Excellent discussion probably one of the best that I have read in a long time. I'll highlight several points that jumped out at me.

Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
In my part of the world, and I suspect elsewhere, Americans in particular have a reputation for being very easy to manipulate. One piece of advice I'd give anyone who is bringing resources (military, financial, whatever) into a chaotic situation is to be very, very wary of anyone who agrees with everything you say, tells you just what you want to hear, and wants to be your loyal ally. An alliance that falls in your lap without hard work on your part is more than likely an attempt to manipulate you and use the resources you have in pursuit of an objective that likely has nothing to do with yours.
Tribe A represents a majority of the population in a given jurisdiction. They get their people elected to key positions, and use Government resources in an effort to force tribe B, a traditional rival, off lands that have been in dispute. Insurgents, aware of the conflict, offer aid to tribe B.
This assumes that the governments we support are reasonable and responsive to their citizenry, which has not always been the case. I've seen people join insurgencies because their Governments were forcing them out of their homes to make way for dams, plantations, etc. When they tried to protest peacefully they were shot, by government soldiers - and this was a government that the US considered an ally. The people in question were not consulted, and had no opportunity to vote. In cases like this, do we need to force the insurgents to give up "violent means/military methods of achieving their political goal" or do we need to force the government to stop stepping on its people?
YES, YES, AND YES. Dayuhan's points echo the gap that I've observed between the theory of counter-insurgency and the practice. The environments that we currently work in are complex, fluid, and dynamic. The local populaces operate in a manner that can be both foreign and confusing to American soldiers. Ancient tribes follow different rules of governance and economics. Social norms, customs, and traditions often differ from what we would call normal. Acceptable levels of violence exceed what we would consider stable. It is different for us, but it is normal for them.

Entering into this "game" can be a dangerous endeavor particularly if you are naive to the rules. I've observed a direct correlation from those that take the non-kinetic version of pop-centric COIN to heart and those that are most succeptable to being used or manipulated by the tribal elder that smiles, speaks good english, and only wants to be a friend to the United States.

One of my favorite sheiks put it to me bluntly:

"Mike, only believe half of what I tell you, and if you cannot verify that information from two sources outside of my tribe or family, disregard it. This is Iraq. We have different rules."

As I continue to shape my own thoughts on COIN, I keep coming back to the same limitations- external military force can only be used to provide security. In other words, we can go into an area, become the biggest tribe, and use force and influence to minimize the levels of violence. We cannot install democracy, governance, etc...Those measures will take a concerted effort by the host nation and our state department, NGOs, etc...

One interesting study would be to see how the people voted in Afghanistan and the upcoming Iraq elections. My bet is that 99% of all votes followed the ethnic and tribal make-up of each area.

v/r

Mike