Tactical Jenga vs. The Strategic Stopwatch

[slapout9]

I'd also argue that the Big W and Big B (Warden and Boyd) are not as useful for COIN as many might wish (and no...I'm not doggin' on you, Slap...). Actually, I'm not sure that they are especially useful in any limited war scenario. Elements of their theories and techniques certainly CAN be, but on the whole they tend to worry me in any situation that requires restraint and finesse.

Hi Steve,actually this may surprise you and a lot of other people. The first time I met Warden he told that he thought that a Guerrilla/Insurgency type war is the one situation where he did not think his theory would work He sees them largely as civil wars and we should not became involved in them except as an outside support such as Afghanistan against Russia or El Salvador type ops run by Special Forces.

[Rank amateur]

He sees them largely as civil wars and we should not became involved in them except as an outside support such as Afghanistan against Russia or El Salvador type ops run by Special Forces.

Generally, I would agree with that, but Afghanistan is the "duck bill platypus." Because we were attacked from there, we had to respond.

To make the Jenga bit work you'd need to have someone sticking blocks back in toward the bottom from time to time.

I believe that is our official strategy. Officially, the Iraqis are making progress towards building the necessary blocks but the situation is still to fragile to make the replacement now.

[Steve Blair]

Hi Steve,actually this may surprise you and a lot of other people. The first time I met Warden he told that he thought that a Guerrilla/Insurgency type war is the one situation where he did not think his theory would work He sees them largely as civil wars and we should not became involved in them except as an outside support such as Afghanistan against Russia or El Salvador type ops run by Special Forces.

Sadly, things don't always work out the way folks might like...

Slap, I was never sure if Warden thought his theories would work in COIN or not. I tended to think not, simply because the AF as a whole doesn't really concern itself deeply with COIN, and he was an AF product. What tends to worry me is when other people get their hands on theories and start trying to apply them in places they might not work.

And RA, my comment was directed at the model...not what's happening in Iraq or elsewhere.

[Ken White]

Rank Amateur said, early on:

"...In the real world, people on welfare don't start looking for jobs until the welfare is about to run out. I really think that the Sunni sheiks are smart enough to realize that as soon as there is reconciliation we're going to stop sending them US dollars."

He followed that later with:

"Did Mr. Kilcullen offer a third option? Or are we stuck with two ineffective alternatives?"

My answer to both those is that Kilcullen didn't offer one but I will -- and it takes care of both your concerns. We're gonna be there for a long time.

WM said:

"One thing I do not like about either metaphor is the pessimism that seems operative in each, reflected by the downward trend in each line. Another problem for me was much better put by Tom Odom’s metaphor. I can put this slide to a lot of different uses, not least of which is a mystical example to obfuscate what I took to be an obvious point. (Slapout MTV’s “All Along the Watchtower” link works here: “There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.”) Maybe Slapout MTV also needs a link to the Stone’s tune, “You can’t always get what you want.”"

Agreed, regardless of intent, the slide shows a negative trend line, psychologically (or common sense wise for those of us with no background in psych) a bad ploy.

Steve Blair said:

"...Slap, I was never sure if Warden thought his theories would work in COIN or not. I tended to think not, simply because the AF as a whole doesn't really concern itself deeply with COIN, and he was an AF product. What tends to worry me is when other people get their hands on theories and start trying to apply them in places they might not work."

Emphasis added by me because I think that that is so-o-o important -- and so often ignored, usually to our detriment...

JCustis said:

"I think he recognizes there is a time and place for large formations, but if they aren't being employed properly, the are just shooting our strategy in the foot. We did not have the aptitude, temperance, nor patience to do a good job in 2003-2005, regardless of how many boots we had on the ground. Tie this problem to the woefull reconstruction efforts during that period, and I can totally agree with you that the military was not in control of things in Iraq. Like John T. Fishel said, no matter of troops would have mattered with a crappy strategy.'

Yep; works for me...

[William F. Owen]

1. Smash the stop watch.

2. Set fire the wooden blocks of the Jinga thingy.

3. Go and find the chap who wrote "Knifing Soup on your Trousers" or what ever it was called, and ask him to knock up another slide that we can all understand.

Hope this helps!

[Ken White]

it does you, your cause and discussion here more harm than good. You're a smart guy but others here are as well. You're entitled to state your opinions -- and if you'll recall, I'm more often in agreement with you than not -- but it not only is not necessary to deride others in so doing, it seems to me it's actually counterproductive.

You can do better.

I suggest your points 1 and 2 above were unnecessary and that your number 3 is awfully close to insulting a fellow council member about a book you acknowledge you haven't even read. What's the point of the post except to be snide and condescending? Is there one?

[Gian P Gentile]

Ken jumped in and caught me laughing then whipped me back into professional shape. I need this every now and then as many out there probably know. I have been lost ever since I gave up command and no longer have the benefit of a CSM as battle-buddy and keeping his colonel straight.

But back to the thread; I wonder if Dave D might comment on whether or not Dr Kilkullen ever mentioned or was it discussed at this conference the deteriorating situation of the American Army to the point, if not already there, of breaking? We tend to treat the American Army (and marines?) in all of these analyses in a clinical manner; like they both are unaffected masses that will just keep happily rolling on with no effect at all on them.

(thanks ken, but wilf you did have me rolling)

[Ken White]

he sometimes pushes the envelope. I guess we all do on occasion. I just tend to encourage avoiding personalizing the argument and being too dismissive of the opinion of others. We all, me included, err on that occasionally. Not a good medium for that IMO.

I am not sharing my poncho liner -- you guys keep trying to hog the covers...

On a more serious note, Dave will have to speak to Dr. Kilcullen, of course. However I'd suggest the Army and Marines are far from unaffected but are also far from broken. I may be wrong but my sensing is that there'll be a slow drawdown for a couple or three years and then the residual force, maybe three BCTs (+), will be there for a long time. As in real long...

Thus I rather tranquilly await Iraqi restaurants on the streets of Barstow, the Springs, El Paso, Hinesville and Killeen (to go with the Afghan models in Clarksville, Jacksonville, Fayetteville and Watertown)...

[Steve Blair]

it does you, your cause and discussion here more harm than good. You're a smart guy but others here are as well. You're entitled to state your opinions -- and if you'll recall, I'm more often in agreement with you than not -- but it not only is not necessary to deride others in so doing, it seems to me it's actually counterproductive.

You can do better.

I suggest your points 1 and 2 above were unnecessary and that your number 3 is awfully close to insulting a fellow council member about a book you acknowledge you haven't even read. What's the point of the post except to be snide and condescending? Is there one?

Gotta agree with this. Everyone has opinions, but here we should post them respectfully. I haven't seen anyone here (myself included) who has a corner on truth. Let's all remember why we're here: to make sense of (hopefully) this thing we call "small wars." It may be that "war is war is war," but even the most skeptical should admit that there are a number of plateaus or break points between total peace and LeMay-esque "nuclear combat." In my view (and with mod hat off at this point), claiming anything different is ignoring many thousands of years worth of military history and human history.

Back to the question (or thought) about the Army "breaking": I'd say it's in much better shape now than it was during the latter stages of Vietnam. Ken's got the first-hand experience there...but I've done a fair amount of reading and analysis into that area and I'd say we're in fair shape. Not as good as we could be, perhaps, but certainly not as far-gone as we were in 1969 or so. What I see are strains similar to those the all-volunteer force experienced in the later 1800s. Different level of combat to be sure, but the same sense of being stretched too thin and paid too little to take on a job too few care about. It's a point to be watched, but it's a far cry from race riots and some of the other sundry problems the military faced in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[Gian P Gentile]

It's a point to be watched, but it's a far cry from race riots and some of the other sundry problems the military faced in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Agree that we wont see mutinies or things like that which the French Army experienced in early 1917. But I think it is much worse than you or Ken allow for. I think that Gens Casey and Cody have tried over the past few months to show how serious things are without using the "B" word. 3000 captains short; equipment under serious stress; an Army that does pretty much nothing but coin (I got the operational necessity for that because we are fighting two coin wars now). and at least for the next 10 months troop levels stay the same in Iraq and Afghanistan which means 12 months in and 12 months out for many combat outfits. The troopers are completing their third tour and will soon be staring down their 4th or even 5th? Right, there wont be mutinies or cataclysmic breaks; just a slow grinding down to a shell of the force we had in 2001. I accept the role of an army in the American Democracy and if our nation wants to break us for Iraq then so be it; I have served and will continue to do so until unable. I just wish folks outside of SWC members and in the greater nation would take seriously and debate this issue.

gian

[William F. Owen]

it does you, your cause and discussion here more harm than good. You're a smart guy but others here are as well. You're entitled to state your opinions -- and if you'll recall, I'm more often in agreement with you than not -- but it not only is not necessary to deride others in so doing, it seems to me it's actually counterproductive.

You can do better.

I suggest your points 1 and 2 above were unnecessary and that your number 3 is awfully close to insulting a fellow council member about a book you acknowledge you haven't even read. What's the point of the post except to be snide and condescending? Is there one?

Gentleman,

I apologise unreservedly for my post. It was in extremely poor taste, and I intended no offence whatsoever. It was intended purely as humour, but missed the mark badly.

On reading the offending item this AM, I am more than somewhat ashamed of my action and have no idea what possessed me to write it, as I certainly I did intend to offend Dave Kilcullen, (who has been personally helpful to me) or John Nagl, who I know, full well, frequents this board - and I have no wish to offend.

Again, and in closing, I apologise to all concerned.