Paper and COIN: Exploiting the Enemy's Documents

[Jedburgh]

There has to be some type of trust relationship with local hires and, I would think, that this is especially true when you depend on them for translation and cultural guidance. In some situations, they are putting themselves and their families in extreme peril by working with you. So, how far do you let them "in"?

You let them "in" only as far as the mission requires.

You can think of this as the difference between empathy and sympathy. To develop a good working relationship, it is essential to understand the perceptions and concerns of your local hires, to listen to them, and to take of their needs within appropriate boundaries. But once you cross that line of sympathy and bond emotionally with the indig, you have compromised your position. This is very difficult for many people to grasp (other than lawyers and salesmen), because we want to be liked, and we like making friends. Addressing this effectively really requires strong leadership on this issue down at the unit level where it impacts (whether it is a military unit, or the civilian leadership at a PRT).

The issue I'm thinking of is the one surrounding Iraqi translators and the denial of any backdoor safety mechanism to evac them to the US if the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller. It strikes me that you are actually enhancing the likelihood of having them turned if they do not have some type of escape route, at least for their families.

Because of difficulties in vetting and monitoring indig employees, we have to consider that they are all "turned", reporting to one faction or another. Any other mindset is unacceptable.

And although you are definitely describing a worst-case scenario, I do agree that there should be contingency plans for evac of certain indig personnel in the event of catastrophe. However, I also strongly believe it is foolish to state up-front to indig employees that the US promises to safeguard and evac them and their families in case of mission collapse. In the end, they must feel that they are working for stabilization of their country - not working for the US.

At the same time, I think it also reinforces a few IO messages made by AQ (and others) that are dangerous in the long term; to whit, a) the US is only "here" to get what they can and b) the US doesn't take care of its allies.

The difference between empathy and sympathy is in the head of the US servicemember. It is not overt discrimination, nor should it translate into poor treatment of the indig translator, or a failure to provide basic security measures to ensure that he and his family are not endangered by working with us - it is a mindset that is simply a continual awareness that the indig may not be what they seem, and although they are partners, they are not "read on" and some things must be kept compartmented. Mission focus.