Klein's Shock Doctrine

[Surferbeetle]

Ken,

I always enjoy reading your posts, references, and reflecting upon your well argued point of view. I think that we can agree that the greatness of our constitution, nation, and way of life is worth fighting and dying for.

I posted Klein’s Shock Doctrine to hopefully generate some discussion on how we approach the populace in our operations, Small Wars or otherwise.

As a result of the combination of Capitalism and our Constitution we Americans are able to enjoy an unprecedented way of life as compared to the historical record. Capitalism is the most efficient way that I am aware of to fully engage a population and realize it’s potential. The 2006 US GDP was in the neighborhood of 13 trillion dollars ( http://www.bea.gov/ ) for a population of approximately 300 million people ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ). Americans enjoy an amazing amount of freedom as a result of our constitution and bill of rights (http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...stitution.html ).

It is my observation that many countries that I have had the opportunity to visit, Iraq in particular, are not as fortunate as America. The 2006 Iraqi GDP was approximately 87.9 billion dollars for a population of approximately 27 million people ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/iz.html ). Iraq’s constitution ( www.export.gov/iraq/pdf/iraqi_constitution.pdf ) is currently only a piece of paper with no soul and it does not inspire or sustain it’s people. I think part of the failure of the Iraqi Constitution has to do with the ME outlook that the Koran, and the associated Sharia Law, has divine origin whereas mans laws made in the absence of this guidance are suspect.

I would argue that the people of any country are an essential center of gravity which needs to be addressed in operations which involve the country; these include military, economic, and political. When it comes to strictly military operations kinetic skill is paramount. Winners understand this and losers do not. Small Wars however, are not limited to strictly military operations and thus it is vital that a functional and effective strategy is crafted which successfully engages the populace of a country. We are still trying to implement a succesful one in Iraq.

I will attempt to address this further in a future post.

Steve

[J Wolfsberger]

It sometimes seems as though discussion boils down to kinetic ops OR population centered ops. The reality is, it takes both in situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. What I would argue is the strategy must center on the population; that the strategic goal should be development of a viable, self -sustaining state (a political entity); and that can only be accomplished as an outgrowth of the culture of the indigenous nation(s) (social entities). The role of armed forces and kinetic operations is creation of an environment where rule of law can be established, allowing people to freely determine their own political and economic fates. That involves security operations (patrolling neighborhoods), support (training police and, military), and occasionally highly kinetic ops (pitched battles against large groups of insurgents).

As a result of the combination of Capitalism and our Constitution we Americans are able an unprecedented way of life as compared to the historical record. Capitalism is the most efficient way that I am aware of to fully engage a population and realize it’s potential. The 2006 US GDP was in the neighborhood of 13 trillion dollars ( http://www.bea.gov/ ) for a population of approximately 300 million people ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ). Americans enjoy an amazing amount of freedom as a result of our constitution and bill of rights (http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...stitution.html ).

Capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. Incidentally, it would be well for everyone to remember that our first shot at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation - adopted in 1977, ratified in 1781. It was universally regarded a failure, which led to the Constitution, 1788. That's an eleven year span. Demanding the Iraqis do (or criticizing them for not doing) the same in a bit over four years is ... inappropriate.

It is my observation that many countries that I have had the opportunity to visit, Iraq in particular, are not as fortunate as America.

One outcome of the Twentieth Century is that socialism, in any form was completely discredited. (Before the fur starts flying, I said "discredited" not "abandoned.") Whether Communism (Soviet Union, PRC, N. Korea, Cuba), Nazism (Germany), Fascism (Italy and Spain), Third Way (Sweden), or the mild form the US is drifting around, national economies performed in inverse proportion to the degree they embraced socialism. (An interesting bone of contention between Ireland and the rest of the EU has been Ireland's performance after throwing off a lot of its socialist economic policies. The result was embarrassing - to the EU.) It was this, not good fortune, that has clobbered so many countries. I am leaving out states such as Zimbabwe, Zaire under Mobutu and Iraq under Hussein. These were kleptocracies. The only reason they use the term like "socialist" in their official names is so western "intelligentsia" will give them a pass.

