Warrior Ethos

[Brandon Friedman]

Sorry, but this strike to the heart of the issue. There is no such thing as "COIN techniques" - 99% of actions performed in COIN are applicable in other forms of warfare. What you are talking about is not something exclusive to something called COIN. It is a means to end, to applied as and when necessary, and within a political context.

Call it whatever you like.

You are going to have to do things that are not synonymous with "respecting their culture" - killing, searches, etc, so why back yourself into that corner with sloppy semantics?

If you're not willing to empathize with the population--to try and put yourself in their shoes--and to show respect for their culture and history, then you'll never know your enemy.

And what do killing and searches have to do with not respecting their culture? Nobody said when you search a house you have to completely toss it. And you can be shooting at a guy and still respect his culture. You just don't have to respect the fact that he's trying to kill you. It's not personal. And if you've laid a solid foundation of mutual respect with the locals prior to that, then they tend to understand.

[William F. Owen]

Call it whatever you like.

Thanks, but I am not doing this to be a semantic pr*k. There is a real danger now that some, maybe a lot, think there is something called COIN and something call "War fighting" so the all the diverse reasons and conducts of warfare, are now in two boxes. When you they find another conflict that doesn't fit, they'll invent another box. In fact if you look at "Hybrid" and the Lebanon, they did.
Words matter, and so does the meaning. If it doesn't you can't have doctrine, because you cannot teach it.

If you're not willing to empathize with the population--to try and put yourself in their shoes--and to show respect for their culture and history, then you'll never know your enemy.

I can empathise with them on a very basic human level. That's entirely normal, and you don't need to be taught to do it.
You can't tell soldiers to respect a culture that holds values they don't understand and are in some cases abhorrent to them.
Do you think it's okay to deny women's right? Allow male domestic violence? Arrange marriages? Honour killings? Consider some races sub-human?
These are unacceptable, and you should not respect cultures, or those elements of culture that advocated such things.

Culture is a highly complex area with many different forms of expression, and vastly variable, so the blanket guidance "respect culture," is so simplistic as to cease to be useful.

Let me give you a specific example. If you went to search a house and woman told you from behind a close door, "my husband is not home, go away!" would you? Respecting her culture means you go away. Understanding her culture, means going and getting two woman from another house, who can protect "her honour" and tell her husband, while you search her home.

World of difference. - and at some point, all the allowances and negotiations run out. If you can't find other women, you are going in anyway, and in some cases, that could get that woman beaten or even killed, by the husband, and there is nothing you can do about it. - then turn around to the platoon and tell them this is a culture they need to respect.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

"sloppy semantics" going on here (love that term wilf).

The term “respect” is a bit subject to interpretation since it can mean "to hold in esteem or honor" as well as “to show regard or consideration for.”

I for one do not respect the Arab / Muslim culture since it is decidedly misogynist and in many ways sadistic, ignoring basic human rights, particularly with regards to women.

However, when dealing with Arabs / Muslims I show respect for aspects of their cultural norms in not handing them items with my left hand, not exposing the soles of my feet, not touching the top of heads, and especially being mindful of women's precarious position in regards to contact with non-family member males since it could be very detrimental to their personal health and well being.

I think some folks are using the term in the latter sense vice the former; where as wilf is solidly using it in the former. But that's just me.

[William F. Owen]

I for one do not respect the Arab / Muslim culture since it is decidedly misogynist and in many ways sadistic, ignoring basic human rights, particularly with regards to women.

... I'm your brother on that one.

However, when dealing with Arabs / Muslims I show respect for aspects of their cultural norms in not handing them items with my left hand, not exposing the soles of my feet, not touching the top of heads, and especially being mindful of women's precarious position in regards to contact with non-family member males since it could be very detrimental to their personal health and well being.

... and someone taught you good behaviour and toleration.

I'm told the best Schwarma is in Haifa! Get your ass over here!

[Ken White]

with Wilf and Umar Al-Mokhtār. I can know and militarily adapt to an alien culture and accord the populace respect and some cultural awareness but there are and have to be limits or I am not doing my job and am taking the easy way out. I can make people working for me behave responsibly and I should do so -- but I'm not in a position to make them accept a culture that is alien to them.

I can know my enemy -- though in the situation we're talking here, the population should not be my enemy -- and I can respect him for his capabilities but that doesn't mean that I or any soldier has to accept any tenets of that culture.

I also suggest that in every foreign nation in which I've served, no matter how nice and respectful I or the Troops were, the locals did not want to understand us with only rare individual exceptions -- most of 'em were quite polite (most peoples are far more polite than Americans) and / or respectful or fearful as the situation seemed to dictate -- but they really just wanted us gone, out of their sight and out of their country as quickly as possible. A soldier in a foreign land had better never lose sight of that fact of life.

On a believe it or not allied note, Brandon, you mention that the Administration pushed Congress around in the lead up to invading Iraq. Possibly true and of note is the fact that the pushers you cite were former Congroids. Does this mean they 'knew their enemy?' Or could it simply mean that Congress' lack of gumption and concern for their own reelection has more to do with their rollover than did any lack of 'expertise?'

As I pointed out, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations were quite poor strategically and they were loaded with veterans as were the Congresses of the time. I'm not at all sure your desire for more veterans in Congress will do what you appear to think it will do. The historical evidence over the last 200 years and particularly recently is not favorable. I think every Mother's advice "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it..." is probably appropriate.

[Brandon Friedman]

On a believe it or not allied note, Brandon, you mention that the Administration pushed Congress around in the lead up to invading Iraq. Possibly true and of note is the fact that the pushers you cite were former Congroids. Does this mean they 'knew their enemy?' Or could it simply mean that Congress' lack of gumption and concern for their own reelection has more to do with their rollover than did any lack of 'expertise?'

Ken,

Concern for a politician's re-election is always paramount. In this case it means they didn't have the popular support or political capital to oppose in any coherent fashion. But when a politician has relevant personal experience, that brings with it a wealth of political capital. By that, I mean it's much easier--with voters back home--for a senator who's a doctor to feasibly oppose a popular health care proposal. Or for a Congressman who served as a maneuver commander to oppose a widely accepted defense policy.

[Ken White]

unfortunately, mine is historically and actualities of a long life based and thus is far less benign.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

in the election cycle.

By that, I mean it's much easier--with voters back home--for a senator who's a doctor to feasibly oppose a popular health care proposal. Or for a Congressman who served as a maneuver commander to oppose a widely accepted defense policy.

One would hope, but that is not necessarily the case. Politicians often vote issues after calculating the strategic impact of the vote. Or as contrarian to the opposing party’s vote, regardless as to whether the legislation is a good thing for the people.

Ken’s experience from historically and actualities of a long life is based on his experiences back with the Constitutional Convention.

Mine just from both proximity and a politician father who had more faces than one could count.

Brandon, you hit it on the head with this: “Concern for a politician's re-election is always paramount.” That's it, and not taking a stand that could jeopardize that goal. Consider that most in Congress make nice long winded speeches, to an empty chamber. It puts them on record, but come re-election time they are rarely called on their voting record or their stances. They run a campaign based on the “flavor of the week” issues in order to keep their seat, trusting the short memory and lack of political inquisitiveness of their constituency.

IMHO the people that routinely participate in this forum have a higher than normal curiosity about the world around them and the events which impact their’s and other’s lives. The vast majority of people, however, tend to live within very narrowly focused world views. Politicians know this, in fact they rely upon it.

[CPT Foley]

"sloppy semantics" going on here (love that term wilf).

The term “respect” is a bit subject to interpretation since it can mean "to hold in esteem or honor" as well as “to show regard or consideration for.”

I for one do not respect the Arab / Muslim culture since it is decidedly misogynist and in many ways sadistic, ignoring basic human rights, particularly with regards to women.

However, when dealing with Arabs / Muslims I show respect for aspects of their cultural norms in not handing them items with my left hand, not exposing the soles of my feet, not touching the top of heads, and especially being mindful of women's precarious position in regards to contact with non-family member males since it could be very detrimental to their personal health and well being.

I think some folks are using the term in the latter sense vice the former; where as wilf is solidly using it in the former. But that's just me.

