Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Counterinsurgency For U.S. Government Policymakers

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default About that multi-national part, Rob...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    You know - somehow we need to make this happen while getting somebodyelse to pay for it. Hmmm - my vote is JFCOM pays for it and hosts it - we have a broad Joint, Inter-Agency and even multi-national cast - we could allow them to get their agenda out as well - without falling victim to "The Man" and losing our independence / credibility - they benefit in a one time shot that hosts a cross cutting / inter-discipline divers bunch that provides the community a chance to discuss and work through small wars issues and thoughts - which in turn generates greater long term returns because there is no substitute for face to face discussion to strengthen the online type.

    What say JFCOM - got a few grand laying around - you could even have the SWC do a sim - of course after we drink your beer, we're back to being ourselves.

    Best, Rob
    Given the number of Canadians on this board, a layout of a little more than a few $k may be rather prudent, unless of course the rest are taking up teetotalling for the duration of the "sim", with all the attendent negative consequences for Joint and Multi-National Operations that would entail.

    kehenry1 - Quote:

    I believe that's why I stated in an earlier post that the question of which takes precedence is sometimes related to the person's experience. Combat oriented may focus on the combat while "state" oriented may focus on the non-kinetic, political aspects. Thus, someone has to be able to balance them and figure out when the right time to apply either/or/both is.

    ...may be true and may also be trying to communicate in the simplest, most recognizable terms. A US infantry man with his "political" experience in the states, probably doesn't associate "politics" with physical violence. Thus, it is meant to translate based on his experiences.

    -Unquote

    Excellent point kehenry, although I would refine that statement to say that one's experience of politics simply translates so, rather than is intended to translate so. As such, it's no wonder that a US infantry man whose experience of politics back home involves little to no violence, let alone war, is left perhaps a little befuddled when politics is very much entwined with both violence and war in such places as the Near East.

    But going back even within living memory, a British Army officer might not have suffered the same confusion. During the days of the Empire, and even for some time afterwards, an officer was quite aware that his role was not simply that of a military leader, but as an agent of his Government's policies; his conduct was directed towards that end, and if that end required military means to achieve, he was well-positioned to see to it. In effect, the Imperial officer was a sort of minor legate, and an Imperial general officer a sort of proconsul. In any case, the role of the officer, though uniquely military, was inherently and above all political in nature, and his duties conducted in that light.

    Clausewitz was quite correct in tying politics and war directly together, and if we take the simple (simple to state at least) definition of politics as how people relate to each other, then war, as a possible condition of those relations, is not only inherently political in its ultimate objective, but so are its actors, even the lowly infantryman. As far as that goes, Lt. Col. Gentile is likewise correct when he objects to the absence of Clausewitz as a reference in COIN Doctrine.

    Where I would disagree with Col. Gentile, and very much agree with Ken and marc, is making a hard distinction between war on the one hand, and COIN on the other. COIN is inherently political, as is war, and both require soldiers to wage it, who are themselves inescapably political actors. Likewise, the insurgents have a political objective in mind, and act as such. That is not to say that all aspects of COIN are necessarily about war or even military operations; most certainly not. In many COIN campaigns, police and other civil and paramilitary security forces have often borne the brunt of the COIN fight; similarly, not all insurgent acts of violence are necessarily acts of war or even military in nature, such as rioting, sabotage and subversion, assassination, terrorism, etc.

    But when extremists elements surpass such acts and move on to the occupation of territories and military control of populations, engage in guerrilla/partisan operations, and even wage the odd pitched battle now and then, they have clearly crossed over the ambiguous line that separates extremist violence from low-intensity war. It is no longer just crimes committed with political ends in mind. COIN, therefore, is war, even if it involves much more than just military operations.

    And so, all that said, it's vital to have a definition of what "politics" means that is comprehensive yet practical; but it will also require a definition of "war" that meets the same standard. Clausewitz, of course, defined war as the conduct of politics by other means. While it's basically correct, it requires some qualification and explanation to be comprehensive, yet practical.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 11-14-2007 at 11:46 PM.

  2. #62
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Ken with regard to

    "I don't think we can operate on a business model that espouses efficiency over effectiveness and operate in the type of high risk environments we do in the spectrum of war while maintaining the potential for success that we like to go to war with."
    That seems to me to summarize a great many synergistic things that put us where we are. I'm going to work on a post on that after Turkey Day, pretty crammed up between now and then -- be outa town from Fri until the Tue after the day.
    What do you make of this:
    Federal Times
    November 12, 2007
    Pg. 1

    DoD Executives To Take More Jobs Held By Generals

    By Stephen Losey

    Career civilian executives at the Defense Department will be taking over more leadership posts held by generals and admirals in the coming months.

    Positions overseeing logistics and other non-war-fighting operations — traditionally considered as military billets — will increasingly be done by members of the Defense Department’s Senior Executive Service (SES), said Patricia Bradshaw, the deputy undersecretary of Defense for civilian personnel policy.

    A directive signed Oct. 25 by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England formally gives the top tier of senior career executives authority comparable to some of the military’s three-star generals and admirals and political appointees.

