More killing. Less good deeds

[MikeF]

In my experience, the intel provided by concerned citizens was rarely of much use. And even then, we never charmed them into giving up their insurgent neighbors. I had a lot of lieutenants and squad leaders looking at me all puzzled because I refused to try to recruit sources when we were out having key leader engagements and such. We had more effective means of collection, and I didn't want the locals to associate my face with an American trying to pump them for information all the time, like some kind of armed Jehovah's Witness showing up every week to harass them.

Intel, I would suggest that you change tactics. If what you're doing isn't working, adjust. Charming or not, I would suggest (without knowing enough of the situation) that the phrase "when we were out having key leader engagements" is the key to your dilemma.

If you live amoungst the populace (IW, COIN, FID, etc...), employ appropriate measures, then the populace will come to you. In the current environment, we sometimes confuse metrics and words with truth. Moreover, I rarely considered if the citizens were concerned or not. It is simply another muddled term...

Remember, on the ground level, in the most simplest form, these conflicts have nothing to do with us. You should never have to sell your job. At times, you may have to force it on others, but you should never try to charm. If you have an AO, then the people should determine you to be the key leader, not vice-versa.

I never went door to door trying to sell anything. My clients came to me. And yes, I'm fully aware of our other means of collection, but living on a FOB or airfield hanger waiting for the silver bullet is not the answer.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

Sorry to be reductionist again, but I can't help feeling that the argument is best described as follows,

• Route A: Kill-capture/Focus on the enemy in order to win "hearts and minds"
• Route B: Win hearts and minds in order to "defeat the insurgency."

Now I suspect the right path is 60% A with 40% B, but let's not quibble. That is going to be dependant on context. ...but the problem here is What is hearts and minds?

We keep referring to it like it is a specific definable set of actions. It is not. That is the problem. It's actually a huge raft of some quite good and some very bad ideas, that is waved around as if it is the solution to the problem. Clearly it is not, and never has been.

I am not against providing humanitarian aid. In fact I consider it essential. Restoring and maintaining electricity and sanitation is also something that needs to be done. Beyond that, I think context and specifics becomes extremely critical.

[MikeF]

Sorry to be reductionist again, but I can't help feeling that the argument is best described as follows,

• Route A: Kill-capture/Focus on the enemy in order to win "hearts and minds"
• Route B: Win hearts and minds in order to "defeat the insurgency."

Now I suspect the right path is 60% A with 40% B, but let's not quibble. That is going to be dependant on context. ...but the problem here is What is hearts and minds?

We keep referring to it like it is a specific definable set of actions. It is not. That is the problem. It's actually a huge raft of some quite good and some very bad ideas, that is waved around as if it is the solution to the problem. Clearly it is not, and never has been.

I am not against providing humanitarian aid. In fact I consider it essential. Restoring and maintaining electricity and sanitation is also something that needs to be done. Beyond that, I think context and specifics becomes extremely critical.

Wilf, I'm working my way through this post as I continue to try to understand what the hell Templar was suggesting....

Considering at times that I cannot even control or win my own heart and mind, I would question...

Consider the US at this point...Has Obama won the hearts and minds of every US citizen? Nope. Did GW Bush, Clinton, or Bush Sr.? Nope. But, by and large, US citizens do not revolt in political grievances.

So, let's not quibble.

I wish that I had some an answers, but I don't.

At times, I just follow orders

I'll add one point...A classmate of mine from USMA that now has a best-selling book suggesting that if we would only support good governance in Afghanistan then we could have success....My response is, "Duh, if they had good governance, we would never have been there in the first place."

I wish it were that simple.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

Consider the US at this point...Has Obama won the hearts and minds of every US citizen? Nope. Did GW Bush, Clinton, or Bush Sr.? Nope.

Well you just hit the nail on the head. The whole issue of attempting to "win popular support" reduces military activity to a political election campaign, where one side will kill you, if you vote for the wrong one, in their eyes.

Considering Politicians, cannot predict what gets them elected, why do we choose to go down that path?

[MikeF]

Well you just hit the nail on the head. The whole issue of attempting to "win popular support" reduces military activity to a political election campaign, where one side will kill you, if you vote for the wrong one, in their eyes.

Considering Politicians, cannot predict what gets them elected, why do we choose to go down that path?

I wish I knew the answer...On the eve of my fifth deployment, I'm reading intently on others views and trying to consider COIN, FID, IW, SFA, and such so that I may prove to be a good advisor.

C'mon Wilf, if you haven't learned anything from American soldiers, you must have learned that we typically do the opposite of what our doctrine calls for.

As far as the strategic level/national foreign policy goes, I would suggest that it is part of our Prodestant Manifest Destiny Roots...

