A 'Digger' writes The Rise and Fall of Western COIN

[Bob's World]

Or, to paraphrase a Texas saying, when it comes to COIN, the US is "all hat and no cattle" (with hat being tactical programs, and cattle being a feasible strategic framework).

[Bill Moore]

Strategy exists at all levels, what you're discussing IMO is little strategy, the strategy of how to "win" a particular operation or smaller scale war. COIN is unique, I know you don't consider it war and I do, but regardless we both understand it has a unique strategic context at the local level. Using the diplomacy, information, military, and economic (DIME) model, despite its limitations, all of these elements can perform at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. In my opinion you're arguing we failed to understand the operational environment and had an ineffective operational approach. Certainly that is true, but we probably disagree on several points on what we did wrong.

Transitioning to big strategy, you have to look at the war in a global context, and that has little to with so called legitimacy at the local level. It had a much larger Cold War context. At this point in time it had everything to with relative power vis--vis the communist and so called free world. From that perspective the war demonstrated, that the U.S. was willing to stand up against perceived communist aggression. It demonstrated the U.S. was willing to support it allies, and as Lee said it gave time for the still weak governments in SE Asia to strengthen their defenses against USSR sponsored insurgencies. Over time it was realized, although I doubt it was an objective going in, that this war, much like our support to the resistance in Afghanistan helped weaken the USSR, which contributed to its collapse and our subsequent post-Cold War era where we often appear to be strategically adrift.

I disagree with that view, strategy is simply more complex in a multipolar or non-polar world, so it can't be explained in a Cold War context. Local issues still have global implications, but the implications vary greatly, and need to be considered on their own merits. The last thing we need is a strategy today that parallels our Cold War strategy. It would limit our options and more often than not cause us to mischaracterize issues.

[Bob's World]

Ok, now we are diverging into a couple of distinct issues. Both important, but clearly distinct.

First, strategy for successful COIN. More accurately for the US, strategy for successful support to someone else's COIN. COIN is fundamentally a domestic operation, and if revolutionary rather resistance against an illegitimate foreign presence, really does not fall within the logic and fundamentals associated with war and warfare. The Government of Baltimore is currently conducting COIN. The US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are providing support to foreign efforts to deal with their own revolutionary insurgency, while at the same time contributing to the parallel resistance insurgency generated by our very presence and actions. (more to follow)

[Bob's World]

Successful COIN demands first and foremost that the population/populations where the revolutionary energy is the strongest, perceive themselves to have a viable political alternative to that which they feel compelled to revolve against - and trusted, certain, and legal ways to pursue that alternative that make sense in the context of their respective cultures.

The US always skips this step. We fixate on what we think is best for us, and then create or adopt some government who we believe most likely to act as we think is fit, wrap this fundamentally illegitimate entity in the nomenclature and trappings of "democracy" - and then task the military to build partner military capacity to protect this abomination from large elements of its own population. As this begins to fail of its own weight, we then apply more and more direct US energy (security, development, etc) in efforts to prop the whole thing up - but ultimately this has always failed.

When our overarching strategy was to prevail in a Cold War bi-polar contest, a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam could both contribute to a larger win. But that does not mean by any stretch that either of those conflicts were necessary, or even particularly helpful, in attaining that "win." They did not however cause a strategic "fail."

But what is the US larger end now?? What can a loss in Afghanistan and/or Iraq possibly contribute toward? What can they cause? They cannot contribute to a larger win because we have not defined a larger win. They can only contribute to a larger fail.

We have a grand strategy post-Cold War that is essentially to play not to lose. We are in a spread defense, we cannot score, and we see any who seek to score against us in anyway as a new "threat" to add to our ever expanding list. The surest way to lose is to play not to lose. The US needs a new grand strategic focus and a game defined in terms we can play to win if we hope to get off the current odyssey of bleeding off strategic altitude in exchange for tactical airspeed. As General Zinni commented to my war college class 9 years ago, "we don't know where we are going, but we are making good time."

[Bill Moore]

Successful COIN demands first and foremost that the population/populations where the revolutionary energy is the strongest, perceive themselves to have a viable political alternative to that which they feel compelled to revolve against - and trusted, certain, and legal ways to pursue that alternative that make sense in the context of their respective cultures.

From a Western perspective true, but this assumption ignores history. Insurgencies historically have been defeated more through the use of force than political maneuvering. Obviously we don't fight that way, but then again our approach to COIN is still looking for a victory somewhere.

The US always skips this step. We fixate on what we think is best for us, and then create or adopt some government who we believe most likely to act as we think is fit, wrap this fundamentally illegitimate entity in the nomenclature and trappings of "democracy" - and then task the military to build partner military capacity to protect this abomination from large elements of its own population. As this begins to fail of its own weight, we then apply more and more direct US energy (security, development, etc) in efforts to prop the whole thing up - but ultimately this has always failed.

Agree, and even when we can see it coming we don't change course. Operational design promotes reframing when the situation changes, but I think most people are psychologically wired to resist change, so while they may agree with reframing conceptually, doing it is another thing altogether.

When our overarching strategy was to prevail in a Cold War bi-polar contest, a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam could both contribute to a larger win. But that does not mean by any stretch that either of those conflicts were necessary, or even particularly helpful, in attaining that "win." They did not however cause a strategic "fail."

Of course any arguments of what would have happened if we didn't intervene are counterfactual. Still worth entertaining, but there is no way we can honestly know what would have happened. The fact that we did fight with an international coalition may have demonstrated to the communists that the West and its allies were willing to stand up to communist aggression. It "may" have served as a form of strategic deterrence that in the end prevented a nuclear holocaust. Who knows?

But what is the US larger end now?? What can a loss in Afghanistan and/or Iraq possibly contribute toward? What can they cause? They cannot contribute to a larger win because we have not defined a larger win. They can only contribute to a larger fail.

Not defined well, but I think we have defined the larger win, and that is an international order that protects our interests (clearly not black and white), and sustaining U.S. leadership (though President Obama seems to be backing away from this).

We have a grand strategy post-Cold War that is essentially to play not to lose.

Where is this articulated?

The US needs a new grand strategic focus and a game defined in terms we can play to win if we hope to get off the current odyssey of bleeding off strategic altitude in exchange for tactical airspeed. As General Zinni commented to my war college class 9 years ago, "we don't know where we are going, but we are making good time."

I don't disagree with this aspiration, but the world is changing fundamentally and frankly I don't think we know what we want the new order to look like. We have some idea of what we don't want it to look like, but that perspective results in reacting instead of proactive strategic shaping. I also think we're too divided politically to reach a consensus of where we want to go. There is little consensus on Cuba, ISIL, Iran, and Russia to name a few. If we had desired strategic goal then we could frame these issues in a larger context and make smart choices. That doesn't seem to be happening at the moment.

[Bob's World]

From a Western perspective true, but this assumption ignores history. Insurgencies historically have been defeated more through the use of force than political maneuvering. Obviously we don't fight that way, but then again our approach to COIN is still looking for a victory somewhere.

Bill, I need one example. Sure, insurgencies have been suppressed for a decade or two quite often by a government that remains uncoerced and set on sustaining its oppressive ways, but those insurgencies always come roaring back. Perhaps with different leaders, different organizational names or ideologies - but the insurgent is only the tip of the iceberg of the insurgency. The insurgency is a condition of grievance residing deep within a population.

Insurgency is suppressed in the Philippines over and over - but never resolved. Those who hold power will never give it up willingly. A very common condition in those places colonized by Spain. Similar in Algeria and across Sunni Arab populations held under the Ottomans, then the Europeans, and then governments formed or sustained in unnatural stasis by the US for purposes of containment and economic interest. Groups come and go, but the insurgency smolders and flames off and on. But that is not successful COIN by any true measure (regardless of what RAND and their study says).

As to where the US states we have a strategy that is play not to lose? Nowhere. That is my assessment. But what else do you call a strategy that is largely to sustain the status quo and promote US perspectives in an era where so many seek change and to be more like themselves?? What is a win for us, other than preventing that from happening?

[Bill Moore]

Bill, I need one example. Sure, insurgencies have been suppressed for a decade or two quite often by a government that remains uncoerced and set on sustaining its oppressive ways, but those insurgencies always come roaring back. Perhaps with different leaders, different organizational names or ideologies - but the insurgent is only the tip of the iceberg of the insurgency. The insurgency is a condition of grievance residing deep within a population.

Too easy, I'll give you three. Sri Lanka's recent defeat of the LTTE, Saddam's defeat of the Kurds and Shia in 1991, and Assad's father defeated an Islamist insurgency in 1982.

For me legitimacy is a side issue that desired, but not always possible. Furthermore, winning has a legitimacy of its own, the side that can most effectively wield force. From a strategy perspective, I'm principally interested in achieving strategic objectives. There are few government leaders or governments willing to step aside because a segment of their constituency doesn't approve of them, and if they engage in armed conflict to replace that government they are now engaged in war. Both sides, or the multiple sides, have interests that they consider legitimate. Clearly it wasn't in Saddam's, Assad's, or the Government of Sri Lanka's interest to acquiesce to insurgent demands, all were seen as legitimate by segments of their population, so the legitimacy argument loses steam when we try to apply an U.S. melting pot onto other countries.

I'm not arguing whether it was morally right, or that peace would be sustained (is it ever?, we had a civil war after defeating the British), or anything other than the power that be achieved its objective and has legitimacy with a segment of its population. If you want to argue there is a better way, that may or may not be a valid argument. To dismiss that force works is simply wrong. To say it isn't the U.S. way of war (or COIN), is true (unless we need to suppress a separatist group like we did during the Civil War, where we used brutal force). The South didn't see the North as legitimate, instead they were coerced with force. A rough peace endured for decades after, and really the political objectives weren't achieved until well after the Civil Rights Movement, but the war (or insurgency) was won well before then.

Taking it a step further, outside actors like the U.S. have their interests, and they'll often intervene on the side that best represents their interests. This has been a historical truth that I don't see changing anytime soon.