Impacts on Finland/EU/NATO of renewed IW/COIN focus of US military

[Ken White]

...I don't envy the individuals who've had to get NATOs COIN AJP into a form that the allies can accept it (are such publications also consensus based?).

Yes, they are -- and as such they tend to be very amorphous and avoid controversial items. Unfortunately, that is true even domestically in every nation (an example below).

I'd taken FID as Foreign Internal Defense, which tactically speaking I think is almost entirely military.

It is that, both --but should it be purely military? I think not. Paramilitary? Most likely to one extent or another. Problem is when you introduce military forces with weapons, you introduce foreign soldiers that no one will like for very long and you provide targets. Civilians can of course be targets as well but small numbers of civilians working to aid a nation are not as rewarding to strike as are armed forces. Then there's the adverse information effect for the opposition of hitting civilians versus paid to fight military people...

Advisors could be civilian, especially those advising at the nat'l HQ and minstry level. I agree in principle that at strengthened police should take over, but if even the EU is having problems deploying enough police to do training, mentoring etc. I don't know where they'll come from.

Is a problem -- we are exploring new territory here and have no institutions in place for that effort. They probably need to be designed and built. Purpose built tools work better than adapted tools. Very difficult to use a 5kg Sledge Hammer to drift out a 3.5mm pin.

This entails much effort and political and economic decisions by every nation. It is cheaper to cause ones Forces to adapt -- but it is not always effective (I'd say more often not truly effective than it is). It also raises the question, IMO, is the effort being considered truly in the national interest and not just a 'it seemed right at the time' idea? My personal belief after participating and watching for many years is that much 'nation building,' FID and the like is unnecessary and wasted, costly effort. It is nice to be able to help ones fellow man. Cutting off an arm in the process is not beneficial.

Armed forces are for armed conflict. Employ them where there is no conflict for very long and you will almost certainly have conflict.

JMM mentioned this:

The military has both military lawyers and military police - so what's wrong with tasking them with "Rule of Law" issues. Nothing; if that is the only available capability (which is presently the situation).

As an example of 'consensus' in designing solutions, the Military Police of the US would be ideal, particularly Guard and Reserve forces, to use for the Police instruction and mentoring role -- however, it's against the law. A combination of some MPs who did not want to do that job and Human Rights Activists convinced our Congress to forbid the use of Military Police in such efforts other than in very narrowly defined circumstances LINK. No one ever said we were very bright. Thus we end up with a way NOT to do it LINK.

Lastly, you wrote:

The most common reply has been that at the tactical level everyone is still clear on what any given mission involves, so it's not a problem. What do you think?

I broadly agree with the statement but think the issue overall isn't quite that simple. Interference (for lack of a better word) of Legislators, NGO, the UN, Local Activists, other coalition members if any and own or local law or customs can all intrude and significantly muddy water at the tactical level. As can incompetence, poor leadership (civilian or military, domestic national or local own nation -- and obviously local host government). The US experience in Iraq is an example. Flawed initial national level guidance, an Army that had not trained for the TOTAL mission and thus created many of its own problems through ignorance, lack of knowledge (more correctly, ignoring available knowledge) of local dynamics and culture, imposition of a senior civilian Diplomat as the on site national command authority and who made some terribly inept political, cultural and military decisions (based not on the situation on the ground but on US domestic politics). Good example of how not to do it. The basic rationale for the mission was good; the execution was badly flawed -- at the tactical level as well as above.

So, yes, at the tactical level, well trained forces will be clear on the mission -- the questions are how well trained and how much interference (no matter how well intentioned) will be present. Not to mention how clearly the mission was initially stated...

[jmm99]

The FAA police restrictions are not necessarily a total straight-jacket. As Ken's first link states (p.13):

In addition to the exemptions previously discussed, there are other authorities that waive the prohibition on assistance to police forces of foreign countries. For example, the President may authorize foreign assistance when “it is important to the security interests of the United States”. [13] This allows the President to waive any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, including section 660.

[13] 22 USC 2364.

This area of contingency operations law is indeed a quagmire. It starts with basic rules, then exceptions to the rules, and then exceptions to the exceptions. Much of this is due to the interplay between Congresses and Presidents, present and past. In some (many ?) cases, the reason for the rule no longer applies.