SFA as part of a campaign design: supporting operational requirements (part 1)

[Bob's World]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

[Ken White]

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

will get you for that...

[jmm99]

have a Bud Light (I'll join you virtually with a Bud high-test) - and reconsider the following statement in terms of the legal relationships (yup, I'm asking you to put on your lawyer's coif and put the green one in an honored position next to the Bud Light):

from BW
As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA. If anything it was UW. The American populace broke into two camps: Loyalists and Rebels. He who is the current legitimate government and works with the loyalist populace is conducting FID/SFA. He who is the outsider seeking to influence the revolution to support his own selfish ends is conducting UW. France conducted UW. England conducted FID/SFA.

Consider:

1. Legal relationship between the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists (whose pre-rev governments still existed, albeit with some in exile) - as viewed by the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists.

2. Legal relationship between the French Crown and the Continental Congress (starting with our beloved Declaration of Independence - although you and I have different takes on its present uses; but more importantly, the relationship after the Battle of Saratoga) - as viewed by the French Crown and the Continental Congress.

After some consideration of the above, you should conclude that Ken is closer to the mark than you are. In short, you can have two conflicting, but valid, legal (and political) views driving an armed conflict.

I am in the process of reading (half-way through; and subject to many side-tracks) George O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution (1899; yes, the last year of the 1800s), which presents the Brit legal and political views of that conflict (biased toward the Whigs, e.g., Burke & Fox); as well as the Loyalist and Rebel views. Great insight (IMO).

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

So far (still only half there), Trevelyan suggests that George III and his ministers never got beyond version 1.

BTW: interesting trivia from Trevelyan - did you all know that many of the Brit generals in the Revolutionary War were also MPs ?

[Old Eagle]

BW, the quintessential SF dude is correct about French conducting UW. However, the current defn of SFA as outlined in Army FM 3-07 allows for SFA (organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising) to support both FID and UW operations, as well as a host of others. In the US Army context, UW is most likely conducted by SF, while FID and other missions involving SFA components can be conducted by either SF or GPF, or both.

[Bob's World]

"quintessential" I like that.

still chuckling over Ken taking that picture though...

Actually, to expand, the Brits were also conducting COIN against the rebels and (yes, this is not new) "hybrid and Irregular warfare" as they executed capture/kill operations in the Carolinas against the militia; regular conventional ops against the Continental Army; and a little UW themselves west of the mountains as they leveraged the natives to make life tough on guys like George Rogers Clark and D. Boone.

It gets confusing. It gets real confusing if everyone is working off of 5 different definitions for the same named operation. But, at the heart of it, remains two very simple concepts:

1. Good/poor governance: A perception on behalf of a significant segment of the populace that the government is both failed, AND that they have no legitimate means of recourse.

2. Legitmacy: The government that exists must be percieved as legitimate by the governed, and they must recognize the source of legitimacy. If at some point they no longer recognize the source of legimacy, they will attack that source as part of their insurgency.

And lastly, ALL populaces and ALL governances are engaged in this little dance every day everywhere. There is no end, and there is no beginning. Usually it is peaceful, sometimes it gets violent. Its just basic human dynamics once you bundle us up into groups. Don't get so wrapped up in the facts or pursuit of "knowledge" that you never get past the facts down to the heart of the matter at "understanding." "Effectiveness" of governance is for bureaucrats and ametuers; don't get distracted by it.

Intel guys and Generals like Knowledge. I prefere understanding.

[Ken White]

or we'll get nothing done...

Not buying UW by the French in the American Revolution; There was nothing remotely unconventional about their entry, motives or operations. All boringly conventional. Surrogate warfare I'll accept -- though one could even quibble about that on the basis of who cajoled who to do what...

More importantly, as JMM noted:

"The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict."

Certainly applied to the Revolution but it has also applied to most of our wars. Most of which we got right.

Until the Department of Defense was created...

[Bob's World]

or we'll get nothing done...

Not buying UW by the French in the American Revolution; There was nothing remotely unconventional about their entry, motives or operations. All boringly conventional. Surrogate warfare I'll accept -- though one could even quibble about that on the basis of who cajoled who to do what...

More importantly, as JMM noted:Certainly applied to the Revolution but it has also applied to most of our wars. Most of which we got right.

Until the Department of Defense was created...

"unconventional warfare" does not mean you dress like rambo and conduct raids from some camp deep in the swamp or jungle. It may mean you wear a $2000 suit, work in a highrise, and pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg and say : "Go see if you can get the populace of country x to make life difficult for their government."

In other words, the organization conducting UW (the French in the American Revolution with the Rebels, or the British in the American Revolution with the Indians, or the Americans in GWOT with the Northern Alliance, etc) may act VERY conventionally themselves, as may the force they are manipulating to serve their mutual objectives.

The "unconventional" part is getting the other guy to do your dirty work for you. When we say that SF conducts UW, it means that we are the middlemen between that guy in the suit and that foreign populace facilitating the transaction.

[jmm99]

"5.1 France and Great Britain on the Eve of American Independence" - at the end, but it did start that way with Beaumarchais and the trading company of Roderigue Hortalez & Co (the $2000 suit folks).

But then came Saratoga and French recognition of the new nation-state and its government:

The Continental Army put Beaumarchais' supplies to good use. The defeat of General Johnny Burgoyne and his army on October 17, 1777, to Horatio Gates at Saratoga, was a major turning point in the American Revolutionary War. It was won by American soldiers, even if 90% of the gunpowder used had been supplied by and paid for by France, and was used in French M 1763-66 pattern (Charleville) muskets, which by then had become standard in the Continental Army. The victory at Saratoga proved to the French that the American rebellion could be sustained with a possibility of success.

News of Burgoyne's capitulation reached Paris in the evening of December 4, 1777; on the 17th Vergennes promised to recognize the independence of the Thirteen Colonies, with or without Spanish support. On January 30, the king authorized the Secrétaire du Conseil d'Etat Conrad Alexandre Gérard to sign the Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a secret Treaty of Alliance on his behalf. On February 6, 1778,Gérard carried out the order and Deane, Franklin, and Lee signed for the United States.

By these treaties, France offered "to maintain … the liberty, sovereignty, and independence" of the United States in case of war between her and Great Britain. France promised to fight on until the independence of the United States was guaranteed in a peace treaty. All the United States had to do in exchange was not "conclude either truce or peace with Great Britain without the formal consent of the other first obtained.

Not unlike Astan (USSR 1979- & US 2001-) in these respects: UW > new govt > CW. The last type of warfare turned out rather badly for the Sovs.

And looking back, by the time the French assistance, whether conventional or unconventional, had ended, France had spent livres 1,000,000,000; and was on its way to bankruptcy and the French Revolution (hmm ... similar to the USSR).

Are there some lessons for today ?

Final thought:

Since it is Memorial Day, we might want to remember the French sailors and soldiers, whether conventional or unconventional, who made the difference at Yorktown. All in the same boat together - colonialement.

(from above link)

From Yorktown's ruins, ranked and still,
Two lines stretch far o'er vale and hill:
Who curbs his steed at head of one?
Hark! The low murmur: WASHINGTON!

Who bends his keen approving glance
Where down the gorgeous line of France
Shine knightly star and plume of snow?
Thou too art victor, ROCHAMBEAU!

John Greenleaf Whittier

PS: Tyrrell, somewhere (in looking at my wife's genealogy), I have William Johnson as part of the Ulster Shane O'Neills (Shane = John). If you have anything on that, drop me a PM. And, BTW, my ancestor Nick (Aubry dit Francoeur) also squared off against Johnson's troops in 1755 - Baron Dieskau's Defeat at Lake George. You won that one; but we took the Windmill.

[slapout9]

It may mean you wear a $2000 suit, work in a highrise, and pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg and say : "Go see if you can get the populace of country x to make life difficult for their government."

That is SBW (Slapout Based Warfare)

[jmm99]

from Slap
That is SBW (Slapout Based Warfare)

in some cases (e.g., Guatamala 1954), civilian agency based warfare (if you want to call disinformation and destablization "warfare"). BTW: Beaumarchais and the trading company of Roderigue Hortalez & Co were civilian.

Slap, in hindsight, if you were Louis XVI, would you have made that phone call ?

Long-term negative blowback from short-term operational success.

[Ken White]

"unconventional warfare" does not mean you dress like rambo and conduct raids from some camp deep in the swamp or jungle. It may mean you wear a $2000 suit, work in a highrise, and pick up the phone and call Fort Bragg and say : "Go see if you can get the populace of country x to make life difficult for their government."

Boy, I sure wish I'd learned all that stuff somewhere...

The "unconventional" part is getting the other guy to do your dirty work for you. When we say that SF conducts UW, it means that we are the middlemen between that guy in the suit and that foreign populace facilitating the transaction.

Given the fact that I did the SF thing probably about the time you were born, good to know things haven't changed in that sphere.

I'll yet again point out that the issue to me is who got who to do what dirty work. As Tom says, I was painting that stuff on cave walls long ago -- and I distinctly recall that we in the form of Silas Deane and Ben Franklin conned -er, persuaded, Vergennes to convince a reluctant Louis and even more reluctant French Navy that even though there was a massive risk to France due to an already overburdened treasury the potential of an alliance of France, Spain and the new nation could offset British Naval superiority. An idea we had absolutely no intention of honoring.

So. Using your elastic definition was the UW practitioner France -- or the nascent US???

[Bob's World]

Boy, I sure wish I'd learned all that stuff somewhere...Given the fact that I did the SF thing probably about the time you were born, good to know things haven't changed in that sphere.

I'll yet again point out that the issue to me is who got who to do what dirty work. As Tom says, I was painting that stuff on cave walls long ago -- and I distinctly recall that we in the form of Silas Deane and Ben Franklin conned -er, persuaded, Vergennes to convince a reluctant Louis and even more reluctant French Navy that even though there was a massive risk to France due to an already overburdened treasury the potential of an alliance of France, Spain and the new nation could offset British Naval superiority. An idea we had absolutely no intention of honoring.

So. Using your elastic definition was the UW practitioner France -- or the nascent US???

I started off with a reply to you, then switched gears into a tutorial for the broader SWJ audiance. Realized it looked like I was preaching to the choir, but certainly wasn't the intent. Doing pushup now....


As to your question though: Both. We absolutely wanted the French to renew their war with England so that England couldn't focus so much attention on us.

Goes back to mapping all this complexity out in the design process. A whole lot of time spent on understanding the problem saves a whole lot more time and energry pursuing sadly flawed COAs.

Back in the days before GPS I learned the hard way that spending at extra 5 minutes plotting my next move twice, and studying the map for the type of terrain and vegetation I was likely to encounter, looking for that creek or hardball road that would allow me to update my pacecount or varify azimuth, etc all saved me from potentially hours of frustration hunting for metal fence post in a dark patch of swamp 5 miles away. Yet I always saw other guys do a quick plot, ruck up and move out.

I also learned, that when you're lost in that swamp, its never too late to go back to your last known position, replot, and try again with a smarter approach.

[marct]

Hi JMM,

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

I knew I could count on you for this ! Let me also note that there is one other legal fly in the ointment - the Iroquois Confederacy - which had been recognized as a sovereign state by the British via the Covenant Chain series of treaties (Hey, as a descendant of William Johnson, what else would you expect me to add ).

In all seriousness, however, there are two crucial points here. First, the one made by JMM that one can have equally valid and conflicting legal constructs (with operational implications) in a conflict. Second, and this wasn't mentioned per se, that the terms being used - FID, SFA, UW, etc. - actually rely on those legal constructs.

[Tom Odom]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

No, he painted pictures on a cave wall...