I know what you mean. I have actually had serving officers try and tell me that doctrine is something other than what it taught.Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile
Thanks so much but please if you would call me Gian, blogs are by nature very democratic. They follow the democratic tradition of leveling where what matters most is words and ideas and not rank and priveledge.
Yeah, I appreciate and understood what you were getting at in terms of Principles, defining the nature of war, and Coin. I think what i am seeing developing on this thread via the most thoughtful postings by SWC members is that most of us still define the nature of war generally in the same way; albeit with different words and different literal definitions of those words as we use them to define the nature of war. No one has come up on the Net and said yes, yes, we should use "protection of the people" as a Principle of War since it is a fundamental Principle in Coin. And to tell you the truth when i wrote this short piece as primer I really did not expect to get any agreement with my "proposed" changes. What this reinforces to me is that as an Army we do need to consider the dominance that Coin thinking, operating, and doctrine is having on us because that dominance is out of synch--based on at least the postings to this thread--the way most understand the nature of modern war; if that makes any sense.
thanks
gian
I know what you mean. I have actually had serving officers try and tell me that doctrine is something other than what it taught.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I think this statement contradicts itself in many ways, and clearly points out the divide between at least two schools of thought. For sake of argument I'll define the argument above as traditionalists and counter-arguments as evolutionary.If there is no theory to underpin the profession of arms then it is not a true profession, as in medicine, engineering or law. Its just a job, like being a hairdresser or shop assistant. You just need to be trained. You don't have to be able to reason. - and as it is a true profession, I submit that sound theory is vital - otherwise you just have opinions. You don't see engineers having "opinions" about single span bridges.
The professions of medicine and engineering would have froze in time if their practitioners had a St. Clausewitz. Instead each true professional continued to evolve his science by challenging assumptions, developing new ideas, and most importantly submitting old and new concepts to rigorous tests to confirm or deny their validity. Now we have medical mircles and engineering marvels. Blindly accepting our doctrine, which many traditionists do (not all, some actually make, or try to make, logical arguments to defend it) prohibits one from reasoning. I personally don't see the link between being able to reason and having doctrine? Numerous successful insurgent leaders around the world didn't have our doctrine, but developed their own ideas based on observation and developed a reasoned strategy. I would argue that our doctrine limits our ability to reason, and I know I'll get stoned for that one.If there is no theory to underpin the profession of arms then it is not a true profession, as in medicine, engineering or law. Its just a job, like being a hairdresser or shop assistant. You just need to be trained. You don't have to be able to reason. - and as it is a true profession, I submit that sound theory is vital - otherwise you just have opinions. You don't see engineers having "opinions" about single span bridges.
Are ideas generated outside of doctrine just opinions? I think some of these opinions come closer to theory than our actual doctrine, because by definition theory should have been validated by a certain degree of testing, it is the highest level of validity next to a law, which has been validated. The traditionalists don't validate their doctrine through experiments and observation, but gradually change the meaning of the definitions to fit different scenarios to the point where the definitions make no sense at all.
I would like to see the original definitions for each principle of war as they were written circa 1920, and then see where we're at today. I think that would be helpful.
I guess everytime we shot someone we were massing our concentration and front sight on the enemy for a split second, but is that what the principle really means? If it is, then what value is it? It goes back to you need to shoot that SOB before he shoots you, at least that makes sense and has some utility in training and operations.If mass is no longer required, then when a J-TAC calls in a combined Fast Air, NGF and Atry strike on a high value target, is he not concentrating mass in time and space?
If mass is no longer required, what is the opposite of mass, that we should be emphasising?
Just because mass is not always required doesn't mean we need its opposite. That assumes that our scenarios require mass or the opposite of the mass.
Fields like engineering and medicine and so forth do not have legions of historians who study their pasts. While this untethers them from a slavish devotion to their pasts, it also creates the illusion that everything new is better and progress.
Consider an analogy: if you look, say, at home building in the US, the quality of the product has actually deteriorated in the last 50 years. I live in a cottage, built for turn-of-the-century laborers, and I would submit that despite its old age it will likely outlast any McMansion currently under construction. (That's why the words "pre-war" mean so much to a New Yorker hunting for a quality piece of real estate.) While there are many factors that have influenced this development, part of it is due to a culture of neophilia.
