Just read through Wilf's extensive "more killing" thread from a couple of weeks ago. Very thoughtful discourse..for the most part.
Got some additional insights, I think, on my "civilian casualties" question .. albeit from an angle different from whence the question was posed.
Reading through this and a few other related threads, the discussions seem typically to begin as a polemic: winning population support OR killing militants.
Then those debating on each side clarify that they understand BOTH dimensions are necessary.
The lingering and ensuing debates - which I think are related to the controversy over whether "war is war" - seem to huddle around a couple of themes. They are certainly not epiphanies, but I share them for your consideration:
Roles: There seems to be agreement that militants need to be killed/suppressed AND that infrastructure should be built with an engaged population - but some seem to take the view that the military should only focus on the former and requiring them to do both functions gives us sub-optimal results in both domains.
Sequencing: In the thread, Wilf (I think I am recalling correctly) summarized the options as - and I am paraphrasing here - (A) Kill the militants, and then secure the hearts and minds of the population ; or (B) Engage the hearts and minds of the population, and leverage that to defeat the insurgency. I'm sure I lost some nuance here, particularly in what causes what. Some argue you can't address both tasks at the same time. Others say you must address both tasks both at the same time.
Strategic Interoperability: Regardless of how one draws the arrows between the kinetic and nonkinetic they each transactively affect the other. Most people, I suspect, acknowledge this at some level but the extent to which they are integrated together in strategic thinking (as opposed to being viewed in a more linear way) also seems to vary. Who we kill, and how and when we kill them (including collateral casualties) does seem to affect how the non-militant population responds - both in relation to the counterinsurgent and in how they embrace their own sovereign identity. Conversely, how the counterinsurgent treats the population, the extent of their contact, and how they instrumentally influence their social infrastructure seems to affect not only their degree of cooperation/engagement/ industriousness, but also the extent and quality of the HUMINT acquired from them that improves the counterinsurgent's ability to selectively find and kill the real bad guys.
I might wish to add explicitly, a dimension that is embedded in each of these: Outcome/effects. People often raise the question of what it means to "win" an insurgency. If we assume - and I'm sure this is also debatable - that at least one important outcome is indigenous, stable, sustainable governance based on the rule of law, then both winning population support and killing militants are both just means to an end. Neither are the ultimate objective.
Do any of these make sense? Are there critical contrasting dimensions I missed? Do you wish I would stop writing long posts?
Bookmarks