Economics and Irregular Warfare

[Surferbeetle]

Bill,

Your analysis, as always, covers interesting points and I appreciate the opportunities to consider what you have to say. You have been some places and seen some things and it shows in your words.

You're bringing up examples of economic warfare that have nothing to do with economic development as it relates to COIN.

The general point I was/am attempting to make is that economics are an inseparable component of human wars. From this it follows that victors of wars understand how to use economics to further their aims, and that the use of economics has both destructive and constructive components which need to be trained upon.

By walking the land and studying it I have come to the understanding that all living things are designed to find/use/excrete resources, reproduce, and rest. Finding/using/excreting resources leads to competition/fighting/wars (and capitalism is one such manifestation of this design but I digress ). Plants fight for existing space/sunlight/water/nutrients/breeding rights, and animals fight for existing area/water/nutrients/breeding rights. Neither fights all day/night long everyday however, and it is obvious to me that more skills than just fighting are required in order to live life.

This is exactly what I'm taking issue with, we do what we can instead of doing of the right thing. I'm sure ICRC and others "feel good" when they hand out school books and medicine, but during a COIN effort if it doesn't specifically target a select populace with the objective of separating them from the insurgency and pulling them into a closer relationship with the government then you're just doing humanitarian work to simply make yourself feel better, it doesn't contribute to a strategy. I ensure the enemy doesn't just do what it can, but has an agenda when they hand out aid.

My friend, we follow FM's for many things however FM's are just individual trees in the proverbial forest. How about the 'strategy' of the Bible, Torah, and Koran?

As for police officers looking at it differently, could it be they're looking at a different problem set altogether? The elderly in the U.S. may be involved in the Meth trade now because they can't make it on social security, so that is an economic issue that must be resolved, because ultimately in this case that is the underlying issue.

Kids in depressed areas may join gangs and get involved in illegal activities because that is the accepted economic model. If you improve the job aspects you only address one underlying issue. Normally there is another underlying issue that is seldom considered, and that is the security/social norm influence. If the strongest tribe in the neighborhood is the gang and you offered a fair paying job to a kid that is a gang member (without moving him out of that neighborhood/influence), do you think he would take it? More importantly do you think he would leave the gang and place his family and him/herself at risk?

The human condition encompasses the spectrum from all out war to peace. Reductionist thinking/analysis (i.e. problem sets, control volumes, and free bodies) can be very powerful, but at the end of the analysis procedure we must reincorporate the resulting answers into an analysis of the particular system being studied in order to check for accuracy.

I am of the opinion that much of the security LOO, in fact two out of the three blocks in the three block war, can and should be handled by police forces/rule-of-law-forces working in concert with the military. Like you I have been reading about policing, speaking with police friends, and I am also trying to understand our problem set (Iraq and Afghanistan) from this particular viewpoint. At the end of the day however I am a soldier and not a policeman/lawyer/judge and so I am still thinking about it.

No one said insurgencies didn't require economic activity, I said the root cause wasn't about economics. By all means we need to target their economic engines, but you don't necessarily do that through economic development. It may or may not play a role.

I believe that economics are an inseparable component of human wars.

Not germane, we're talking about insurgency and furthermore as you know were many factors that came together to create the perfect storm for the USSR. I suspect they spent far less on their military than we did, but they spent a greater proportion of their GDP. Still that was only one reason the wall came down.

State versus State, not an insurgency

You are correct here, to use Ken's word, I did indeed conflate some of the finer points that you have identified here while in pursuit of the larger point that victors of wars understand how to use economics...sloppy on my part.

I call this the illusion of a plan, and it is the lazy man's way out of doing the real work that a real plan involves. Amazingly now how we can address any problem by making up four or five LOOs, put them on a power point slide, then we're done. If the simultaneous efforts aren't synchronized toward common objectives, then they lines to no where. Read Killcullen's example of building a road in Afghanistan as a form of political maneuvering, it wasn't simply doing what they could, but they built it with specific objectives in mind that had little to do with the road itself.

Being able to successfully execute a campaign comprised of simultaneous efforts synchronized toward common objectives is the result of intensive training. How often does the GPF train on how to use economics as part of a campaign? How about SOF?

We're forgetting the basics.

True.

Our training process and content needs to be revamped...but that is for another thread

Regards,

Steve

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Surferbeetle

The general point I was/am attempting to make is that economics are an inseparable component of human wars. From this it follows that victors of wars understand how to use economics to further their aims, and that the use of economics has both destructive and constructive components which need to be trained upon.

In any social system there is an ecomonic system, just as in any biological organism there is an energy system to sustain life processes. Yet I stand firm, unless convinced with strong logical arguments, that is not the same as the USG blindly "attempting" to economic development to undermine an insurgent movement. If economic development is even required, then it needs to be focused on supporting the political objective. The other side gets that, Hezbollah are good at, LeT is good at it, and some communist insurgencies have had some success. The issue isn't whether it is important or not, in some cases it is, in others it isn't. Blanket statements and templated approaches are dangerous.

Being able to successfully execute a campaign comprised of simultaneous efforts synchronized toward common objectives is the result of intensive training. How often does the GPF train on how to use economics as part of a campaign? How about SOF?

This one is easy, we give classes on DIME (or DIMEFIL), then after class we complain about the lack of an integrated whole of government approach.

[slapout9]

This one is easy, we give classes on DIME (or DIMEFIL), then after class we complain about the lack of an integrated whole of government approach.

In the old days it was called Special Warfare which was why the old SF units had A-teams,CA-teams,PSYOP-teams combined as needed based upon the situation, now for some reason they don't do that anymore and things are not going so well I have read the Major Gant paper on tribes and how this is the mysterious all time whomper stomper strategy for A'stan. Except for a few exceptions that it exactly what I learned back in the 70's in NC because raising and training and advising indigenous forces on anything was what Green Berets did. Didn't have no DIMEFIL back then. We had the 7 steps of UW which doesn't seem any different now than then except we don't call it that. We are going back to the 70's Stagflation,Tribes and Cults oh boy! Guess we will have to start a Special Warfare Journal, Small Wars is becoming Obsolete

[Bill Moore]

In the old days it was called Special Warfare which was why the old SF units had A-teams,CA-teams,PSYOP-teams combined as needed based upon the situation, now for some reason they don't do that anymore and things are not going so well I have read the Major Gant paper on tribes and how this is the mysterious all time whomper stomper strategy for A'stan. Except for a few exceptions that it exactly what I learned back in the 70's in NC because raising and training and advising indigenous forces on anything was what Green Berets did. Didn't have no DIMEFIL back then. We had the 7 steps of UW which doesn't seem any different now than then except we don't call it that. We are going back to the 70's Stagflation,Tribes and Cults oh boy! Guess we will have to start a Special Warfare Journal, Small Wars is becoming Obsolete

Having been around in those old days I don't recall CA doing a lot of economic development with SF? Unfortunately the 7 phases of UW are very much military focused (more guerrilla warfare than UW, though some will argue the UW is implied), yet the reality is that very little attention was/is given to the political organization aspects. It was just assumed away except for some cursory instruction on the area command. I for one don't think MAJ Gant's paper was a strategy piece, at most it offered some TTPs, which as you said isn't anything new, but it would be fair to characterize it as a "rebirth" of common sense in SF.

There is a Special Warfare Magazine, but it is a little too much focused on back slapping, look at me side for my tastes. We need something more along the lines of a Special Warfare Parameters magazine with some seriously thoughtful and self criticizing articles. You'll never get better if you keep telling yourself you're great and there is nothing left to learn, actually at that point you have become obsolete. I would recommend calling it Political Warfare Magazine, because now Special Warfare means different things to different people, whereas political warfare is the context we need to be thinking in.

We had a Special Warfare Revolution in the 1950's and early 1960's that was embraced by the PSYWAR community, CIA and parts of the State Department, but not by many in DoD. A lot of incredibly smart folks wrote some serious papers on how to counter communist sponsored insurgencies and the various challenges associated with it. IMO we a Special Warfare evolution to address current threats and new global dynamics that impact the way war is fought now.

I had a good friend/mentor (former Team Sergeant) who told me every Special Operations organization should be disbanded after 20 years, then another one stood up to get rid of the doctrinal and organizational baggage. I won't go as far as John Boyd in saying that once you have doctrine you're obsolete, but there is "some" truth in that statement. In some cases we're fighting too hard to protect the legacy organizations instead of building the force we need now.

[slapout9]

Bill, remember SF and the attempted SPARTAN doctine? Happened while I was up there.....don't know that it ever took hold, but more of what I think the CA/economic support should be.

[Ken White]

...every Special Operations organization should be disbanded after 20 years, then another one stood up to get rid of the doctrinal and organizational baggage...

May be fifteen if they're really doing welll.

... I won't go as far as John Boyd in saying that once you have doctrine you're obsolete, but there is "some" truth in that statement. In some cases we're fighting too hard to protect the legacy organizations instead of building the force we need now.

That, too...

We do ad-hoc beautifully, though..

[Bill Moore]

Bill, remember SF and the attempted SPARTAN doctine?

Slapout, help me, I don't recall this doctrine, but then again I didn't read too much doctrine back then

May be fifteen if they're really doing welll.

Ken, it takes five years to get a concept approved, another 7 to get the funding and manning, so really my buddy's suggestion about every 20 years is probably about right. Completely unfeasible in our bureaucracy, but as LTG Boykin put in his book they had to form Delta because SF was too conventional. I don't think SF was too conventional, but they were rigidly adhering to legacy definitions of unconventional. What was the issue back then that was driving the force change requirements for SOF? Oh yea, terrorist groups from the Middle East, both Palestinian and Iranian sponsored. Amazing how long we can keep our heads buried in the sand.

[slapout9]

Slapout, help me, I don't recall this doctrine, but then again I didn't read too much doctrine back then

SPARTAN
Special Proficiency at Rugged Training and Nation building. Google the whole!! name and you should get references.

Early 70's when I new about it. Worked with American Indians in Florida, Montana and other places to practice Tibal Area Improvements.....no sh.. it was a little like Billy Jack Protect them and help them Prosper.


Have to go watch a special on new info about the Kennedy Assasination....they still haven't figured it out....guess I will have to help them Be back in a little while. Slap