Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
OK, but in War you assert your legitimacy by killing those who seek to dispute by force of arms. Once the bad guys are dead, you can have the political process decide the legitimacy.

In Irregular Warfare, you do not win by being the better government. You win by being the only government.

Violent, no doubt.

But given the inherent internal nature of insurgency and COIN, I am currently of the mind that calling it "war" is extremely counterproductive to effective COIN. Better to look at insurgency as a "Civil Emergency" and the military aspect of COIN through the doctrinal construct of "Military Support to Civil Authorities" (MSCA). I think this leads to healthier perspectives that are more likely to yield an enduring result.

To wage war on one's own populace is a slippery slope indeed.


As to sending one's military to conduct FID through that same MSCA construct in support on another nations COIN efforts; that is another thing as well.

I am drafting up a paper now that hits this in greater detail, tentatively titled "Changing the Lexicon - A Critical Step in Winning the Battle of the Narrative" that explore dropping the current lexicon rooted in war and COIN; and evoliving to lexicon rooted in MSCA and Criminal Law. Actions will certainly remain "war-like" for a while in Afghanistan, but with the idea that words proceed action, and that changing how we think as well as how we talk will pave the way more quickly to reducing military support and evolving from military prosecution to civilian prosecution of those who act out.

If you'd like, I'll push you a draft in a week or so.

Bob