Recognizing Distinct Types of Insurgency - "Know the type of conflict you are in."

[davidbfpo]

Trying to return to the topic, and agreeing the the early stages of a revolution is not war, what type of assistance could an outside element provide?

There are a number of threads here that comment and debate what external parties / nations can do.

My immediate reaction was to offer Northern Ireland as an example. In 1969 it was a self-governing province and we now know from memoirs very few on the mainland actually knew what was going on. Indeed several politicains who did get involved thought it was a 'orrible place with 'orrible people who had a hsitorical memory not seen elsewhere.

So assistance without thought should be avoided. How long does it take for an advisory mission to really know the context?

Supplying copious amounts of CS gas for riot control is often an option before the level of insurgent / civil violence escalates.

Can diplomacy and NGO action get people on all sides to talk? Should an external actor open dialogue with all?

There is clearly a potential for any external actor to be identified as supporting the regime / nation-state. Is that clearly a plus?

[TheCurmudgeon]

So assistance without thought should be avoided. How long does it take for an advisory mission to really know the context?

Supplying copious amounts of CS gas for riot control is often an option before the level of insurgent / civil violence escalates.

Can diplomacy and NGO action get people on all sides to talk? Should an external actor open dialogue with all?

There is clearly a potential for any external actor to be identified as supporting the regime / nation-state. Is that clearly a plus?

I agree with being cautious, learning what is going on, not saying "you are either with us or against us," and taking your time in deciding how best to proceed. It may be that anything an external party does will simply exasperate the problem. Even an NGO that provides medical and food aid may simply be setting the conditions for the conflict to continue.

The identification of a third party outsider with one side or the other is a big problem. I am not sure there is anyone anymore who is truly neutral. I don’t even know if the UN can do it anymore.

[Bob's World]

What American leaders, policy and doctrine struggle to recognize, is that those affected by our actions care little for our good intentions.

We can appreciate why a Russian invasion of Afghanistan sparked a resistance insurgency against the Russian invaders and a revolutionary insurgency against the puppet regime they put in power; but we cannot fathom why the US invasion and installation of a puppet regime would create the exact same effect.

There will be matters of degree based on the character of one's actions, but the primary effect is rooted in human nature and driven by the nature of the action.

We must have an assumption that any occupation - be it a small unit doing a training event to build partner capacity, or a full blown regime change invasion - will spark some degree of resistance in some portion of the affected population. This is natural.

Likewise, we must have an assumption that any government we help to rise to power or to merely stay in power will spark some degree of revolutionary energy against them by some portion of the population. The greater the perceived popular illegitimacy of the government based on our actions, the greater the revolutionary energy and the broader it will be across the affected population. Again, this is natural.

Bottom line, is that American fecal matter is just as odiferous as anyone else's. Truth.

[Bill Moore]

We can appreciate why a Russian invasion of Afghanistan sparked a resistance insurgency against the Russian invaders and a revolutionary insurgency against the puppet regime they put in power; but we cannot fathom why the US invasion and installation of a puppet regime would create the exact same effect.

No truer words ever spoken, but if it is in our national interest (agree or disagree, it is the policy we have been given) to promote and protect the clown we put in charge, what's a girl to do?

[Bob's World]

Bill,

This gets to what I think "Whole of Government" really needs to mean: Not that we all pull together to try to sustain the unsustainable, or to fix the unfixable.

Rather, what it needs to mean is that we need to design feasible operations from the start at the policy level; and then work through all phases of execution to minimize the negative characteristics that will naturally occur due to the nature of our actions.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Bill Rather, what it needs to mean is that we need to design feasible operations from the start at the policy level; and then work through all phases of execution to minimize the negative characteristics that will naturally occur due to the nature of our actions.

So, how do we influence policy. I have been at the DA level for a couple of years now, and it seems like, if it is not a budget issue, it does not matter.

I guess I am asking - do you have any suggestions on how we influence the civilian side of the military-civilian relationship?

[Bob's World]

Who is the "honest broker"? That is a good question. I don't know. How does one be an honest broker when working within an organization that is by its very nature biased due to an overarching mission of advocating for a particular aspect of our total system?

That is like the proverbial camel making it through the eye of the needle. (the small gate in walled cites that could be opened at night after the main gate was closed).

The army is much more purely a war fighting service than any of the others. Particularly for maritime nations with no neighboring ground threat to have to respond rapidly to. So the army is on a quest for relevance that creates a tremendous bias. They seek to expand the definition of war. They seek to expand the perceived necessity for military engagement overseas in times of peace. They seek to sell a "land power" solution as to key to virtually every security problem.

It is little wonder our doctrine on conflict and war is so confused, when all of the cooks are working off of a different idea of what the proper solution looks like, and works mightily to craft the problem into the context of their respective solutions. Who is it that works to understand and frame problems for what they actually are?

The services like leaders and action officers who are grinders and who adhere strictly to the party line. Innovation is only wanted in the context of those two things. If you opt to be a thinker, then you will not be grinding as hard as your peers, and your thoughts will likely take you outside of the party lines. At that point you become a heretic and a pain in the neck, or even a threat, to those dedicated to head down grinding.

Know your boss, know your environment. Good bosses like good ideas and will know what they can and can't advance. It is a game of inches when all around you are running 100 miles per hour.