Sir,
Are you specifically addressing LE source operations? I've written a few posts above on what I consider the appropriate application of coercion and paying intelligence sources in counterinsurgency, but locals in the countries in which we are currently "doing" counterinsurgency do not consider the best outcome altruistically. The best outcome is what is the best for them, usually at the expense of someone else. It's also a trick to win the hearts and minds while maintaining their respect and without seeming naive, i.e. weak. I can give numerous examples of coalition forces trying to win the hearts and minds through reconstruction projects and good neighbor policy that got in the way of intelligence collection and our units mission, and that in part financed the local insurgency, that were done by well intentioned but not "tuned in" civil affairs and chaplains. But they got to say at the end that they were able to spend 20 million dollars in an AO, so somebody was happy (Damn those Powerpoint presentations again - they are hindering the war on terror). (Another thread, I know)
Winning the hearts and minds of your neighbors is a concept that does not appear anywhere in their internal sociology, to my knowledge. Societies in which we are doing counterinsurgency have not traditionally organized themselves in ways that best outcomes are arrived at truly consensually and for the "common" good, outside one's kinship or tribal/clan entity. By now, after years of exposure to us, they know to smile and nod their heads when we talk like this while thinking what idiots we are and how they or their cousin can personally profit from it. I would be interested in any counterexamples you might have.
Is it any different in the microcosm of square block LE intelligence ops dealing with chronic criminal organizations?
I'd ask for your continued patience with my posts. Lots of fodder for thought, lots of tough memories of lessons hard learned, and blood of friends shed.
Bookmarks