Iraq Isn't the Philippines

[pinoyme]

Hi:


The Philippines being an archipelago of 7000 islands (exact number depends on whether it's low or high tide), there has always been regionalism here.

But there has never been ethnic hatred.

Frankly speaking, I doubt if most of the US Army's (and that of some USMCs) tactics during the Philippine-American War could be used in Iraq.

One factor that most likely caused the middle class to go over en masse to the American side was that many of them did not think the Philippine revolutionary army had a chance.

The First Philippine Republic received no international support. And this was the Age of Imperialism, not the age of former colonies establishing themselves as independent republics.

Moreover, the middle class always had modest demands. It was only when the Spanish government started frustrating them and imprisoning, exiling, and even executing them for these that they went over to revolutionary mode.

The decision to shift to guerrilla warfare was made after initial battles showed the Philippine revolutionary army was outclassed in terms of military skills, logistics, and heavy equipment. The Battle of La Loma, then a suburb north of Manila--which was so one-sided in casualties illustrated this.

And this fact Amercians must finally face: Tortures and hamlettings were widely employed. General Arthur MacArthur efficiently, ruthelessly, and effectively suppressed news reporting on these matters.

Cheers.

[Jedburgh]

On the Huk Rebellion:

DoD, Dec 62: Lessons Learned: The Philippines, 1946-1953


Rand, Aug 70: The Huk Rebellion in the Philippines: Quantitative Approaches

...Explanations of insurgent control of given areas have varied from the socio-economic to the quasi-military. This study examines alternative statistical models that try to assess the causal factors involved in insurgent control in central Luzon...

...All of the formal models suggest that what insurgents do -- their terror and coercion -- is a stronger explanation of current insurgent control than is the socio-economic status of the population...

[SWJED]

On the Huk Rebellion:

DoD, Dec 62: Lessons Learned: The Philippines, 1946-1953


Rand, Aug 70: The Huk Rebellion in the Philippines: Quantitative Approaches

Sent in by Jedburgh for posting on the SWJ / SWC - Counter-guerrilla Operations in the Philippines, 1946-1953. A seminar on the Huk campaign held at Fort Bragg, NC, 15 June 1961.

[pinoyme]

Hi:

There is a book, "The Huk Rebellion" based on what was originally a doctoral dissertation for a Phd in political science.

It was written by a political scientist, an American whose name I unfortunately am unsure if I can spell correctly at this moment of posting. I came across it more than 20 years ago. I think its author was Dr. Bernard Kirklievett.

His analysis prompted a reply from Dr. Jesus Lava, former chairman of the politburo of the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas. It was written in Tagalog by this doctor of medicine who was among the leaders of the Filipino Communists from the mid-1930s to the 1950s. He died in February 2002.

I believe students of COIN should read these two works also if they wish to gain insights on the Huk rebellion and its continuing relevance to COIN issues.

I wish I could now download the RAND and other articles on the Huk Rebellion. Unfortunately, the effects of the Taiwan quake on the Internet still continue in the Philippines, making connectivity still infinitely slow. *sigh*

Anyway, Cheers.

[GPaulus]

Agreed, Iraq is not the Phillippines and it is not America, but we can learn a lesson from both in order to secure victory. It is clear that we must stop the hemorrhaging in Iraq. To do this we must borrow a chapter from our own US history and the Phillippines experience. The “Elusive Iraq Strategy” is not as elusive as one might think. I draw a corollary to Alvin Hanson, the architect of the "New Deal" during the great depression. General Chiarelli (past commander of troops in Iraq) said it himself that there is a total economic collapse in Iraq. "One of the reasons the insurgents are fighting is because they don't have economic opportunities. We need to create those opportunities, to stop the bloodshed." In a May article of Military Officer, a military engineer wrote, “the most striking thing in Iraq is the extreme poverty. I’ve been to the Philippines and saw poverty. But at least they could eat. Here there is sewage and trash on the ground. Shepherds take their sheep to eat from the trash.”

Imagine what chaos we would have if 70% of males 18 to 40 years old were unemployment in the big cities--New Orleans, and New York City and Chicago and Detroit.... Imagine if it occurred for more than three years and with each day, people had little hope for a brighter tomorrow. The real answer to the insurgency problem in Iraq is in the creation of "A Cause to Live For" that is greater than their perceived "Cause to die for...." The solution must stand on three pillars--economic first, military second (for security and stability), and political legitimacy. We must (in conjunction with the Iraqi Government,) “Stand-up Iraq” by converting military camps to secured employment camps on a gradual basis using an “Ink Blot” methodology to rally the Iraqi people to a common cause (rebuilding "their" country brick by brick and in restoring HOPE). This is the “Real Deal.” That said, it can’t be over emphasized that this plan must be an Iraqi government plan of the people, by the people, for the people, so that they shall not perish.

In my travels around the world, regardless of culture, regardless of race, regardless of religion, people have more in common than differences. People want an opportunity for a job that provides a living wage, they want their health and they want to spend time with their family--in the end, it is simply surprising how little it takes to satisfy the human who has nothing. And, finally they want shelter, security and safety. Note however, that security is a double edge sword. You must have security but too much takes money away from the recovery effort and little progress is made to demonstrate real improvements.

There is a huge misunderstanding .... There's a belief that we have a defined enemy out there, and once you either put those folks in jail or you kill them, the fighting will just stop. That's just not the case. There is a root cause of the insurgency in Iraq and it is not religion, not terrorism, not race, not sectarian rifts, it is poverty. I was there, I spent this last year of my life there. They are fighting for "primal needs"--money, food, power, control, survival etc. Their fight is not an ideological manifesto like the media leads us to believe. The IEDs are set by Iraqi males and not from an outside Jihad.

The plan must provide public works “pick and shovel” reconstruction jobs to the Iraqi people with compensation, but in exchange they must live on their secured local employment camp. It is government reconstruction at its most basic level.

Now the lesson from the Phillippines--The requirement for the men to live on the camp is a key strategy for success in that it takes workers off of the streets and out of lawless activities while providing income producing jobs. Isolate the insurgent from the general population. We have met the enemy and they are locals--males 18-40 years old.

[120mm]

Prior to the war, unemployment in Iraq was 60%, if we are to believe the INTSUMs. One major difference was the level of welfare, enforced military service, and Saddam Hussein's terror campaign.

Now how do we go about making those improvements in the midst of chaos? I'm wondering exactly how important Hussein's terror campaign was to the enforcement of order?

Not that we need to emulate it, but the realization may show us exactly how deep the pit is that we are in. I think the "bad guys" can interdict economic reforms much easier than we can implement them.

I also get real nervous when folks propose economic solutions to societal problems. I think that the leading cause of violence among 18-40 year old males is more likely that it is stimulating than it is economically-based.

[slapout9]

I also get real nervous when folks propose economic solutions to societal problems. I think that the leading cause of violence among 18-40 year old males is more likely that it is stimulating than it is economically-based.

120mm, this is a critical point. I think through the process of stimulation it also becomes addictive and is a very hard problem to solve.

[120mm]

I thought about this on my drive home last night. If you embrace the economic cause and treatment in Iraq, you are in effect correctly identifying a problem, but incorrectly nominating a solution.

An analogy: The Titanic sunk, because of improper heat-treating techniques of it's hull plates. If the hull plates weren't as brittle, the collision with the iceberg wouldn't have caused as much trauma. Therefore, once you have the collision, wouldn't it make sense to sit the entire crew down and have some nice classes on hull plate heat-treating? Of course, at that point, treating the cause would have no positive impact on outcomes.

So, if one wishes to treat the cause of the current violence in Iraq, you need to apply the tourniquet of "security" first. And, like a tourniquet, you are forced to cause damage in order to save the victim. Then, you can treat the base causes that "may" improve the long-term situation.

[GPaulus]

Regarding the economic solution proposed above. A key strategic point must be made. In COIN operations, it is essential to isolate the insurgents on the battle space. In the Philippines, we did this using a scorch and burn policy. Once isolated, the insurgents can be neutralized. However, in Iraq it is much different. The only way to isolate the insurgents is to create a “Cause to Live For, that is greater than their Cause to Die For.” Offer anyone that wants honest work the opportunity to help rebuild Iraq brick by brick. The Iraqi government’s role is to establish the local reconstruction work camps (Civilian Conservation Corps equivalent) and then enlist men 18-40 years old to live on the camps in exchange for pay and security. The insurgents are locals and most would choose an honest living if the conditions and opportunity for work were provided by their government. It is the “broken window theory” in its most basic form. Chaos breeds chaos. We must stop the chaos by taking care of the small things—refuge cleanup, remove broken down cars, burned out structures, fix the “broken windows.” Government legitimacy would come with the first payday for the men on the camp.

