Daniel Pipes on COIN

[John T. Fishel]

Agree that HN govt can win COIN and that outside power can only support HN (or insurgents). Malaya is a good example of creating a HN govt to turn over power to.

Other cases of "wins" are Bolivia over Che Guevara, El Salvador over FMLN (if you doubt that the govt won look at the terms of the peace agreement compared to what was offered in 1984 - same), Guatemala (3 times). The GT case is particularly instructive because only the third time were the root causes of the insurgencies even addressed. But the second generation of insurgents was both ethncally and geogrphically different from the first generation while the third was different from both its predecessors.

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

However, I'm sort of inclined to say Che and Bolivia were a flash in the pan and little more, so there wasn't much 'win' there. I also am inclined to think Malaya is not a good example of much of anything (but that's just me...).

El Salvador was not a win but an acceptable outcome for the Government because, as you said, the Chapultepec Peace Accords of 1991 ended the fighting. An agreement to stop fighting wouldn't be required between the parties had one side 'won.'

Guatamala, I'll give you and being a nice guy, I won't even cite the imbalances and costs...

Admittedly we're into semantics and angels on the heads of pins here. My real point is, simply, that 'win,' 'victory,' 'lose,' and 'defeat' are bad and rather imprecise words to apply to by far the majority of COIN situations and those words are politically dangerous as they can lead the uneducated (or ill inclined) astray...

Thus, I tend to try to discourage their sometimes careless use. Possibly to a fault. Having said that, I agree with OE32, particularly in view of these:

"...Only the indigenous government can "win".(Note his quotes)

"...prevail against the insurgents. This must be done not just by force, but also by other political and economic measures."(emphasis added /kw)

[John T. Fishel]

I define win and victory as the HN govt in power without a challenge from the insurgent movement when the fighting ends. I define "fighting ends" as when whatever is left over is simply a police problem.

That said:
1. While Che never really posed a threat to the survival of the Bolivian govt, had they made the kind of mistakes others have made the story might have been different - certainly a much longer and harder fight. But when it was over and Che a prisoner and executed, there was no remaining insurgency.
2. Malaya was a case where the issue was legitimacy. the colonial govt gained it by granting independence to the Malays (which divided the potential and actual opponents). When independence was granted in 1957 it took 3 years to defeat the Chinese insurgents but when it was over, it was over.
3. El Salvador is a case of multiple myths. The reality is that in 1984 President Duarte offered the FMLN peace if they would lay down their arms and enter the political process. In 1992 the FMLN agreed to those terms. If you read the peace accords, the govt gave up nothing it was not already doing while the FMLN gave up everything they said they had begun the insurgency for. In essence, the govt merely agreed to accept the realityof its victory and not claim it - but I wasn't a party to the agreement and as a scholar and former XO of the Combined ESAF Assessment Team I can call it as I saw it. And I saw a pretty total victory for the Govt of El Sal, the ESAF, and, in support, the American advisory effort.

Cheers

JohnT

[Ken White]

You can obviously use any terminology you wish and no one, certainly not me, can say you're wrong. My issue is with promiscuous use of the words I cited (particularly by PAOs, Generals and Politicians in public pronouncements) and I'm still convinced their misuse sends bad messages. We may disagree on what constitutes misuse and that seems perfectly acceptable to me -- be a pretty dull world if we all agreed on every little nuance.

Had a couple of good former fellow snake eater friends who weren't in Bolivia at the time but were...

Malaya was many things, IMO one thing it was not and is not is a good example of a COIN campaign for the US; the British WERE the government, we are unlikely to ever be (hopefully). I'd also note that the last big batch of CTs was scuffed up in 1958; the additional two years of the Emergency were mostly for Malaysia to complete disbanding the settlements. However, there were a few MNLA holdouts that hung around the Thai border until the mid 80s, thus the late date for signing of the final 'peace accords.'

You were there, you call El Salvador a "pretty total victory..." I wasn't there so I can't dispute that -- but then, I am not disputing it or saying you're wrong, in fact. Not at all.

However, to me it was brought to an acceptable outcome because the end was an agreement that ended the fighting and thus it was not a victory in the classic military sense with the opponent unable to continue due to total or near annihilation or surrendering unconditionally. We should be able to differ on that score and I'm sure there are others who agree with you, with me and still others who have totally different opinions than either of us -- that's all fine with me.

[Entropy]

To summarize, it sounds an awful lot like "winning" in COIN is a lot like "winning" an argument with my wife - even if I'm completely right allowances must be made.

[Ken White]

You lucky dog! Hang on to her, she's one in a million.

Mine is a philosopher:

"If a man walks alone in the forest, is he still wrong."

Note period in lieu of question mark; to her that's a truth, not a query...

[Entropy]

...the "allowances must be made" part. A true and complete victory in marital "debate" would put me in a similar position as a guy called King Pyrrhus, so some measure of "political" accommodation is inevitably required for a conflict-ending compromise. Otherwise the battle is likely to reignite for years or even decades, usually at terribly inconvenient times, like Christmas with the in-laws.