroughly ticked off one day because of the way some spec ops types in Strykers drove. Behavior on the road is one of those things that the ideal "gentleman" is cognizant of but that 20 year olds can disregard in the best of circumstances, not to mention their 40 year old superiors worried about their careers.

[Bob's World]

Bob:

Nice stump speechifying. You know what we are all talking about even if you don't approve and want to steer things in another direction.

Carl,

I am not "stumping," rather I am stumped at how you think the current rash of killings are not related to the very similar factors driving the larger insurgency.

There is both Revolution and Resistance in Afghanistan, and what we wage against most internal to Afghanistan is the resistance. This resistance is not ideological and it is largely apolitical. It is a natural human response to perceptions that some foreign presence is unnatural, inappropriate, and must go.

We have pressed our units into their lands and populaces and waged COIN against insurgents with little regard for how those tactical efforts strategically affect the larger insurgency. In recent years we have forced greater integration between Afghan soldiers and Western members of the Coalition. We tell our men that they will keep coming back until the Afghans are prepared to take over. No pressure.

Do personal conflicts occur? Of course. But resistance insurgency is personal. It matters little if the trigger event is an attack helicopter shooting up your little brother while he was repairing a culvert, or if the trigger event is some E4 frustrated with your inability or lack of motivation to do something in a particular manner or degree of priority he thinks you should have leveling some grievous insult upon you. Respect is a major causal factor in resistance, just as revenge is.

Even if our guys were a bunch of cultural geniuses these events would still be going on because it is also the latest tactic from the Revolutionary aspect of the insurgency. Join the security forces, get close, attack the foreigners. Target the trust necessary for this coalition to work effectively.

To attempt to rationalize these events off in personal or ideological terms is a dangerous bit of self-delusion.

[carl]

Carl,

I am not "stumping," rather I am stumped at how you think the current rash of killings are not related to the very similar factors driving the larger insurgency.

There is both Revolution and Resistance in Afghanistan, and what we wage against most internal to Afghanistan is the resistance. This resistance is not ideological and it is largely apolitical. It is a natural human response to perceptions that some foreign presence is unnatural, inappropriate, and must go.

We have pressed our units into their lands and populaces and waged COIN against insurgents with little regard for how those tactical efforts strategically affect the larger insurgency. In recent years we have forced greater integration between Afghan soldiers and Western members of the Coalition. We tell our men that they will keep coming back until the Afghans are prepared to take over. No pressure.

Do personal conflicts occur? Of course. But resistance insurgency is personal. It matters little if the trigger event is an attack helicopter shooting up your little brother while he was repairing a culvert, or if the trigger event is some E4 frustrated with your inability or lack of motivation to do something in a particular manner or degree of priority he thinks you should have leveling some grievous insult upon you. Respect is a major causal factor in resistance, just as revenge is.

Even if our guys were a bunch of cultural geniuses these events would still be going on because it is also the latest tactic from the Revolutionary aspect of the insurgency. Join the security forces, get close, attack the foreigners. Target the trust necessary for this coalition to work effectively.

To attempt to rationalize these events off in personal or ideological terms is a dangerous bit of self-delusion.

Like I said before, murder is personal no matter how much you want it to be related to broader (very broad) political considerations. You were a DA. You know that. The report Curmudgeon and I referenced makes this pretty clear. Did you read it?

I don't believe I am rationalizing anything, nor are the people who have studied this phenomenon. I think you are trying to relate every single thing that happens to your ideas about the hows and whys of the broader war. The old communist commissars used to do that. Every single thing was related to the struggle of the proletariat, even if it wasn't.

And just to top things off, your idea of an apolitical "resistance" to foreign troops is silly no matter how many times you say it. MO has a political agenda, as do the Haqqanis, as does Gulbuddin, as does AQ, as does the Pak Army/ISI, as does the IMU. And I also notice that Taliban & Co are mostly Pashtun. Last time I checked the Hazaras weren't flocking to the Taliban banner, nor were the Uzbeks, nor the Tajiks, nor the Kuchis etc. And I also noticed that a whole lot of Pashtuns on both sides of the border who opposed Taliban & Co have had their throats cut. I will admit that the idea of a national and apolitical "resistance" relieves the mind of the duty of heavy thinking and can give one the warm and fuzzies when contemplating the nobility of the resistance.

I am still very interested in your opinion about what if anything can be done about these murders, or what could have been done in the past about this. Also I am interested if you have any data or opinion about whether non-western troops provoke the same kind of thing. However, if the response is going to be another stump speech about the "big picture", please don't.

[davidbfpo]

Carl raises a good point on the details of ISAF deaths; are the non-Western ISAF contributors, like Turkey (1300 men currently, there since 2003) and the very separate, now gone, Indian contingent suffering too?

Wiki shows fourteen Turkish deaths, none from "green on blue", in fact none from hostilities:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaliti...in_Afghanistan and http://icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

Neither show "green on blue" deaths separately alas.

It appears the para-military Indian contingent had two deaths - when guarding the Kabul Embassy and none from the two deployed companies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Tibetan_Border_Police