As a guy who's spent a lot of time out at SOCPAC where this whole business of "direct" and "indirect approaches" latest version really developed (I believe Sun Tzu gets credit for first recorded use of the terms) I'll offer a little history and personal opinion.
The phrases "Basilan Model" and "Indirect approach" were getting thrown around in ever expanding circles as the good news story of the OEF-P began to circulate. The problem was that the real essence of what those terms meant resided primarly in the head of then MG David Fridovich who was the first JSOTF CDR and the SOCPAC commander. Everyone else was forming their own idea as to what they meant based on their own experiences elsewhere. To capture this essence in a simple form as his J5 I drafted this and he approved it:
"We are waging two campaigns, a COIN campaign that is our main effort and is based on the indirect approach; and a CT campaign that is our supporting effort and is based on the direct approach."
I later modified that to say that we were actually conducting FID, and that it was the Govt of the Philippines that was conducting COIN and CT.
Now, to SFA. SFA is primarily the direct approach.
If you are building security force capacity to go out an execute CT operations, or counterinsurgent operations, it does not somehow make it the indirect approach because you are enabling someone else to go out and execute the direct approach.
The indirect approach is so named because it focuses on addressing the environment that gives rise to the insurgency in the first place, not so named because it is executed by surrogates.
So whether you are a drain the swamps (indirect) and kill the alligators (direct) guy;
or of you are a fan of Thoreau: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil (direct approach) to one who is striking at the root (indirect approach), and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve."
or can grasp: attack the symptoms (direct), attack the causes (indirect)
you get what it is all about.
I have seen recent GCC plans that lay out efforts of building host nation security force capacity to go out and conduct COIN against the insurgent as their indirect approach effort. As I told them, "good engagement, but not the 'indirect approach'."
Last edited by Bob's World; 01-06-2009 at 08:56 PM.
I think that the understanding of 'direct' and 'indirect' vis a vis OEF-P was perhaps not helped by the article in JFQ in early 2007 by Fridovich and Fred K, (see Fridovich, David and Krawchuk, Fred, Winning in the Pacific: The Special Operations Forces Indirect Approach, Joint Forces Quarterly, Q1 2007, Issue 44, pp 24-27) which did not make the distinction you made quite as clear (note: this is not a critcism of either the General or Fred, I think both men are smart operators who have done fantastic work in advancing commonsense approaches to these issues).
When I worked with another former JSOTF-P commander in Iraq, the position he narrated seemed more in tune with what I would have regarded as a 'classic' SFA task supported by 'good old hearts and minds' stuff (MEDCAPS etc).
Cheers
Mark
Last edited by Jedburgh; 01-07-2009 at 02:09 PM. Reason: Added link.
The Uk has had a national strategy for CT for a few years, known as Operation Contest, with four steps: Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. Short summary on this link via Google: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/t...ic/contest.asp
Only in the last eighteen months has the indirect Prevent aspect gathered pace, after recognition that the direct Pursue aspect alone was insuffiecent.
If only there was the brevity and understanding Bob's World's contribution makes:
"We are waging two campaigns, a COIN campaign that is our main effort and is based on the indirect approach; and a CT campaign that is our supporting effort and is based on the direct approach."
davidbfpo
Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-06-2009 at 11:38 PM. Reason: Add Bob's World passage
Bookmarks