Which, I think, is what Ms. Klein is guilty of. Any reading of history shows numerous examples of strong nations enforcing their will on weaker ones at the point of a gun. Colonialism involved more than imposition of will, it involved dominance. That history phased out after WW II. To present one example, it was certainly the intent of the French in Indochina. It was certainlly not the goal of the US in Indochina.

What Ms. Klein refers to as "Neo-Colonialism" seems to involve "cultural dominance." And while it is clear to her, it is unclear to me whether any such thing exists. If the term has any useful meaning, it has to involve more than the purchase of Britney Spears or Michael Jackson CDs. (Which, in any event, are not what I would hold up as an example of culture. )

I only read summaries of her positions, but they seem to define "Neo-Colonialism" as the "export" of ... capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. I.e. everything that led to our good fortune. And that is the reason I referred, in a previous post, to her "high school grasp of economics." I would add, her knowledge of history and understanding of social structure seem equally deficient.

(As an aside, in the 1970's I took a course in International Relations. I got hammered in discussions for asserting:

1. The Soviet Union was attempting to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy.

2. They couldn't sell enough raw materials (oil, etc.) to make up the deficiency.

3. Their economy would would collapse under the strain, sooner rather than later.

4. As a state, the USSR would probably dissolve before the end of century.

I was told I clearly didn't understand the nature and structure of socialist states. In hindsight, I think it's clear somebody didn't. )

[Ken White]

Surferbeetle said:

..."I would argue that the people of any country are an essential center of gravity which needs to be addressed in operations which involve the country; these include military, economic, and political. When it comes to strictly military operations kinetic skill is paramount. Winners understand this and losers do not. Small Wars however, are not limited to strictly military operations and thus it is vital that a functional and effective strategy is crafted which successfully engages the populace of a country. We are still trying to implement a succesful one in Iraq.

I totally agree. I would only argue that said 'addressing' should be undertaken BEFORE commitment and should include the views of many to include regionally knowledgable people outside government and that the assessment of what is entailed be considered with as much objectivity as possible. That would include, IMO, the fact that "winning hearts and minds" is generally unlikely and that attempts to do so without pragmatic consideration of probabilities make the phrase, like 'achieving total victory,' a construct that in this day should be avoided lest it produce a deluded sense of what is likely to occur. Words, as they say, are important. Expectations should be realistic and the "gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." ideas should be realized for what they all too frequently are -- unattainable.

The goal should be a satisfactory outcome and that can be obtained in most circumstances as long as we don't pursue the old chimeras.

That is true and appears at this time to be on the way with respect to Iraq even though we erred on many counts early on. I'm personally impressed with the speed and agility with which we have reoriented. Terribly slow to many, I know but for anyone who knows the beast, pretty rapid recalculation and good effort.

Look forward to your post.

J Wolfsberger said:

...That's an eleven year span. Demanding the Iraqis do (or criticizing them for not doing) the same in a bit over four years is ... inappropriate.

Well and politely said. Posting rules would have allowed me to echo your statement while precluding the first word that pops into my mind every time I see that inappropriate impatience expressed. I always get particularly dismissive when Iraq is compared to "WWII only took us four years..."

What Ms. Klein refers to as "Neo-Colonialism" seems to involve "cultural dominance." And while it is clear to her, it is unclear to me whether any such thing exists.

Just so...

"(...I was told I clearly didn't understand the nature and structure of socialist states. In hindsight, I think it's clear somebody didn't. )

Heh. Aren't 'true believers' a fascinating sub species...