I agree that the military institutions ought not to be slaves to their pasts, that it is folly to never question anything that a particular "saint" of the history has ever said or done. However, I think that the opposite course is equally problematic, and just as likely to get a person in trouble or create a bad outcome.
Ultimately, what I am suggesting is that we don't trade vice for another.
Cheers,
Jill
Professionals and Doctrine
At the risk of derailing this thread a little, I need to digress somewhat on what it is to be a profession. I don’t think it is a total derailment since I think it also provides some insight regarding the place doctrine ought to be considered to occupy.
Academics tend to establish a list of conditions that a thing must meet before it can be given a certain label or name. The word “profession” falls into this category as well. As I seem to remember from my grad school days, a profession required four basic characteristics:
1.A specialized body of knowledge (BOK);
2.A standard of conduct AKA a code of ethics;
3.A means of assessing entrants’ qualifications for joining the group; and
4.A means of disciplining/excluding those who fail to meet the first and or second criteria above.
Seems to me the military meets all four of these criteria:
1.Doctrine and the assorted customs and traditions of the various services;
2.Each service has a set of value and we all have the UCMJ;
3.Various qualification tests and basic entry training for recruits; pre-commissioning programs (Academies, OCS, ROTC) for officers;
4.Again the UCMJ/MCM as well as various admin discharge procedures and school/promotion selection competitions.
[Lawyers, doctors, even purveyors of commercial affection (hookers) do too, but I won’t exemplify how.]
Once you learn the secret handshake (AKA the specialized BOK) and get initiated into the profession, you can start to play fast and lose with it within your peer group (other members of the profession). Just don’t try to do so until you are granted full member status.
Homes / Soldiers
Considering this analogy, the soldiers of yester-year where also from a time in which really hard work and stamina where a requirement for everyday survival. Thus one might be reasonably able to say that our soldier of today is somewhat less stout. As I'm sure none of us would agree to that then I would look at what is different and what is the same.
The heart, soul, commitment, belief in themselves their families and their country are as strong today as ever. Also the difference in that volunteer / draft might be seen to add up to a even more established mission accomplishment focus.
Just as with houses, things change, they are however still houses. Houses may not be built the same or of the same materials as before but niether are the enemies exactly the same, nor their tactics. They have capabilities they didn't have, we also. We have guidelines/principles/training manuals/FM any of the above which provide at best good direction but at worst and all too often excuse for unwillingness to see things as they are; rather than as they should be.
Should the concern really be over whether we go to far and Forget what we know or should we simply be focused on ensuring that what we know is still valid in any given case and consistently work towards better refinement of practices in areas we may not know so well.
Its always easier to learn something you don't know than it is to re-learn something you KNOW. At least in learning the new it is almost always a guarantee that we will compare and contrast it with established knowledge.
How often do we actually see it work the other way around?
Last edited by SWJED; 12-17-2007 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Fix quote box.
I have some questions...
I agree with the sum of the entire post the above excerpt is taken from.
Having read every post within this thread, I had a nagging set of questions buffeting me the entire way to this point. The above quote prods me to post the following and I'll try to present them as best I can.
I'll lead my question with a couple of observations which may or may not be correct, but will assume for the moment are correct.
Observation 1: COIN is a strictly OCONUS military operation.
Observation 2: With respect to CONUS and what some identifiy as an active Islamist insurgency within CONUS (such as described by LTC Joseph C Myers).
(Active Insurgency being defined as 2/93 or WTC-1, OKC, and 9/11, and as identified in the recent NYPD treatise, as well as anticipated future terrorist insurgent events) :
Question 1: Why is it that America conducts COIN operations with military force in OCONUS theaters yet within CONUS it is only a matter of or for law enforcement (Posse Comitatus notwithstanding) involving the Justice Department?
Question 2: What about CONUS insurgent activity and subsequent action with respect to the disputed details Able Danger is reported to have detected and the specific application of E.O. 12333?
Question 3: Are Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah (or others) somehow different in OCONUS theaters than they are here in CONUS? Even with respect given to foreign state sponsorship which smacks of an 'Act of War'?
Last edited by Sean Osborne; 12-17-2007 at 06:50 PM.
