Ill-Defined Problem Sets: A Discussion

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's W, We can not embrace change, in other words, until we reliquish control.

That may be true, but it isn't germane to those in the fight. My point is you rejected population control as an effective COIN tactic, and my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. At the tactical/operational level it is essential. A counterinsurgency strategy must address populace control (it is the only means to isolate the populace from the enemy), which is always tailored to each individual situation. It rarely means employing the methods utilized in Malaysia or Algeria, which are the most frequently cited case studies because they were so extreme (but also effective). It seems you believe there is acceptable political middle ground that will be acceptable to the Islamists and those more moderate, and somehow this middle ground will emerge through some sort of natural political evolution under our gentle guiding hand. Sharia law and the extremists who want to impose a strict version of it are not going to accept anything less, so where is this compromise or evolution you speak of? If we're going to fight it (assuming that remains our policy in select locations such as Afghanistan), then we're (coalition/HN/US) going to have to exert some degree of control over the populace. You can't state that the population is key terrain then simply surrender that terrain to the enemy. For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.

I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.

Posted by Ken: Your point is well made and mentioning the western US (Eastern, too for that matter...) shows that genocide may leave residual problems which as Steve Blair pointed out with respect to earlier Spanish experience, "...didn't do them much good."

Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems. We strive for utopia, we don't live it.

[Bob's World]

That may be true, but it isn't germane to those in the fight. My point is you rejected population control as an effective COIN tactic, and my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. At the tactical/operational level it is essential. A counterinsurgency strategy must address populace control (it is the only means to isolate the populace from the enemy), which is always tailored to each individual situation. It rarely means employing the methods utilized in Malaysia or Algeria, which are the most frequently cited case studies because they were so extreme (but also effective). It seems you believe there is acceptable political middle ground that will be acceptable to the Islamists and those more moderate, and somehow this middle ground will emerge through some sort of natural political evolution under our gentle guiding hand. Sharia law and the extremists who want to impose a strict version of it are not going to accept anything less, so where is this compromise or evolution you speak of? If we're going to fight it (assuming that remains our policy in select locations such as Afghanistan), then we're (coalition/HN/US) going to have to exert some degree of control over the populace. You can't state that the population is key terrain then simply surrender that terrain to the enemy. For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.

I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.



Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems. We strive for utopia, we don't live it.

When was the last time you preferred to be "controlled" in some context, rather than been "supported.?"


The U.S. has interests. These must be supported, that is our job. But, if we do so in such a way that we offend the populaces of the countries where those interests lie, we harm our cause, rather than support it.

Interests will rarely match up, so this requires that we make reasonable compromise. Others before us have used their historic positions of power to ignore popular concerns and to enforce their will over others. Those power are all now minor players on the global scene. We can avoid their fate by refuting their tactics. We must, must, live up to our American heritage by being the one nation that marches to a different drummer.

The age of European dominance over others is over. We held their place to win the Cold War, but now that is over too. Now we enter a new age, and we can lead the way and prevail, or seek to obstruct the way and be over ran.

To me, the choice is obvious. We must lead.

[Ken White]

...For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.

I don't support arguments against populace control -- I merely say we cannot as a third party intervenor do it very well and therefor those who insist on it being done are asking for something that cannot be produced other than briefly and in a finite area -- in other words, lacking being the government and opting for Algerian or Malayan solutions, you are not going to control the populace of a nation today. Yes, the Talibs are attempting to do that but they can and are doing things we cannot do -- and they are slowly but surely turning more people against the Taliban solution.

I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.

I agree with that -- I did not and do not say do away with it -- I do say it is beyond difficult to do, so try we must but the probability of success in that aspect is not great. Been there, done that...

What can be and is being done is local, short time control and long time shaping. Makes the job harder but as you say, ain't no Utopias out there...

Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems.

Really? Well, the added (east) was simply to remind Bob's World that there were Indians in the east as well as in the west of the US but to get to your comment, let me repeat the salient point of that post of mine for you: ""with respect to earlier Spanish experience, "...didn't do them much good." " (emphasis added / kw). I believe Steve whom I referenced was pointing to the fact that the Spanish beat the US of A hands down in the genocide business and they got run completely off the continent so it didn't do them much good. So, yeah, Really...

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Ken, I merely say we cannot as a third party intervenor do it very well and therefor those who insist on it being done are asking for something that cannot be produced other than briefly and in a finite area -- in other words, lacking being the government and opting for Algerian or Malayan solutions, you are not going to control the populace of a nation today. Yes, the Talibs are attempting to do that but they can and are doing things we cannot do -- and they are slowly but surely turning more people against the Taliban solution.

Agreed, and we sometimes fail to mention that during the troubles both Malaysia and Algeria were colonies, so that somewhat mitigated the third party effect. Population control measures can include a wide range of activities, and I agree that some of them have a short shelf life due to the impact on those affected, but others like protecting the population must endure for the length of the crisis. Population control is not a "strategy", but rather a means to set conditions that will allow the political strategy to be implemented. In my view, population control creates a window of opportunity to do the real work that needs to be done. It isn't the end game.

