Pakistani internal security (catch all)

[Ken White]

(Ken is firing up his reply now to take on the choice of the word "warrior" and make that case that a good soldier beats a good warrior - though history has certainly shown that too firm of a belief in that can get you massacred, be it on the plains of North America or Africa...).

the key is 'good.' The less good -- and there are a number of them about with a few years service -- are no better than the other amateurs and die off rapidly. Belief has little to do with it; competence has a lot to do with it...

However, the motto is not a prob to me, 'Warrior' does indeed work well in your slogan -- and as John said, the multiple Ds were popular in the 80s and in the 60s.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at you innovative fighters being sort of pedestrian in your choice of a slogan. No insult and no snark intended, really. However, as in recent times, it was said a short while ago:

"...Meeting those 21st-century challenges will not occur through military power or any other means alone, but will require the full integration of defense, diplomacy, development assistance, democracy promotion efforts, free trade and the work of the private sector and society...LINK

I know you don't like that last add-on but it was tagged in there. Same thing, almost, was said even earlier LINK. Not like you guys to opt for the flavor of the day...

However, it's most recent use will put you in good with Madam Secretary LINK and in synch with current thinking all the way around. I guess that's always good for the Command.

Personally, I like this one better: LINK -- but then, I'm old and crotchety and there's not a lot of new age stuff that appeals to me...

[Bob's World]

Always liked "Quiet Professionals" myself as well.

De Oppresso Liber,

Bob

[Surferbeetle]

From Zenpundit's blog: The Management of Savagery

[Bob's World]

How American is it to promote self-determination when the self-determining group is determined to impose its will on everybody in the country it disagrees with (the Bolsheviks, Nazis, Ayatollahs, Hamas, and Hugo Chavez)? How American was it to wash our hands of responsibility when the Shi'a and Kurds took Pres G. H. W. Bush's advice and tried to overthrow Saddam in 1991?

There are any number of reasons to promote democracy. Many are normative but this one is purely empirical: Since 1945 no democracy (meaning a state that regularly changes government by free, competitive elections, has effective freedom of expression and organization, has an independent mechanism for the settlement of disputes) has gone to war with another democracy that meets the same criteria. Hence, the more such democracies there are in the world, the more peaceful the world is likely to be. Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) has not been falsified although it would be easy to do so. As such, it stands up as well as does the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, although it is obviously much narrower in scope. Still, it provides a powerful argument for a foreign policy that promotes effective democracy.

In the end, democracy promotion is a policy that has its roots deep in Western philosophy. the origins of DPT are found in Immanuel Kant's theory of Perpetual Peace and were an essential part of American foreign policy under Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Ronald Reagan, among others. My problem with democracy promotion is when it is seen too narrowly as elections or we try to promote it only from the top down without taking into account local cultural conditions (such as the role of tribes). My disagreements are not with the goals of such a policy but with the way it has often been implemented.

Cheers

JohnT

While sweating my way around the neighborhood on a run this morning (Florida in summer, sun wasn't even fully up and it was like exercising in a sauna...), and I thought about this conversation, Verbs, and "shades of meaning."

John makes the case that "promotion" of democracy is a noble and worthy endeavor. I can't argue with that.

What I wrote was that I felt it was more appropriate that we should "enable self-determination."

Enable is the key word. John gives great examples of where we have fallen short of enabling self-determination with disasterous effects. Where we have perhaps merely "encouraged" or "enticed" populaces to seek such change, and left them to suffer the wrath of a government that had no desire to listen to such rumbling of dissent from its populace.

More recently we have gone past "enable" to the other extreme, to actually "enforce" , not just self-determination, but an actual form of government in democracy. I find this uncomfortably similar to oppressive behavior in the Soviets that I was raised to guard against. Not to be against communism itself, but to be against the forced adoption of communism by a more powerful state over a weaker one.

