Big Difference
We decided to keep the Philippines as a colony. I hope we don't decide to take such an approach in Iraq or Afg.; but the world will judge us by our history, not our promises.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
If it looks like the Philippines option, than that is how we will be assessed.
As to last US COIN; as I have stated on other threads I have come to believe that it is most helpful to look at COIN as Governance. COIN is a condition between a governance and its own populace. When you travel to another country to intervene in the relationship between that governance and populace you are either conducting UW or FID (in US doctrinal terms), depending on which side you are there to assist.
Arguably, viewed in this manner, all governance and every populace in every country is at some level of COIN/Insurgency at all times. Most are bumping along in what I would call "Phase 0". It is only when the government loses the bubble on the populace, that some segment of discontent will rise up from the masses to compete with the government for the support of the populace through illegal and typically violent means. This is when one enters Phase I Insurgency and typically needs to bring in military assistance to help move the conditions back down into Phase 0, or within the Civil government's span of control.
The last time the US really was at risk of losing the bubble, was Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. Of note, the US opted not to employ the military to merely suppress the insurgent segment of the populace, but instead opted to enact bold and sweeping changes to the law and to enforce those changes so as to move that segment of the populace back down into Phase O by working to address their concerns and include them more fully in good governance. THAT is good COIN. At the same time we were busy in Vietnam, conducting FID with a much less savvy approach. Ironically, I am sure no one considered what we were doing at home COIN, and many considered what were were doing in Nam COIN.
To me this is the criticality of such nuances. What you call something shapes what you do. By understanding that COIN is the continuous duty of Civil Government, they are far less likely to abandon their duties to the military or some foreign power when it goes violent on them, and the military is far less likely to say "this is war, so we are in charge now until it is Peace again." The Civil Governemt is also far more likely to be held accountable for it's failures, and less able to pawn the blame off on either the populace or some country (or now, non-state actor) that might be working among your dissatisfied segments of your populace to conduct UW. IF the Civil Governent was doing it's job for the entire populace, and the entire populace felt that they had trusted and legitimate means to legally address their concerns, you will have pretty much immunized your populace to being suceptible to such outside infections.
By understanding whenever you go to a foreign country, regardless of what brought you there, it is still NOT YOUR POPULACE, you are never conducting COIN, and you are far less likely to get into an inappropriate family of C2 or operations in general. Oh yeah, and it will never be perceived as "an exestential threat" to your nation. BL, you will have a healtier perspective that allows for better decisions.
Simply by calling our response to 9/11 "A War" has led to bad perspectives and decisions as to how to best resolve the problems that gave rise to the attack (military focus vice a policy focus). Similarly, by calling our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan COIN has led to roles usurping the HN authority.
Many say, "yes, but we destroyed their government and had to take over." True enough. See what bad naming will do for you? Gets you into all kinds of messy situations.
Bookmarks