Quote Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
Without re-hashing the criticality the local population plays in COIN or playing the woulda, coulda, shoulda game, let me say that there is movement in the area of joint military-civilian action teams in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In AF, the original PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team) concept has matured over the years and provides a possible model for other environments. In Iraq, PRT is again on the table. There has been a lot of back and forth in the interagency arena over who ought to be doing what. In my mind, civilian experts need to be part of the advisory effort so that the Iraqis can assume more of the responsibility for their own destiny, sooner rather than later.
OE--Can we make this happen without REALLY robusting our civil affairs capability? Civilians are great to have as subj matter experts, but USAID doesn't do so well when there are still bullets flying about. I'm a believer in civil affairs (lawyers, judges, hospital administrators, teachers, civil engineers, etc--in uniform, with weapons) being the logical partner in an action like Iraq, where we not only toppled the regime but de-Baathified the government (leaving "who" to run the government?) In post WWII Germany we realized that we needed a few "Nazis of convenience" to ensure a faster return to normalcy, and we had a HUGE army of occupation to ensure as smooth as possible transition back to peace. My opinion: our gap in Iraq is that the occupation is too small and the rebuilding too haphazard.