Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 129 of 129

Thread: New Guidance on Counter-Insurgency

  1. #121
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Now, if I was a Colonel in this failing state...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    I recognize the difference in your approach from the what I would call the "reformist" (population-centric) approach - no word-coining on my part; I ripped off Eqbal Ahmad.

    So, the question is: What do you do, given the needs of the populace (and including in the rights to self-determination and to good governance), where the incumbant government cannot or will not meet those needs ?[*]

    This question posits that the existing insurgency against the incumbant government is also unacceptable. Historically, we could pick any number of Latin-American countries in the past century - with a number of US interventions. That is, oligarchs ruling over very poor and exploited populations, with insurgencies too radical for our taste as well.

    Do you simply pack up your bags and leave; or do you engineer a "third way" movement - perhaps, not that far from the radical insurgents, but expressing the needs of the populace ?

    Further posit that the NCAs have given COL Jones complete freedom of action to do what he thinks is right.

    ----------------------------
    [*] Also posited is that the incumbant government has no ears to hear the excellent briefings of COL Jones, who is therefore in the same shoes as Paul of Acts.

    PS: Upon reflection, you can answer this in two parts, using two roles: (1) COL Jones, USASF - not indigenous (so, not "his fight"); and (2) COL Jones, indigenous military, who has the appropriate group of "misfits", military and civilian, to engineer a "third way" (so, it is "his fight").
    At some point, when it becomes clear that the government will not or cannot do its job, and the insurgent is an evil band that will be no better for my country, then it would be my duty to take down the government myself in a military coup, create what alliances I must to get the government working again and to suppress the insurgent; and (this is where the wheels usually fall off) then set up fair elections put the government back into the hands of the populace.

    As the US we should be prepared to support such an option and not simply call it an illegal act because we had a good deal going with the guys who got ousted. By doing so we can make the ultimate elections part of the deal for assisting in getting things under control.

    Easier said than done, both answers. But if doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  2. #122
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default No real personal disagreement ....

    with your six substantive paragraphs - usual reservation of rights as to analysis of specific situations.

    My bottom line re: the "bad" government is: COL Jones USASF packs his bags, but keeps an eye on the situation; MR Smith USX, in a more "private" capacity, taps into the pipeline of the indigenous COL Jones; at some point COL Jones USASF returns with his bags; and the rest is history (good, bad or indifferent - rather depends on the will of the masses, doesn't it ?).

    Any historical examples ? - my history brain is temporarily dead tonite.

    Regards

    Mike

  3. #123
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Now, it is not up to us to decide if the incoming government is "acceptable" or not. By definition any government that prevails is "acceptable" to the populace. If it turns out that it did not have full support and itself becomes despotic, it too will suffer the same fate. Some things you just have to work out for yourself, because any external solution, no matter how good, will be bad. We can certainly let the new kids on the block that we have eyes in the sky, and that if we see them violating international law and abusing their populace that we will punish key leaders. We have the tools to do this; and we don't need to occupy the country to do so.
    Halaluhya......somebody say Amen

  4. #124
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Amen.

    ..................

  5. #125
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Sort of agree

    Posted by BW,
    Now, it is not up to us to decide if the incoming government is "acceptable" or not. By definition any government that prevails is "acceptable" to the populace. If it turns out that it did not have full support and itself becomes despotic, it too will suffer the same fate. Some things you just have to work out for yourself, because any external solution, no matter how good, will be bad. We can certainly let the new kids on the block that we have eyes in the sky, and that if we see them violating international law and abusing their populace that we will punish key leaders. We have the tools to do this; and we don't need to occupy the country to do so.
    I'm not sure where to go with this argument, because on the surface it makes sense, but when you go a little deeper it tends to become less stable. I agree with your premise that Vietnam is doing O.K., but it took time for Vietnam to get to that point. It is also true that Vietnam would be probably be O.K. if we prevailed. Using that logic you could argue that Cuba did O.K. under Castro compared to Batista (since there was a valid reason for the insurgency); however, Castro then exported his revolution throughout Latin America and many parts of Africa (and his policies further bankrupted his country). However, going back to your argument the people won (that can be argued), so it isn’t our business, yet Cuba’s policies were clearly challenging U.S. interests. Another example is a potential future Afghanistan government (post U.S. military involvement on a large scale). We’ll assume this new government is tolerated by the people, but that the new government supports, or turns a blind eye towards, Al Qaeda who has once again established a safe haven in Afghanistan. Once again we have an acceptable solution to the people, but it is not in our national interests.