""with respect to earlier Spanish experience, "...didn't do them much good." " (emphasis added / kw). I believe Steve whom I referenced was pointing to the fact that the Spanish beat the US of A hands down in the genocide business and they got run completely off the continent so it didn't do them much good. So, yeah, Really...

I don't think we should confuse genocide with population control, and I'm sure you agree with that. We're not talking Hitler's Final Solution, but rather a means for separating the populace from the insurgents. Furthermore, the Spanish during that time frame were highly ineffective at most things. They were the equivalent of the Christian Taliban during that era, and thus were incapable of learning, assimilating knowledge from other cultures, or modernizing a foreign culture until they got their church under control. Spain may be a great nation now, but during its dark period they were far behind the rest of Europe. Therefore, I don't think it is accurate to equate their genocidicial approach as the reason they failed, that was simply a reflection of their overall backwardness during that time frame. In the U.S. we were heavy handed also, but we were effective, why? I think like most things in life the answer is never simple or black & white.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World: The age of European dominance over others is over. We held their place to win the Cold War, but now that is over too. Now we enter a new age, and we can lead the way and prevail, or seek to obstruct the way and be over ran.

To me, the choice is obvious. We must lead.

Agree with your last post, and in the end we may be talking past one another. Population Control has a terrible connotation, and we need a new term for a new era that reflects what we're actually trying to do. I don't like being controlled, but the fact is I'm controlled to a large extent by a number of laws (and regulations since I'm in the military). I sure as hell wouldn't like it if some foreigner was imposing those controls over me in my country, so we're in agreement.

Two counterpoints:

Population and Resource Control is focused on separating the populace from the insurgents, and the majority of this effort should be focused on providing security to the populace so they cannot be coerced by the insurgents. (If they support the insurgent's ideology, then we're on the losing side and shouldn't be there to begin with unless we're practicing UW). This includes check points, intelligence operations, combat outposts, patrols, information operations, etc. However, when you mention Population Control everyone has visions of the moving people away from their villages and confining them in a camp like the Brits did in Malaysia or we did to the American Japanese in the U.S. during WWII. From my optic that is not the intent, we do this as gently as possible, but we do implement the necessary measures based on the situation. I'll meet you half way, and agree we need another term for this, but you still have to achieve this effect to be effective.

Second counterpoint: You suggested supporting over controlling, and that would be ideal in a real FID scenario, but in Iraq and Afghanistan we are/were an occupying power and that changes the dynamic from where we support to where we must do, until we can evolve the situation to a point where we can really transition to a supporting role. This why I think severe punative raids may be a better option in some cases instead of occupying a country and trying to transform their society at great cost to "all" concerned. In my opinion we over emphasize what we can accomplish with soft power.

[Ken White]

...others like protecting the population must endure for the length of the crisis.

Agree, problem is getting enough people to do that. Million and a half troops in Viet Nam could not even begin to protect more than about a fifth of the population of 16M or so in a nation half the size of the Philippines land area and a quarter the size of Afghanistan -- where there are less than a quarter million troops of all coalition types in terrain far more rugged and compartmented than was VN.

I'm pretty sure that the likelihood of having enough troops to do the population control thing thoroughly in any nation larger than Belize or Singapore is unlikely unless we get a whole lot of Allies willing to work.

Population control is not a "strategy", but rather a means to set conditions that will allow the political strategy to be implemented. In my view, population control creates a window of opportunity to do the real work that needs to be done. It isn't the end game.

Not to be nit picky but if you cannot control them totally, aren't you talking more about providing security to the extent you can and shaping their thoughts and goals also to the extent you can?

I think we're pretty much in agreement on what has to be done if you're there and we both know if the Pols say go, we're going -- but I do agree with Bob's World that we should try our best not to be in that position. In this era, it is a no-win proposition, not least because of the lack of ability to control the population to a great extent. Population centric COIN is a good book theory, it just doesn't work at all well in practice -- and that lack of population control is the reason; only works if conditions are ideal or in a relatively small area.

I don't think we should confuse genocide with population control, and I'm sure you agree with that.

I do agree, of course. However, my subject line comment about your irony pill was at taking that whole genocide train of thought -- which started with a purely and surely ironic statement by Bob's World, followed by one by Steve Blair and one by me -- as being something meriting serious comment. It wasn't meant as anything other than 'Well, we aren't going to do that...' and it doesn't work that well in any event (as you said also) so no one was seriously or even in jest proposing it...

[Ken White]

(If they support the insurgent's ideology, then we're on the losing side and shouldn't be there to begin with unless we're practicing UW).

I agree with that. Totally. However, what if, as in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the population doesn't really support the 'insurgents' but OTOH, they don't support you or the government either; they just want everyone to go away and leave them alone. That really compounds your population control problem.

This includes check points, intelligence operations, combat outposts, patrols, information operations, etc

Agree with that definition and you're correct that the 'control' word produces bad vibes for some -- but the real problem is not that you are going to put em in Camps -- the real problem is that you cannot put them in camps, thus you are NOT going to control them and you are unlikely to have enough people to effect any can kind of temporary control over other than a small area. Population control's problem is that it takes more people than the US Army can provide in most cases.

This why I think severe punative raids may be a better option in some cases instead of occupying a country and trying to transform their society at great cost to "all" concerned. In my opinion we over emphasize what we can accomplish with soft power.

Agreed!

[davidbfpo]

A counterinsurgency strategy must address populace control (it is the only means to isolate the populace from the enemy), which is always tailored to each individual situation. It rarely means employing the methods utilized in Malaysia or Algeria, which are the most frequently cited case studies because they were so extreme (but also effective).

I'm no expert on Malaysia or Algeria, but the populace control was not of the general population. In Malaysia it was the Chinese minority, mainly in the countryside and a large minority, the Malays were "on side" throughout.

Malaysia became independent in 1957 (excluding Borneo & Singapore) and the 'Malayan Emergency' lasted from 1948-1960. The UK had indicated way before 1957 that independence was coming and that helped undermine the insurgency. Note an amnesty played a big part in the COIN campaign. Some help from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

In Algeria there was a large European minority, the Pied Noir, 10% of the population (1m) and for many complicated reasons lage numbers of Algerians served in the regular (170K) and irregular units (236K, often called Harkis). The film 'Battle of Algiers' portrays only a small part of the war and 2m were forced into camps. The real war was in the countryside, although one can argue the 'Battle' lost the war for the French.

With help for the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War and the Pied Noir: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-noir

From my armchair in such conflicts an important metric is how many locals loyally serve in state service alongside the intervenors? Or serve the state, e.g. black Africans in Rhodesia.

So, if we cannot have minority populace control, what are the options? SWC have often written on these options, good governance, good works, undermining the narrative etc.

davidbfpo

[Surferbeetle]

Governments remain in power by providing effective security, economic, and governance services through good times and bad. By doing this they can only influence the population, over the long-term governmental population control is just a dream. Taking a western centric view we could consider the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the breakup of the Soviet Union just to name a few instances of the illusion of population control.

This highlights one of the key problems in our current interventions: our exit strategy depends on an evolutionary process that we do not control. That process may be far more complex and difficult than we initially assume it to be: in Iraq in particular, our intervention was supported by some quite naive underestimations of the challenges of developing a government that would be functional and acceptable to all of the major groups. Something to consider before intervening, certainly: realistic assessment of challenges is a useful thing.

Steve (Dayuhan/the Foreigner?), in my western mind at least, you have identified some of the key components of the problem set we face in Afghanistan and Iraq: US staying power in the field is limited; only local populations can truly define the acceptability of local governments; only local populations are placed (they are the true owners of the AO) to deal with long term changes.

All of this of course is on a wider scale and is of little use to those facing local problems such as those discussed in the OP. In these cases I'd only add that one obstacle to seeing a solution to an ill-defined problem set is our tendency to define problem sets in our own terms and according to our own framework, which may mean we're trying to solve the wrong problem.

Truly wise words.

Population and Resource Control is focused on separating the populace from the insurgents, and the majority of this effort should be focused on providing security to the populace so they cannot be coerced by the insurgents. (If they support the insurgent's ideology, then we're on the losing side and shouldn't be there to begin with unless we're practicing UW). This includes check points, intelligence operations, combat outposts, patrols, information operations, etc. However, when you mention Population Control everyone has visions of the moving people away from their villages and confining them in a camp like the Brits did in Malaysia or we did to the American Japanese in the U.S. during WWII. From my optic that is not the intent, we do this as gently as possible, but we do implement the necessary measures based on the situation.

I would suggest that these are short-term measures and that local police forces, ranging over a spectrum of beat cop to gendarme, need to be an integral part of this tactical security centric solution.

Second counterpoint: You suggested supporting over controlling, and that would be ideal in a real FID scenario, but in Iraq and Afghanistan we are/were an occupying power and that changes the dynamic from where we support to where we must do, until we can evolve the situation to a point where we can really transition to a supporting role. This why I think severe punitive raids may be a better option in some cases instead of occupying a country and trying to transform their society at great cost to "all" concerned. In my opinion we over emphasize what we can accomplish with soft power.

An advisory role focused upon security, economic, and governance services may be the most sustainable model out there. From my civil affairs centric viewpoint, I believe that it is much more cost effective to influence the influencers. There will always be more locals present in country than coalition personnel.

A hybrid vehicle: Predictive models (Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?), OGA, SOF, Robust PRT’s, Trade Policy, Diplomacy, and GP Military Force as a last option?

We need to get back to a long term focus, which includes a balanced combination of these and other components, which serves to minimize costs and meet our national goals.