When I advocate respecting other cultures I'm not suggesting Soldiers embrace them, like them, or in any way adopt a relativistic approach toward culture. You can find aspects of a culture abhorrent and still treat members of the culture with respect. It makes me want to smash furniture when I hear Officers & NCOs refer to Haji this & that. Most of them know on an intellectual level that it's probably a bad idea to make light of one of the pillars of Islam. I suspect they succumb to it because the terminology is so widespread. We are that tone deaf as a force. I want to be clear, my issue is not based on fairness or sensitivity or ethics. It is purely base on pragmatism. We will have greater success garnering support in the AO, region, worldwide when our forces operate with the same meticulous care that we have for our arms and equipment toward cultural considerations. It's not a sensitivity issue, it's a success issue.

[Brandon Friedman]

When I advocate respecting other cultures I'm not suggesting Soldiers embrace them, like them, or in any way adopt a relativistic approach toward culture. You can find aspects of a culture abhorrent and still treat members of the culture with respect. It makes me want to smash furniture when I hear Officers & NCOs refer to Haji this & that. Most of them know on an intellectual level that it's probably a bad idea to make light of one of the pillars of Islam. I suspect they succumb to it because the terminology is so widespread. We are that tone deaf as a force. I want to be clear, my issue is not based on fairness or sensitivity or ethics. It is purely base on pragmatism. We will have greater success garnering support in the AO, region, worldwide when our forces operate with the same meticulous care that we have for our arms and equipment toward cultural considerations. It's not a sensitivity issue, it's a success issue.

I agree with this.

[Brandon Friedman]

Thanks, but I am not doing this to be a semantic pr*k. There is a real danger now that some, maybe a lot, think there is something called COIN and something call "War fighting" so the all the diverse reasons and conducts of warfare, are now in two boxes. When you they find another conflict that doesn't fit, they'll invent another box. In fact if you look at "Hybrid" and the Lebanon, they did.
Words matter, and so does the meaning. If it doesn't you can't have doctrine, because you cannot teach it.

While there might be some people who want to put "COIN" and "war fighting" in two different boxes, I'm not one of them, and I never suggested that. But you're absolutely right that words do matter.

I can empathise with them on a very basic human level. That's entirely normal, and you don't need to be taught to do it.
You can't tell soldiers to respect a culture that holds values they don't understand and are in some cases abhorrent to them.
Do you think it's okay to deny women's right? Allow male domestic violence? Arrange marriages? Honour killings? Consider some races sub-human?
These are unacceptable, and you should not respect cultures, or those elements of culture that advocated such things.

I'm not going to get sucked into broad-brushing a billion Muslims here. That's absurd. Of course we don't respect men who abuse women or who practice honor killings. But when you walk into a city like, say, Baghdad with the mentality and preconception that the inhabitants are a bunch of wife-beating, 11th century savages, then you're setting yourself up for failure. When you enter a situation like that, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt--regardless of what you think you know about them. And if they disappoint you (or try to kill you), then you can make the adjustment. But when you allow an air of "their-culture-is-abhorrent"/"hajji-this-hajji-that" to permeate your unit in advance of any interaction, I'm telling you, it's going to cause problems for everyone.

Culture is a highly complex area with many different forms of expression, and vastly variable, so the blanket guidance "respect culture," is so simplistic as to cease to be useful.

Fair enough.

Let me give you a specific example. If you went to search a house and woman told you from behind a close door, "my husband is not home, go away!" would you? Respecting her culture means you go away. Understanding her culture, means going and getting two woman from another house, who can protect "her honour" and tell her husband, while you search her home.

World of difference. - and at some point, all the allowances and negotiations run out. If you can't find other women, you are going in anyway, and in some cases, that could get that woman beaten or even killed, by the husband, and there is nothing you can do about it. - then turn around to the platoon and tell them this is a culture they need to respect.

The ideal answer here is neither. In ultra-conservative areas like eastern Afghanistan, the answer is to bring along both Western female troops and plenty of Afghan troops. If that's not possible, then, like you say, in most--but not all--cases you have to go in anyway. If it's viewed in the community as a lack of respect, then it's something you'll have to take up with the village elders. But if you've shown respect in the past and you have good working relationships in the area, then it should work. On the other hand, if they're all Taliban, then you can, you know, make the adjustment.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Thanks, but I am not doing this to be a semantic pr*k. There is a real danger now that some, maybe a lot, think there is something called COIN and something call "War fighting" so the all the diverse reasons and conducts of warfare, are now in two boxes. When you they find another conflict that doesn't fit, they'll invent another box. In fact if you look at "Hybrid" and the Lebanon, they did.

Totally agree! (Of course, I expand the singular box a little further than you do). Let's add another part of the danger of constantly expanding taxonomies: for every "new" taxon, you need new "experts". Of course, that means that you have to hire new consultants, pay for new research (and translators), and set up new organizational units. Now, I would never say that that was a bureaucrats dream, but...

Words matter, and so does the meaning. If it doesn't you can't have doctrine, because you cannot teach it.

I think Lewis Carroll captured this nicely...

I can empathise with them on a very basic human level. That's entirely normal, and you don't need to be taught to do it.
You can't tell soldiers to respect a culture that holds values they don't understand and are in some cases abhorrent to them.

Hmm, I'm not sure about the first - 'tis a little too optimistic for me.

On the second point, of course you can tell soldiers to respect a culture that they find abhorrent! Of course, telling them to respect it is one thing, getting them to respect it is another. And, if they totally do "respect" it (in the cultural relativity suffering from PMS [Post-Modernist Syndrome ] sense), then you have probably just helped your enemy.

Somewhat less on the tongue-in-cheek level, this is a problem Anthropologists have been dealing with for a century or so, and the British military has been dealing with for longer. "Respect" should, IMO, always be interpreted in two different, and distinct, ways: a) for the commonality between two people (whatever that may be - it varies), and b) for utilitarian purposes of completing the "mission", whether that be countering an insurgency or getting an ethnography published.

Do you think it's okay to deny women's right? Allow male domestic violence? Arrange marriages? Honour killings? Consider some races sub-human? These are unacceptable, and you should not respect cultures, or those elements of culture that advocated such things.

Wilf, I had no idea that you hated 19th century British culture so much !

Culture is a highly complex area with many different forms of expression, and vastly variable, so the blanket guidance "respect culture," is so simplistic as to cease to be useful.

Actually, I would go further - it is outright dangerous simply because it is so semantically loose. One of the worst things I ever saw as a graduate student was another grad student so traumatized by being told she had to "respect" the people she was studying that she ended up having a nervous breakdown. BTW, her fieldwork was with a group that is considered to be "nice" by most people.

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

I'm not going to get sucked into broad-brushing a billion Muslims here. That's absurd. Of course we don't respect men who abuse women or who practice honor killings. But when you walk into a city like, say, Baghdad with the mentality and preconception that the inhabitants are a bunch of wife-beating, 11th century savages, then you're setting yourself up for failure.

I live amongst Arabs, albeit where they are a minority (20%). Rub shoulders with them everyday, and buy my bread and coffee from them, and talk to them once in a while - usually about football ..Eyuh!. Good folks.. mostly.

The secret to peaceful co-existence is mostly good behaviour.

Hmm, I'm not sure about the first - 'tis a little too optimistic for me.

Me too. Yes, you probably have to beat it into Rifleman F*cknuts, and Cpl Doomweeby, via 3 hours of lectures and make it very plain that any transgression will result in sever penalties, but I am strongly against the "they have a point," justification of beliefs that run contrary the values of the organisation you might be in.

Wilf, I had no idea that you hated 19th century British culture so much !

I am a product of it! I am a walking talking 1899 public School boy! My wife get irritated when I call here countrymen "The natives," and complains that it is very patronising the use the same tone of voice with the locals, that she has heard me use, when talking to pets!
Poor girl is a foreigner, so can't understand!

[CPT Foley]

Hi Wilf,



Totally agree! (Of course, I expand the singular box a little further than you do). Let's add another part of the danger of constantly expanding taxonomies: for every "new" taxon, you need new "experts". Of course, that means that you have to hire new consultants, pay for new research (and translators), and set up new organizational units. Now, I would never say that that was a bureaucrats dream, but...



I think Lewis Carroll captured this nicely...




Hmm, I'm not sure about the first - 'tis a little too optimistic for me.