So as I look across a span of verbs, with shades of meaning:

"Encourage" - "Entice" - "Enable" - "Enforce"

Each brings very different duties, responsibilities and consequences. When we go too weak or too storng it often does not play well. This is why, for me, I am most comfortable with the middle of this scale. To Enable Self-Determination. To work with governments and populaces alike, as much more a mediator of evolution of good governance as opposed to be a promoter or enforcer of revolution of government.

Today we watch events unfold in Iran, a country we currently find ourself at odds with, but one that arguably holds the potential to be our strongest ally in the Middle East. We must neither entice this populace to act and then leave them without the support we enticed them with, nor should we storm in and assume legitimacy over the situation by enforcing a change on our terms. Both are disasterous.

But where in the middle do we make our position? How do we enable a peaceful evolution of government, that respects the current sovereign, while at the same time supports a populace hungry for change. Difficult business, this. Complicated even more by two powerful current allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia who have very strong interests of their own that may well be different than ours, and are certainly different than those of either the government or populace of Iran.

I think the President's instincts on this are the correct ones, but I don't envy him the task that this challenge presents.

[William F. Owen]

While sweating my way around the neighborhood on a run this morning (Florida in summer, sun wasn't even fully up and it was like exercising in a sauna...), and I thought about this conversation, Verbs, and "shades of meaning."

Tell me about. Wife gets up at 05:30, to go running in the dunes, cos Israel ain't exactly chilly this time of year!

John makes the case that "promotion" of democracy is a noble and worthy endeavor. I can't argue with that.

What I wrote was that I felt it was more appropriate that we should "enable self-determination."

That is entirely laudable and well intended. I cannot tell you you are wrong, but isn't the reality to "enable the outcome the President wants?"

[Surferbeetle]

Bob’s World,

Appreciate your posts.

As you are well aware, it’s one thing to drop in out of the sky and hunt down HVT’s and it’s another thing entirely to drop in out of the sky and assist with the development and maintenance of self-sustaining enterprises, which incrementally increase a populaces opportunities in a culturally effective way and help to integrate us all in beneficial network (i.e. globailization). As you previously posted 3-D warriors are needed for this type of work. Many of us are able to shift gears when the threat is on and soldier/Defense, but as an organization we in DOD exhibit systemic and reoccurring problems in shifting seamlessly from Defense to Development & Diplomacy.

This fathers day I am wondering:

1) Do we have the moral right to try and effect enduring and beneficial change in countries other than our own given the many unsolved problems/challenges we have here at home?
2) Do we have the ability to effect enduring and beneficial change in countries other than our own given the many unsolved problems/challenges we have here at home?

Let’s examine your example of Iran/Persia. Wikipedia tells me they have been building, fighting, and living as group since at least 2800 BC.

Now, I have spent an hour or two studying various engineering and mathematics topics, while being aware of the fact that various Persian engineers/scientists who were armed with a blank sheet of paper and quill & ink identified and solved some of these same problem sets well before my nation was a twinkle in any of my ancestors eyes.

As a well traveled CA-bubba I am also aware that the names of politicians are written for all eternity upon the sands of the various windy deserts and beaches across the globe.

The people, however, the people endure.

So then, specifically with respect to Iran is the correct approach to follow the direct path to reducing the perceived threat or to follow the indirect path to reducing the perceived threat? The answer to this depends upon if one believes in a top down (political) or a bottom up (populace) approach.

Best,

Steve

[jmm99]

the Management of Savagery, a couple of months ago - and found it a very interesting read.

Partly, I suppose, because it is heavily law-laden (Islamic law as seen by its author) in the context of irregular warfare and irregular combatants - who are not at all irregular combatants in Naji's eyes, but regular Islamic warriors.

However, its most interesting concept, reflected in the title (which might be better expressed in our terms as the "Management of Chaos", which Naji says at p.26 quoted below), defined as:

(pp.11, 26-28)

The management of savagery is the next stage that the Umma will pass through and it is considered the most critical stage. If we succeed in the management of this savagery, that stage (by the permission of God) will be a bridge to the Islamic state which has been awaited since the fall of the caliphate. If we fail – we seek refuge with God from that – it does not mean end of the matter; rather, this failure will lead to an increase in savagery!!

