The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars

[SWJED]

29 April NY Times - The Perfect Weapon for the Meanest Wars by Jeffrey Gettleman.

... Today, human rights groups say, there are 300,000 child soldiers worldwide. And experts say the problem is deepening as the nature of conflict itself changes — especially in Africa.

Here, in one country after another, conflicts have morphed from idea- or cause-driven struggles to warlord-led drives whose essential goal is plunder. Because those new rebel movements are motivated and financed by crime, popular support becomes irrelevant. Those in control don’t care about hearts and minds. They see the local population as prey.

The result is that few adults want to have anything to do with them, and manipulating and abducting children becomes the best way to sustain the organized banditry.

This dynamic has fueled some of the longest-running conflicts on the continent, and it could be seen this month alone in at least three countries...

[Tom Odom]

Good article. And a problem that sustains itself as "child soldiers" grow and recruit their own replacements.

Aside from some of the White Hat Versus Black Hat protrayal in the film, Blood Diamond, it was pretty accurate in the recruitment/enslavement techniques used in brainwashing child soldiers.

The child soldiers I dealt with were in two camps, literally. The genocidal killers who swamped Goma as members of the Interahamwe and other militias had a very large component of underage murderers who were much like mad dogs. Ironically, I read a summation of a town meeting of Americans hosted by the embassy in Kigali sometime in the spring of 94 before the genocide started. One American voiced concern about the Interahamwe training near his home; an official said 'not to worry. Those are the Interahamwe. They are sort of like boy scouts for then MRND.' Some boy scouts...

The others were the "little boys in the RPA." The RPA referred to themselves as "The Boys" and as they took territory, they took in families and orphans. The latter became sort of like "bat men" in the British Army. Most did not see actual combat but some did. The dividing line between child and military age grew very gray. The RPA officer who ran the demining office in 1994 had a bat "man" who had been with him since 1990. A Hutu orphan, the young man of perhaps age 16 in 1995 had saved the RPA officer on more than one occasion. One of the RPA's priorities was to get the "little boys" back into some form of "normal" life; the government was also trying to do the same thing with young genocidal killers like Stan and I met in Goma.

Best

Tom

[tequila]

The Making and Unmaking of a Child Soldier - Ishmael Beah. First person account by a child soldier who fought on the government side in the recent Sierra Leone civil war.

[LawVol]

This makes me wonder whether winning hearts and minds is a valid goal anymore. In situations like that discussed in the article, the insurgents are not only not concerned with hearts and minds, they actively attack the local populous. Their weapon against the populous is fear, i.e. submit to our will or die. How can we expect to enter a situation like this and win hearts and minds? It would seem awful hard to convince a population that they should side with us when the insurgents are so ruthless. The locals will actively help or at least look the other way for fear that their children will be stolen from them, their wives and daughters raped, etc. Is it possible to defeat barbarism with a hearts and minds campaign?

[tequila]

I think most folks acknowledge that "hearts and minds" campaigns alone are hopeless. However, most counterinsurgency is not about winning "hearts and minds" but rather "securing the population." First overt threats to the population must be eliminated and security established. Then "hearts and minds" activities can begin --- i.e. economic redevelopment, good governance, etc.

Without the first, nothing else proceeds. However, security must be won in such a way that the cure is not worse than the problem - it does no good to "secure" a village by blasting it with artillery fire upon receiving one or two sniper rounds.

[Tom Odom]

This makes me wonder whether winning hearts and minds is a valid goal anymore. In situations like that discussed in the article, the insurgents are not only not concerned with hearts and minds, they actively attack the local populous. Their weapon against the populous is fear, i.e. submit to our will or die. How can we expect to enter a situation like this and win hearts and minds? It would seem awful hard to convince a population that they should side with us when the insurgents are so ruthless. The locals will actively help or at least look the other way for fear that their children will be stolen from them, their wives and daughters raped, etc. Is it possible to defeat barbarism with a hearts and minds campaign?

To the contrary, the adoption of scortched earth, rape, and pillage by rebels makes countering them all the easier if the government uses the proper means and as tequilla states "secures the population." Whether these forces do best are places like Sierra Leone or the Congo where the words government forces imply a level of competence that simply does not exist. The Uganda situation is a case in point; the Lord's Resistance Army has existed so long because Museveni refused to acknowledge them as a threat. That has changed over the past several years; once Museveni decided to act, the Ugandan military was effective in reducing the LRA's terror when it used the proper methods, beginning with "secure the populace." In contrast the DRC has shown little competence in its 47 years since independence, especially the last 12 years in dealing with the sitituation in the eastern part of the country. Whether called the ANC, the FAZ, or FAC the Congolese military has always been a greater problem/threat to the locals than any rebel group.

Best

Tom

[wm]

This makes me wonder whether winning hearts and minds is a valid goal anymore. In situations like that discussed in the article, the insurgents are not only not concerned with hearts and minds, they actively attack the local populous. Their weapon against the populous is fear, i.e. submit to our will or die. How can we expect to enter a situation like this and win hearts and minds? It would seem awful hard to convince a population that they should side with us when the insurgents are so ruthless. The locals will actively help or at least look the other way for fear that their children will be stolen from them, their wives and daughters raped, etc. Is it possible to defeat barbarism with a hearts and minds campaign?

One approach to WHAM is "When you have them by the short hairs, their hearts and minds will soon follow." This approach has traditionally only worked when no other alternative to the bullies was available (sort of like the case when Saddam ran Iraq). When the people are presented with what to their minds seem to be two equally bad choices--relative locals who use power drills on their village leader or outright foreigners who drop 155 mm shells on their houses--I suspect they will take the choice which produces less overall discomfort. In my example, that would be the guys with the power drills because they only threaten me with possible violence if I do not conform. The 155 shells could fall anywhere, including my house, whether I conform or not.

"Hearts and minds" campaigns must start with providing some tangibly increased (or at least preceived) level of security from the bullies that does not also bring other unacceptable costs to those who are being protected. You might consider the choice as being like what the citizens of Tombstone faced with Sheriff Johnny Behan and the Clantons versus the Earp family and Doc Holiday. Depending on which story you read, either side may have been the real bully.

[LawVol]

I get what you guys are saying, but my train of thought right now is on the avoidance of hearts & minds, nation-building, or whatever you want to call it. I keep returning to the thought of punitive expeditions vice post-conflict stability operations. It is something I've been giving alot of thought to lately and as I see the ramifications of our attempts at building a new city upon a hill I can't help but wonder whether there is another way. Perhaps I am thinking too much like a realist, but I cannot grasp the need to export our brand of democracy everywhere. A punitive expedition, in most cases (there are always exceptions), will meet our national security goals without the problems we see now in Iraq.

I'll stop before this turns into a pure brain dump. I'm sure I am missing something here. I welcome your comments.

[tequila]

I think there is a real difference that can be had between responsible SASO and, shall we say, "democracy promotion" as we have seen it play out in Iraq. Not all SASOs have gone as Iraq have, for a variety of reasons. My own position is that the opening round of data from first reports indicates that this particular operation has been conducted in a disastrous manner ever since the decision was made to invade in the first place. Ad hoc is a kindly way to look at it IMO. Frankly I do not think it had to be this way and when one looks at this country's record in places like South Korea, the Philippines, Japan, Germany, or even the Balkans one can find examples where it was done much better.

Now Iraq was going to be very difficult regardless because of its own particular circumstances. Indeed, it might have been beyond the institutional capacities of the U.S. at this moment especially given outstanding requirements in Afghanistan. IMO this only makes the utterly mindboggling lack of thought given to it more criminal.

[wm]

Perhaps I am thinking too much like a realist, but I cannot grasp the need to export our brand of democracy everywhere.

I was not advocating exporting "our brand of democracy." In fact, I believe that would be diametrically opposed to winning a hearts and minds campaign. If we wish to be successful in establishing a better state of peace, we need to provide the kind of environment that allows other groups to make a free choice about how they will organize their governing structures and economic systems. Seems to me that a major source of the world's current problems is directly attributable to forcing a solution onto people that they really do not want--for example the arbitrary lumping of tribes and ethnicities together to form a state like Nigeria or the former Yugoslavia.