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

[Bob's World]

In August of 1990 I signed in to 2/5 SFG at Ft Campbell, KY, a brand new SF Captain fresh from the Q Course. The place was a bee hive of activity as the Iraqi Army had just rolled into Kuwait the week prior.

At one point in my in-processing I stood in the battalion Doc's office shoulder to shoulder with a Sergeant First Class, both of us with our asses bared in preparation for the dreaded Gamma Globulin shot the Doc was preparing for us.

SFC A. turned and looked at me, eyebrow raised,and asked "so, you're just signing in?"

"yes"

"Son of a b_____!, he muttered as he shook his head in mild disgust. "Of all the dumb luck. I've been here 12 years waiting for this, and you come in and get it on day one."

At the time the only guys in 5th SFG with CIBs were a handful of senior NCOs and warrant officers. Times have changed. Neither one us realized as we stood there leaning up against the wall taking that dose of peanut butter-like GG in our backsides that we were standing at a transition point in time.

The Cold War was officially over, we just didn't realize it yet. We were just excited to be getting our chance.

Some people visualize the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. I visualize a bare office with beige brickblock walls and metal furniture and a conversation with a couple of great NCOs.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

First off, a great discussion even if it's not exactly what Rob was hoping for .

This is part of what is mentally slowing us down today. The world remains a dangerous place, but no matter how hard we try to get some state or some non-state to play "threat" for us to allow us to apply the old model and make the old strategies work, it just doesn't make sense. Today the things that threaten your nation the most are not other states and not non-state UW guys like bin laden. It is this globalization empowered and connected mix of "things" going on all over the world. At the middle of all of those things are people. People empowered like never before, people connected like never before.

BW,Rob,Marct.....So wouldn't it be better to change the Strategy formula to Motive,Methods and Opportunity? With the Motive of the population as the primary Objective??

Slap, I would certainly agree that that should certainly have a place in it.

I do, however, think that it is crucial, at least for me since I have a tendency to go from A to T without bothering with intermediate steps, to lay out exactly how I view these things. First, I view Grand Strategy as operating in a global environment. Ideally, it should also have some decent, long term (50-100 year) goals that can best be described as Philosophical - "Principles" as it were which are (hopefully) shared by both the military and the political spheres and, ideally, with the majority of the population.

Second, threat categorization, at the Grand Strategic level, needs to distinguish between competitors and opponents. Competitors agree to play by (very) roughly the same rules, while opponents reject those rules. NB: I am talking about rules of competition, not Grand Strategic goals.

Third, and again on the threat categorization level (i.e. "perception"), since no one will agree to play be exactly the same rules (otherwise we could just resolve conflicts via poker games), we all have to be aware that most of the players involved in the Great Game are not nation states: some are supra-national NGOs (e.g. the Red Cross / Red Crescent, various religious organizations, trans-national corporations, etc.), some are regional or local [sub-national] NGOs, while some are communities of interest / practice. What this means is that the de facto reality of NGOs (in the broad sense) as players must be recognized and they have to be held to account to play by the rules. So, if we adopt Slaps suggested Motive Means and Opportunity model, it needs to be applied here.

Fourth, Bob's World is exactly correct that changes in primarily communications technology, coupled with rapid changes in production technology (the economic and perceptual core of Globalization) are generating most of the perceptual difficulties at the Grand Strategic level and the lived reality difficulties on the ground. Central to this problem are two bits of culture lag: unequal changes in distribution technologies and cultural perceptions of scarcity.

Let me touch on the first one of these. Distribution technologies have not kept pace with communications technologies. In effect, anyone can "see" or "experience" (vicariously I admit) a lifestyle that most cannot access physically. This ability of individuals to perceive will, in many cases, also lead to a comparison of that perception with a perception of their daily lives. This comparison, in turn, leads to several things.

• First, a perception that the State (i.,e. their government) has "failed" them because a) they don't have it and b) they are constantly being bombarded with messages that say it is the State's responsibility to provide them.
• Second, the possibility of a perception that the State cannot provide these resources because it is being "opposed" / "oppressed" by some other State or interest group.
• Third, the possibility of generating focused anger and hatred of another State based on jealousy.

These potential reactions leave a populace open to manipulation by politicians (loosely speaking to include religious "leaders" as well).

Let me touch on the "scarcity" issue, now, since it is actually much more dangerous. Let me start by saying that even since, roughly, 200 years after we, as a species, developed horticulture, we have been perceiving resources as scarce. If critical resources are "scarce", then it stands to reason that each social and cultural group has to figure out how best to allocate them - this led to the development of social stratification and "command" economies (i.e. the Temple States in Sumeria, Mohenjo-Daro, Knososs, etc.). One of the crucial things that happened during this period was that the concept of access to resources was conflated with social status (which ties in to all sorts of other things...).

Today, "scarcity" of resources is still assumed to be tied in with social status and "power" (loosley construed in the Galbraith sense of the term). However, many of the resources themselves are not scarce - the supply is artificially manipulated to induce scarcity (various agricultural Planning Boards in Canada are a good example of this, as is the production of oil). This artificial scarcity is used to maintain and enhance the social status and access to resources of various sub-state small groups as well as States themselves (OPEC anyone?). The maintenance of artificial scarcity also extends into R&D efforts (e.g. delays in the production of hydrogen fuel cell technology [from the 1970's], delays in the use of mag-lev technology [late 1970's], etc.), and also into the production and support of social movements that help to increase resource scarcity (e.g. the anti-nuclear technology groups).

This brings me to my final point about Grand Strategic perceptions, and that has to do with how the rhetoric and principles of a Grand Strategy are played out in everyday life. Let me give a really simple example from the advertising world: Nabob coffee. Nabob has declared as one of their Grand Strategic principles that "fair exchange" is one of their principles. Recently, at least in Canada, they have begun advertising their strategic alliance with the Rainforest Alliance (Coalition? Sorry, seniors moment...). They are selling a product that many Canadians buy, coffee, and showing how buying their version of it leads to improving the lived reality of the workers who produce that coffee, both as individuals and as communities. While they are also making a nice profit on the deal, that particular "message" has a value add for the Canadian consumer since most of us happen to think helping other people out, especially if it doesn't cost us much extra, is a pretty good thing to do.

Shall we compare this with the US political rhetoric in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially in light of other locations such as Darfur, Rwanda, the Congo, Nigeria and Kenya (okay, most civilians have little idea what's going on there, but they will shortly)? The near instantaneous communications technologies which enabled, and were required by, globalization mean that actions in the world are pretty darn hard to hide while, at the same time, guarenteeing that statements made "on principle" will be compared with actions in perceived "reality".

What this rather rambling post is really aimed at is that at the Grand Strategic level, the "talk" and the "walk" have to be in line with each other. Furthermore, and this has more applicability at the Strategic and Operational levels, the communications-distribution-production realities have to be kept in mind of the global population. This doesn't mean you can't shoot the "Bad Guys", it just means that you can't claim to be the "Good Guys" while simulataneously doing "Bad Things". (Gods, I hate that type of simplistic rhetoric! ).

Let me draw out one, specific, SFA example, by way of bringing the talk back to Rob's original post. In FM 3-07-1, there is a really brilliant observation that says:

2-1. ....Soldiers conducting SFA must also understand that legitimacy is vital. The relevant population must perceive FSF as legitimate for long-term success.

What, and this is not a rhetorical question, is going to be done if the FSF is perceived by the local populace as illegitimate or as a "necessary evil"? This is why I have been harping on the Grand Strategic level stuff, since how those principles are constructed will impact on how an SFA mission deals with problems of FSF legitimacy.

[Rob Thornton]

Marc said:

First off, a great discussion even if it's not exactly what Rob was hoping for .

I've always thought the thread must go where the thread goes - and that it is not a bad thing. Most of the time the discussions circle around because there was some point in the initial posts that sparked the wandering. Its kind of like collective cogitating - its healthy.

Ken made a point that has been on my mind of late - how long before we can't remember when we were not at war? We're fast approaching a decade of war - the pursuit of policy by other means does not lend itself well to being labled as "contingency operations abroad"

The SECDEF and the CJCS (and many other senior leaders) have made it a point to attempt to shape expectations in public speech by saying both we've got a significant way to go in both Iraq and particularly Afghanistan, that we should expect things to get harder in Afghansitan now that we are significantly investing more in the outcome, and that due to global conditions and our interests we will likely see more conflict on the horizon. I'm not sure that their efforts have really sunk in - anywhere.

With respect to SFA (which is one of the things I'm get paid to think about), what does this mean? I've been reading the thread started by Capt Diaz on supporting the development of an Iraqi Marine Corps (although perhaps with a more limited mission than our own) and I'm thinking - there is a significant capability that may have less to do with COIN and more with respect to protecting Iraqi interests in the Gulf, and possibly even protecting their interests abroad against piracy. Certainly the conventional capabilities that are brought to the Iraqi military with F-16s and M1s, while both have been useful in COIN, are also of great value beyond COIN (I think any good FW MR platform and MBT would indicate this). These efforts also don't absolve us from current SFA efforts in building IA, IP, NP and other ISF to combat their internal threats (and those who sponsor and support them) - I submit we'll be there in significant capacity for some time, although increasingly on the terms of the HN govt.

In Afghanistan the USG and the Afghan leadership recently estimated that they needed double the number of indigenous secuirty forces...The number of what was it 400K was significant, however think about what those numbers mean in Afghanistan in particular where the conditions (many of the cultural ones that Marc outlined & just the sheer geography of the place) are not necessarily going to facillitate moving the FSF to become competent, confident, committed, and capable. I submit this will feel like an enduring effort and may well extend beyond the current administration, even if there is a second term. Ken is right, the influence of domestic politics, or a reaction to some new crisis could change that, however just consider it.

For a member joining the US military right now who intends to make it a 20 year event, 1/2 of their shelf life will be spent at war. Several more national security strategies may be written at war, several QDRs will pass at war - already our "futures" experimentation can not escape the influence of our current fight, and I suppose the list goes on about things that will happen at war. I've not included the other events that may occur as a result of terrorism - that being the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome vs. a man made disaster which would seem to divorce it from the influence of politics. I've not included the many other reasons wrt fear, honor and interests which might require the use of military force or forces to secure an end - I've really just covered a couple of the major efforts under way - I did not talk about HOA or OEF-P or the countless number of other things that are capturing our attention

If there is a chance that through use of design we can better identify the correct problem, consider the range of possible outcomes, capture the requirements and align our DOTMLPF policies and programs to be more effective, perhaps we can: better support the operational commanders; reduce risk to the policy objective; and through effectiveness we can reduce risk to those Title 10 functions (man, equip, etc.) we are seeing stressed form almost a decade of war with no designated hour in which we will not be at war.

This really is a good discussion, regardless of where it goes - and as I've said in other places its through the tension of discourse we really learn.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Let me draw out one, specific, SFA example, by way of bringing the talk back to Rob's original post. In FM 3-07-1, there is a really brilliant observation that says:

Quote:
2-1. ....Soldiers conducting SFA must also understand that legitimacy is vital. The relevant population (itlaics added by Rob) must perceive FSF as legitimate for long-term success.

What, and this is not a rhetorical question, is going to be done if the FSF is perceived by the local populace as illegitimate or as a "necessary evil"? This is why I have been harping on the Grand Strategic level stuff, since how those principles are constructed will impact on how an SFA mission deals with problems of FSF legitimacy.

Not to be cheeky - but the open door was the use of the word relevant. The cold answer wrt to legitmacy and how it affects sustainability may be one of having the will or means to resist. This is also why our intial defintion of SFA was broad, but specifically said it was done in support of a legitmate authority (it did not say whose criteria of legitmacy - however since its the application of U.S. forces and resources - we should assume that we've at least partially accepted their legitimacy - or can tolerate it until conditions change through process)

Now - not everyone wants our help, or in some cases to be known that we are helping them. This may require an approach where we support the development of capabilities or capacities in others who are tolerable and are themselves willing to help if they where able. Since most authorities don't have allot of excess capacity their willingness is often tied to their ability. There are a couple of things to consider here as well- first, the increased capacity to help others needs to be considered against the partner's ability to sustain it - second, an increase in capability and capacity may upset the regional dynamics (back to the Athenian) that must be addressed as part of a regional strategy. I think all of these things require a broader strategic outlook both in terms of the range of USG policy tools, and in terms of geographic and temporal perspective. BTW - never forget our tendency to act in the moment of political interest on the domestic political front.

Having said all of the above - it should be done with consideration of how it supports U.S. interests. This is not a band-aid application to fix the world, but to advance our interests - particularly where our interests and those of others overlap.

Hope that at least partially opens the door for further discussion on your question - it would also be the first few slides I sent you last night.

Best, Rob

[slapout9]

Well sh..t,where do I start. Bob's World, What causes the cause? A person, and a person always has a motive. Until you understand that you can not prepare a Strategy to succeed. Not only that but you must have a good counter-motive to gain support for your side of things. So your objective should be to de-motivate the insurgency population(focus on their leadership). From there you can look for opportunities and select your methods. And Security Force Operations would have to play a big part in that in order to allow some type of civilized transition.

Rob, all your SFA stuff is sound, my concern is a good tool will get all bent up and stuff if it is not applied inside a proper Strategic setting. The US often gets absorbed with a new tool and wants to use it all the time and everywhere and ignores the initial hard questions that need to be asked and answered. Why are they fighting us? and why should we be fighting them?
I will shut up now

PS. I didn't get any slides last night

[Rob Thornton]

regardless of the tool
Slap observed:

.. my concern is a good tool will get all bent up and stuff if it is not applied inside a proper Strategic setting. The US often gets absorbed with a new tool and wants to use it all the time and everywhere and ignores the initial hard questions that need to be asked and answered. Why are they fighting us? and why should we be fighting them?

I agree 100%. No policy tool should be a panacea for what ails ya! I think design, if done with the overarching policy OBJ in mind will shake that out. SFA as a force employment concept to support an end must be done in the strategic and operational context. What I've tried to convey here (and Slap I'll ask Bill and Dave to see if we can iether post the slides here on the thread, or a hyper link to somewhere they can post them - even the PDF is too big) is that if your overall operational design to achieve the policy objective requires you to support the development of sustainable capability and capacity in a FSF, then using design to help lay out your SFA LOE is a good way to go because it generally occurs over a broader period of time, its has consequences beyond the immediate, it probably requires a whole of government approach (authorities, support, contingent development, etc.) and it allows the operational commander to forecast requirements over a broad period of time which support force development and generation - thus keeping us flexible, adaptive and more in balance.

I'd go back to Celeste Ward's piece that was put up on the SWJ Blog about COIN - the means and ways must be feasible, appropriate and suitable to the objective. As conditions and objectives change then so may the requirments, the approach required and the capabilities to enable it. Unfortunately our nature is to look for templates and organizational solutions that are programable (and I'd argue risk aversive) vs. doing the leader development and education that would make us adaptive as institutions. Human nature would seem to be prone to ossification of position (the inevitable Kung-Fu stance in the rice bowl).

One of the reasons I've made it clear I believe SFA is fundamentally a developmental activity (develop sustainable capacity and capability) is to highlight its not to be taken as lightly. Developmental work is hard, and requires a significant commitment of means and will that is subject to the conditions.

In some cases such as Afghanistan, SFA has been identified (by CENTCOM) as one LOE which supports the overarching policy OBJ. Now in light of that comment, and the other commitments we are currently either undertaking or considering undertaking, this equates to some significant capability and capacity to organize, train, equip, rebuild/build and advise to develop the Afghan secuirty forces ability to generate, employ and sustain itself to a point that it supports denial of safehavens to transnational extremists. This is not just about their ability to physically deny terrain to those extremists, but about the things that the denial of terrain (in all its forms) facillitates.

I'd submit that this is operational theory - with some factual precedence - that must be proven or disproven in the current set of conditions (which is something design supports). It is also the regional CDR's approach, and as such the supporting instituions should fully support it as much as possible - this does not preclude them from identifying institutional risk (I don't think they should get a vote on operational risk - not their job) which jeapordizes their Title 10 responsibilties (note - I did not say their authorities)

Wrt AfPak (and Iraq) - it would seem this is going to be around for awhile (unless we abandon the objective, or decide to accept the risk of a different approach - all approaches have risks). In all cases I don't think its the job of the services (or the functional COCOMs) to tell the operational commanders what their requirements are - although it would seem that there are those who disagree, or that it sometimes winds up being the case because the requirements are poorly articualted, because of politics or fears (both legitimate and not), or because a desired capability was simply not on the menu - "cheeburger, cheeburger, cheeburger - no Pepsi - Coke!"

We've got to get better at fully meeting the operational commander's requirements withthe desired capabilities. The right road to efficiency is through becoming more effective in our policies, programs and planning - not through adhoc processes and waiting for Godot.

Slap - I'll also send via email the slides - keep in mind they are a "functional design" only. The full up would be built around much greater context wrt the broader operational design and the knowledge which supports it.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Marc - good points!

I think that one of the more relevant examples is the 13 colonies and the use of foreign SFA (the Hessians) against the Colonials during their (your ) insurgency against the globally recognized, legitimate government.

I would not characterize the use of the Hessians during the RW as SFA. The employment of a FSF is a differnet matter (although it must eb considered). If GB had gone over to support the development of the Hessians by organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding or advising in order to create sustainable capability and capacity, that would be SFA. But the moment the they were then employed as a military force it soudl no longer be SFA. The exception might be if Britich advisors remained throughout for the continued purpose of increasing capability in the Hessian war fighting functions. Does that make sense?

The actual use of the Hessians would fall into the use of a foreign force to augment your own capabilities and capacities.

I think what I am really getting at with these points is that SFA is both a "military" mission and, at the same time, a "political" mission. The military may be given broad political guidance (and constraints), but the planning for that mission - its design - must include the political component as, in some ways, co-equal with the training component. BTW, I am using am using "political" in the sense of "lived reality vs rhetoric" rather than any formal political system

I agree with you, but would point out that as the prussion would say, there is always a political component to the use of military means (even in the way you are using it - good thing about Von C is his intellecutal branches provide allot of shade). However, I'd say that it is emphasized here for many of the reasons you illuminate. This idea is something we should emphasize when contemplating leader development and education - and training. Politics are ultimately are the real interaction of people subject to desires and conditions.

Red Teaming is good - makes us smart.

Best, Rob

[Bob's World]

Well sh..t,where do I start. Bob's World, What causes the cause? A person, and a person always has a motive. Until you understand that you can not prepare a Strategy to succeed. Not only that but you must have a good counter-motive to gain support for your side of things. So your objective should be to de-motivate the insurgency population(focus on their leadership). From there you can look for opportunities and select your methods. And Security Force Operations would have to play a big part in that in order to allow some type of civilized transition.

Ok, what do I mean by that? I think one good example lies within the American Revolution. Arguably one could state that "The Cause" was independence from England.

But what caused this diverse collection of colonies to unite to this common and dangerous end? Certainly there were motivating factors, such as the works of Thomas Paine, or the events in the Massachusetts Colony. But before that, what factors of causation were at work that allowed such words and actions to move a collection of individual people, and individual colonies to move as a body to throw off British rule?

I believe there are many sources of causation. One major one in this case was the simple fact that British citizens who lived in England looked down upon British citizens who lived in the colonies as somehow inferior. From what I have read this was taken as (if anyone would have even thought to ask) "of course they are inferior!" in England. But in the colonies, be it a man of means, education, and accomplishment like George Washington, denied admission to the British Regular Army due to his "status"; or a simple farmer, owning and working a plot of land that may well have qualified him for some minor title back in England; saw this as an outrage. And upon such festering sores of causation fell the cold slaps of motivation. And an insurgency is born. First of words, and then of works.

England did not need to send the most powerful Navy and Army in the world to solve this problem. A simple letter of apology and recognition of full righths of citizenship from the King would have nipped it in the bud.

But then, Kings don't do that, do they. Wouldn't be proper.

[slapout9]

Cable outage but am back now. BW this may be a chicken or the egg question. I am sure you think you proved your point.....but I think you proved mine and hear is why. If you trace it back to the beginning, as you did, you get a person with a motive. The King and his desire for power. The reason I push this is I think this fits in with your Population Centric Based Solution.

Example a bad or unjust law caused the rebellion....who created the law!!! You have to deal with that or as you point out the revolution will just smolder and eventually resurface when another cause (triggering method)appears because the motivated person is still there and may want revenge. Where their is a will there is a way. So the objective has to be to somehow de-motivate the person(s) hopefully through nonviolent methods but might not turn out that way.

Again I think this is critacal because as you pointed out( maybe on this or another thread) is why insurgencies take to long and costs to much......which is one of my pet rocks,

[marct]

Hey Rob,

Not to be cheeky - but the open door was the use of the word relevant. The cold answer wrt to legitmacy and how it affects sustainability may be one of having the will or means to resist. This is also why our intial defintion of SFA was broad, but specifically said it was done in support of a legitmate authority (it did not say whose criteria of legitmacy - however since its the application of U.S. forces and resources - we should assume that we've at least partially accepted their legitimacy - or can tolerate it until conditions change through process)

I think you know that I don't disagree with your assessment . Let me tease out a few points that, I believe, are relevant though...

Legitimacy re: "will to resist". Quite true but, and I'm noting this using an historical stance, in most cases that tends to backfire down the road unless the US is willing to incorporate the area into its body politic. Political deals may well be ramable down another state (or groups) throat, but there has to be some appearance of "hope" for a better world down the line. A couple of examples of where this has "worked" are the Confederacy, Hawaii, Japan and Germany, but the lessons of the Italian War (1st century bc) really need to be kept in mind. And, BTW, that is assuming that we are talking about the USG operating in the national interest rather than in the interests of, say, an American oil company (or Dole for that manner - think the Banana Wars...).

On legitimacy re: the USG, that can get a touch problematic as well if the "State" recognized by the USG is not recognized by the people living within its borders. I think that one of the more relevant examples is the 13 colonies and the use of foreign SFA (the Hessians) against the Colonials during their (your ) insurgency against the globally recognized, legitimate government.

I think what I am really getting at with these points is that SFA is both a "military" mission and, at the same time, a "political" mission. The military may be given broad political guidance (and constraints), but the planning for that mission - its design - must include the political component as, in some ways, co-equal with the training component. BTW, I am using am using "political" in the sense of "lived reality vs rhetoric" rather than any formal political system (a "population-centric" usage, Gian ).

Hope that at least partially opens the door for further discussion on your question - it would also be the first few slides I sent you last night.

Yup, it does. I hope you realize that I am Red Teaming your stuff ! And thanks for the slides. I didn't have a chance to get to them last night, but I've blocked out some time this evening to go over them.