This increase in savagery, which may result from failure, is not the worst thing that can happen now or in the previous decade (the nineties) and those before it. Rather, the most abominable of the levels of savagery is (still) less than stability under the order of unbelief [nizām al-kufr] by (several) degrees.
....
First Topic: Definition of “the management of savagery” and an overview of its historical precedents

We said above that if one contemplates the previous centuries, even until the middle of the twentieth century, one finds that when the large states or empires fell – whether they were Islamic or non-Islamic – and a state did not come into being which was equal in power or comparable to the previous state in its ability to control the lands and regions of that state which collapsed, the regions and sectors of this state became, according to human nature, subservient to what is called “administrations of savagery.” Therefore, the management of savagery is defined very succinctly as the management of savage chaos!!

As for a detailed definition, it differs according to the goals and nature of the individuals in the administration. If we picture its initial form, we find that it consists of the management of peoples’ needs with regard to the provision of food and medical treatment, preservation of security and justice among the people who live in the regions of savagery, securing the boarders by means of groups that deter anyone who tries to assault the regions of savagery, as well as setting up defensive fortifications.

(The stage of) managing the people’s needs with regard to food and medical treatment may advance to (the stage of) being responsible for offering services like education and so forth. And the preservation of security and securing the borders may advance to working to expand of the region of savagery.

Why do we call it “management of savagery” or “management of savage chaos” and not “management of chaos”? That is because it is not the management of a commercial company, or of an institution suffering from chaos, or of a group of neighbors in a district or residential region, or even of a peaceful society suffering from chaos. Rather, it is more nebulous than chaos, in view of its corresponding historical precedents and the modern world and in light of wealth, greed, various forces, and human nature, and its form which we will discuss in this study. Before its submission to the administration, the region of savagery will be in a situation resembling the situation of Afghanistan before the control of the Taliban, a region submitting to the law of the jungle in its primitive form, whose good people and even the wise among the evildoers yearn for someone to manage this savagery. They even accept any organization, regardless of whether it is made up of good or evil people. However, if the evil people manage this savagery, it is possible that this region will become even more barbarous!

The ideal form we desire (in order to meet the) requirements of the management of savagery:

- In the preceding, we generally explained the requirements of the management of savagery in its initial form. But before we proceed to another point, we want to clarify the requirements of the management of savagery in the ideal form we desire and which agree with the aims of the Sharia [maqāsid al-shar`, a technical legal term]. These requirements are:

- Spreading internal security

- Providing food and medical treatment

- Securing the region of savagery from the invasions of enemies

- Establishing Sharia justice among the people who live in the regions of savagery

- Raising the level of belief and combat efficiency during the training of the youth of the region of savagery and establishing a fighting society at all levels and among all individuals by making them aware of its importance.

- Working for the spread of Sharia science (putting the most important aspects before those of lesser importance) and worldly science (putting the most important aspects before those of lesser importance).

- Dissemination of spies and seeking to complete the construction of a minimal intelligence agency.

- Uniting the hearts of the world's people by means of money and uniting the world through Sharia governance and (compliance with) rules which are publicly observed, at least by those in the administration.

- Deterring the hypocrites with proof and other means and forcing them to repress and conceal their hypocrisy, to hide their discouraged opinions, and to comply with those in authority until their evil is put in check.

- Progressing until it is possible to expand and attack the enemies in order to repel them, plunder their money, and place them in a constant state of apprehension and (make them) desire reconciliation.

- Establishing coalitions with those with whom coalitions are permitted, those who have not given complete allegiance to the administration.

I've quoted at some length to get down to the bullet points of Naji's doctrine, which seems very population-centric; although as one reads through the book, one finds more than one suggestion for direct action.

My perception is that this particular AQ type is very willing to work amidst chaos - although the desired end-state is something quite different. On the other hand, we seem not to like chaos very much and try to effect order.

Two questions for comment:

1. Has anyone on our side considered how we should be operating in a chaotic situation - that is, not by trying to create order; but by working to our advantage within the chaos itself ?

2. Has Naji's book affected our military education; do folks read and discuss it ?

Any input on what I perceive to be an important book would be appreciated.

[Entropy]

BW,

While I agree with you in the abstract, I think the practicalities are much more problematic.

To begin with, "enabling self-determination" is, in large part, an oxymoron because the will and ability to determine one's own course comes from within - hence the "self" part. A population that must be encouraged or enticed by outsiders is a population not ready for self-determination and not ready to bear its costs.

Secondly, "self determination" in practice often impinges on another's notion of "self determination." Realizing dreams of self-determination for one usually comes at the expense of another's dreams. Add in an outsider, acting as an "enabler" or whatever, and the pot becomes even less tasty. Outsiders inevitably have agendas which are rarely in complete agreement with those they're trying to enable. Such enabling, I believe, does not improve outcomes in the end.

Some examples to explain my point:

1. The US Civil War. Did the southern states have a right to self-determination? What about African Americans? The desire for self-determination often conflicts with other desires and/or values.

2. Kosovo. Here is a case where the US enabled one group of people to realize their dreams for self-determination. Unfortunately, it came at the expense of others and likely set the stage for future conflict in a region where memories are long.

3. Israel. The US, UN and others enabled the Jewish people's wish for a state in their biblical homeland, triggering decades of conflict that continues today. The simple reality, in my view, is that Arab and Jewish desires for self-determination are incompatible and both sides are unwilling to compromise on those desires. This is the root of our failed attempts to encourage, entice and enable compromise between the two parties.

4. USA. Many people who moved from Europe to the USA through the 19th century did so for self-deterministic reasons. Unfortunately, accommodating them resulted in the almost complete loss of self-determination for the native people already living here.

5. Afghanistan and much of central, south and SW Asia and Africa. Self-determination is incompatible with the artificial colonial construct we call "Afghanistan." There are many who want to live their lives free of the influence from outsiders - defined as anyone not from one's clan, tribe or valley. Yet we are in those valleys trying to convince them otherwise, using your entire span of verbs. We are not enabling self-determination here, we are attempting to convince those people to, at a minimum, sublimate their desire for independence and compromise their desires for self-determination. Some can be enticed to do so, others cannot.

[Bob's World]

So, there will always be winners and losers; strong and weak; etc?

I see no reason to compromise the idealistic principles upon which America was founded simply becuase the world is a dirty, complicated place where nothing plays out as neat and clean as it reads from the parchment that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin wrote it on.

Its like why I alway encourage others as well as myself to strive for the maximum standards. When one strives for the max and comes up short they still succeed by a considerable margin. When one strives for the minimum standard and comes up short they fail.

We set the bar high as a nation, and to not strive to achieve that mark, or worse, to deliberately adopt polices contrary to those ideals is high hypocracy. No one expects us to be perfect, just to do our best and say what we mean, and mean what we say.

[Entropy]

So, there will always be winners and losers; strong and weak; etc?

Yes, but that wasn't my point exactly.

I see no reason to compromise the idealistic principles upon which America was founded simply becuase the world is a dirty, complicated place where nothing plays out as neat and clean as it reads from the parchment that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin wrote it on.

While attempting to promote or base decisions/policy upon idealistic principles is a good thing, one must also realize there are always going to be compromises. Different principles are going to be in competition, so some kind of compromise is inevitable. How far are you willing to go to maximize "ideals" over other values?

Also, as I tried to point out, some times the same principle cannot be evenly applied at every level - "Self determination" in a place like Afghanistan means different things based on the context, like clan, ethnic group, gender, religion or "nation." Is it possible, for example, to promote all five equally? I don't think so. Promote the independence of tribal leadership, for example, and women's self-determination may be compromised as well as independence of the state as a whole.

Its like why I alway encourage others as well as myself to strive for the maximum standards. When one strives for the max and comes up short they still succeed by a considerable margin. When one strives for the minimum standard and comes up short they fail.

It's not so much about standards as it is about priorities. One can't maximize everything all the time.

We set the bar high as a nation, and to not strive to achieve that mark, or worse, to deliberately adopt polices contrary to those ideals is high hypocracy. No one expects us to be perfect, just to do our best and say what we mean, and mean what we say.

I mostly agree, but I think a bigger problem is that our policymakers too often believe they can have their cake and eat it too. Plus, a "feature" of our democracy and election cycle is that policymakers focus almost exclusively on what can be done in the next couple of years. And there's the simple reality that they are reflective of the character of the American people who are more concerned about events at home than promoting ideals abroad. I think for the most part we're getting the foreign policy the American people want.

Finally, too much focus on idealism leads to mirror-imaging, poor analysis, wishful thinking and paternalism. Our last President found that out the hard way. A certain group of prominent Washington thinkers operated (and probably still do) under the assumption that inside every person is a little Thomas Jefferson itching to get out. Exposing the hidden TJ could be accomplished simply by eliminating the undesirable regime oppressing them. That theory hasn't worked too well.

So what we need, IMO, is a balance of idealism and realism, which is pretty much what we have most of the time. That balance means that we're going to have hypocrisy, but IMO that is a part of human nature. My main complaint about US foreign policy is the perpetual short-term focus.

[Bob's World]

Short-term focus is indeed a problem for most people in general, perhaps Americans in particular (I once read of America described as a nation of attention deficeit disorder, based on the general genetic inclinations of the type of people from around the world who tended to migrate here); and certainly for U.S. policy.

All the more reason, if we are unable or unwilling to craft a Grand Strategy that sees into the future, let us at least stand firmly upon the solid foundation of our past.

Democracy is a funny thing.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

We often tend to overlook the dark side. For example, Indians are justifiably proud to proclaim that they have the "Largest Democracy in the World!" The flip side of that being, with their caste system, and racial and religon-based bigotry that they have the worlds largest suppressed minority as well.

As to values, I caution any person or any state to hold his values up to others as a measure of goodness. Values are a personal thing, and vary with time and experience. A value is a principle that has had a judgment applied to it. To promote values is to offer judgment of others, and that is rarely, if ever, well received regardless of the intention of the one offering judgment.

Better that we hold and attempt to live up to our own values, that we stand on our principles and that by so doing, we withhold judgment of others who chose to live or govern differently than we do.

Also, in the promotion of Self-Determination, we need to remember that this is not something that we must force others to do, rather it is a standard that we are to hold ourselves to. We must stand for this principle, and not act in such a way to impose a form of government on others unless deemed necessary for the survival of the Union. How others chose to act is up to them, until such time that in the pursuit of their interests they impose upon ours (and vice versa as well...).

I am all for realism. But show me a realist who is not an idealist first, and I will show you a man to be extremely wary of indeed, for he is likely driven primarily by his own self interest over any moral code.

[slapout9]

Better that we hold and attempt to live up to our own values, that we stand on our principles and that by so doing, we withhold judgment of others who chose to live or govern differently than we do.

Also, in the promotion of Self-Determination, we need to remember that this is not something that we must force others to do, rather it is a standard that we are to hold ourselves to. We must stand for this principle, and not act in such a way to impose a form of government on others unless deemed necessary for the survival of the Union. How others chose to act is up to them, until such time that in the pursuit of their interests they impose upon ours (and vice versa as well...).

Exactly!

[George L. Singleton]

http://asinstitute.org/newsletter103

In my view it is always helpful to read postings in the single (to my knowledge) conservative and open minded university based think tank in Pakistan, the Alternate Solutions Institute in Lahore, Pakistan.

Good reading to you all.

[AnalyticType]

Before I even dive into this, I offer full disclosure: I am not mathematically inclined! So I'm putting this out there for analysis and commentary by others, rather than being a proponent of it myself.

While wandering through the treasure-trove of talks on TED, I came across a fascinating talk (Feb 2009) by Kiwi physicist and mathematician Sean Gourley. He discusses the application of mathematics to insurgent attack trends. VERY intriguing patterns were revealed.

So my questions to the COIN practitioners: How parallel are his conclusions to your experiences/studies? Have you utilized this sort of analysis to determine future trends already? Is this something entirely new (in your experience)? What are your thoughts?

[Surferbeetle]

So my questions to the COIN practitioners: How parallel are his conclusions to your experiences/studies? Have you utilized this sort of analysis to determine future trends already? Is this something entirely new (in your experience)? What are your thoughts?

Here is a thread that has some thoughts...

[AnalyticType]

Here is a thread that has some thoughts...

I hadn't found that one yet. I should'a looked more...

[slapout9]

Before I even dive into this, I offer full disclosure: I am not mathematically inclined! So I'm putting this out there for analysis and commentary by others, rather than being a proponent of it myself.

While wandering through the treasure-trove of talks on TED, I came across a fascinating talk (Feb 2009) by Kiwi physicist and mathematician Sean Gourley. He discusses the application of mathematics to insurgent attack trends. VERY intriguing patterns were revealed.

So my questions to the COIN practitioners: How parallel are his conclusions to your experiences/studies? Have you utilized this sort of analysis to determine future trends already? Is this something entirely new (in your experience)? What are your thoughts?

John Robb at Global Guerrillas writes about this subject, may want to search some of his posts there, here is the link. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/

[Greyhawk]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5545157

NPR interview with the translator, who was a Fellow at USMA CTC at the time (maybe still - dunno).

Which would make a "no" answer to the question "Has Naji's book affected our military education; do folks read and discuss it?" som'at ironic. I first saw it back in aught six - it's informed my thinking. (That and a dollar will still buy you a candy bar if you hurry.)

Got to appreciate the IO part - they've been highly effective at that. But I suspect most folks (none here) would be amazed (or dismissive) of any claim that they even had something approaching a "PR" wing.

[Greyhawk]

- a background document by the same author here: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/pdf/Stealing...20--%20CTC.pdf

[George L. Singleton]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

In the above WASHINGTON POST story of Tuesday, July 14, 2009, you read in part at the conclusion of the article that both increased police manpower protection and a one year stationing of Pak Army forces throughout Swat will "fend off" return attempts by the Taliban.

President Zardari originally said that the Pak Army would establish permament military bases in Swat, without which I for one think Swat is going to remain unstable regarding Taliban reinfiltration.

The police forces formerly in Swat simply were killed, defeated, fled, or changed sides. Simply adding more police now is a weak gesture, unless they are defined as entire units of frontier forces/para-military doing the job of the collapsed police forces formerly there.

All of Northern Pakistan has to be permanently subdued and manned by the Army, otherwise you have another on again, off again mess forever there.

It is unhelpful that some but clearly not all Pakhtuns continue to agitate for secession from both Pakistan and Afghanistan, which plays into the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida.

There is no sound geopolitical basis for Pakhtun secession but overseas Pakhtuns in colleges and universities, and high schools in Canada, the US, the UK, Europe, Australia and related countries "wish" for secession and separation, while on the ground in country Pakthuns are less absurdly adamant but strongly distrustful of the ISI, Pak Army, and all prior Governments of Paksitan, in particular.

Hard to rebuild infrastructure and restore economic conditions while literal terrorist guerilla fighting goes on, with these damn stupid on again off again gyrations by the Pak Government and military. By now the President of Pakistan should know better than to keep changing his statements, and the Chief of Staff of the Pak Army needs to turn to a new recruiting program to bring more Pakhtuns into the military, which is a source of jobs for the poorest Pakhtuns in all parts of Pakistan.