Blending into the mindset of the Human Terrain

[Van]

To be a little more even-handed;

This reads like a "best practices" approach to Small Wars (COIN, low intensity conflict, SASO, pick your buzzword). You are trying to assemble the concepts that have worked in Latin America in the 1930s, Malaysia in the 1950s, Viet Nam in the 1960s-70s, the hords of Middle Eastern expats that are employed by the U.S. Army National Training Centers right now, etc? If so, you've put together a good framework.

As previously stated, I agree with what you're saying here, and only disagree with a single element of what you said earlier.

To elaborate; U.S. engineers generally seek 'perfect' solutions (however, there are a large minority that don't, but that deserves a seperate thread). A 'perfect tool' is a pain in the rear end because you need a lot of them, because perfection has only one purpose and is hard or impossible to adapt to other applications. A good tool isn't 'perfect' but is adaptable enough to use in other situations. Look at the C-130; not perfect for any one job, too small as a cargo plane, too slow with its props rather than turbines, too much radar signature, not agile, etc. But incredibly adaptable; gun ship, SAR, ELINT, aircraft carrier landings, cargo, artic mods, etc. A good knife can be used for opening mail, food preparation, wood carving, and self-defense. An ideal knife for any of these applications isn't very good at the others.

So a military needs to be a good tool of statecraft rather than a perfect tool of statecraft. The U.S. military was forged into a perfect tool in the mid- to late- 1980s, and after the first Gulf War, felt vindicated (see Steven Metz "Iraq & the Evolution of American Strategy" for an excellent discussion of this). Now we find that all the fieldcraft and subtle arts of Small Wars are equally (or more) important than the romantic vision of mechanized brigades rolling through the hills of Germany.

My concern with your vision is that, like the U.S. forces at the American entry into World War I, the soldier thus trained may have a steep and fatal learning curve to enter conventional conflict. Alternately, the price tag for a well rounded professional education that includes the full spectrum of conflict and imposition of national will, will not be considered acceptable by our civilian masters.

playin' stickball with my cane, knock the ball back to someone's court

[Tom Odom]

Actually it reads like the training construct for mission rehearsal exercises at the JRTC as they have been for years.

Tom

[Van]

Tom,

Actually it reads like the training construct for mission rehearsal exercises at the JRTC as they have been for years.

To-MAE-to, To-MAH-to...

Van

[Tom Odom]

Tom,



To-MAE-to, To-MAH-to...

Van

I know

Old tomatoes just shrivel and become pasta sauce

[Coined]

To be a little more even-handed;

This reads like a "best practices" approach to Small Wars (COIN, low intensity conflict, SASO, pick your buzzword). You are trying to assemble the concepts that have worked in Latin America in the 1930s, Malaysia in the 1950s, Viet Nam in the 1960s-70s, the hords of Middle Eastern expats that are employed by the U.S. Army National Training Centers right now, etc? If so, you've put together a good framework.

Now we find that all the fieldcraft and subtle arts of Small Wars are equally (or more) important than the romantic vision of mechanized brigades rolling through the hills of Germany.

playin' stickball with my cane, knock the ball back to someone's court

We still have to be ready for full scale combat. It wouldn't be wise to get rid of the hardware. That is not what I meant. Full scale wars like WO1 or WO2 are not likely anymore. Our weaponry and the way the information flows will hamper any possible succes in the latent phase. The approach should be a complementary one in which every soldier is trained in an 3BW environment.
Although we might think that we train for such operations I think we do not.
We stil train at training areas at which we built training villages. In such a TA we train against civilians which are dressed up soldiers, so still we train with our military mindset against role-play with, also, a military mindset.
I don't want to "stove pipe" our training just expanding it.
If you have a look at my fist contribution you will notice that I see (and seek) possibilities to train as we operate. In the midst of townpopulation who's mindset "has been shaped" by, for instance, PsyOps elements. Although other operations which have more battle (non-permissive) characteristics can be trained at the TA's, it is still ONE operation.

If we brainstorm about this, supporting eachother to be creative, we will be able to set the conditions for an organisation that will be equiped for 3Block ops. Not stove piped elements, which will be organised in a modular way just before we deploy, but a permenant modular organisation in which all kinetic and non-kinitec elements and actors "experience" eachother. Such an approach will bring a broad perpective on the environment for all participants in a conflict.
I prefer "environment" above "battlespace" because battlespace refers to a specified area. Environment combines aspects like culture, economy, politics, opponents ... This is something for the Bn, Brigade level to be aware of.

