Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Steve,
I can't open your paper from my work computer, so I'll read it this weekend. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but as Slapout pointed out on another thread we are still left with a void when it comes to a solution. Simply to use an example, let’s assume that an insurgent group does seriously threaten Nigeria's oil production. Most of the facilities are in the coastal region, but it is still a challenge, because it is still a large area to secure (assuming we’re going to do it unilaterally) and the terrain channelizes movement. More importantly the threat is emerging from the population there that is hostile to the oil companies or the governments that they think they represent. In a scenario like this, what exactly are the Navy and AF proposing to secure our interests there?
I think we might have the political will to execute a Roman strategy with the Air Force for a short period of time, but the effects of such an approach would be short lived (it would be punitive in nature, but our objective is to secure our access to the oil), so once again we would have to come back to dealing with the population where the security problems are emerging from, and by the way a population that is now more motivated to hate us after a bombing campaign. I think it is also a safe assumption that we can't commit western security forces to every Nigeria like situation for long durations, so it seems that our only feasible response is a COIN like approach where we develop capable host nation security forces and pacify the population using what you call a British like approach. If that doesn't work, then I think we (the global economy) lose access to that source of oil production. Some wars/conflicts can't be won, at least when we attempt to achieve absolute victory and try to re-engineer countries in our image. We either need to then develop realistic and acceptable national security goals, or we need to withdraw. The beauty of using the British method is we can withdraw combat advisors and trainers with little impact on our national prestige, but we can't withdraw conventional combat forces without serious second order effects (Vietnam, Somalia).
I tire of hearing that the American people don't have the political will to stick with COIN. There are many cases where COIN has been successful throughout our history, because the cost has been relatively low in dollars and blood (Greece, Philippines in the 1950s, El Salvador, etc.). I don't hear the American people clamoring to pull out the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, and numerous other locations where professionals are quietly doing their job. In the few cases where America lost their political will to endure, we employed large conventional forces at great expense (blood and dollars), and pursued the wrong strategy. By the time we got the strategy right such as GEN Abrams did in Vietnam, and now GEN Petraeus in Iraq, the will of the American people was already wore thin.
Bookmarks