...and I end having to quote myself
I said IF. Obviously I submit that there is a profession of arms and it is a true profession, albeit one that substantially lacks the academic rigour and qualifications associated with Law, Medicine, and Engineering. - and for anyone that disagrees, I'd love to know where I can do an MA or PhD in Military Theory.
A great deal of contemporary Military Theory/science is not fit for purpose. My contention is that because there are few/no formal courses of study in this area, we constantly undermine ourselves.
It always amazes me that people agonise over the "Principles of War" without ever asking why such principles are deemed important. Train setting a list of improper nouns does not a valid foundation of theory make.
I'm pretty sure that neither Sun-Tzu or the old Prussian came up with a list of principles, on which there work was based.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Dichotomies
(1) Several have disagreed with you on that score, many have also pointed out that there are a number of theories. Thus the question becomes, are there no theories or just none that satisfy you?...and I end having to quote myself(1)
I said IF. Obviously I submit that there is a profession of arms and it is a true profession, albeit one that substantially lacks the academic (2) rigour (3) and qualifications associated with Law, Medicine, and Engineering (4). - and for anyone that disagrees, I'd love to know where I can do an MA or PhD in Military Theory (5).
A great deal of contemporary Military Theory/science is not fit for purpose (6). My contention is that because there are few/no formal courses of study in this area, we constantly undermine ourselves.
It always amazes me that people agonise (7) over the "Principles of War" without ever asking why such principles are deemed important. Train setting a list of improper nouns does not a valid foundation of theory make.(8)
I'm pretty sure that neither Sun-Tzu or the old Prussian came up with a list of principles, on which there work was based (9).
(2) It is not an academic pursuit. Indeed, in many respects it is the antithesis of such pursuits. Is it your suggestion that such an Academic approach and applied rigor can improve combat performance?
(3) You misspelled rigor.I say that in jest and only to highlight that words have meaning -- but are sometimes spelled and interpreted differently; I think that's a culture thing. I also think it important to remember that. Not to change British to US spelling or vice versa (seriously) but to recall that cultural divide is more significant than most realize.
(4) Significant post secondary education is not required -- indeed, not desired -- for most participants in the profession of arms. Nor is the degree of precision required in two of your named professions required -- it is, in fact, very difficult to obtain much precision in most operations. Academic solutions have been tried and found wanting then discarded (in the US Army at least). Conversely, considerably more accuracy and truth is required in the profession of arms than is true in the third profession cited. Thus the comparison is not totally apt IMO so could I ask for the connection you see?
(5) Most practitioners do not need a heavy grounding in theory, the few that do can easily acquire advanced degrees in related fields. A baccalaurate degree in Military Science can be obtained -- which is in itself a misnomer as soldiering is an art, not a science. Indeed, I would submit that much of the current malaise you see is caused by trying to create yet another pseudo-science. I would also ask if one had a PhD in Military Theory, aside from teaching others the precepts, of course, what would one do to put that knowledge to practical use?
(6) By whose definition?
(7) My reading of this thread shows that most who have commented essentially agree with you and that none are agonizing over them. You favorably cited Leonhard who IIRC, addressed them. Who do you see as agonizing over the issue?
(8) That is possibly true. Given the sometimes bitter battles over theory in other academic fields, if there were a Filed of Military theory, what indications do we have that such unsatisfactory theories would not proliferate?
(9) Possibly. Without access to their working drafts, outlines or thoughts, we cannot know. What leads you to believe that no such items or a list probably did not exist?
I list these not to be confrontational nor to disparage, I am truly trying to understand what you're trying to say in this comment.
...and I am very pleased that you do. I very much appreciate having my thoughts subject to peer review, and a good kicking once in a while never hurts. Forces me to write, and thus think, more clearly.
To whit, here are my main points.
a. On the subject of the thread, Do we need to adjust principles of war, if they are of dubious merit, - eg: Do they help make soldiers better at what they do? I submit that Leonhard's method of arguments is extremely useful, or rather I find it so, because I now understand things that I previously did not.
b. Military Theory lacks a common set of definitions comparative to other fields of study. I submit that this is extremely problematic. This is not just my opinion. It is a real bone of contention in the UK. I have many examples. Israeli military theory is similarly hamstrung due to the translation issue.
c. I believe that there should be a sound academic grounding to the profession of arms. It would save us considerable pain and pay off in the long run. I am not suggesting NCOs read Sun-Tzu. Education needs to be appropriate.