[marct]

Hi Coined,

If you have a look at my fist contribution you will notice that I see (and seek) possibilities to train as we operate. In the midst of townpopulation who's mindset "has been shaped" by, for instance, PsyOps elements. Although other operations which have more battle (non-permissive) characteristics can be trained at the TA's, it is still ONE operation.

In January, Rob Thornton and I were presenting and the discussion moved to what is being simulated. What bothered me most of all was that what was being simulated was a desired reality rather than anything that was even close to real.

If you want to simulate training for, say, a multiplayer insurgency, then you actually need to have insurgent "leaders" who can think like the insurgents they are playing. This means that the IO/PSYOPs "shaping" would be as effective as it usually is in the field, i.e. really poor and often conveying the wrong message.

I prefer "environment" above "battlespace" because battlespace refers to a specified area. Environment combines aspects like culture, economy, politics, opponents ... This is something for the Bn, Brigade level to be aware of.

That's certainly a valid point, although I would argue that culture, economy, politics, etc. are all battlespaces as well - the only substantive difference is the conventions governing each of them.

[Coined]

Hi Coined,
In January, Rob Thornton and I were presenting and the discussion moved to what is being simulated. What bothered me most of all was that what was being simulated was a desired reality rather than anything that was even close to real.

If you want to simulate training for, say, a multiplayer insurgency, then you actually need to have insurgent "leaders" who can think like the insurgents they are playing. This means that the IO/PSYOPs "shaping" would be as effective as it usually is in the field, i.e. really poor and often conveying the wrong message.

That's certainly a valid point, although I would argue that culture, economy, politics, etc. are all battlespaces as well - the only substantive difference is the conventions governing each of them.

Thanks Marc, I agree that creating such a scenario will be highly time consuming and complex.
I just took PsyOps as an example and would challenge the participants in this discussion to look further. Going back to PsyOps, for that "art" it is important to learn Why and How to make an assessment of the population, Why and how to create messages for local TV and radio, and so on. That is just one part.
This has to be integrated with the other elements which make part of a Modular unit.
Try to look at a training as an endstate you like to reach, derive effects from it and "effect-bringers", the last ones are the elements of the Modular unit.
Still, and there you make an important statement, we should not create a desired reality !!!!!!!
Maybe I am not clear enough in my first contribution of this thread, must be my Denglish
but .... Van gave it a try in his latest contribution:
"This reads like a "best practices" approach to Small Wars (COIN, low intensity conflict, SASO, pick your buzzword). You are trying to assemble the concepts that have worked in Latin America in the 1930s, Malaysia in the 1950s, Viet Nam in the 1960s-70s, the hords of Middle Eastern expats that are employed by the U.S. Army National Training Centers right now, etc? If so, you've put together a good framework".

About the battlespace part. Usually this term refers to linear and stove piped thinking but if we agree on this being more than the place to kinetically attack the "enemy" it is fine with me

[marct]

Hi Coined,

Thanks Marc, I agree that creating such a scenario will be highly time consuming and complex.

Yup . Still and all, if that is the type of "combat" being fought, then that is what should be trained for.

I just took PsyOps as an example and would challenge the participants in this discussion to look further. Going back to PsyOps, for that "art" it is important to learn Why and How to make an assessment of the population, Why and how to create messages for local TV and radio, and so on. That is just one part.

Agreed, but it is a crucial part. Personally, in most of the combat spaces we are operating in right now, I would pay more attention to the non-broadcast techniques for communicating (posters, word of mouth / rumour, 'net based, etc.). I don't think there is too much of a problem with the "Why", but there are some serious problems with the "How" and "What".

Maybe I am not clear enough in my first contribution of this thread, must be my Denglish

You DO NOT want to hear my French, German or Dutch !!!

About the battlespace part. Usually this term refers to linear and stove piped thinking but if we agree on this being more than the place to kinetically attack the "enemy" it is fine with me

Totally works for me! I'm looking at "battlespace" as a subset of the evolutionary term "workspace" anyway. For me, a "battlespace" is just a workspace that involves a "hot" competition in a workspace, and could be any "space" that is perceived / conceived by humans (or any other so-called sentient species... like my cat and his constant insurgent campaign for more cream in the morning!!!!).

Cheers,

Marc

[Coined]

Hi Marc,

Totally works for me! I'm looking at "battlespace" as a subset of the evolutionary term "workspace" anyway. For me, a "battlespace" is just a workspace that involves a "hot" competition in a workspace, and could be any "space" that is perceived / conceived by humans (or any other so-called sentient species... like my cat and his constant insurgent campaign for more cream in the morning!!!!).
Marc

With Why I mean; Why is that particular group of people important to make an assessment of? Why are they of importance to achieve "any" effect, and so on? After that the How and What may follow.

I think that the the future battlefield is about energy, water, an overcrowded earth and the food problems which will come along with that. The armies role will be more like "firemen". If you have a look at our beautiful world you will notice that about 75% of the population lives at about 25-30% of our Earth, roughly Asia, that part together with Africa can be our "challenging" environment, a 3BW environment.

Have a look at Afghanistan, the Taliban stand closely to the Wahabism, the most extreme explanation of the Quran, which is the state-religion of Saudi Arabia. This country together with other Gulf states supports the Taliban firmly. Also the drugs trade is huge. Many countries benefit from that. Electronics find their way from China to the Taliban, both China and Iran deliver weapons to parts of the Taliban and to the Hazara.

This can't be dealt with by a stove piped military approach. The military approach is just part of that. We have to train for such an approach, military training areas are too "narrow" for that.

For instance:

We know that (in this case) the Afghan population is illiterate (80%, and in Uruzgan 99%). The "mouth to mouth" news is THE news and the one who brings it is right. The mosque is one of the places where "the word" is spread; so send guys of the ANA to thos mosques in their uniform. Let them explain that "We are good muslims as you are and that is why we like to pray with you". They can build up rapport, so they can ask the population how they want to be helped, "We are Afghan as you are, we are here to build up our Afghanistan together". Of course there is more to it but that is too much for this mail. The outcome of this will be "more blending in" and if there is a disreputable or bad Imam preaching he will reconsider his anti-coaltion forces rethoric.

There are some Western armies, like the Canadian army, who have a military imam in their midst. An army captain. Imagine the mindset of the Afghans when they see him at TV or hear him at the radio having dicussions with Afghan mullah's. Imagine the reactions of the Ministry of Religious Affairs ........... Well, it happened and it worked, but due to the lack of policy on this it stopped when the captain ended his tour.

So, there is more ...... and we can train for that.

[William F. Owen]

I think that the the future battlefield is about energy, water, an overcrowded earth and the foodproblems which will come along with that. The armies role will be more like "firemen". If you have a look at our beautiful world you will notice that about 75% of the population lives at about 25-30% of our Earth, roughly Asia, that part together with Africa can be our "challenging" environment, a 3BW environment.
.

Armies are political instruments. Future conflicts will result from future politics, and nothing else. Resources may be an issue, but there is no evidence that they definitely will be. The same was predicted before 911, and look how wrong that was

We have a very clear guide as to what the future of war looks like and that's 3,000 years of military history. It also is our best guide as to how to fight and win. Call it "stove piped" or "linear" but it works much better than anything else.

[MikeF]

We still have to be ready for full scale combat. It wouldn't be wise to get rid of the hardware. That is not what I meant. Full scale wars like WO1 or WO2 are not likely anymore. Our weaponry and the way the information flows will hamper any possible succes in the latent phase. The approach should be a complementary one in which every soldier is trained in an 3BW environment.

Hi Coined. I'll play devil's advocate (or COL Gentile) for this one.

If we look at today's environment as similar to that of the late 1800's/early 1900's, then there is every indication that we could be headed towards a world war in the next 20-30 years.

Similarities:

1. Terrorist = Anarchist
2. Transition from Industrial Age to Globalization/Information Age = Transition from Agrarian to Industrial Age
3. Civil Wars/Manifest Destiny/Great White Fleet = GWOT/Crisis of the Nation State
4. Transcendentalist = Post-Modernist

Just one way to look at the current dilemma. I'm not sure if a world war is likely, but it is a reasonable hypothesis given the restlessness and disruption in the current world particularly when money is involved. Remember, WW1 was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." How'd that work out for us?

v/r

Mike