Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
Wow, from my experience, this shows a deep lack of understanding of the populace. So, provide me at least one example of when these truths collectively persuaded an entire populace to lay down their arms.

I'm just asking for one instance, just one, and as much as you would like to assume, Dr. Nagl's version of the Malaya Emergency is not it. A lot of killing subsided beore his proposed lessons learned.

The only one that I can consider involves the old testament, trumpets blaring on a fortification, and a direct intervention by God.

Otherwise, in Schmedlap's terms, I'm gonna start drinking the bong water. I'll put this in the most simplest terms- If we stopped Mississippi from burning, if we protected the blacks there from being lynched, would that have stopped the civil rights movement? Nope.

Now that I gave you an analogy that you can understand, then answer the question,

Why?
Mike,

There are examples from the Indian Wars that involved minimal loss of life (Mackenzie's operations during the Red River War are one example, as is Carleton's campaign against the Navaho), and were usually predicated by an understanding of the tribes. Mackenzie figured out that killing warriors just got the vengeance cycle started (many tribes held that a death had to be avenged - a major consideration in the actual start of the Red River War), and he also pinpointed two major weaknesses of the Plains tribes: they couldn't replace lost supplies or physical equipment quickly or easily; and they were tied to their large pony herd. Thus his attacks (and those of Carleton as conducted in the field by Carson) targeted physical villages and pony herds and not the actual population. Mackenzie later disarmed the Sioux still on the reservation under Red Cloud by surrounding the camp before daybreak and telling them that he would destroy the village if they didn't turn in their arms. They did, because they knew he'd do it if they refused. But they also knew that he wouldn't harm them if they followed instructions.

Is that the same thing as Kilkullen's talking about? Hard to say, since I don't know what he was thinking when he wrote it. But it may show a more practical application of what we now call "hearts and minds." He may also be spinning that way in some sort of attempt to curb what he may feel is an over-reliance on firepower. Again, it's hard to say. A more useful way to look at the concept might be "understanding hearts and minds," which I take to mean taking the time to get a good grasp of what will and will not work in a particular situation and then acting on it. Mackenzie did that, as did Carleton and a handful of other skillful officers on the Frontier. But they also had years to develop their solutions. Our rotation practices don't necessarily allow that.