FM 3.07: Stability Operations (Updated With FM Link)

[SWJED]

FM 3.07: Stability Operations (Updated With FM Link) at Small Wars Journal. Intro blog by John Nagl.

[sullygoarmy]

Hooah! Thanks for the link!

[120mm]

Mmmm... Nothing like that new FM smell....

[sullygoarmy]

And the Washington Post's take here.

[Rob Thornton]

I like Ann Tyson's article.

More so than any other I've seen she captures the many sides (and concerns) to it.

She also captures the realization that although there may be other agencies or offices more culturally suited to doing stability operations by nature of their defined or accepted role(s), none would seem to have the means to do so on a scale approaching that of the military. This seems particularly true in conditions where we've determined we have an interest we must follow through on in a timely and consistent manner, but is also one that is not suited for civilians.

This makes reflecting it in our DOTMLPF considerations important to securing the policy objective in my view. While I know that there is an argument out there that to do so might raise the ease in which policy makers enter a nation building situation, I think that is only true if the policy makers have made the decision to commit military force to a given objective anyway. So, I think I'd rather have the doctrine, and the rest of the tools available, as opposed to making the argument "we don't do those things" and then get told to right face and move out anyway.

Where I think we do owe policy makers advice is the same place we always have. This is in the unequal dialogue between military leaders and civilian leaders where we offer them our best advice on conditions, consequences & risks so that a feasible and suitable strategy of ends/ways/means can be devised between them to secure the policy objective.

The best way I've found to have your advice incorporated is to make the implicit - explicit so that everyone understands the relevance of the advice, and to ensure that the person you are advising is never given reason to suspect your advice is biased on advancing your own agenda, but is in fact (in this case) in the interest of common service, common goals, or the policy you both serve.

Best, Rob

[William F. Owen]

...so let me get this right.

There are now, "Stability Operations," - which are distinct from COIN Operations, and then there is Combat. The choice of the word "Stability" is somewhat interesting. Is this the new "OOTW?"

My perhaps purely emotional reaction is that there is now more doctrine being written and it is being written less clearly. I could be wrong.