New Guidance on Counter-Insurgency

[MikeF]

True but we support COIN ops by those host nations as part of FID, SFA or whatever we call it. Tom

Tom,

You aptly described what we are doing (Oxford and Princeton version),; I am attempting to reframe the conversation towards what should we be doing not monday-morning quarterback the boys on the ground.

I am simply trying to shift this debate from tactical towards strategic and policy. If I was a commander on the ground in Afghanistan right now, I would follow McChrystal's words verbatem.

There is simply a huge gap between clear and build, between COIN theory and nation-building. If anything, your time in Africa can attest to that.

Overall, my thoughts are the tactical debate (Nagl v/s Gentile, kinetic v/s non-kinetic, those that get "it" v/s those that don't) is irrelevant in the strategic sphere of transnational terrorism, limitations of democratization, and constraints of globalization coupled in the age old mantras of tribes, ethnicity, and religion.

I wish I had simple answers. I do not.


v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

Overall, my thoughts are the tactical debate (Nagl v/s Gentile, kinetic v/s non-kinetic, those that get "it" v/s those that don't) is irrelevant in the strategic sphere of transnational terrorism, limitations of democratization, and constraints of globalization coupled in the age old mantras of tribes, ethnicity, and religion.

I wish I had simple answers. I do not.

OK, all good points, but what do you mean "Strategic?" Strategy and policy are not the same things. Tactics (Operations?) is how you apply strategy. Strategy should set forth the policy.

The Policy in Iraq/A'Stan is to force Pro-US Governments upon the population of each nation. Anti-US Governments are unacceptable.
That, simply stated is the aim. In this case, the "Strategy" is how you use specific actions and effects (Tactics) to make that happen. That may include violent (military) and non-violent (diplomacy) means. Military means require the use or the threatened use of force.

Overall my thoughts are that the COIN/FID/Peacekeeping debate is irrelevant in that it always manages to frame the problem, and thus solution, in the terms the observer finds most appealing to their political inclination and not in terms of what the evidence suggests.

The issue you are trying to force in irregular warfare is almost always that the irregulars (insurgents?) cannot win by violent means. They must surrender/disband and/or negotiate a settlement beneficial to you, the Government. Unless the enemy is being convinced of that, all else is frankly rubbish.

What ever you want to call it, the reason the US Armed Forces are in Iraq and A'Stan is there is a need to conduct warfare. Warfare requires will and skill, regardless of the type being conducted. Any policy or idea that detracts from that simple truth is extremely risky and historically likely to fail.