More killing. Less good deeds

[Ken White]

I held that statement up as an example of putting a simple statement out and leaving it hanging as a 15 second sound bite.

It was but what I shoulda said was that it is a cheap shot but there is also danger in a myth that says we can buy support -- as you know, they'll take what you give and ask for more but that frequently doesn't change who they support. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You have to try, no question but I think you also have to acknowledge that it sometimes isn't very successful and we sometimes buy / present the wrong things. The Hospital in Mosul comes to mind. It is not easy.

The largesse the author refers to is targeted toward the population and shoring up their support for the government, not undermining the enemy's will to resist. Kill and capture is generally the best solution to the enemy.

Yep. Agreed. I'm sure you guys today do a better job than we did in Veet Nam -- a lot of Aid went to Chuck. Hard to tell who was who sometimes. Plus our 'Allies' sometimes cheated on us. Shameful behavior. .

If the problem is as you state it, then state the problem, not a simplistic war is war aphorism as Wilf calls it, tautolgy as he so often uses it.

Stop with them ol big words, I ain't wrapped too taut. Nor very tightly either.

On a more important note, you stay alert...

[goesh]

- let them grow beards and lighten the damn combat load for starters - you come passing through with a huge load of unknown goods on the back of a man and you get curiosity and apprehension at the same time, it pulls attention away from the man as a human - you wonder what is in the pack and not how many kids he has at home - they are used to armed men but not beardless ones - Im reminded of this Viking movie I saw one time, a young man comes down river to call for help, he appears out of the fog so he has to stand around on the shore for most of a day while it is decided if he is a human or a spirit - first contacts in the Amazon are like that too - they gotta check you out and cross cultural bonds have to be seen and felt, not talked about - the fact that they've set the Marines to drinking tea as well as doing combat duty mandates some fundamental changes at a very basic level

[Ken White]

- let them grow beards and lighten the damn combat load for starters.

The problem with beards is that most westerners don't wear beards so when the Afghans see those with beards they know they're not Afghans by the way they walk so they call them 'Jews' on the basis that only Afghans and Jews are bearded; most westerners nowadays are not.

It's not a pejorative with them -- but it is an indicator that it's a superficial trick of little real value.

[Bob's World]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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

I would suggest that it is not that simple. Earning the respect of your men, is something you must do. It's hard/impossible to live without it.

Templar never said "win hearts and minds". He said that success "lay in the hearts and minds." Heart and minds does not describe a definitive set of actions or effects. More over, winning hearts and minds is not, and can never be a military contribution to strategy. The military contribution can only be better security.

Protect their asses and their hearts and minds will follow?

[Ron Humphrey]

I would suggest that it is not that simple. Earning the respect of your men, is something you must do. It's hard/impossible to live without it.

Templar never said "win hearts and minds". He said that success "lay in the hearts and minds." Heart and minds does not describe a definitive set of actions or effects. More over, winning hearts and minds is not, and can never be a military contribution to strategy. The military contribution can only be better security.

Protect their asses and their hearts and minds will follow?

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

[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

[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?

[IntelTrooper]

The problem with beards is that most westerners don't wear beards so when the Afghans see those with beards they know they're not Afghans by the way they walk so they call them 'Jews' on the basis that only Afghans and Jews are bearded; most westerners nowadays are not.

It's not a pejorative with them -- but it is an indicator that it's a superficial trick of little real value.

Uh oh... I'm about to disagree with Ken... check The Weather Channel for sub-terranean temperatures!

The beards, in my experience, do make a subtle difference but I don't think necessarily they should be proliferated across the board. I think anyone who is required to work closely with locals (ETT mentors, SF, PsyOps, CA, intel) should have the option to grow them, and possibly even maneuver commanders and others who will be in a lot of shuras and talking to elders. When I would accompany an American officer into a shura, or KLE, or out on patrols, people would tend to gravitate towards me and ignore the American trying to conduct the meeting (of course, that would usually change once free stuff started getting handed out).

As far as getting identified as Jews, that might be area-specific. I once had some children tell me I was an Afghan, even though I couldn't speak the language, and tell my clean-shaven interpreter that he was the American. I'm sure the vast, vast majority knew we were Americans but in my area, bearded Americans had a reputation of being smarter, more approachable, and able to get things done (probably thanks to SF more than anything else).

[Ken White]

Occasionally -- just to keep everyone else alert *

I'm sure you're correct on the beards, my comment was aimed at the generic US (or western ) Troopie. On some SF/CA etc. guys, the rapport issue makes sense -- for most troops traveling about in HMMWVs or bigger trucks and rarely interfacing with Afghans, it makes far less sense to go with a beard. Still, I firmly believe that in the field uniformity and personal cleanliness are vastly overrated, so I agree -- leave it up to the individual.

* For metric lovers; the empirical mean is 27.2 purposeful misdirections and 49.8 actual errors per day. Those figure are, respectively, 74.23 % and 9.97% of the national averages (in 2007, the last year for which all figures are available).

[IntelTrooper]

I'm sure you're correct on the beards, my comment was aimed at the generic US (or western ) Troopie. On some SF/CA etc. guys, the rapport issue makes sense -- for most troops traveling about in HMMWVs or bigger trucks and rarely interfacing with Afghans, it makes far less sense to go with a beard.

In that case, I was wrong about disagreeing with you. We were actually in agreement. That would be my mistake for the day.

[Ken White]

In that case, I was wrong about disagreeing with you. We were actually in agreement. That would be my mistake for the day.

I didn't state it all clearly in an effort to save pixels.

(Don't give a dummy who can't say what he means in 55,000 words a day any slack! Save pixels my @$7 -- laziness, truth be known!!! )

[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.