IW and Stability Operations - in your own words - what is the difference?

**Ken White** · 03-05-2008

Originally Posted by wm

I also think KW's assertion that both are occurring simultaneously is not completely accurate.

is ever completely accurate. War is too chaotic to codify and define precisely. We can have fun trying but we will not succeed.

Doctors both stabilize patients and treat patients, often, but not always, simultaneously, and often, but not always, using different procedures. One goal of patient stablization is to try to ensure that they don't die on the table while the docs are trying to treat the cause of the problem--for example, they keep pumping blood into the patient (stablization) while they are figuring out which artery has been cut and then suture it back together (kinetic intervention or treatment). Sometimes however, I suspect that stablizaing the patient is also treatment--as when aspirin is administered to a person with a fever. Maybe I'm applying the wrong analogy, but it sure seems to me that peace is the political analogue to biological health.

Good analogy. Simultaneous efforts in different directions by the same actors (Doctors) and / or others on the team...

Sort of like pursuing an irregular or other war while attempting to stabilize the nation through various means. Frequently including Band aids...

I'd add that the hippocratic oath model, 'first do no harm,' is at best extremely difficult to accomplish and at worst a wishful dream if war of any type at any level is involved. War is by nature harmful and you absolutely cannot clean it up. The worst mistake we, the US have made in recent years (1950 forward) is to try to fight wars and do minimal harm in the process. Going light inevitably, without fail, always (I'm into triple redundancy...) increases own and other casualties and lengthens combat time. Always.

Rank amatuer said above we were too nice -- I disagreed on the premise that he was talking about the Armed Forces. We aren't nice, we do what our civilian masters say. They are too nice (left handed compliment), seriously. Unfortunately, that attempt to be nice sends a message. To the western mind, it's that we're really basically nice guys who want to be loved -- to everyone else in the world, it's a sign of major weakness. The unnecessary debacles of the handling of Viet Nam, Tehran, Beirut and such sent a message that we did not intend -- that we're not up to the tough stuff. We are now paying for that utter stupidity.

There's always a time to play nice -- unless force is involved; then to play nice or attempt to is to invite a disaster. Fortunately, we're pretty good at cobbling together band aids and fixes to prevent total melt down -- but we lose too many good kids in the process...

I digress...

Irregular Warfare is indeed a western construct and is not an applicable term to either the Asian or Middle Eastern forms of warfare and those forms do differ in considerable detail. Still it is a handy term and there's no reason not to use it to describe, to western minds, a form of conflict.

Irregular Warfare (and / or other types of warfare) and Stability Operations may be simultaneously conducted. Or they may not be. Or there may be a time phased melding. I believe that METT-TC applies in that determination...

**Rob Thornton** · 03-05-2008

Hi Ken,

I'd add that the Hippocratic oath model, 'first do no harm,' is at best extremely difficult to accomplish and at worst a wishful dream if war of any type at any level is involved. War is by nature harmful and you absolutely cannot clean it up.

I should have qualified it a bit, I was thinking about the decision to commit military force in the first place - provided somebody has left you an option, which may not always be so. I think once you cross that line, be prepared for all that comes with it - doesn't mean you have to go there, but you don't want to be unprepared to if the enemy does. We should not try and change the nature of something to suit our objective - we've suffered from that one before.

With regard to the other elements of power in more benign conditions, the operations to encourage, facilitate, or reinforce stability might be pure DIE with no apparent M, the state in question may just not be at that point where using "M" is reasonable, required, or for some other reason, palatable (lots of room under that one). Or maybe the M piece is limited to the indirect - such as facilitating/encouraging regional alliances or collective security, providing intelligence, etc.

I need to think on it some more, but every policy action I think needs to be weighed not only for its immediate value, or value in providing what looks like a painless solution (at least for the politics of the day), but it also needs to be weighed against our long term objectives and beyond a bilateral perspective. I know, hard to do, not really in our strategic culture, not aligned with our political process of reinventing the wheel every 4-8 years, but it might be a good way to work toward increased stability and developing options, as opposed to having to respond in a strategic knee jerk fashion.

Best, Rob

**Ken White** · 03-05-2008

I should have given your earlier comment more thought, then I might have realized that your meaning was in whether to commit or not.

You said two things (among many over the days...) that I think bear repetition:

"...I was thinking about the decision to commit military force in the first place - provided somebody has left you an option, which may not always be so. I think once you cross that line, be prepared for all that comes with it - doesn't mean you have to go there, but you don't want to be unprepared to if the enemy does. We should not try and change the nature of something to suit our objective - we've suffered from that one before."

Amen. We really need adherance to that sage advice and to this:

...every policy action I think needs to be weighed not only for its immediate value, or value in providing what looks like a painless solution (at least for the politics of the day), but it also needs to be weighed against our long term objectives and beyond a bilateral perspective.

Now, if we can just get the politicians to pay attention...

**marct** · 03-05-2008

Originally Posted by Ken White

Now, if we can just get the politicians to pay attention...

And Stan calls ME a hopeless romantic

! Unfortunately, I doubt that any politician will think beyond their next election and, in the US, the ones who don't have to think about the next election (aka year 6+ presidents) are, for all intents and purposes, isolated from having much real effect.