More killing. Less good deeds

[slapout9]

Sheesh. This is flipping criminal. Some heads should roll...

Part of that Clear..Hold and Build theory. Gotta carry a lot of stuff to do that

[goesh]

- got to be doctored up to impress some hillbilly woman back home how tough her man is - he is 1 click out from base camp, a gunship is up and in the vacinity but he is in deep sh** for leaving the stove behind, no hot tea with the locals because Joe Grunt F'd up again and he'll get reamed because the load ain't blending in with that green shrub stuff either

[Ken White]

Get to carry all the Batteries...

Roger on the Stove -- dunno how I missed that.

[William F. Owen]

Would the following be a closer approximation of what the "hearts and minds" thing really looks like

For politicians -How to win friends and influence people

For soldiers how to minimize enemies and gain support to kill the irreconcilable s

That's not perfect, but it's close to good enough!

[MikeF]

Just one comment on "hearts and minds," as many seem to take very black and white/absolutist positions on these things that are rarely either one:

Winning the "hearts and minds" of the populace is every bit as valid, and very similar to "earning the respect of ones men."

Every leader understands that it is his goal to ultimately earn such a status among his men, but any leader who sets out upon a course of action designed solely to garner such respect will quickly be identifed as a fraud by those same men. Instead, the good leader goes about his duty in a professional competent manner, not doing anything to conciously dimenish his status in the eyes of his men.

Everyone understands this, yet for some reason aren't applying the same logic to "hearts and minds." Its how I look at it, so hopefully this helps. This is in the realm of the art of war, so there is no checklist or TTP for success; just understand that it is important and try to do the right thing.

Oh, and like respect, it is far easier to lose than gain.

COL Jones, sir, can you provide one example of when American intervention won the hearts and minds of the local populace?

v/r

Mike

[davidbfpo]

The intervention in 1983 is still remembered on the island and from several visits appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

davidbfpo

[Bob's World]

COL Jones, sir, can you provide one example of when American intervention won the hearts and minds of the local populace?

v/r

Mike

...because doing it right just isn't good TV.

I haven't been to Columbia personally, but that may be one good example. I have been to the Southern Philippines, and that is one as well. Granted, there is always (and should be) a general concern by any populace of a foreign military presence in their country, and that always gets a lot of press; but out on the ground the people of the Philippines were not only grateful for the increased security and greater access to medical support, school infrastructure, etc that came with the Americans (though always with the Philippine gov't, both national and local out front); but more importantly in the changes in how the governmental forces began treating their own populace and conducting such operations as well. They treated the people with greater respect and found their jobs got easier and less dangerous as they did so. I guess they garnered their own hearts and minds as well.

As a 2LT clanking around the West German countryside vic the Chech and East German borders I always met extremely grateful locals (less so when one went into big cites further from the border). Again, we provided a service the populace desired (not being Soviet citizens), and did so in a manner that treated them with respect to their culture, laws, property and persons.

I guess a couple of themes are emerging: Enabled a service the populace actually needs; and do so in a respectful fashion.

Oh yeah, lest I forget. Desert Storm. Kuwaitis remain grateful for the return of their nation and the opportunity to avenge the losses they suffered in that invasion by Iraq.

If you start off bad (like Iraq) its damn hard to get it on track; or even if you start of good (like Afghanistan), but then shift to focusing on your own interests (hunting bad guys)over the interests and at the expense of the local populace, you can quickly get off track.

[Mark O'Neill]

have missed what the key take-away of the article was ... that security is the name of the game that trumps all others ... killing, aid etc etc.

I have served with the author and have heard his views more than a few times . I can assure you that Justin Kelly is not at all into simplistic / reductionist positions such as those that have been characterised in the thread.

The final observation that I would make is with the respect to the journal that the article was published in. Quadrant might farily be regarded as Australia's journal of the conservative right. It would be bloddy amazing if they published any article advocating 'warm and fluffy' approaches to insurgency conflict (or anything else for that matter). I suspect that the average Quadrant reader might regard Dick Cheney as being a tad too liberal....

Regards,

Mark

[slapout9]

couple of themes are emerging: Enabled a service the populace actually needs; and do so in a respectful fashion.

That is an interesting way to look at it and good one......and we should make a profit for doing it.


I agree about Columbia, although it is still a work in progress.

BW: your thoughts on Los Pepes' as a good or bad way to fight?

[Danny]

Ken White said:

"I'm shy ..."

Put the bottle down and back away, Ken. You've had too much to drink (and in the middle of the day, no doubt).

[Ken White]

As for the bourbon, as a Kentuckian in Exile, I'm merely supporting home State industry, no other motive...

You'll be pleased to know that as an honorary Tar Heel (in all things except Basketball) I also try to get Barbecue from Wilson when anyone is passing through...

[William F. Owen]

...have missed what the key take-away of the article was ... that security is the name of the game that trumps all others ... killing, aid etc etc.

I don't think anyone has missed that. My opinion has always been that security is best served by the effective use of force, to break the enemies will. How that is best done is context specific.

I can assure you that Justin Kelly is not at all into simplistic / reductionist positions such as those that have been characterised in the thread.

I think the best we can hope for is that all commenting here, read and understood the article, and maybe watched all the videos. Justin Kelly was at UK Staff College with a friend of mine, who is pretty hard to impress, but was so by Kelly!

...but having read the article and watched the videos, I think he lays out the ground for some serious re-thinking of the "New COIN" stuff that has become all the rage in recent years.

[Bob's World]

That is an interesting way to look at it and good one......and we should make a profit for doing it.


I agree about Columbia, although it is still a work in progress.

BW: your thoughts on Los Pepes' as a good or bad way to fight?

Slap, my knowledge of Los Pepes' is Wikipedia deep, so I really can't comment.

[carl]

Regarding Ken's reply in post #30 to one of my posts; I never knew what it was like to be deconstructed, but now I do. I will try to pick up some of my pieces from the floor.

War is cruel, nightmarish thing. There is no one on this forum who would dispute that. None of the advocates of the approach that COIN is shorthand for have ever suggested that people are not going to die and horror won't exist. However, what concerns me about "war is war" is something that MarcT stated in a post: that this meme will be taken by people less sophisticated than the people who populate this forum and be used to justify the application of total war in a place where it shouldn't be used.

That was the point of the whole first paragraph to which you responded. Marc just stated it much better than I. Of course body count ratios are a stupid metric. I had hoped that was obvious within the context of the paragraph, but it wasn't so I didn't write it well enough.

You are right that I misread what you said and my reply was nonsense because of it. However, even if there were no insurgencies defeated that resulted in a net benefit to the big power involved 20 years post (I think there have been), that ignores what benefits may have accrued to the big power at the 5, 10 and 15 year point. Those may have been substantial.

I don't understand why COIN oriented training leads to the belief that an opponent is deserving of better treatment than any other opponent. If they are fighting you, you destroy them and if they have surrendered, you treat them decently as in any other conflict. Why would there be hesitation to act against the opponent? If there was, wouldn't that be a result of improper training and leadership?

In Afghan, we need to do what will work, be it called, war, COIN, FID, anti-partisan ops, pacification or whatever. Sometimes I think this fussing about what it is exactly gets in the way. In any event, people will suffer and die and souls will be broken.

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Forrest: "War is fighting and fighting is killing."

[Ken White]

However, what concerns me about "war is war" is something that MarcT stated in a post: that this meme will be taken by people less sophisticated than the people who populate this forum and be used to justify the application of total war in a place where it shouldn't be used.

Fallacious argument IMO; that's alway's been true. It was before CvC or anyone else said or wrote it and will be true in the future of people who have not seen or heard it. People, amazingly enough, even advocate small wars where they shouldn't be used...

However, even if there were no insurgencies defeated that resulted in a net benefit to the big power involved 20 years post (I think there have been), that ignores what benefits may have accrued to the big power at the 5, 10 and 15 year point. Those may have been substantial.

And they are? One years, five years to any limit; name a few.

I don't understand why COIN oriented training leads to the belief that an opponent is deserving of better treatment than any other opponent. If they are fighting you, you destroy them and if they have surrendered, you treat them decently as in any other conflict. Why would there be hesitation to act against the opponent? If there was, wouldn't that be a result of improper training and leadership?

Yes, it would be the result of improper training that over emphasizes the 'hearts and mind' aspects of war in a COIN context. That is done by poor trainers to teach people not to be trigger happy. A better solution is to train fire control and fire discipline which we do not do at all well. We have a dangerous tendency to substitute bad and inappropriate but easy to do training in an attempt to compensate for poor training that is difficult or expensive. Even in the most benign 'COIN' (I am really beginning to dislike that term...) environment, loss of the combat edge is dangerous and excessive (note that word) concern for others can lead to such loss. As I'm afraid we'll see in Iraq before long.

Sometimes I think this fussing about what it is exactly gets in the way.

It's not fussing, it's just disagreement about ways and means and over terms that don't lead people astray. You and others worry about "war is war." I don't I worry about "COIN tactics," you and other do not. No real right or wrong there, just differences of opinion. That should be okay. the same kinds of conversations take place in bars, schools, barracks and in the field all over the world...

In any event, people will suffer and die and souls will be broken...

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Forrest: "War is fighting and fighting is killing."

Which way are you going to go, With Forest or worrying about suffering?

Can't have it both ways. Don't want suffering and dieing, don't go to war. Go -- and that will happen. Go and do it half baked by being excessively nice (as opposed to being as decent as is sensible) and it will take far longer and extend the suffering and dieing to more people including civilians.

There is no nice way...

[carl]

Ken:

the library will close in a little while so I will just name a few conflicts where assistance benefited the assistor.

Philippines-any time from 1945 on
El Salvador
Oman
Malaysia
Greece
Congo in the 60s
South Korea

As for the future, China has helped Sudan and Sri Lanka and we will see if China benefits.

A thought, to be researched, maybe include Algeria in the 90s? I doubt if we helped the Algerians but I would be surprised if the French did not.

Perhaps we should get back to basics on the terminology and go with Small Wars. That covers it all and allows for range of options.

[Ken White]

of the question:

""The COIN fans are fond of telling us of insurgencies defeated. Name me one that has 20 or more years later proven to be a net benefit the major power involved."

Note the wording. My contention is that no major power obtained a net benefit (outcome versus all costs) from participating in a COIN action."" (emphasis added / kw)

...so I will just name a few conflicts where assistance benefited the assistor.

Philippines-any time from 1945 on
El Salvador
Oman
Malaysia
Greece
Congo in the 60s
South Korea

You can probably leave Korea off the list as the insurgency factor was so minor as to be non-existent. I look forward to your comparison of costs and benefits.

Perhaps we should get back to basics on the terminology and go with Small Wars. That covers it all and allows for range of options.

Perhaps. My point is that if the participation is limited, there may be a net benefit (Philippines post 45, El Salvador, Greece [?], Oman). If it is a large commitment, it is not (Malaysia). I'll forego the Congo; went there briefly in the 60. We and the French intervened (Belgium is not a major power) but even though the effort was small, I'm not sure I've ever seen an ounce on net benefit...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Sir Gerald actually stated "The answer [to the uprising] lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the people." The later narrowing and paraphrasing of the quote to “winning” hearts and minds has taken on meaning no doubt quite unintended from Templer’s original utterance, particularly absent the preparatory phrase. Looking at the entire statement as it stands, coupled with its context, it seems to me that Templer meant that the Emergency would only be won when the populace (and in particular the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia) decided they would no longer support the MPLA and would support the Malaysian government and that a specific number of troops in the jungle would not necessarily make that happen. While one could say it rings true of most insurgencies, the supreme difficulty is in the COIN forces figuring out exactly what is required to affect that shift in loyalty.

I feel it is even more of a gross oversimplification of Templer’s thoughts on the topic by the addition of the term “winning,” as if COIN was a sporting event. I would posit a government does not really “win” hearts and minds but instead must continually work to adapt itself to maintain itself in the good graces of the people. Resulting to severe oversimplifications of complex issues often results in the missing of valuable points in the discussion.

COIN fans also sometimes gloss over the successful insurgencies, although one could posit even some of the successful ones couldn't stand the test of time: Nicaragua being a case in point. Much of this comes from our habit of taking the short view to make a point, rather than the long view.

History is funny like that.

[carl]

Ken:

I feel like I am trying to hit a moving target. You said name 1 example of participation benefiting the big power. I named, as you agreed, at least 4. It was being "involved" and now it is "participating". I am getting confused.

I would also submit that a Malaysia 50 years on that is a relatively peaceful and stable state with a fairly good economy is of net benefit to Great Britain, though the word "net" will make for endless argument.

This quote

"Which way are you going to go, With Forest or worrying about suffering?

Can't have it both ways. Don't want suffering and dieing, don't go to war. Go -- and that will happen. Go and do it half baked by being excessively nice (as opposed to being as decent as is sensible) and it will take far longer and extend the suffering and dieing to more people including civilians."

is pretty close to being a fallacy of the false alternative. Within the context of this thread, none, none of those who have objected to the "war is war" meme have even hinted that violence and suffering isn't going to go hand in hand with the small war. Nobody. The quote above almost sounds like a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" kind of thing. I absolutely know you do not advocate that. But the way it is presented it is almost a pacifism vs. mass murder kind of thing.

I don't believe anybody has advocated being "excessively nice" to a Talib group moving down a valley. Destroy them. Kilcullen, the high priest, has always said the incorrigible must be killed. What people have suggested is that maybe on occasion you should not drop a JDAM on the compound because you might kill a lot of the wrong people. That isn't being "excessively nice" to the Talibs, that is being decent to the civilians, which is sensible.

I think also we are going to the same place, by the same path even, but without seeing each other. All your parenthetical statements in this thread, when taken together, make a pretty good outline of how a small war should be fought.

[George L. Singleton]

War is total, even "small wars."

If you know you have a high value target with others around, my view is the others around are either henchmen and women, and/or human shields.

I would hope we would not make the same stupid mistake that happened under Pres. Clinton and fail to shoot when the target is there!