    “They’ll be invited to senior meetings and have a seat at the table,” Bradshaw said. “They’ll occupy positions that have real scope of authority and responsibility for major portions of the organization.”
    .
    ........ If you go back to a lot of our SES, they’ll say, ‘I could always be a deputy, but I could never be in charge.’”

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are helping drive the changes in the way the Pentagon thinks about its civilian executive corps.
    ...........

    Praise and concerns

    Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, applauded the Pentagon’s plans.

    “This opens up a new avenue of opportunities for senior executives,” Bonosaro said. “It’s refreshing to see the department take on a comprehensive view for managing its senior executive corps.”

    But she said she’s concerned the plan could keep a lid on salaries for the vast majority of senior executives who are not in the top tier of enterprise executives.

    Also, she said the plan could force senior executives to accept jobs they don’t want. The new directive requires executives to sign a document agreeing to accept reassignments when asked.
    You know I was fortunate enough to receive a tour of the Capitol building via Senator Mitch McConnell's office last Friday with some of ginger's family - I was amazed at how young everyone who seemed to work there was - our guide was a sharp fellow out of UK, and the other young men and ladies in the two offices were also sharp - but what struck with me was the idea that these folks were pretty much going to grow up in the beltway and thus within the system. When I read this article yesterday I thought about what kind of people would fill those positions and wondered what experiences they would have had? How will they understand those unknowable frictions which gobble up resources - how will they build that in? There was a piece of justification which I did not paste in as I did not want to put the whole article in which said - "this will allow those generals to go where they are needed" which seemed a little odd in itself. I've no doubt that the SESs are good people wanting to serve their country - but I just wonder about how much they've contemplated the difference between War and the boardroom?

    Best, Rob

  3. #63
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I think that is positively scary

    Having been one of those Deputy types, there are pluses. Continuity instead of a new guy every two or three years, knowing the job, less costly and more. There are minuses. One, you're a civilian and no matter how good you are or how much cred you have, you're still a civilian to some serving types. Two, there are places you cannot go and things you cannot do (mostly metaphorically speaking). Three, you have to rate military people. I don't agree with civilians rating military people of any rank. I did it, got a profile at DA and the whole bit, probably rated eight or ten MAJs and a like number of LTCs and even two COLs but I did not and do not agree with it.

    I also served for a fair time as the Acting BBMFIC on a few occasions. Made the job even easier but I did not have a Green Suit and that had its down side in some venues (and several of my nominal civilian peers said they wouldn't do the amount of traveling I did during those periods...)

    Add to that this quote you provided:

    "Also, she said the plan could force senior executives to accept jobs they don’t want. The new directive requires executives to sign a document agreeing to accept reassignments when asked."
    Most will do that with no problem but a healthy minority will quibble about moves, or will sign the agreement to get a job and a promotion and then quibble about moves. Or sluff in that job they didn't want...

    There is one more minor plus, the repeal of the Dual Compensation Act in 2000 will bring in more retired Officers and Warrants (Regulars, it did not apply to the RC) so some nominal subject knowledge will be available. Though I can hear the screaming now when the first COL retires and takes an SES job replacing his former boss...

    This is not a good plan. And that's the good news....

    The really bad news is that I seriously doubt the number of FlagOs will be reduced so all those stars are going to be somewhere out in the force.

    There goes any dream of enhanced flexibility and agility...

  4. #64
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Too Many Generals?

    The really bad news is that I seriously doubt the number of FlagOs will be reduced so all those stars are going to be somewhere out in the force.

    There goes any dream of enhanced flexibility and agility...
    You know, I am reminded of the Civil War where everyone and their brother was a general, colonel or major and they were all over the battle field. Sometimes it was good and sometimes it was bad.
    Kat-Missouri

  5. #65
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Guys,

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    You know - somehow we need to make this happen while getting somebodyelse to pay for it. Hmmm - my vote is JFCOM pays for it and hosts it - we have a broad Joint, Inter-Agency and even multi-national cast - we could allow them to get their agenda out as well - without falling victim to "The Man" and losing our independence / credibility - they benefit in a one time shot that hosts a cross cutting / inter-discipline divers bunch that provides the community a chance to discuss and work through small wars issues and thoughts - which in turn generates greater long term returns because there is no substitute for face to face discussion to strengthen the online type.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    Given the number of Canadians on this board, a layout of a little more than a few $k may be rather prudent, unless of course the rest are taking up teetotalling for the duration of the "sim", with all the attendent negative consequences for Joint and Multi-National Operations that would entail.
    Hey, I'm up for it . Norfolk is, however, totally correct - a couple of k won't even cover the beer !
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #66
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Back on topic. Steve, how was the seminar?
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  7. #67
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    Back on topic. Steve, how was the seminar?
    Well, I had to put up with Kilcullen and Hammes. Actually, pretty interesting. Most of the the people were practitioners, so I learned quite a bit particularly on the USAID aspects. Appears the final guide book is probably a year out, but I think it's going to be a good product.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •