Broad thoughts on SFA for Land Forces

[Bill Moore]

Colin,

You're tackling a very important topic, but as some of the others have identified I think the way you framed the problem to be solved is a little off base. In weak states do we need to form "strong armies" or specifically tailored security forces that are appropriate for the security problems they actually have?

The example given about the PRU is an excellent example of an appropriate security force for COIN in "that" situation, but let's not forget S. Vietnam was defeated by an invasion from conventional forces, and obviously the PRU would have been relatively worthless against that type of threat. The point is we need to do a much better job of clarifying what the real versus perceived threats are and then "assist" the host nation in developing the "appropriate" capabilities, which in my view after doing this for a long time is rarely a strong army.

My conclusions are as follows:
*This is a thesis focused on weak states. Very hard to build strong armies in weak states. Examples abound, especially ANA.

*

Begin with the end in mind, and the end must be culturally appropriate and sustainable.

On the demand side, only way to build sustainable armies is
consensus through national dialogue.

*

Not that I disagree, but how did you come to this conclusion? I do think that any security force developed to counter internal threats must have a supporting narrative that resonates with their populace. Ultimately to be effective in promoting legitimacy (assuming that is a goal), they need to be perceived as wearing the white hat.

*Is it morally justifiable to recommend loosening the fixed boundaries so as to build stronger states, meaning millions more will die in addition to the millions lost during the post-45 period? This is a much wider matter than armies alone, and can only be decided in a wider audience. It is beyond the scope of a PhD thesis.

Now you're addressing the real issue, one that Armies can only solve through the relative constant use of coercive force. I think this is an entirely separate (though related) issue from your thesis.

Another point to consider is it always (or ever) desirable to help host nation's develop Armies made in our image and using our doctrine? When we create these molds in our image within a culture that isn't receptive to them they are too frequently defeated in battle by those with lesser equipment (amount and level of technology) and less training. Why? I really think that is the million dollar question, how do we help develop security forces that will win? Obviously history has demonstrated that numbers, training and technology alone do not determine the outcome of a fight. There are also the intangibles concerning will, fighting spirit, etc. IMO we need to stop focusing solely on how we build, or assist host nations build, foreign security forces that look like us, and then get excited about the misleading metrics of numbers of units produced, etc. instead of effectiveness in the operational environment.