PS - Rigor was plain lazy typo. No excuses!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
My rejoinder to this question is a rather straightforward "maybe." I suspect we might first try to decide to whom the principles are of dubious merit. Then we might assess why they are of dubious merit to those folks. It might just turn out that the principles are being used for inapproriate purposes, which would certainly make them of little value. If you were driving in an F1 race at Silverstone on a dry day, would you use rain slicks on your car? Similarily, if you were plannning a tactical reconnaissance patrol at the squad level, would you assess your effort in terms of MOSS MOUSE?
Military theory comes in different brands, just as medicine does. DOs (Osteopaths) and DCs (Chiropractors) do not always use the same definitions as MDs nor do they undergo the same kind of training and certification processes. In the English profession of law you have barristers and solicitors, who, IIRC, have different standards of conduct, licensure, practice, etc. In the US, lawyers specialize in criminal or in civil practice, but not usually both. (Even more often, instead of practicing at the bar, they become officious government bureaucrats who stifle progress
Even if we had a standing set of common definitions, we would still find ways to twist them to mean what each of us choose--remember what Humpty Dumpty told Alice--
HD: There's glory for you.
Alice: I don't know what you mean by 'glory' there.
HD: When I use the word 'glory' I mean 'knock-down argument.'
Alice: But 'glory' doesn't mean that!
HD: When I use it, it does.
Alice: The question is whether you can make a word mean anything you want.
HD: No, the question is who's to be the master, that's all (he said with a contemptuous smile). (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass )I suspect that here we see disagreement on the definition of 'academic grounding.' If the goal is to break down stovepipes and make various service schoolhouses teach the same things, I think you will find that you run afoul of the problem I noted regarding your second point. BTW, I see no reason to exclude NCOs from reading Sun Tzu or any other "theoretical" piece of militaria, unless of course you are suggesting that this famous stanza from Tennyson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is true:
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
All true, but when MDs talk about trauma, or toxic shock they all have a clear and universal understanding.
Military theory does not have a clear agreement of definitions or applications of such words that are clearly important. Just read back through the thread and see how different folks have different meanings for different words. - then ask a doctor or physicist if they have the same problem.
If I asked for a definition of "Shock action" on these boards I would get a range of opinions. Not a definition on which all agreed. I bet people even have differing definitions of what Military Theory is. MDs all know what Pathology is, or Psychiatry is not.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Not trying to get in
over my head,but
The military is for defense and offense, they fight one way or the other.
In the end whoever wins, wins and irregardless of the 20/20 hindsights which may come along the winner, won.
So shouldn't the overwhelming focus be on how to win whichever battle you are in at a given point. Then learn from your mistakes. But spend most of your time in between learning how to be better at winning the next time. In other words how to think.
Does not How to think at it's very core equate to a willingness to closely examine all aspects and factors in efforts to be better equipped mentally, physically, emotionally for the next encounter.
There will always be a next encounter, and it will always be different, while similar. So it's the difference between standing on principles, and not ignoring them. The former not always being possible and I submit the latter almost never being wise.
Thanks for the response. Some points for consideration.
Who determines the merit? If they are to be adjusted, who determines to what and in what way? A committee....
Now that IS scary.
We can agree on the first sentence, we can agree it can pose problems (particularly in coalition operations -- though that is easing. Slowly but soldiers tend to be conservative...). We can disagree that it is a significant problem -- other than for those who wish to study and conduct academic discourse on the topics; the folks actually doing the job make it work.b. Military Theory lacks a common set of definitions comparative to other fields of study. I submit that this is extremely problematic. This is not just my opinion. It is a real bone of contention in the UK. I have many examples. Israeli military theory is similarly hamstrung due to the translation issue.
However, certainly the fact that I contend you're -- as I said semi jokingly earlier -- proposing a solution in search of a problem should be no deterrent to your thesis. I do suspect, however, that getting the rather fractious and arrogant Israeli, UK and US military types to agree on common terminology will be rather like herding cats. Though probably not as much fun...
That's without including any other nations.