    In these examples it appears you’re making an argument that we can target the leaders of these countries and not the populace, but if the populace supports the government that is quite a task. A foreign government can’t target our national leadership and win the support of the American people. Just how do we go about targeting national leadership without targeting or punishing the people? As you stated we tried this in Iraq with sanctions, and seriously harmed the local populace while further strengthening Saddam’s hold on power by even further centralizing power. I think your arguments may be founded on false assumptions.

    So while I partially agree, I think there are some fatal flaws in your argument. We deploy forces to achieve national security objectives, and that is not always in line with popular opinion of the country we're conducting operations in. While state conflicts have always had to consider the populace as a critical planning factor, the level of populace empowerment, as you pointed out, is new due to the proliferation of information technology. Thus the challenge we seem to be wrestling with is finding "effective" ways to neutralize the population’s hostility towards us.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 09-30-2009 at 02:27 AM.

  6. #126
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Like my country, I must start with our Declaration of Independence. We are founded on the principle of the unalienable right and duty of every populace to rise up in insurgency at such time as its governance becomes "despotic." What exactly is despotic? Well, that is something for every populace to decide for itself as well.

    So, If I am faced with a country that has a government that first was so despotic (what I call poor governance) as to incite some significant segment of its populace to insurgency; and then is so lame as to not be able to deal with the problem that it started; that to me is a government that must go. No government has a right rule when its own populace thinks it must go.
    It's a good thing to think about "the populace", but it can also be a dangerous thing. Very few countries have a monolithic populace. In many cases populaces are deeply and bitterly divided, with competing factions fighting for their own interests. Policies that one faction demands may be seen as incendiary provocation by another. The concept of majority rule with minority protection, so familiar to us that we often take it for granted, is wholly alien to many places and populaces.

    I certainly recognize the foolishness of the cold war pattern of supporting inept dictators over reform-minded populaces simply because the dictators were nominally "on our side", but we do ourselves no favors by imposing this paradigm on circumstances where it may not fit. A small, violent faction may be outraged over poor government; it may also be outraged at its own inability to control government or draw enough popular support to wage an insurgency. We cannot assume that every angry violent group represents an insurgent populace. It is inappropriate to assume that anyone who takes up arms against a government is an evil terrorist manipulated by a foreign ideology. It is equally inappropriate to assume that that anyone who takes up arms against a government represents an honest populace outraged by bad governance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    To intervene and attempt to preserve the government against it populace's will creates the very conditions that I think are at the root of what we call the GWOT...

    When a populace believes that its government draws its legitimacy more from some source that they do not recognize than it does from one they do, they will target that source in the conduct of their insurgency if need be to achieve good governance. I believe this conditions exists throughout the middle east due to our Cold War engagement, and AQ is conducting a savvy UW campaign to incite and support these disparate insurgencies, and also encouraging them to attack the source of inappropriate legitimacy over the same.
    I'm not at all sure this is true, and I think the allegation deserves good deal more supporting evidence and argument.

    What is this thing we call GWOT? It is not a war on terror, or a war on terrorism: terrorism is a tactic, not an actor, and nobody ever fought a war against a tactic. It's also not a war against an insurgency, or a populace. We were not attacked by an enraged populace, or an insurgent group. Our response to attack may have created insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those are consequences of the GWOT, not causes.

    The distinction is significant. In the past efforts to find an address a grand overarching cause behind terror attacks have led to decisions that diluted ourt efforts and empowered our opponents. The neocon clique declared that the long-term solution to ME-based terrorism was to "drain the swamp", and declared Iraq the pivotal front in that effort. The resulting war diverted our efforts from attacking those who had attacked us and generated a wave of support for our enemies; for quite a while we were closer to drowning in the swamp than to draining it, and a positive outcome is still in no way assured.

    I am similarly suspicious of any effort to declare that the long term solution to ME-based terror is to reverse cold war errors by intervening in nations that are currently not major fronts in the GWOT on behalf of populaces who have not sought our assistance. I suspect that the effort would produce more suspicion and hostility than appreciation from the populaces in question, destabilize existing (flawed but necessary) alliances, and would be likely to accomplish nothing, divert attention and resources from core efforts, and make existing tasks more difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    So the Main Effort for the US should be to ID and address these perceptions of inappropriate US legitimacy over these allied governments. And then, where necessary, be a mediator between the governments and their populaces to try to keep change evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
    We can only mediate if we are asked to mediate and our mediation is acceptable to all parties concerned. If we attempt to impose ourselves as mediators we are simply reinforcing the perception of inappropriate influence.

    We have to recall also that perception is not necessarily real, and in many of these areas we actually have very little influence and very little ability to place pressure on allied governments. If we attempt to influence a government on behalf of a populace and fail, we antagonize the government, leave the populace feeling betrayed (assuming on scant evidence that our intervention was sought in the first place), and appear impotent.

    We have a tendency to think that all populaces want what we would want and will respond as we would respond, and that we are entitled to speak on behalf of any given populace. Not necessarily true. My view is that any intervention, armed or unarmed, imposition or mediation or anything else, should be undertaken very reluctantly, only after very deep examination, and with a clear idea of exactly what we are trying to accomplish and how we propose to accomplish it. Sticking our faces into another nation's domestic affairs on the illusion that we do so on behalf of "the populace" is not going to get a positive reaction from either government or populace, and is likely to create more problems than it resolves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Now, it is not up to us to decide if the incoming government is "acceptable" or not. By definition any government that prevails is "acceptable" to the populace.
    How is that the case? If a government seizes power in an armed coup, or cheats in an election, it has prevailed, at least for the moment, but it is not necessarily acceptable to the populace. It is not up to us to decide whether that government is "acceptable", but it is up to us to decide whether or not we want to support that government.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-30-2009 at 12:12 AM.

  7. #127
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Further clarification against current interpretation

    I was hoping to generate a serious debate with my previous comment above, but since no one took the bait I’ll attempt to explain where I was going (pardon this post for being a bit long). Since we now have a doctrine that advocates population centric tactics, good governance, development, and essential services I think it is valuable to look at the population centric strategy and tactics of our communist foes during the Cold War, which were sometimes successful and sometimes not, but it is worth noting that our current adversaries borrow heavily from their doctrine.

    BW's comments about Vietnam doing alright after the war implying that the population was content with the result of the war actually elicited a bit of rage, as did many of the arguments posited in "Eating Soup with a Knife" written by John Nagal, but instead of countering the argument directly I went along and added Cuba as another example of a country that is doing relatively O.K. after their people's revolution victory. I could have also added Lenin and Mao victories, as they also were governments where the people allegedly removed ill legitimate governments and installed legitimate ones. However, the truth is another matter entirely, and in my opinion that truth undermines many of BW’s populace centric theories (such as the people always know best).

    Victory in Vietnam led to the execution of thousands, detainment of tens of thousands more in re-education camps (with a very high morbidity rate), and a mass exodus of innocent victims (the boat people), which resulted in the deaths of thousands more. I have seen well researched estimates that indicate the new People's Government killed more than 500,000 in former S. Vietnam since 1975. That figure is hard to comprehend when you actually put a name and a human life next to each number.

    “... we had to make the people suffer, suffer until they could no longer endure it. Only then would they carry out the Party’s armed policy.” - Senior Viet Cong defector
    “We’ve been worse than Pol Pot, but the outside world knows nothing.” - Vietnamese communist boast
    So to say Vietnam is doing O.K. is misleading. Yes, they are doing relatively well now, but it was a long and bloody road to this point, and it definitely wasn't due to the result of the communist victory, but rather a relatively recent liberalization of government policies.

    Cuba wasn’t as bad in total numbers of those killed by their newly installed communist government, but none the less thousands were killed or died due to Castro’s policies, as they also conducted a purge, and several thousand Cubans fled on make shift rafts to escape communist oppression (and several died attempting to flee); another people's war that went south after the victory.

    “... if any person has a good word for the previous government, that is enough for me to have him shot.”
    - Che Guevara
    “If the [Soviet nuclear] rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York...” - Che Guevara
    The Leninists, Stalinists, and Maoists killed more of their own people than there were people killed total worldwide in both WWI and WWII.

    “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?” - V. I. Lenin
    Mao is now believed to have killed or starved to death 60 million to 80 million of his own people due to his policies, which is more deaths than those caused by Hitler and Stalin combined.

    “If we were to add up all the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements and rightists, their number would reach thirty million... Of our total population of six hundred million people, these thirty million are only one out of twenty. So what is there to be afraid of? ... We have so many people. We can afford to lose a few. What difference does it make?” - Mao Zedong
    The French Revolution also the result of another "people's movement' resulted in excesses of violence, as have other so called "popular" uprisings.

    My points for this post are three fold, first there are few, if any, examples throughout history of a collective people's uprising against a government perceived to be ill legitimate (although Cory Aquino's in the Philippines and Solidarity movement in Poland came close). There are normally different entities vying for their version of legitimate governance (numerous resistance groups in WWII in the same country were opposed to one another and had different goals for their country once the occupier was thrown out). Second, it is difficult for any counterinsurgent to overcome the effect of terrorist tactics applied against the populace, and while extremely difficult to do in practice, protecting the populace is critical to breaking the powerful hold this tactic has on the population. Third, government remains a necessary evil, and at times must employ force (skillfully) to remain in power. The fact that some people are revolting against the government does not in fact mean the government is necessarily ill legitimate, and in fact is probably better for the people than those attempting to force their rule over them.

  8. #128
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default VC use of terror

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html

    If the communists’ “persuasion” techniques spawn deep and enduring hatred, Ho could not care less; the first necessity is the utter, subjugation, of the people. Ho was disturbed by the rapid expansion of South Vietnam’s educational system: between 1954 and 1959, the number of schools had tripled and the number of students had quadrupled. An educated populace, especially one educated to democratic ideals, does not fit into the communist scheme. Hence, the country’s school system was one of Ho’s first targets. So efficiently did he move against it that the World Confederation of Organizations of the Teaching Profession soon sent a commission, chaired by India’s Shri S. Natarajan, to investigate
    Teachers were warned to stop providing civic education, and to stop teaching children to honor their country, flag and president. Teachers who failed to comply were shot or beheaded or had their throats cut, and the reasons for the executions were pinned or nailed to their bodies.

    The Natarajan commission reported how the VC stopped one school bus and told the children not to attend school anymore. When the children continued for another week, the communists stopped the bus again, selected a six-year-old passenger and cut off her fingers. The other children were told, “This is what will happen to you if you continue to go to that school.” The school closed.
    What is most interesting is that the communists failed to reduce school attendance, the people stood up against the terrorists.

    “The Tet offensive represented a drastic change in tactics,” says General Walt. “This is a war to take over the South Vietnamese people. Ho launched the Tet offensive because he knew he was losing the people. But his troops didn’t know it; they were told that they didn’t need any withdrawal plans because the people would rise and fight with them to drive out the Americans. What happened was just the opposite. Many fought against them like tigers.” Some of the Tet offensive’s explosion of atrocities probably can be attributed to sheer vengeful frustration on the part of Ho’s terror squads — which Ho may well have foreseen, and counted on.
    There seems to be some constants throughout history, terror will only work if applied at the right level, if the barbarians go over board it will backfire.

    The full record of communist barbarism in Vietnam would fill volumes. If South Vietnam falls to the communists, millions more are certain to die, large numbers of them at the hands of Ho’s imaginative tortures. That is a primary reason why, at election times, more than 80 percent of eligible South Vietnamese defy every communist threat and go to the polls, and why, after mortar attacks, voting lines always form anew. It is why the South Vietnamese pray that their allies will stick the fight through with them. It is why the vast majority of American troops in Vietnam are convinced that the war is worth fighting. It is why those who prance about even in our own country — waving Vietcong flags and decrying our “unjust” and “immoral” war should be paid the contempt they deserve.
    I believe the true history of this war was never accurately presented, the media cherry picked certain events to support their view of the war, and that is what America saw. We were more focused on the misbehavior of a few of our fighting men, than we were on the approved policy of terror that the VC were employing. That appears to remain true to this day.

  9. #129
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I didn't comment earlier because I thought you were and are correct.

    Thus, little needed saying...

    Re: Viet Nam, you're correct on all aspects but the problem with Viet Nam is that the history has been corrupted by dueling ideologies in all too many cases. Some espouse the typically idealist progressive view of Viet Nam -- i.e. it should have not occurred and the US was the malefactor. Their prerogative but they are missing a lot of facts and are doing themselves a disservice.
    My points for this post are three fold, first there are few, if any, examples throughout history of a collective people's uprising against a government perceived to be ill legitimate...
    Totally true and too many theorists refuse to acknowledge that because they've got a flawed view of people and of governance. Operating on the 'do it my way' theory is well and good but many folks just won't play along...
    There are normally different entities vying for their version of legitimate governance (numerous resistance groups in WWII in the same country were opposed to one another and had different goals for their country once the occupier was thrown out). Second, it is difficult for any counterinsurgent to overcome the effect of terrorist tactics applied against the populace...
    The first point is quite correct and I'd add that in recent wars and troubles there have been and are numerous groups in all cases operating against the so-called Counterinsurgent. None of these fights is nearly as simple as the theoretical types would like to or seem to believe.
    ...while extremely difficult to do in practice, protecting the populace is critical to breaking the powerful hold this tactic has on the population.
    You're a master of understatemnet. It is almost impossible to do unless you're prepared to be equally ruthless -- and we are not. It is fascinating that Politicians commit forces to quelling terror and disruption but insist on 'clean' fighting and 'upholding the moral imperative' or similar foolishness. It is more fascinating that some people in uniform are prepared to believe that such an attitude is acceptable much less necessary and that 'we will "win" because (or if) we have right on our side.'

    The 'we cannot stoop to their level' sounds good on paper and even when spoken. When you're out there rooting around in the mud, settling a 'who's going to walk away from this' issue with the ungodly, it becomes quite a bit more abstract. However, as Jimmy Stewart said in 'How the West Was Won,' "You can't tell someone if they haven't been to see the animal..."
    Third, government remains a necessary evil, and at times must employ force (skillfully) to remain in power. The fact that some people are revolting against the government does not in fact mean the government is necessarily ill legitimate, and in fact is probably better for the people than those attempting to force their rule over them.
    True -- but again, the 'it must be done MY way' syndrome takes hold. All government is illegitimate to an extent, all governments are crooked to an extent.

    There is no perfect government because there are no perfect people. Never have been, never will be. The bleeding hearts need to accept that and get over their meddling and 'fix it' mentality.

    The really fascinating thing is that a number of the 'My way' crowd will go on about the need for 'self determination' by people while wishing or insisting that those people must have 'democracy' when said people are quite happy with a number of un-democratic variations on that theme...

Similar Threads

  1. Thailand (catch all)
    By Jedburgh in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 06:34 AM
  2. Insurgency in the 21st Century
    By SteveMetz in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 05:59 PM
  3. Insurgency and Civil COIN indicators
    By stu in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-24-2009, 02:01 PM
  4. Revising FM 3-24: What needs to change?
    By Cavguy in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 12:31 PM
  5. Profusion of Rebel Groups Helps Them Survive
    By DDilegge in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 01:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •