SFA as part of a campaign design: supporting operational requirements (part 1)

[Bob's World]

Hi Folks,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but the past couple od days have been nuts!

Rob, I think you're right that the Hessians where not SFA per se, although if I remember correctly (the book I got this from years ago isn't available), they were involved in some training or, at least, cadre activities for Loyalist militia units.

Bob's World made an interesting point:


Just as a matter of historical fact, the King couldn't do this.... at least in practice; this was a matter for Parliament. On the issue of 2nd (or 3rd!) class citizens, you are pretty much correct, but I'm not sure how important that actually was. A ket emotional motivator, surely, but a primary cause? Hmmm, I don't think so. BTW, the reason why I say that is that there is the rather complex example of Quebec not revolting during that time.

Where I think there are immediate lessons we can pick up is in the structures of governance; they also become crucial when we look at Upper and Lower Canada in the 19th century and, also, latter on in the other colonies that become Dominions. The evolution of socio-political thinking around governance in the 19th century, at least in Britain and the Empire, is truly fascinating - a model that really fits the currently trendy phrase of "Think Globally, Act Locally".

Part of the reason why I like to go back to the American Revolution / War of Independance is that it is one of the earliest and, in some ways, a prototype for, later revolutionary movements. We can see, at least in seed form, many of the later developments that, strangely enough, we are still struggling with: mass produced, local media (aka cheap printing presses), guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics (on all sides), and perhaps most importantly, the key to winning the conflict - it's centre of gravity - lying outside the theatre of operations (London and, to a lesser extent, Paris - shades of the Cold War!).

So, let me toss out a question.... In terms of SFA/FID operations, how would people classify (or conceive of) the French activities in that war?

Marc we have a similar understanding, but coming from different perspectives draw different conclusions.

As to the French and British, clearly the American Revolution was a side show, an opportunity for the French to seek an advantage in their long competition with England. If London or Paris were a COG, it would only have been so for France or England, certainly not for the Colonists. Important in that, as I say, soldiers do not start or end wars, merely fight them. Is the peace process then a COG? No, not a source of all strength and power. More a critical requirement. You need that treaty to "end" the conflict, but not a COG.

As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA. If anything it was UW. The American populace broke into two camps: Loyalists and Rebels. He who is the current legitimate government and works with the loyalist populace is conducting FID/SFA. He who is the outsider seeking to influence the revolution to support his own selfish ends is conducting UW. France conducted UW. England conducted FID/SFA.

[Ken White]

As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA.

Agree...

...If anything it was UW.

Hmm. This doesn't look like any UW force I've encountered, (LINK).

Nor do these guys look like Go-rillas...

[Bob's World]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

[Ken White]

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

will get you for that...

[jmm99]

have a Bud Light (I'll join you virtually with a Bud high-test) - and reconsider the following statement in terms of the legal relationships (yup, I'm asking you to put on your lawyer's coif and put the green one in an honored position next to the Bud Light):

from BW
As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA. If anything it was UW. The American populace broke into two camps: Loyalists and Rebels. He who is the current legitimate government and works with the loyalist populace is conducting FID/SFA. He who is the outsider seeking to influence the revolution to support his own selfish ends is conducting UW. France conducted UW. England conducted FID/SFA.

Consider:

1. Legal relationship between the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists (whose pre-rev governments still existed, albeit with some in exile) - as viewed by the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists.

2. Legal relationship between the French Crown and the Continental Congress (starting with our beloved Declaration of Independence - although you and I have different takes on its present uses; but more importantly, the relationship after the Battle of Saratoga) - as viewed by the French Crown and the Continental Congress.

After some consideration of the above, you should conclude that Ken is closer to the mark than you are. In short, you can have two conflicting, but valid, legal (and political) views driving an armed conflict.

I am in the process of reading (half-way through; and subject to many side-tracks) George O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution (1899; yes, the last year of the 1800s), which presents the Brit legal and political views of that conflict (biased toward the Whigs, e.g., Burke & Fox); as well as the Loyalist and Rebel views. Great insight (IMO).

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

So far (still only half there), Trevelyan suggests that George III and his ministers never got beyond version 1.

BTW: interesting trivia from Trevelyan - did you all know that many of the Brit generals in the Revolutionary War were also MPs ?

[Old Eagle]

BW, the quintessential SF dude is correct about French conducting UW. However, the current defn of SFA as outlined in Army FM 3-07 allows for SFA (organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising) to support both FID and UW operations, as well as a host of others. In the US Army context, UW is most likely conducted by SF, while FID and other missions involving SFA components can be conducted by either SF or GPF, or both.

[Bob's World]

"quintessential" I like that.

still chuckling over Ken taking that picture though...

Actually, to expand, the Brits were also conducting COIN against the rebels and (yes, this is not new) "hybrid and Irregular warfare" as they executed capture/kill operations in the Carolinas against the militia; regular conventional ops against the Continental Army; and a little UW themselves west of the mountains as they leveraged the natives to make life tough on guys like George Rogers Clark and D. Boone.

It gets confusing. It gets real confusing if everyone is working off of 5 different definitions for the same named operation. But, at the heart of it, remains two very simple concepts:

1. Good/poor governance: A perception on behalf of a significant segment of the populace that the government is both failed, AND that they have no legitimate means of recourse.

2. Legitmacy: The government that exists must be percieved as legitimate by the governed, and they must recognize the source of legitimacy. If at some point they no longer recognize the source of legimacy, they will attack that source as part of their insurgency.

And lastly, ALL populaces and ALL governances are engaged in this little dance every day everywhere. There is no end, and there is no beginning. Usually it is peaceful, sometimes it gets violent. Its just basic human dynamics once you bundle us up into groups. Don't get so wrapped up in the facts or pursuit of "knowledge" that you never get past the facts down to the heart of the matter at "understanding." "Effectiveness" of governance is for bureaucrats and ametuers; don't get distracted by it.

Intel guys and Generals like Knowledge. I prefere understanding.

[Ken White]

or we'll get nothing done...

Not buying UW by the French in the American Revolution; There was nothing remotely unconventional about their entry, motives or operations. All boringly conventional. Surrogate warfare I'll accept -- though one could even quibble about that on the basis of who cajoled who to do what...

More importantly, as JMM noted:

"The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict."

Certainly applied to the Revolution but it has also applied to most of our wars. Most of which we got right.

Until the Department of Defense was created...

[Bob's World]

or we'll get nothing done...

Not buying UW by the French in the American Revolution; There was nothing remotely unconventional about their entry, motives or operations. All boringly conventional. Surrogate warfare I'll accept -- though one could even quibble about that on the basis of who cajoled who to do what...

More importantly, as JMM noted:Certainly applied to the Revolution but it has also applied to most of our wars. Most of which we got right.

Until the Department of Defense was created...

"unconventional warfare" does not mean you dress like rambo and conduct raids from some camp deep in the swamp or jungle. It may mean you wear a $2000 suit, work in a highrise, and pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg and say : "Go see if you can get the populace of country x to make life difficult for their government."

In other words, the organization conducting UW (the French in the American Revolution with the Rebels, or the British in the American Revolution with the Indians, or the Americans in GWOT with the Northern Alliance, etc) may act VERY conventionally themselves, as may the force they are manipulating to serve their mutual objectives.

The "unconventional" part is getting the other guy to do your dirty work for you. When we say that SF conducts UW, it means that we are the middlemen between that guy in the suit and that foreign populace facilitating the transaction.

[marct]

Hi JMM,

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

I knew I could count on you for this ! Let me also note that there is one other legal fly in the ointment - the Iroquois Confederacy - which had been recognized as a sovereign state by the British via the Covenant Chain series of treaties (Hey, as a descendant of William Johnson, what else would you expect me to add ).

In all seriousness, however, there are two crucial points here. First, the one made by JMM that one can have equally valid and conflicting legal constructs (with operational implications) in a conflict. Second, and this wasn't mentioned per se, that the terms being used - FID, SFA, UW, etc. - actually rely on those legal constructs.

[Tom Odom]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

No, he painted pictures on a cave wall...