Recognizing Distinct Types of Insurgency - "Know the type of conflict you are in."

[Bill Moore]

Sir,

Don't think I am trying to inject COIN into other operations, but reality is that there will be something after the fight is done. I am a proponent of the WWII style Military Government until it can be turned over to civilian control. But I am not for the Bush/Rumsfeld "the locals can handle it" attitude that prevailed after we overthrew Saddam.

The Army is loath to accept this responsibility, even though it has been historically our job. "No, the Army fights and wins America's Wars, ... we do not enforce the peace!" Meanwhile, the Marine (the older and more mature fighting force) have been doing just this for years.

OK, now I am way off topic, but I think the concept needs to be a complete "soup to nuts" formula. No disrespect meant.

You can't blame the Army for the President's and SECDEF's decisions. If you recall the Army Chief of Staff proposed a much larger ground force for invading Iraq to stabilize it post conflict. He didn't suffer the Wolfowitz illusion that Iraqis would simply welcome us and embrace a western form of government. The Marines weren't stabilizing the Balkans or conducting any other significant stability operations within the past 50 years.

The Army's new doctrine addresses the stability requirement, now we'll if they task organize and train for it. Even if they do it will mean little if policy makers continue to shy away from military governance. This is an example of point where we fail to use sufficient force or other means to achieve OUR objectives. Instead we do just enough to make it worse, and continue to do enough to make it worse instead of getting completely out of the way and letting locals settle it (it won't be pretty), or using sufficient force to impose our will. The lessons we'll take from this war are consolidated in a highly deficient COIN doctrine based on unsound theories. One could argue they are even based on political correctness.

While no one can predict the future, I hope we don't get involved in another long COIN operation. Frankly we suck at it, and it isn't the soldier or marine on point, it is our system. We just end up getting a lot of our kids killed and maimed, and prolong the suffering of the locals who are also killed and maimed. What do we have to show it for it anywhere? Why not try a different approach? Why are we afraid of implementing military governance when it is the right and humane thing to do?

[Bob's World]

Between "dominate the enemy" and "stabilize" there is a missing step :"prevent, resolve or defeat the resistance."

As I said up front, a resistance insurgency is a continuation of warfare, and the natural response of a population to a foreign invasion and occupation. One must either be very clear that this was a drive by punitive operation and that we are not staying for lunch, let alone to "stabilize"; or one must defeat or in some way deal with the resistance that will naturally result.

We tend to make matters worse by wishing away the resistance, and then putting an illegitimate government in place that motivates the rise of a revolution to go along with the resistance.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Trying to return to the topic, and agreeing the the early stages of a revolution is not war, what type of assistance could an outside element provide?

[davidbfpo]

Trying to return to the topic, and agreeing the the early stages of a revolution is not war, what type of assistance could an outside element provide?

There are a number of threads here that comment and debate what external parties / nations can do.

My immediate reaction was to offer Northern Ireland as an example. In 1969 it was a self-governing province and we now know from memoirs very few on the mainland actually knew what was going on. Indeed several politicains who did get involved thought it was a 'orrible place with 'orrible people who had a hsitorical memory not seen elsewhere.

So assistance without thought should be avoided. How long does it take for an advisory mission to really know the context?

Supplying copious amounts of CS gas for riot control is often an option before the level of insurgent / civil violence escalates.

Can diplomacy and NGO action get people on all sides to talk? Should an external actor open dialogue with all?

There is clearly a potential for any external actor to be identified as supporting the regime / nation-state. Is that clearly a plus?

[TheCurmudgeon]

So assistance without thought should be avoided. How long does it take for an advisory mission to really know the context?

Supplying copious amounts of CS gas for riot control is often an option before the level of insurgent / civil violence escalates.

Can diplomacy and NGO action get people on all sides to talk? Should an external actor open dialogue with all?

There is clearly a potential for any external actor to be identified as supporting the regime / nation-state. Is that clearly a plus?

I agree with being cautious, learning what is going on, not saying "you are either with us or against us," and taking your time in deciding how best to proceed. It may be that anything an external party does will simply exasperate the problem. Even an NGO that provides medical and food aid may simply be setting the conditions for the conflict to continue.

The identification of a third party outsider with one side or the other is a big problem. I am not sure there is anyone anymore who is truly neutral. I don’t even know if the UN can do it anymore.

[Bob's World]

What American leaders, policy and doctrine struggle to recognize, is that those affected by our actions care little for our good intentions.

We can appreciate why a Russian invasion of Afghanistan sparked a resistance insurgency against the Russian invaders and a revolutionary insurgency against the puppet regime they put in power; but we cannot fathom why the US invasion and installation of a puppet regime would create the exact same effect.

There will be matters of degree based on the character of one's actions, but the primary effect is rooted in human nature and driven by the nature of the action.

We must have an assumption that any occupation - be it a small unit doing a training event to build partner capacity, or a full blown regime change invasion - will spark some degree of resistance in some portion of the affected population. This is natural.

Likewise, we must have an assumption that any government we help to rise to power or to merely stay in power will spark some degree of revolutionary energy against them by some portion of the population. The greater the perceived popular illegitimacy of the government based on our actions, the greater the revolutionary energy and the broader it will be across the affected population. Again, this is natural.

Bottom line, is that American fecal matter is just as odiferous as anyone else's. Truth.

[Bill Moore]

We can appreciate why a Russian invasion of Afghanistan sparked a resistance insurgency against the Russian invaders and a revolutionary insurgency against the puppet regime they put in power; but we cannot fathom why the US invasion and installation of a puppet regime would create the exact same effect.

No truer words ever spoken, but if it is in our national interest (agree or disagree, it is the policy we have been given) to promote and protect the clown we put in charge, what's a girl to do?