On the second point, of course you can tell soldiers to respect a culture that they find abhorrent! Of course, telling them to respect it is one thing, getting them to respect it is another. And, if they totally do "respect" it (in the cultural relativity suffering from PMS [Post-Modernist Syndrome ] sense), then you have probably just helped your enemy.

Somewhat less on the tongue-in-cheek level, this is a problem Anthropologists have been dealing with for a century or so, and the British military has been dealing with for longer. "Respect" should, IMO, always be interpreted in two different, and distinct, ways: a) for the commonality between two people (whatever that may be - it varies), and b) for utilitarian purposes of completing the "mission", whether that be countering an insurgency or getting an ethnography published.



Wilf, I had no idea that you hated 19th century British culture so much !



Actually, I would go further - it is outright dangerous simply because it is so semantically loose. One of the worst things I ever saw as a graduate student was another grad student so traumatized by being told she had to "respect" the people she was studying that she ended up having a nervous breakdown. BTW, her fieldwork was with a group that is considered to be "nice" by most people.

Cheers,

Marc

You make a good point. I was a bit sloppy in my description that our Soldiers should respect other cultures. That's not what I meant. They should endeavor to display respect for other cultures because it will contribute toward mission accomplishment and the overall effort. Owen is also correct in that there will certainly be instances where we may have to takes some actions which will be viewed as disrespectful, e.g., searching homes with no males present, ops during Ramadan, etc. The fact that there will be exceptions in no way discredits the approach. The less people we piss off that we don't have to is an important consideration.

[Hacksaw]

Disclaimor first

I'd like to clarify that my brief telling of the history behind the "Warrior" creed was meant to be informative rather than an endorsement... my only endorsement is that I thought the cumulative effect of the changes that resulted from the TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Creed) was positive....

Brandon... Rakasson (probably spelled that wrong, but what the hell)... Ironically it was the Deputy Commander that led TF Soldier...

WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...

CPT Foley... there is nothing like a cocksure company grade officer (that's a compliment), but judging from your comments I'm thinking you are close to moving into the next phase of your career... and I can offer no better advise than to say the first rule is to understand you don't really understand anything... that can't lead to paralysis until you do reach that mythical situational awareness, only that there is value in considering that others may be right even when their views are in direct conflict with your own...

which brings us full circle... has the changes of TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Ethos) worked???

I think largely yes... while not a perfect set of solutions and open to improvements... and I have no idea whether non-combat arms Soldiers are more warrior-like in disposition... I do know that Soldiers, regardless of rank and specialty are far better prepared to achieve their mission in a hostile environment - and I think it insignificant that we use the term Warrior in a creed....

Now I'm done

[William F. Owen]

WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...

Sir, I am in complete agreement and defer to your wisdom, good looks, alleged sexual prowess, and impeccable dress sense!

...turning to the right and falling out....

[Hacksaw]

Well takes one to know one... fell out after posting

[CPT Foley]

Disclaimor first

I'd like to clarify that my brief telling of the history behind the "Warrior" creed was meant to be informative rather than an endorsement... my only endorsement is that I thought the cumulative effect of the changes that resulted from the TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Creed) was positive....

Brandon... Rakasson (probably spelled that wrong, but what the hell)... Ironically it was the Deputy Commander that led TF Soldier...

WILF... In the end you are right (mostly)... however right or wrong - a Soldier does what a Soldier does out of necessity... sometimes that is non-kinetic operations to better secure the population that leads to improved intel to either kill or capture...

CPT Foley... there is nothing like a cocksure company grade officer (that's a compliment), but judging from your comments I'm thinking you are close to moving into the next phase of your career... and I can offer no better advise than to say the first rule is to understand you don't really understand anything... that can't lead to paralysis until you do reach that mythical situational awareness, only that there is value in considering that others may be right even when their views are in direct conflict with your own...

which brings us full circle... has the changes of TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Ethos) worked???

I think largely yes... while not a perfect set of solutions and open to improvements... and I have no idea whether non-combat arms Soldiers are more warrior-like in disposition... I do know that Soldiers, regardless of rank and specialty are far better prepared to achieve their mission in a hostile environment - and I think it insignificant that we use the term Warrior in a creed....

Now I'm done

I will try to keep an open mind.

I found the article I referenced in my opening post. He makes his case much better than I.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview...c05/aylwin.pdf