It is given that the work camps will have past insurgents on them--that is OK. The camps must be secured and be highly localized with no more than 1000 men and with no more then 100 men per work team. Many will do their work on the camp— plan work projects, keep the camp running, teach, train and educate. Others will go out into the community to do labor intensive reconstruction projects.

The military’s and ISF’s role is critical too. They must provide area security for these work teams and bases, and they must search down insurgents that are unwilling to commit to rebuilding Iraq. Security is still critical but security is a double edge sword—you must have just enough, but too much creates conditions for failure—a police state…the community becomes the inmates and the security becomes the guards.

Additionally, it must be understood that recovery cannot take root unless basic human needs are met. Aristotle said, “Poverty is the father of Crime, Revolution and Corruption.” The needs in Iraq are clearly based on Maslow’s hierarchy and apply to the community, and not just to individuals. In other words, the rebels fighting on the streets are doing so because it provides them the basic utility to meet their primal needs for food, water, shelter, income, power, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. A corollary to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is that in as much as Maslow studied the response to human needs, he did not suggest that the converse of his theory is true—that is, when a society fails to provide for essential needs of its people, then its people will self-organize along lines using the lowest common denominator that has the ability to meet those primal needs from lowest to highest. In all cases, humans will organize along alliances that provide the greatest utility for meeting the hierarchical needs. This alliance may be along sectarian lines, tribal ties, gangs or even a nameless insurgency.

I am presenting my paper, “the Elusive Iraq Strategy--Creating a Cause to Live For” at the University of Mass, Boston. I hope to create a “Tipping Point” but I sincerely appreciate the frank dialogue and thoughtful discourse.

[120mm]

"The insurgents are locals and most would choose an honest living if the conditions and opportunity for work were provided by their government."

I completely disagree with this statement. I also think the economic causal model of crime is fallacious. As is the medical model. Though you can make a ton of money, and be a darling of certain political groups by expounding it.

Excitement and power are much more powerful causes than economic, especially when the "by-product" of crime/insurgency is money/power/support. OBL is not living in a cave because of economic reasons. Terrorists tend to be upper-middle class folks, and their economic needs tend to be filled before they start their movements.

I think this would make a great discussion topic, though, but it is slightly off-topic for the subject.

[tequila]

120mm --- Do you believe that most of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners?

[GPaulus]

This is a correct statement but dont confuse terrorists with insurgents. Terrorists are selfactualizing, whereas the insurgents are primal in their motives. This is a significant difference and misunderstanding among many. The major difference is that the insurgency targets are much more tactical, whereas the terrorist are more strategic in nature. It is important that the two be kept separate because the methods of engagement are significantly different and the momentum that is gained when one is attached to the other is synergistic. While I was there all of last year, the insurgents were local. Outsiders were well less than 1% of those in the fight.

The terrorist is politically motivated desiring to empose his ideological views. The insurgent is apolitical and much more primal in their motives as compared to terrorism. Insurgency warfare is not politically or religiously motivated. Notice how this flies in the face of the conventional war fighter’s paradigm proposed by Clausewitz, “War is the extension of politics by other means.” Insurgents don’t have a goal of winning although they would not mind seeing their enemy fail. They win if the struggle is protracted and continues to gain momentum—that breeds chaos. Finally, insurgency battles are small scale quick engagements that are executed locally within kilometers of their homes.

This is not to say that insurgents do not get outside support, momentum and efficacy from the outside, and from each other. They certainly gain influence and power from the outside and even funding or support may be from external sources but in the aggregate, there is not enough self-interest for large numbers of outsiders to physically risk fighting at the grass root level. And, those that do fight are doing so for reasons much different then the primal needs of the insurgents. The primary rebel movement however, is local insurgency.

[120mm]

120mm --- Do you believe that most of the insurgents in Iraq are foreigners?

I don't think it's relevant to the economic cause of insurgency, which is what I am objecting to.

I wrote a nice missive on this, and it was lost in the ethernet. I do not have time to write it again, but may do a paper on it in the future.

Basically, my thesis is that warriors and criminals share common traits, separated by societal acceptance; and that the economic basis for war and crime is false; rather, both war and crime are committed because it is exciting and warriors and criminals both pursue excitement over all things.

Today, in Iraq, there is more economic opportunity for more people, than before the invasion, the difference being that there is less security, and Saddam found an ingenious, yet scummy way to sanction criminals/crime in his internal security forces.

[jcustis]

This is a correct statement but dont confuse terrorists with insurgents. Terrorists are selfactualizing, whereas the insurgents are primal in their motives. This is a significant difference and misunderstanding among many. The major difference is that the insurgency targets are much more tactical, whereas the terrorist are more strategic in nature. It is important that the two be kept separate because the methods of engagement are significantly different and the momentum that is gained when one is attached to the other is synergistic. While I was there all of last year, the insurgents were local. Outsiders were well less than 1% of those in the fight.

The terrorist is politically motivated desiring to empose his ideological views. The insurgent is apolitical and much more primal in their motives as compared to terrorism. Insurgency warfare is not politically or religiously motivated. Notice how this flies in the face of the conventional war fighter’s paradigm proposed by Clausewitz, “War is the extension of politics by other means.” Insurgents don’t have a goal of winning although they would not mind seeing their enemy fail. They win if the struggle is protracted and continues to gain momentum—that breeds chaos. Finally, insurgency battles are small scale quick engagements that are executed locally within kilometers of their homes.

This is not to say that insurgents do not get outside support, momentum and efficacy from the outside, and from each other. They certainly gain influence and power from the outside and even funding or support may be from external sources but in the aggregate, there is not enough self-interest for large numbers of outsiders to physically risk fighting at the grass root level. And, those that do fight are doing so for reasons much different then the primal needs of the insurgents. The primary rebel movement however, is local insurgency.

Sir,

I've read your various posts on insurgents vs. terrorists with interest, but I'm not quite sure I see compelling contrasts between the two classifiers. Would you care to start a new thread and develop these thoughts in more depth? For example, I can be a little slow at times, but I have a hard time understanding what you mean by this statement: "Terrorists are selfactualizing, whereas the insurgents are primal in their motives."

In particular, if we have both terrorists and insurgents opposing us in Iraq, how would you say they break out, percentage-wise, and what significant attacks would you attribute to either group?

[GPaulus]

Sir,

Thank you for your patients with my rambling on this topic. I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight. However, some experts will quickly say that insurgency and terrorism are inextricably linked. In doing so however, they would fail to recognize the consequence of this association. In my studies, the two are only loosely connected but often each gains tremendous momentum when the two are used interchangeably. I also believe that when we misrepresent one as the other, we do damage to our effort. It is, in our terms "a combat multiplyier" for the enemy in its most synergistic form. For example, when I associate what is happening in Iraq to a religious Jihad or a struggle against demoracracy, it gives the appearance of unification of one large group against another, and of a large scale almost global struggle. The risk is that we incite globally--“Beware the zealous leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a fervor, for this is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by hatred, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am, Caesar.” Quote from Julius Caesar.

I think a new thread would be helpful to me too. We should define the two.

Here are some of the things that I believe are the salient differences between the two:

Insurgencies are conditions in which the insurgents spawn within a population because the government will not, or simply cannot provide the appropriate governance for life (law, order, security, water, electricity, sanitation, etc. This population can be likened to the criminal gang and organized crime elements more then freedom fighters or terrorists. Their cause is never an ideology or idealistic dogma, (it is more primal and basic) and therefore they will have the propensity to ebb and flow based on the need of the day and the targets of opportunity. In other words, their cause can change based on the situation. Today insurgents might attack American fighters in response to the surge, tomorrow they might strike a Mosque in a form of sectarian retaliation, the next day it is the Iraq security forces. Their targets are most often tactical. Their goal has nothing to do with winning although they don't mind the enemies (plural) failing--they will fight anyone who tries to bring order. They win if the struggle is protracted because it is from the pure chaos that they get their Utility. Insurgencies are not religiously motivated; in as much as “they” want to present the appearance that they are religious in nature. This is in direct conflict with the traditional paradigm that the war fighter is accustomed. It is important to recognize that religion is ideological; an insurgency is not. This is not to say that religion and religious rhetoric is not important--it is to the insurgents because it gives the appearance of broad support, and it quickly organizes society for them into “us against them.” They gain if they breed hatred and distrust among other religious groups: Sunni, Shiites, Muslims and Christians. However, because they are not driven by a single ideology, members can quickly apostatize. This can be used as a COIN tool, and their members can be reformed.

The insurgents in Iraq are decentralized in their operations, are local within a small territorial range (kilometers from their home) and recruit their fighters from local talent. Here is an equation that predicts the probable distance from an IED strike to the insurgents' home base. P(b) = A * e**-Bx Where A and B are empirical constants determined from the enemy data sets. It is an exponential decay function. As the distance X from the insurgent’s base increases, the less probable that a single group committed it. It is believed that 90% of all insurgent attacks will occur within 15 km of their base.

The Terrorists on the other hand, have very much centralized command and control (decentralized in their execution) and will operate hundred up to thousands of kilometers from their command and control base of operations.
Their struggle is based on the terrorist’s commitment to violence as a small group (usually ranging in group size from few to less than one-hundred- fifty "card carrying" members) in order to intimidate a population or government to cause their perceived fundamental change. The group size is limited by command, control and confidentiality capabilities. Their cause is always ideological and political, based on group-actualization rather than self-serving. In other words, their belief is that what they do is for the "Public good"--acting on behalf of "all." It is aimed at the establishment, not decapitated states. Terrorism however enjoys the freedom to organize and operate unabated in failed states. Finally, rarely will anyone ever develop a counter-terrorist strategy to change this group’s apostasy--it is analogous to trying to change Rush Limbaugh from the right to the left--it simply cannot be done. Their beliefs are so deeply held that they appear to the world as radical and extreme. Terrorists may or may not be highly trained and their operations are top driven and centralized from the command and control elements. Their targets are always strategic. Because the terrorists act on behalf of all, they will never engage in grass roots fighting unless cornered into it. As a result, in my "Opinion," we have very few terrorist cells living in Iraq. Although the insurgents hope that we think differently.

I think a new string would be very helpful.

[pinoyme]

Hi:

I finally got to read online the US Defense Department phamphlet on Lessons from the Huk Campaign.

This being the case, it might be interesting to read the NPA's analysis of the "Lava revisionist's clique's debacle due to their leftwing adventurism."

It's in the first chapter of Amado Guerrero's "Philippine Society and Revolution"
The author is none other than Jose Ma. Sison, the Maoist intellectual who led the so-called re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines.


The book can be accessed online.

I do not know the exact URL address. Nevertheless, one can Google--or better still chacha (http:www.chacha.com) his name.

People subscribed to this newsgroup might get better insights on COIN strategies by reading him. A word of caution though, readers will have to be tolerant of the shrillness of the book's tenor.
And to think that Jose Ma. Sison was not only an English major while in college, but a writer of poetry as well.
Whether his poetry is good or wheter it sucks is nonetheless an issue better left to literary critics. :=)

Internet connectivity is now somewhat better in the Philippines. Hopefully, it shall finally be restored fully.

Cheers.

[Jedburgh]

...it might be interesting to read the NPA's analysis of the "Lava revisionist's clique's debacle due to their leftwing adventurism."

It's in the first chapter of Amado Guerrero's "Philippine Society and Revolution"
The author is none other than Jose Ma. Sison, the Maoist intellectual who led the so-called re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

The book can be accessed online....

Here's the link: Philippine Society and Revolution

AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION

Philippine Society and Revolution is an attempt to present in a comprehensive way from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought the main strands of Philippine history, the basic problem of the Filipino people, the prevailing social structure and the strategy and tactics and class logic of the revolutionary solution — which is the people’s democratic revolution.

This book serves to explain why the Communist Party of the Philippines has been reestablished to arouse and mobilize the broad masses of the people, chiefly the oppressed and exploited workers and peasants, against U.S. imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism now regnant in the present semicolonial and semifeudal society.

Philippine Society and Revolution can be used as a primer and can be studied in three consecutive or separate days by those interested in knowing the truth about the Philippines and in fighting for the genuine national and democratic interests of the entire Filipino people. The author offers this book as a starting point for every patriot in the land to make further class analysis and social investigation as the basis for concrete and sustained revolutionary action.

[jcustis]

Pinoyme,

Have you seen or heard of research into the connection between OFWs who work in the Gulf States, and radicalism in the southern provinces? Put another way, has anyone established a strong connection between Muslim radicals, and the fact that they work at some point overseas?

Maraming salamat po.

[pinoyme]

Hi:

Most OFWs in the Middle East are out to earn a living to provide for their families back home. That is their chief and only interest. Family values in the Philippines is a very big cultural thing and already existed long before the term was coined.

If there are links, they are surely minuscule. There is the Rajah Soliman movement--as reporterd in Philippine newspapers. It is reportedly made up of OFWs who are recent converts to Islam and have been recruited to sow terror in Manila.

All I know is what I have read in the papers. I suggest you get an RSS feed from the Philippine Daily Inquirer or Philippine Star.

Cheers and Walang Anuman (that's what Filipinos reply when thanked).