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

My Talmud "quote for the day" came up with,
"He that is gentle to the brutal will end up being brutal to the gentle."
I'm not religious but I am loathed to dismiss any advice from this source.

[marct]

Hi Mike,

I agree with many of your thoughts, and I suppose that on the strategic level (my weakness), our analysis is akin to trying to play historian to present day actions.

That's a pretty good description . I think that part of it is the stance we take to looking at these conflicts. I'm one of those wacky people who thinks that 100 years is "short term", so I do tend to almost automatically look at the conflicts in a very long-range perspective compared with other people.

No doubt, our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq will redefine modern warfare- call it hybrid, irregular or whatever. In some ways, we'll simply see how it plays out.

LOLOL - only if they haven't read Roman history ! This type of intervention was incredibly common during both the late Republic and well up into the 4th century. It's also not really "new" in modern warfare either - take a look at how the British operated in India in the 19th century for modern examples.

Paradoxically, I honestly believe that there is nothing new under the sun. War is war, and our continued efforts to redefine FID into SFA, COIN into IW, and differentiate between big and small wars, regular and irregular wars, only continues to muddy the waters; however, this distinction or semantics maybe a result of the continued evolution of our economies and modern nation-state system/governance. I suppose it is a chicken and an egg type debate.

I really dislike the "war is war" meme; I'm wary of it when it is expressed as an aphorism but, at least when it's done by someone like Wilf or Gian I know that they are using it that way.

Personally, I believe that semantics is crucial and I find the negative connotations associated with it to be one of the most dangerous memes around. Semantics is the study of meaning and is closely associated with Semiotics (the study of signs and symbols or how we communicate meaning). I truly get scared when I hear people saying that meaning doesn't matter !

Let me get back to the "war is war" meme as a meme and why I have problems with it.

First, it implies that there is some specific situation that can be characterized absolutely as "war". Personally, I think that is a mistake because "war", as in the concept of a "state of war" is, actually, an inter-social convention that changes from time and place to time and place. Thus, for example, while there are analogs between warfare in ancient Greece and modern day Afghanistan, they are only analogs, not equivalencies.

Second, the reification of "war" as an absolute carries with it certain implications that are very specifically focused (usually of the "total war" variety, at least nowadays). Now, I don't worry about Wilf or Gian advocating for a "total war"; what I do worry about is the meme escaping from the military discourse and being picked up by populations that don't pay the price or have the understanding - in short, politicians and nut jobs who will advocate for a total war.

This, BTW, ties back into the foray into literary criticism that kingo1rtr just engaged in. Actions have consequences, and one of the potential consequences of the war is war meme is that it erodes our societies as a whole and individuals as individuals.

Again, we'll see how it plays out. I'm cautious to accept that we can re-invent or redefine societies (particularly in a limited time frame). One of the greatest lessons that I've learned in studying small wars, emerging nations, failed and failing states, is the importance of time and patience- not a particular forte of the United States.

LOL! It is quite possible to change cultures and societies; indeed, it's almost impossible for them not to change somewhat (some of us call this the fallacy of Pristine Cultures). Re-inventing and redefining is a much harder process, although it can be done. But, while it is possible, are you prepared to pay the cost of doing so?

One of the biggest problems with wanna-be social engineers is that they try and operate against both human nature and against local cultures instead of operating with them. I have a suspicion that part of this comes out of their (highly) limited epistemological frameworks which tend to be either Utopian or linear or both. This was certainly the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to "state building" activities .

You know, Wilf really hits the nail on the head with this comment:

Sorry to be reductionist again, but I can't help feeling that the argument is best described as follows,

• Route A: Kill-capture/Focus on the enemy in order to win "hearts and minds"
• Route B: Win hearts and minds in order to "defeat the insurgency."

Now I suspect the right path is 60% A with 40% B, but let's not quibble. That is going to be dependant on context. ...but the problem here is What is hearts and minds?

We keep referring to it like it is a specific definable set of actions. It is not. That is the problem. It's actually a huge raft of some quite good and some very bad ideas, that is waved around as if it is the solution to the problem. Clearly it is not, and never has been.

Absolutely, bang-on, correct!!!!!

"Hearts and Minds" is as objectively meaningless as the term "war": both require a specific context and meaning is assigned contextually.

This is getting to something I'm working on right now which is the idea that "war" is a sub-set of the concept of "conflict" which, IMO, is where we should ground our terminological debates. "War" changes its form throught time and space, but conflict remains fairly constant. The key, here, is in how social groups resolve / contain / play out conflict.

Anyway, that's my ramblings for the nonce.....

Cheers,

Marc