I agree but I suspect our definitions of "sound academic" would differ; I'd also suggest that NCOs should read Sun Tzu -- and that even Privates should have some rudimentary knowledge of the departed Chinese gentleman and several other theorists.c. I believe that there should be a sound academic grounding to the profession of arms. It would save us considerable pain and pay off in the long run. I am not suggesting NCOs read Sun-Tzu. Education needs to be appropriate.
I don't really care which theorists as long as there are several. Been my observation that competing dogmas lead people to pick and choose from them to find a path that works for the them at the time..
That, I think, is a good thing
Not a problem, as I said, just a minor, joking item. Your PS emphasizes my points -- in a pinch or a hurry, we all often revert to our cultural background and omit the nuances; and the difference in form does not really detract from understanding at all...PS - Rigor was plain lazy typo. No excuses!
Still, best of luck with your quest.
Having worked at a state agency that licenses and disciplines physicians, I can tell you that not all MDs agree as to the meaning of trauma and toxic shock, pathology and psychiatry nor what each field of practice includes. For exmple, trauma is divided into diferent levels, based on the kinds of treatment that may be required. It gets even more exciting when the MDs in question received their training in Med schools that are not located in the US.
Physicists are also prone to miscommunication. As a simple example, the gulf between theoretical and experimental physicists is quite striking. And mathematicians are not much better. Take geometry for example--is that Euclidean geometry, non-Eucklidean geometry, Reimannian geometry, Cartesian geometry, plane geometry, solid geometry, or some other form of geometry that we have in mind? How about 'number'?--real, whole, rational, irrational, cardinal, ordinal are some of the possible ways of qualifying that concept. Each of these adjectival appendages serve to form a more narrow domain of discourse that provides a semantic context for a lexicon or vocabulary.
The same thing happens in military theory--it is indexed to a cultural domain of discourse. Perhps that domain is nationality based; perhaps it is branch or arm of service based; perhaps it is source of enlistment/commissioning based. Most likely it is a mixed bag of all of these and other bases as well. Once you discover the domain of discourse in play, less misunderstanding occurs. Note that I said 'less', not 'no' misundersatanding occurs
Language learning is an individual activity (and learning military terminology is a form of language learning just as much as learning Mandarin Chinese is). Each one of us carries along a little extra baggage (part of our individual experiences tied to learning the words we know--a phenomenolgical or emotional 'charge' if you will) with every word in our individual lexicons. I wonder that we are able to order a cup of tea satisfactorily and would submit that at root we really are not so able. Deep down, we are not satisfied with the product unless we make it ourselves because only each one of us really 'knows' how we like our tea.
Sorry for the discourse on philosophy of language, but I think it is important to get clear on how hard it is to communicate with each other.
I'm scared Question 1 is even a question. Seriously, I am.
Why do we do it that way...? Hmm, because we like our Constitution, maybe, and doing it your way is like the Dark Side of the Force: Easy, seductive, simple...
...And, in this case, it leads to military dictatorship before you even realize it.
Seriously, it is a good thing that uniforms get stares in America. COIN or any type of combat operations on domestic soil means soldiers deployed among the citizenry.
Probably for a long time.
And once having soldiers on street corners becomes a regular feature of the landscape, once uniforms stop getting stares, how much would it take before it goes unremarked to see uniformed soldiers in all sorts of normally-civilian roles?
Yes, I'm being vehement. Vigor in response seems required, lest anybody get the idea in their head that the idea is at all desirable.
Define "significant"?
The idea that the profession of arms requires no more than High School, to me, only works if the profession of arms is merely "Make Things Go Boom, Make People Go Ow".
If the profession of arms is "The profession of the use, or threat of the use, of force by organized entities on behalf of sovereign entities, and the exercise of the coercive powers of the sovereign", then I'd beg to differ.
If the profession of arms includes more than "Killing people and breaking things", but also using the possibility of such to avoid the actual use of such, then I'd want those in this profession to be very well-educated, so that they don't -need- to use force to accomplish the mission assigned.
Because, maybe it's me, I seem to remember the whole principle of Just War Theory being based on force being the last resort - as in, don't fire your weapon until you've tried everything else sane besides doing so. Don't hesitate to use force when you have to, use it well enough so you can minimize your use of it, but don't use it unless nothing else would work.
