More killing. Less good deeds

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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!!! )

[goesh]

I recall the fit some brass had when SFers were in jeans and sporting beards riding horses going after enemies - there is enough discipline in the ranks for it not to get out of hand

[Ken White]

so many little things on which to focus and waste time and effort...

I can see it now; "Yes, Schwartschronz, you can wear a beard but where's your reflective belt and are those boots are on the CentCom approved list?"

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

that 64.3% of all statistics are simply made up.

[Ken White]

So I'm wrong again, I used two decimals instead of rounding it up and coulda sworn it was 64.24 (plus, I transposed two numbers, I really thought it was 63.4). Sigh. Two more errors for today. That's 27 and it's only 2100 here...

I probably ought to get some Blanton's and sip a bit...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

shall set you free!

I'm on a bit of a Bacardi binge as of late, having just returned from R&R in PR. Which is why I am limiting myself to lurking, learning, and the occaisional snarky comment.

Returning to work has certainly impacted my enjoyment of breakfast Mojitos.

[Ken White]

Not rum; that's one of them meta-fors...

Factoid Department; the Ft. Buchanan class VI store for years kept the the highest annual sale total of all in the DoD Club system by a big percentage...

[Ken White]

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

[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