The Col. Gentile collection and debate

[Steve Blair]

Large portions (not all) of the US COIN-club approach is "history free." They know it exists, but ignore the bits they want to invent and change the bits they need as evidence. What is more a great many of the COIN clubs' assertions about the future, past and present are wonderfully evidence free.

And the same can be said of the "anti-COIN" crowd. Point by point. Too many of them remain locked in a Cold War view of the world, obsessed with mythical peer competitors and the notion that conflicts will only occur on their terms. In many ways they're quite similar to the more radical COIN advocates: both are convinced that they've seen the shining light of future conflict truth.

MacGregor's an interesting guy, but some of his ideas are just as flawed as the COINistas' concepts. I tend to consider both groups to be historical distortionists at best.

[William F. Owen]

And the same can be said of the "anti-COIN" crowd. Point by point. Too many of them remain locked in a Cold War view of the world, obsessed with mythical peer competitors and the notion that conflicts will only occur on their terms.

...but who are the anti-COIN crowd? No one I know says "we don't do COIN." What I'm against is the "nation building, armed social work," stuff. Securing a population is warfare. It is based in fighting skill.

MacGregor's an interesting guy, but some of his ideas are just as flawed as the COINistas' concepts. I tend to consider both groups to be historical distortionists at best.

Interesting and extremely smart. I strongly disagree with him on many things, but I also agree on a lot. Doug and I are like tracks versus wheels (Doug is tracks!)

About 18 months ago I had a serving senior US Army officer come up to me and say "don't mention you are friend of Doug MacGregor. It'll damage your credibility." - so I now say it whenever I can!

[Steve Blair]

...but who are the anti-COIN crowd? No one I know says "we don't do COIN." What I'm against is the "nation building, armed social work," stuff. Securing a population is warfare. It is based in fighting skill.

While no one may say "we don't do COIN" (although Dunlap has come mighty close, IMO), if you look at the historical record it is routinely allowed to drop off the face of the training and planning map. And then it comes up and bites us in the ass with surprising regularity.

My point has always been that you have to preserve the lessons and training for ALL levels and aspects of combat, not just the one you really WANT to do. The Army has historically done a poor job of that, and it's gotten worse in the aftermath of World War 2. I suppose that might be considered acceptable by some, but I wouldn't call it ideal.

And as for "armed social work," although a great deal of the writing on this is overblown and clogged with social science jargon, I think that it's overdue recognition of one of the roles that an army often HAS to assume in the aftermath of a conflict or in a situation that might fall short of full-scale war. The more the West wants to conduct humanitarian aid and other such operations, the more we're going to be drawn into "armed social work." And political realities (even if we don't agree with them) indicate that such aid operations will remain at their current levels if not rise in the next decade or two.

We may just have to agree to disagree here, which is fine. I'm not in favor of an "all COIN" Army, but I also don't want to see us continually relearning the same lessons at a higher cost each time we roll out of the gate.

[William F. Owen]

While no one may say "we don't do COIN" (although Dunlap has come mighty close, IMO), if you look at the historical record it is routinely allowed to drop off the face of the training and planning map. And then it comes up and bites us in the ass with surprising regularity.

Concur. Why the US neglected COIN is a fascinating question. It was gross professional negligence by any standard.

Personally I have very clear ideas about what forms a military mission and what does not. This does not preclude the use of Armed Forces in humanitarian assistance, as concerns the saving of life, or the prevention of harm.

It does excluded any form of social or welfare service, and especially anything to do with religion or education.

[Ken White]

Wilf:

"...The tension between the Nagl mob, and Gentile, my friend Doug MacGregor, me and probably a few others (Ken White?) is the perversion of the military mission, by moving towards the nation building bit."

True on all counts.[B}Hacksaw:[/B]:

However, and this is where Nagl is correct, there is a fight to be won today... and if our training centers aimpoint is directed elsewhere it would amount to criminal negligence...

Yep. The training issue is the elephant -- and it need not be, train the basics better and go for outcomes instead of looking at minutia through 'Standards' and that will satisfy both camps. Hacksaw also said:

I know for a fact that senior officers charged with preparing forces have already begun to work through how to bring the training centers back to full-spectrum...

I don't think back to full spectrum will do it as I don't believe we were full spectrum in any of the TCs or Schools before -- or now. We're headed that way and that's good. For, as Bob's World says:

Between Gentile and Nagle lies the force we need; and simple economics, human nature and realm of political compromise will probably make it the force we shape. Not the best force for Irregular Warfare, nor the best force for high-end conventional warfare, but one prepared to take on either one and succeed. I don't worry much about the "war wagers" I know they'll come through.

True. We've had this disagreement in this country for over 200 years -- but that's always been true. We come up with a flaky compromise and make it work. Or rather, the Troops make it work...

[Cavguy]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Did we learn anything new?

Just thinking that some of the SWC discussion recently has been running in circles. Seems like we need a new COL Gentile to come in here and at least challenge the two-sided orthodoxy (COIN vs. MCO) in a unique and stimulating way other than saying we just need to do both.

[Cavguy]

BTW, some pithy humor over at Abu M related to the thread:

P.S. It's not all sticks and stones for Gian, though. Granted, a site called "AntiWar.com" is probably not the best place to go for sober-minded discussion of military strategy. And this line was a peach:

It really shouldn’t be a surprise, that members of the elite news media — particularly the ones who don’t necessarily focus on a national security beat — fasten easily onto the conventional narrative and "move on" condescendingly, satisfied their knowledge is au courant and complete. ... To the rest of the world, the mainstream media included, Col. Gentile is kind of a ghost.

Uh, ma'am, Gian was the subject of a prominent article by elite news media journalist Yochi Dreazen (C '99) in the elite news media Wall Street Journal. I don't know a single defense policy journalist for a major U.S. news organization who doesn't know Gian either by name or personally. And for goodness sake, just do a Google News search for Gian's name. But when, I want to know, is regular Abu Muqawama commenter SNLII going to get the credit he deserves for coming up with the phrase "COINdinista"? Is there no justice, AntiWar.com?

[William F. Owen]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Did we learn anything new?

Just thinking that some of the SWC discussion recently has been running in circles. Seems like we need a new COL Gentile to come in here and at least challenge the two-sided orthodoxy (COIN vs. MCO) in a unique and stimulating way other than saying we just need to do both.

To my mind there never was a COIN v Something else debate. I can't speak for COL Gentile, but I don't think anyone has ever spoken against COIN. They spoken about biasing training and resources so heavily towards COIN (Security Operations) that Combat Operations skills and resources suffer.

Add to that the perversion of the "Security mission" into a "nation building mission" and I think you have still think there is a lot left unresolved.

[Steve Blair]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Did we learn anything new?

Just thinking that some of the SWC discussion recently has been running in circles. Seems like we need a new COL Gentile to come in here and at least challenge the two-sided orthodoxy (COIN vs. MCO) in a unique and stimulating way other than saying we just need to do both.

Maybe you should take a stab at it...

I look at it from the historical standpoint, and it's discouraging to note that the bi-polar orthodoxy has existed in American military history more or less from the beginning. It's also discouraging to note that many truly adaptable leaders within the army have been historically ignored or marginalized in many cases (I'm thinking mainly of the post-Civil War period, which was a great testing ground to see who could make the transition from MCO to what was effectively COIN, although there are other periods that certainly deserve study).

One good first step would involve overhauling the personnel system. Until we scrap that draft-age relic I'd say we're stuck tilting at the same windmills to at least some degree.

[selil]

...but who are the anti-COIN crowd? No one I know says "we don't do COIN." What I'm against is the "nation building, armed social work," stuff. Securing a population is warfare. It is based in fighting skill.

Sorry but the United States military does much more than HIC. It is the primary operational response force within the United States during times of disaster (read the national response framework). The United States military is the primary agency for large scale pandemic/civil disturbance/etc. The United States military has a seat at every table where a disaster or incident of national significance occurs. This is including the fires raging in California right this minute. Oh, and since they are basically the same force sure you can say National Guard, but sorry that differential is eroding.

The United States military does much more than HIC we just seem to get wedded to our own opinions to quickly. A lot of that stuff looks like nation building/civil support to me.

[William F. Owen]

Sorry but the United States military does much more than HIC. It is the primary operational response force within the United States during times of disaster (read the national response framework). The United States military is the primary agency for large scale pandemic/civil disturbance/etc. The United States military has a seat at every table where a disaster or incident of national significance occurs. This is including the fires raging in California right this minute. Oh, and since they are basically the same force sure you can say National Guard, but sorry that differential is eroding.

The United States military does much more than HIC we just seem to get wedded to our own opinions to quickly. A lot of that stuff looks like nation building/civil support to me.

I agree with all that. Same is true of almost all NATO armies.

Providing trained bodies of manpower to aid the civil authority requires very little training if any, so armies don't train to do it. - and sometimes it provides good training.

That is all completely different from going to a far foreign land and having an army build schools, churches/mosques and hospitals, as part of a political activity aimed at creating a government friendly to yours..

- and while war is a political act, those parts of it which are NOT demonstrably about creating exploiting or supporting the application or threatened application of violence, are not (or should not be) a military mission.

.... and yes sometimes you have to do it because your government lacks the political will to ensure that the right people do it.

[selil]

That is all completely different from going to a far foreign land and having an army build schools, churches/mosques and hospitals, as part of a political activity aimed at creating a government friendly to yours..

- and while war is a political act, those parts of it which are NOT demonstrably about creating exploiting or supporting the application or threatened application of violence, are not (or should not be) a military mission.

The United States Navy has been involved in substantial missions to our southern neighbors with the primary goal being medical care to communities that have none or very little. The mission "Operation Comfort" is a very soft power mission, from what the LACC communities have said it is very successful. The same ships that have medical facilities are escorted by ships that could topple regimes in seconds.

I think the idea of COIN/soft power/stability is very much a part of the American way of doing business. "Speak softly carry a big stick" whether true or not is still part of the American narrative. It is when we walk away from that idea that polarization and schizophrenia of political process starts.

I have a very controversial hypothesis (everybody tells me I'm wrong then offers me medication), I believe that the cold war was a long aberration of American politics with moments of lucidity. America doesn't do the "World Police" role very well, domestically doesn't like it, and it is fed by corporate needs more than political requirements.

If it wasn't for the cold war Israel would never have gotten the support it got, same for the Shah of Iran, Norriega, and any of dozens of other regimes. I think, though have no ability, knowledge, or capacity to prove, that what we are seeing is the break down of the cold war mindset. It just appears or seems that much of the LIC and HIC discussion isn't about COIN, but is about a fundamental Kuhn type paradigm shift in American political military presence.

American's see themselves like Canadians, act often like Germans, sympathize with the French, and mope about their mistakes like the British, while worrying about the Russians.

Meanwhile the Chinese build five more carriers and triple the size of their navy.

[Steve Blair]

I have a very controversial hypothesis (everybody tells me I'm wrong then offers me medication), I believe that the cold war was a long aberration of American politics with moments of lucidity. America doesn't do the "World Police" role very well, domestically doesn't like it, and it is fed by corporate needs more than political requirements.

If it wasn't for the cold war Israel would never have gotten the support it got, same for the Shah of Iran, Norriega, and any of dozens of other regimes. I think, though have no ability, knowledge, or capacity to prove, that what we are seeing is the break down of the cold war mindset. It just appears or seems that much of the LIC and HIC discussion isn't about COIN, but is about a fundamental Kuhn type paradigm shift in American political military presence.

No controversy here, actually. The Cold War WAS an aberration in terms of American policy. A careful reading of just military history shows this. The US has always had an internal focus, with a few flailings outside our borders, until the end of World War II.

[AmericanPride]

The US has always had an internal focus, with a few flailings outside our borders, until the end of World War II.

Robert Kagan made a convincing counter-argument.

[William F. Owen]

The United States Navy has been involved in substantial missions to our southern neighbors with the primary goal being medical care to communities that have none or very little. The mission "Operation Comfort" is a very soft power mission, from what the LACC communities have said it is very successful. The same ships that have medical facilities are escorted by ships that could topple regimes in seconds.

Providing medical care is not building or re-building. This activity as part of diplomacy makes sense and always has. - but it should not be part of operations or an element of your combat and security strategy. "Soft Power" is for use against those who support you or want to. Soft Power is an instrument of diplomacy.

If it wasn't for the cold war Israel would never have gotten the support it got, same for the Shah of Iran, Norriega, and any of dozens of other regimes.

If you want to throw in every member of NATO, as well, I'd absolutely agree with you.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to War on the Rocks, where Crispin Burke reviews Gian Gentile's latest book, Wrong Turn: America’s Deadly Embrace of Counterinsurgency with some pithy comments and some good marks:http://warontherocks.com/2013/08/the...terinsurgency/

Link to Amazon:http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Turn-Ame.../dp/1595588744

In case you wonder why this post is on an old thread, read on.

Moderator's Note

Being an outsider to the protracted debate in the USA over COIN I am familiar with some of the names and prompted by a new book review of Colonel Gian Gentile's latest book, I have merged six threads today. On a quick review some were single posts and others longer discussions here. This thread was called 'Eating Soup with a Spoon' and is now 'The Col. Gentile collection and debate'. Somehow I suspect there are other threads as 'Gentile' appears in 162 threads, but for now this is enough.(ends).