[Surferbeetle]

Newsweek’s 2006 analysis of Iraq’s Economy

“ Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. After so many years of living under sanctions, with little to consume, many built up considerable nest eggs--which they are now spending. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded." “

http://www.newsweek.com/id/44302

IMF’s July 2007 Iraq Analysis

The Central Bank of Iraq’s Interest Policy Rate has gone from 6% in 2004 to 20% in 2007 while the Dinar Exchange Rate has dropped from 1949 to the Dollar in October of 2003 to 1256 to the Dollar in June 0f 2007. Exports of Oil, Dates, and ‘Other Commodities’ continue to increase with the bulk of exports going to North & South America, followed by the EU, and then Asia.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...07/cr07294.pdf

The Economist’s 2008-09 Iraq GDP Forecast

“Our higher oil production forecasts, and the recent improvement in security, have led us to revise up our real GDP growth projections for Iraq, with economic expansion now expected to rise to 4% in 2008 and 5.6% in 2009.”

http://www.economist.com/countries/I...ofile-Forecast

Iraq’s Stock Exchange

“ Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) introduced a special index in October 2004 which closed in December 2004 at (64.996) points, December 2006 at (25.288) points. January 2007 at (25.903) points and December 2007 at (34.590) points.”

http://www.isx-iq.com/

Central Bank of Iraq

http://www.cbiraq.org

[J Wolfsberger]

"Neo-Liberal" economics seems to be a leftist attempt to rebrand classical economics with a "Neo-Con" taint. Ms. Klein will probably be using this as an example of U.S. "Neo-Colonialism:" Forcing the Iraqi's to adopt economic policies that lead to growing prosperity and economic stability. Assuming, of coarse, that she even acknowledges the positive news.

[Uboat509]

Ken,

With regard to your issue with the term "hearts and minds," LTC Kilcullen makes the point that "hearts and minds" does not mean getting them to like you but getting them to see that it is in their best interest to work with rather than against us. Viewed from that context, do you see value in the concept or am I playing with semantics. My experience with the ME has shown me that most there have a clearly defined sense of self-interest. Certainly, we must tap into that to have any sort success there. That is how I have always thought of that term and it has definitely affected how I dealt with the Iraqis I met on a daily basis. I never had any illusions about getting them to like me (but then I am a cynic anyway).

SFC W

[Ken White]

Ken,

With regard to your issue with the term "hearts and minds," LTC Kilcullen makes the point that "hearts and minds" does not mean getting them to like you but getting them to see that it is in their best interest to work with rather than against us. Viewed from that context, do you see value in the concept or am I playing with semantics. My experience with the ME has shown me that most there have a clearly defined sense of self-interest. Certainly, we must tap into that to have any sort success there. That is how I have always thought of that term and it has definitely affected how I dealt with the Iraqis I met on a daily basis. I never had any illusions about getting them to like me (but then I am a cynic anyway).

SFC W

who see or hear it -- unless they have some experience as you do and realize that you can get host nation folks to act in their own interests but they aren't ever going to like you in the fullest sense of the word.

Most civilians who see the term promoted by those are responsible for COIN or involved in the effort in some way assume the intent is to "win them over to our side and love us." Intuitively they know somethings not quite right about that. Those opposed to the effort will use every violent act to say "You aren't going to win hearts and minds that way..."

I can go with 'win their minds' -- it's the "heart" bit that muddies the water. I think "...active or tacit support..." is a better if sorta stuffy term. Regardless, H&M is a part of the vocabulary now; we're stuck with it.

Agree with you on the ME; when all is said and done, they are very pragmatic and perhaps more so than the nominally less emotional westerner. They will always dislike the ferenghi as a group but may take to individual westerners and will almost always support the apparent winner and someone who treats them fairly and respectfully particularly if they see an advantage to the tribe, family or themselves.

As a fellow cynic, maybe the "hearts" bit is annoying because it's unlikely to happen most everywhere when lives are being severely disrupted. I sure wouldn't be a happy camper if it was me but I'd tolerate 'visitors' if the potential future was better than the past...