French & US COIN and Galula (merged thread)

[Shek]

Ken and Jedburgh,

Thanks for the quick replies.

[taillat]

Maybe you will be surprised to learn that the first french edition of Counter-insurgency warfare by Galula was published.... last week!!!
Indeed, Galula is not well-known in France and this publication is the result of "Galulamania" in the US military (the collection in which it is published, doctrine et stratégie is led by gen. Vincent DESPORTES, head of French Army's Centre de Doctrine d'Emploi des Forces, and a specialist of US Way of warfare).
Stéphane TAILLAT
PS: i recently posted on SWJ an english version of French Doctrine on stabilization ops.

[Shek]

Maybe you will be surprised to learn that the first french edition of Counter-insurgency warfare by Galula was published.... last week!!!
Indeed, Galula is not well-known in France and this publication is the result of "Galulamania" in the US military (the collection in which it is published, doctrine et stratégie is led by gen. Vincent DESPORTES, head of French Army's Centre de Doctrine d'Emploi des Forces, and a specialist of US Way of warfare).
Stéphane TAILLAT
PS: i recently posted on SWJ an english version of French Doctrine on stabilization ops.

Stephane,

Do you know why his writings weren't as popular in France?

A matter of timing, perhaps (Pacification in Algeria was published in 1963 and Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice was published in 1964, both of them written with how to prescriptions but about conflicts already past history for France)?

[taillat]

The main reason why Galula never was popular in French Military is because he was unknown... Note that his celebrity started in the US after his resignation from french army!
A second reason is linked with french experience on guerilla, counter-guerilla and many stabilization ops (or even intervention in West and Black Africa between 1960 and today): the lessons learned and (informal) practices we gained in this period was much more than Galula's one during his experience in Greece, China and Algeria. Others have gained more reputation. Bigeard and Massu (though they weren't using the same coin procedures as Galula) are a good example, as well as gen. DELOYEN who fought againt guerilla in Indochina, in Algeria and in Tchad. Trinquier is best known because of its role in the creation of Groupement Commando Aéroportés (anti-vietminh indigenous maquis during the first Indochina War). French experiences in Indochina and in Algeria gave birth to an original way of doing COIN which differs slightly from Galula's Pacification in Algeria. This latter book was written for US public and especially US military concerned by Vietnam. I wonder if Galula would have written it, as well as Counter-insurgency warfare the same way if it was for french readers.
Last: under De Gaulle, COIN formal Doctrine (Guerre révolutionnaire if you want, though it seems that this term refers to much more than precise procedures and principles) was abandonned because it was politically charged. In French military today, COIN does not refer to Algeria, but mainly with African Contingency or past colonial experiences (Gallieni, Lyautey...)

It appears to me that Galula is much more american than french:his principles relies on Mao's one more than on french tradition of "pacification by oil spot". Unlike french, american military establishment in the 60s lacks concrete experience in counter-guerrilla: Galula's fresh one was a good new!

Stéphane Taillat

[Ken White]

spot theory in the US Army in the early sixties and there were units in Viet Nam that used it -- until they got caught and were told to 'search and destroy' -- I happened to be lucky enough to be in one and more lucky to have a commander who told MACV to flake off, he'd fight his own war. He did and did it well.

Search and destroy techniques most on the ground knew intuitively were wrong and unworkable. However the four star commanders from late 1961 until late 1968 believed in them, therefor the staffs and subordinate generals espoused it (which is not the same thing as believing in it). Pity...

Seven long years.

[John Nagl]

Galula's influence has been far greater in the United States than in France for several reasons. One is that by the time he was writing, France was trying to forget its experience in Algeria; I would draw a parallel with the US after Vietnam. However, Galula's experience in Algeria was highly valued by Steve Hosmer at RAND (who is running an "Airpower in COIN" conference in DC next week--still engaged in intellectual leadership in COIN 45 years after the conference at which he recognized Galula's gifts!)

See http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...6/algeria.html for a brief summary of Galula's thinking, with links to the landmark 1963 study Pacification in Algeria, 1956-1958 (with a great new intro by Bruce Hoffman) that Galula distilled into Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice.

Another reason is that Galula did his best writing in English. In fact, Theory and Practice has just been published in French for the first time, with an introduction by General David Petraeus; see http://www.amazon.fr/Contre-insurrec...1344958&sr=8-1

We relied heavily on Galula's insights when writing FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency.

[Gian P Gentile]

We should also note that Galula, his writings and his experience, fit very neatly within the counterinsurgency-only narrative that defines the American Army today. The Coin experts who felt they were the minority and not treated fairly in the American Army in the 80s and 90s latched on to Galula because he fit into the supporting Vietnam loss-narrative that had Creighton Abrams as the guy who got it right because he understood the so-called primacy in any Coin op of the “people” and Westmoreland as the conventional minded, big battle fool (Andre Birtle’s excellent new book on the history of Coin in the American Army goes a long way at debunking this myth) because he purportedly only wanted to go out and kill people and blow things up. Writers like L. Sorely in the 90s created the notion that the Vietnam war was winnable if we had just allowed General Abrams to continue his “population centric” approach. But alas those pesky politicians, the will-lacking American people, and the evil MSM pulled the rug out from under him, or so the story goes.

There were many American army officers who were part of the Coin Group and viewed David Galula as their model for counterinsurgency operations. These individuals and their writings were generally shunned by the conventional minded army in the 90s. However the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought them into the limelight and with them came Galula; as LTC Nagl points out the writers of FM 3-24 relied heavily on Galula when writing FM 3-24.

I have argued in other places that the American Army’s current operational doctrine is no longer FM 3-0 but instead FM 3-24 counterinsurgency. In fact one could prove this by simply taking Galula’s book, removing the historical and contextual references by bringing them up to date, give this document to a LT or SFC just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, ask them what they had just read, and you would get an answer like, “Oh I just read a summary of FM 3-24.” Ask these same individuals to summarize the Army’s new overall operational doctrine or FM 3-0 and they could not even come close. Is our Army, as General Casey has warned, “out of balance?” I think it is.

Back to Galula. I find it ironic that we have premised the Surge in Iraq on FM 3-24 and that doctrine is heavily premised on David Galula’s writings. Remember Galula was an infantry company commander in Algeria in the 1950s. Galula tells us that it took about a year for him and his company of infantryman to turn their area of responsibility and the people within it against the insurgency. It took over a year for an infantry company, sided with a relatively small Algerian population and isolated by terrain and lack of technology from larger population centers to “win.” In Iraq today we assume that the Surge—using Galula’s methods—turned the country around in a matter of months over the summer of 2007. Simple mathematical extrapolation from Galula to the Surge makes such an assumption improbable. The Surge and the so-called new Counterinsurgency methods were not the main cause of the lowered levels of violence but the neo-con spin machine would have us believe otherwise (see in this regard Kim Kagan’s newest oped running today in the WSJ.)

The importance of the writings of the firebrand Ralph Peters and Charles Dunlap on American counterinsurgency doctrine is that they both challenge the fundamental assumptions and premises that went into its creation. A process of meaningful challenging and questioning should have happened when the doctrine was written but it was not. So we end up with a doctrine that is useful but narrow because it is based on a single theory of Coin given to us by David Galula and that theory has unfortunately turned into principle and further turned into an immutable rule that can not be challenged. Because of this we have become dogmatic to the point of thinking that we can do Coin just about anywhere in whatever kind of situation presents itself to us. How else does one explain recent criticisms of certain Nato countries conducting Coin in Afghanistan?

Galula needs to be challenged and read with a historical mindedness; that is to say we should not be looking to the past as a pool of lessons learned to be plucked at will, turned into doctrine, then applied dogmatically on the ground. This is not history but a pop-process of the production of lessons learned. It is hurting us more than helping us.