Modernization/Development Theory, CORDS, and FM 3-24?

[Ken White]

I tend to over react to most assertions, even if indirect, that a given tactic or techniques is universally successful...

None are, though most will work on occasion if well implemented and appropriate to the particular war or task at hand.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I tend to over react to most assertions, even if indirect, that a given tactic or techniques is universally successful...

None are, though most will work on occasion if well implemented and appropriate to the particular war or task at hand.

Since no strategy -- including COIN, or Modernization, or Nation Building, or whatever you want to call it -- will work in every instance, we need a palette of options. Something that does not seem to be available in current American COIN or Stability Operations doctrine.

So I guess that is two things we agree on ...

[Madhu]

I really do want to respond to some of the various points made upthread, but I have to wait until I've got time to write proper responses.

For now, though:

In the 1950s, theoreticians gained a more institutional role in society. In the RAND corporation, founded by the Air Force, scholars developed concepts such as game theory and organizational behavior to guide strategic thinking. Others, like Albert Wohlstetter, attempted to distill the lessons of Pearl Harbor into theories of “vulnerability” and “deterrence” in the nuclear age. However, their work carried little weight with President Eisenhower, who had an aversion to abstract theorization. Even the Air Force at that time generally ignored its RAND staffers’ suggestions, unless they justified requests for military budget increases. The decade thus marked a low point in the influence of these thinkers, and they would not bounce back until the election of Kennedy.

The 1960s saw a drastic increase in the attention paid to intellectuals, as many found jobs in the administration, but the result was not more effective policymaking. Kuklick’s prime example here is the Cuban Missile Crisis, which experts misinterpreted both during and after the event. First, Kennedy’s advisors failed to see the big picture, in that they did not see Soviet encroachments as a response to the possibility of American missiles in West Germany. Second, they glorified their own role in ending the crisis, attributing success to sound advice, rather than the fact that the Soviets had been bluffing. They misread the crisis as a victory for graduated escalation, and they applied the same formula in Vietnam, despite starkly different circumstances.

and

The final chapters recount intellectuals’ attempts to modify their theories out of self-interest. Those who had been most responsible for decision making now pointed to structural causes, not themselves, as the reasons for failure in Vietnam. Henry Kissinger, the paragon of realist foreign policy, tried to claim in his memoirs that he had aided the cause of the ideological hardliners. Robert McNamara expressed regret for his role in the war, but he attributed the Vietnam “tragedy” to a lack of “social knowledge,” a problem which no one could have solved (214). Thus, just as they and others had wielded their expertise to justify actions, now intellectuals used it to distance themselves from the outcomes of their own policies.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/reviews/...view.cfm?id=21

I have not read the book being reviewed.

I have never been in the military and as I've said many times on this board before, I am a practicing physician. We all have biases and lenses through which we view the world. As the child of an academic and the product of a college town, I have always been interested in the world of our intellectual movers and shakers. Plus, being the child of immigrants and growing up in the American Midwest, I always had various competing narratives in my head. I've watched as those competing narratives have come to a head during the 00s, especially in Afghanistan. I don't know anything about the mideast and so don't offer much opinion on Iraq. Sometimes, shutting up is the better part of valor. Even I know that.

Human nature - that difficult, beautiful, mysterious thing. And the desire to control and shape the behavior of others! Very human nature-y and very much a part of the nature of our intellectual classes. That's what I've seen, that's what I believe. Don't know how accurate my reflections are, but there you go.

As for "what should we do", much talk on these boards previously about working with groups naturally allied against the Taliban and keeping a small but steady presence, instead of attempting a grand reordering,, another Great Game.

Anyway, nothing can be perfect. I can't believe I used to kind of believe that, foreign policy-wise. How shallow. And yet, I believed it.

[TheCurmudgeon]

From "Preparing for the Third Generation of Conflict, Stabilization, and Reconstruction Operations"
by Dave Dilegge

"There is a growing recognition of the need to move from a sole emphasis on state building and institution building toward a more pragmatic engagement with de facto authority structures, including nonstate actors and hybrid political institutions on the ground. This is particularly relevant in conflict-affected countries, where significant territory is often controlled by a nonstate actor or a rogue government official."

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog...#comment-35458

Guess the academic elite no longer believe it is worth the effort to try to create little clones of the United States in every conflict area around the world. Wonder how long it takes before we forget this lesson ...

[Madhu]

From "Preparing for the Third Generation of Conflict, Stabilization, and Reconstruction Operations"
by Dave Dilegge

"There is a growing recognition of the need to move from a sole emphasis on state building and institution building toward a more pragmatic engagement with de facto authority structures, including nonstate actors and hybrid political institutions on the ground. This is particularly relevant in conflict-affected countries, where significant territory is often controlled by a nonstate actor or a rogue government official."

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog...#comment-35458

Guess the academic elite no longer believe it is worth the effort to try to create little clones of the United States in every conflict area around the world. Wonder how long it takes before we forget this lesson ...

I thought it paired up conceptually with the following articles/posts (in the sense of trying to categorize conflicts based on a complex set of motivations of the main actors):

US Army Special Operations Command and Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory National Security Analysis Department have put together a useful reference for small wars students and practitioners entitled "Casebook on Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare Volume II: 1962-2009." The resource is available for download in PDF format here. If you are wondering where Volume I is, that government document covers post-World War I insurgencies and revolutions up to 1962 and can be downloaded in PDF here. The original was published by the Special Operations Research Office at The American University in 1962.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/cas...ionary-warfare

In order to prepare for the future, we must first understand where we have been moving beyond individual articles of best practices and lessons learned. The intent of this essay is to provide the critique in order to promote an evolution in our thinking. The purpose is to better prepare those who will follow in our footsteps. Finally, we believe that this reform is a duty required from those who directly observed the costs of today's small wars.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...ase-for-reform

I have no idea with the elite business I am terrible at the prediction business, and, apparently, so are most people--experts included. All that "knowledge problem" stuff.

[Madhu]

From the twitter "feed" of Dr. Steven Metz:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...strategies.jpg

http://twitter.com/steven_metz/statu...72129582186496

"The US needs four different COIN categories" (paraphrase) and the twitter links take you to the proposed categories.

We have been treating the various Talibans as one Taliban when it may be that only the Talibans with global power projection ambitions/intent are the real issue for our security.

I dunno. It's complicated.

[Dayuhan]

I believe COIN suffers from a similar problem of misinterpreting psychology, but I am not as clear exactly where the mistake lies.

I can see several mistakes. First, the very construction "COIN" assumes that insurgency is by definition something that needs to be countered. I think that's a mistake from the start.

More specifically, a great deal of our current COIN practice seems to be built around the assumption that our people going into a conflict environment and building stuff or delivering services is going to "win hearts and minds" for a government we want the people to support. I don't think that's ever going to work very well. First, people clearly see the difference between our actions and those of the host country government (even when we put up a host country facade; people aren't dumb), and our activity can easily just underscore the host government's passivity and incapacity. Second, people don't take up arms against a government because that government isn't delivering infrastructure or services, especially in places where expectations of government are low. People take up arms against a government because they see that government as a threat to them. Building stuff and delivering services often doesn't address the causes of that perception, and if it's seen as a lever for insinuating government into local life can easily exacerbate that perception.

From the twitter "feed" of Dr. Steven Metz:

"The US needs four different COIN categories" (paraphrase) and the twitter links take you to the proposed categories.

Like anything from a Twitter feed that's a bit superficial, would be interesting to see how Dr Metz builds that case in a venue allowing more detail.

My first criticism would be, again, that these should be called "insurgency categories", not "COIN categories", because the moment we impose the term "COIN" we impose the assumption that there's something here that needs to be countered and countered by us. That I think is a bad place to start.

Second, I'm not completely compelled by the distinction between nations that do or do not share US priorities and objectives. Very few nations fall in one category or the other, most are somewhere in between, and categorizations may reflect the preferences of those doing the categorizing. Furthermore, the principal priority and objective of a government threatened by insurgency is usually survival. In the face of that threat they will typically claim to share the priorities and objectives of any nation from which they seek assistance, a claim that needs rigorous and cynical assessment.

Third, I think the model omits some critical distinctions, as a 4-part model must. Relative strength of insurgent and government and assessed survivability of host government are key. Even if a government shares (or claims to share) our priorities and objectives, if that government has minimal capacity and is clearly sinking, that has to affect our assessments. No point in trying to bail out a sinking ship. The extent of US interest in a given location also has to be part of any assessment on which US policy or action are to be based. Could go on, but that's enough...