I can do that
in this particular case, 'significant' as used by me indicates that most practitioners do not require post secondary education; that senior leaders and commanders do -- thus we are looking at 10-15% in most armies; that perhaps a like percentage of those senior leaders and commanders can benefit from advanced degrees of one or another levels -- IOW, about one to 1 1/2 % of the total force. That, to me, is not a significant number. YMMV.
Not what I said. However, I would point out that at base level, that's precisely what it does. Good idea not lose sight of that, IMO, for the sake of everyone who may become involved. It involves killing and dying and is emphatically not an academic exercise and we should stoutly resist attempts to make it one...The idea that the profession of arms requires no more than High School, to me, only works if the profession of arms is merely "Make Things Go Boom, Make People Go Ow".
Overly pedantic but I essentially agree and nowhere have I ever implied otherwise if one reads what I wrote and not what one wants to think I wrote. Admitting that this is an imperfect medium and I'm not the best writer around...If the profession of arms is "The profession of the use, or threat of the use, of force by organized entities on behalf of sovereign entities, and the exercise of the coercive powers of the sovereign", then I'd beg to differ.
If the profession of arms includes more than "Killing people and breaking things", but also using the possibility of such to avoid the actual use of such, then I'd want those in this profession to be very well-educated, so that they don't -need- to use force to accomplish the mission assigned.
That's fine for those that adhere to the just war theory. I don't. I think it's silly with all due apology to those who espouse the theory. No war is just, the nature of the beast is too arbitrary to conflate 'war' and 'just.'Because, maybe it's me, I seem to remember the whole principle of Just War Theory being based on force being the last resort - as in, don't fire your weapon until you've tried everything else sane besides doing so. Don't hesitate to use force when you have to, use it well enough so you can minimize your use of it, but don't use it unless nothing else would work.
All war is stupid and immoral and should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. No reasonably sane person should dispute that and that's the political leadership's job in conjunction with their diplomats. Unfortunately, regardless of the stupidity and inherent immorality and due often to political failure, some wars are necessary. The profession of arms gets involved when the political fails -- other than a very, very few senior leaders and commanders whose job it is to advise said politicians and diplomats on the advantages and disadvantages on the use of force on a daily basis (and with emphasis if some commitment of force is anticipated) * .
I'll also point out that excessive (note that word) concern for limiting the use of force when it must be applied is contraindicated -- it invariably causes more casualties to all, including the innocent, by dragging out in time (and generally space) the action or conflict than does an effective and massive application of force at the right place and time with sensible regard for avoiding excess.
* Noting that a number of such persons with advanced degrees in this country have not done that particular job too well over the last 50 years or so.
Last edited by Ken White; 12-18-2007 at 06:24 PM. Reason: Typo
Constitution
Hey Penta,
Can you point out where in the Constitution COIN (or any other domestic use of military force) is prohibited? In fact, you can't. Because the Constitution does not prohibit it. It makes the President CINC and makes the Congress responsible for raising and maintaining the armed forces and providing regulations that govern them. In Constitutional terms, Posse Commitatus (PC)(better stated as the KKK enabling act for domestic terrorists of 1878) is such a regulation. It prohibits the Army and the derivative AF from enforcing domestic law but does not so prohibit the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Navy and Marines are bound by DOD regs on that score but not by law.
So, the question that was asked is one of policy, not law (because I forgot to mention that PC has so many loopholes that tanks can be driven through). Moreover, the policy is one that has been honored in the breach many, many times since 1878. Some examples are the Pullman Strike of the 1890s, Little Rock 1956, the 1968 race riots, the 1992 LA riot of Rodney King fame. In none of those was the PC issue raised directly (although it did impinge on LA where the federalization of the CA NG made making arrests more difficult as interpreted by the JTF commander and his lawyers).
My point is twofold: First, we can, do, and have used the military in a COIN mode throughout our history in the US and that it is perfectly constitutional and often legal as well to do so. Second, sometimes it is good policy; other times not so good - as the old Army saying goes, "depends on the situation."
Cheers
JohnT
To futher add on to what the honorable Mr. Fishel said, I can't find the direct quote, but it was something to the effect "Posse Commitatus is about enabling democracy not jeopardizing it."
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks