"The Global Counter Insurgency" Some Thoughts

[Rank amateur]

Morgenstein and Vickland’s essay is emblematic of how American foreign and security policy, and operational methods in Iraq and Afghanistan are built on the “micro tactics” of past attempts at countering insurgencies turned into readily digestible templates for action in the form of historical lessons learned.

I agree. It seems to me that creating "ink spots" is now considered "success," which is dropping the bar so low that anyone can clear it. Creating ink spots is supposed to be a strategy, not an objective.

[tulanealum]

I think Galula was a smart man...I've read his book on COIN and am now reading his book on his experiences in Algeria between 1956-1958.

However, based on my experiences in Iraq, the Balkans (and studying the wars there when I was a Balkans analyst), and reading about other fights, I'm just not sure classical coin is the end all be all.

I just finished D. Michael Shafer's great book "Deadly Paradigms." This looks at COIN policy and how the US always would use three oughts...1. Security, 2. Good Government, and 3. Progress.

There's nothing wrong with this theoretically. But it ignores the situation on the ground and how it can vary from place to place. What if the government/whoever is in power is not interested in reforming? How much leverage do we have to make them bend to our will? What if the guy that is the government's man in some rural area does not want to reform and provide services? What if that undermines his influence? You could replace him, but he kept security and now everything goes to hell...

Shafer said we should look at 1. constraints on leverage, 2. intragovernment limits on reform by our would be ally, 3. nature of relations between the people and the government and also the people and the insurgency.

Galula believes the battle is for the people...but is it these days? Is it in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not always...the insurgents sometimes try to win the people, and other times not...more than anything, they seem to be trying to deny the host governments' influence...not so much winning the people. Many times they ignore the people and use fear only...one could surmise that they may think they don't need "the people."

I'm just wondering if insurgencies today are more than having the population as the sole center of gravity...

I admit I'm a novice, but I just have these thoughts and am curious about other opinions.

Also, why don't more people read Shafer? I never see him mentioned...

[slapout9]

Galula believes the battle is for the people...but is it these days? Is it in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not always...the insurgents sometimes try to win the people, and other times not...more than anything, they seem to be trying to deny the host governments' influence...not so much winning the people. Many times they ignore the people and use fear only...one could surmise that they may think they don't need "the people."

I'm just wondering if insurgencies today are more than having the population as the sole center of gravity...

That is why I say the COG is the ground/territory ( The Hub of all power and Movement). On another thread Jedburgh posted an interesting paper called Ungoverned territories which like criminal gangs is often what they want. So long as the people and the Government don't interfere they could care less about them.