Applying the lessons of late 19th/early 20th century asymmetrical warfare

[M-A Lagrange]

As long as they (NGOs and even media) admit that they are not neutral and are actors in the conflict, with a political agenda, which therefore allows certain actions to be taken against them, I have no problem.

Why do you want to take actions against them?
NGO are the best allies of military power nowadays. They are looking for someone to protect them from weapons carriers or fighters who do not respect their neutral status.

The only thing being their legal status in war zones are asking you to be more subtile than brutal. (I even saw mormons funding muslim NGO in Afghanistan.) What is important is the psyop you conduct with. Not against NGO work but to integrate NGO and to win hearts and minds.

By definition, for NGO, occupying powers are the bad guys. All you have to do is making sure that you control their funds sources and then NGO have an open position against you but do the job for you. But coordination of aid and harmonised approach is may be the most difficult to achieve.

[William F. Owen]

Why do you want to take actions against them?

I don't want to. I may have to. Especially those who are using NGO status to mask military activity.

NGO are the best allies of military power nowadays. They are looking for someone to protect them from weapons carriers or fighters who do not respect their neutral status.

That description does not apply to all NGOs. If they want your protection, they must come under your control, and do what you tell them.

The only thing being their legal status in war zones are asking you to be more subtile than brutal. (I even saw mormons funding muslim NGO in Afghanistan.) What is important is the psyop you conduct with. Not against NGO work but to integrate NGO and to win hearts and minds.

Well this just buys into the "hearts and minds" fallacy. You assume that hearts and minds are important in all conflict. That is simply not true. Obviously you should not do those things that undermine your political aim, but that does not axiomatically mean you should care what the enemy population think.

By definition, for NGO, occupying powers are the bad guys.

Are they really that stupid and simplistic?

[M-A Lagrange]

Are they really that stupid and simplistic?

I’ll start by the easiest. No, they are not that simplistic once you have reached a certain level. But basically, in average 75% western expatriated relief worker are like that. Occupation always had and has bad publicity. By definition you are illegitimate as you are imposing a form of regulation by the use of force. You have to have in mind that they just believe they will impose the Humanitarian order on the world. Governments are not perceived as a partner or a power. They are perceived as threat. A government using force is then by definition a threat to Humanity.

I don't want to. I may have to. Especially those who are using NGO status to mask military activity.

Well… there always had and will always be. The first ones were not the enemy. So we have to just agree this enters into intelligence management.
As an example I will use a US NGO in Lebanon, in cities under Hezbollah administration. They use to fund huge projects implemented by Hezbollah NGOs and administration. Who was doing masked military activities?
The difficulty of using NGO as a weapon is basically found in the fact you cannot destroy your enemy and even less its effects. Social services delivered by the enemy to its population, whatever is the political back ground, will always have better publicity than yours. So you have to turn it in your advantage. It’s by the funds you can do it.

That description does not apply to all NGOs. If they want your protection, they must come under your control, and do what you tell them.

It applies to all NGO. It is not because the NGO is the best friend of your enemy it is not the best friend of a military power. Being protected by the Geneva Convention is an advantage for all and an obligation for all parts of the conflict. You cannot kill or arm NGO workers, properties and even less the medical facilities, vehicles and staff: basic constraints for all. All do not decide to apply it, OK, but this is not the point.
Your approach of NGO management is too direct. The bargain has to be apparently invisible. NGO will not do what you want for protection. Protecting them is your obligation. What you look at is having NGO doing what you want as part of their general activities. The dichotomy military and civilian has to be respected. (NGO are contesting your moral legitimacy in who is regulating war.) So you have to show that it is you who integrates their network.

Well this just buys into the "hearts and minds" fallacy. You assume that hearts and minds are important in all conflict. That is simply not true. Obviously you should not do those things that undermine your political aim, but that does not axiomatically mean you should care what the enemy population think.

The hearts and minds fallacy does not apply to conflicts settled in time for generations. It will be difficult to win the heart and the mind of an Israeli and a Palestinian. But I separate hearts and minds as a technical expression and the real object of counter insurgencies: social services distribution to support loyalist military activity.
This is as important than to know what the population thinks. In recent conflicts, as Iraq, what has been undermining all is the delay of reinstallation of basic social services and order. The longer you wait before addressing those simple issues, the larger you open the door to insurgency and, if you’re lucky, to civil war between all the factions who are trying to contest you the power vacuum. Civilian will go for the one who will protect them in a large understanding of protection.
Occupation is not limited to hold. Hold is a transition phase which has to integrate the roots of build. In my opinion, hold and build are mixed. Separating them is what leads to insurgencies.

In somehow, I find ironic this re invention of colonial warfare under new names.

Camps are another issue by the way. They have a different legal status than an occupied land. They also fall under a different organization of political power. Would recommend Michel Agier On the Margins of the World: The Refugee Experience Today (http://www.amazon.fr/Margins-World-R...8632871&sr=1-1) and his new book but I do not know if it is available in English: gerer les indesirables des camps de refgier au gouvernement humanitaire. (Managing the unwelcomed, from refugees camps to humanitarian government).

[William F. Owen]

Occupation always had and has bad publicity. By definition you are illegitimate as you are imposing a form of regulation by the use of force.

Says who?

Sorry, nice try and putting their case, but I see no reason to assume that folks not doing exactly what I tell them, are anything more than a major problem, just the same as media folks who are not embedded with me and under my control.

[Dayuhan]

Wilf, that approach is likely to earn you a lot of enemies and alienate any friends you have. That's fine if you have the capacity to control everyone around you, all by yourself, all the time, forever. Those of finite capacity might want to consider the possibility that their ability to control may eventually erode to the point where that kind of control is no longer possible. That's especially true of those who need external support and who require the regular consent of their own populace.

[tequila]

I have yet to see one major contract for an American company.

I know you're not looking at DoD contracting there.

As far as mineral and oil exploitation think that is because both Iraq and Afghanistan represent risk profiles far outside that for most Western corporations. The Chinese, OTOH, are known for their willingness to go to marginal places on marginal contracts, often with thin to nonexistent profit margins in the Western sense.

Iraq, for all the progress, remains far more violent and politically unstable than Nigeria, for instance.

[M-A Lagrange]

Sorry, nice try and putting their case, but I see no reason to assume that folks not doing exactly what I tell them, are anything more than a major problem, just the same as media folks who are not embedded with me and under my control.

Like I said, NGO need challenging partners with whom them feel they are in control. Saying guys you do what you have been ordered to do just does not work. And it is a good thing. Nowadays we are conducting war among the people not war on a land populated with people. There is much to learn from NGO on how to conduct operations among the people.

And please, look at history. Part from Rome (with various success), when did an occupation have good press? Every time someone from outside comes to occupy a land, you can be sure the population will fight to quick the strangers out. This works everywhere, anytime and all the time…
It is one of the few things that never change in war.

The true irony is that we may be paying for others freedom while assisting our economic competitors. So Strange.

May be the Halliburton contracts at the early beginning of Iraq war were too much.
Also, colonization was first based on economical relations. Colonial wars were primally used to reinforce dominant positions. Cf Portugese in West Congo, French in West Africa... We first made trade then invaded the place. May be that is the key.
One of the calculations of Bush administration was to boost economy through war economy (Invading Iraq). 29 economic crises were solved by WW2. The main difference being the body count (dead do not look for employment).