Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: COIN in a non-state environment

  1. #21
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Two days ago, while waiting for Santa Claus to come, I had a very interresting (and very drunk) conversation about how to build a State in a non State environment.
    The question we finally came with was:
    When you try to build a state from scratch, like in Afghanistan or Sudan (different setting, context, history... all agreed in advance), is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting?
    The point was that despite using the democratic tool box, what ever the exemple you look at closely, you always end in a fake state (most of the time with a military like dictatorship or, at the best, a kleptocracy).

    Somehow, it is different from that particular threat and I leave to TheCurmudgeon the right to expel me and my question out to another threat.

    Moderator's Note: a good question and so different a new thread has been started on your behalf:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=12117
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-27-2010 at 01:22 PM. Reason: The deed has been done!

  2. #22
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    Two days ago, while waiting for Santa Claus to come, I had a very interresting (and very drunk) conversation about how to build a State in a non State environment.
    The question we finally came with was:
    When you try to build a state from scratch, like in Afghanistan or Sudan (different setting, context, history... all agreed in advance), is dictatorship a necessary path or just the wall we all end up hitting?
    The point was that despite using the democratic tool box, what ever the exemple you look at closely, you always end in a fake state (most of the time with a military like dictatorship or, at the best, a kleptocracy).

    Somehow, it is different from that particular threat and I leave to TheCurmudgeon the right to expel me and my question out to another threat.
    M-A,
    Here's a great site from the CGSC History Department and this particular post is short and direct regarding The problem of creating a nation state, such as Afghanistan, is not a new one.

    It however doesn't directly address Africa while comparing Afghanistan to Europe in the 16th century. I doubt the Europeans had many problems with cleptocracy to the level of The Sudan and Zaire, but I assume all have some experience with a military dictatorship.

    Tom was barely in Zaire two days when he told the Country Team to forget what was in their diplomatic tool kit because we are in a cleptocracy, and, when the Country Team decided unanimously that the FAZ (Zairian Armed Forces) had to go, Tom began to laugh hysterically with something like "the mouse trying to bell the cat" (one of those days where I wished I was somewhere else ).

    As odd as this may sound, if we didn't have a military dictatorship and/or cleptocracy, why would we need to build a State from scratch
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  3. #23
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Talking

    M-A: No, I would never expel you and yes, this is exactly where I was going. It seems to me that COIN doctrine is misplaced in Afghanistan.

    Yes, I am also leaning toward the dictatorship idea, but more of a constitutional monarchy. That might even be too much.

    While I see the parallels between much of Africa and Afghanistan (in that there is no government outside the capital) I think there is a huge difference in certain areas. In many areas our colonialism was based on extracting natural resources, resources that these proto-states can still use as the foundation of a functioning state. Afghanistan and much of the HOA have no such resource. As a result, they have no influx of capital to run a government. One of the major functions of a government is to redistribute resources (taxes in, services and patronage out). Where there are no resources governments have a hard time functioning. It is even further complicated when religious institutions compete for the limited resources, redistributing tithes in accordance with their laws, and further weakening the power of the government or replacing the government in a form of one-stop-shop for social controls and services.

    All of this seems more like the business of other agencies but, as advisers to the civilian leaders we serve I think it is incumbent on us to understand these matters and advise on the limitations of what a military can and cannot do to solve these problems. Not to mention that in an interconnected world, the threat can originate from anywhere. Hence, stability becomes a security issue and therefore, our business.

    Thanks for all the comments and I will sit back and let let this one go where it may.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 12-26-2010 at 08:42 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #24
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Question or two

    The Curmudgeon,
    The topic of population centric COIN has plagued me since the day I began teaching with SF, PSYOPS and CA (albeit under a different name in 84).

    POP Centric COIN was actually performed during the Vietnam war with some rather mixed results. Later MTTs would participate in so-called campaigns in Sub-Sahara and elsewhere, where money (donations if you will) was tied to a training event in-country. I would end up doing this again in early and late 2000 here.

    So with the exception of Vietnam, it begs the question... Are we actively practicing this new found art, or, are we still in a training scenario ?

    Your opinion ?

    Regards, Stan
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  5. #25
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    I think COIN has a place in our haversack, but it is not a magic bullet for every situation where the problems are primarily internal to a country (or, more specifically, a territory). Where there is a developed national system, like Iraq, and the fight is really internal, then I think the doctrine is correct. I think that where there is and has been no functioning state, no binding history and only tribal ties then it is the wrong answer. Trying to use it where it does not have a place does two things; first, it does not work, and second it degrades COIN as a viable doctrine.

    I also think that to distinguish where it will and will not work requires us to create a system of classifying not only the conflict but the conflict setting that currently does not exist. "Failed State" and "ungoverned territory" are not descriptive enough to determine what needs to be done.

    Security is always the primary concern where none exists and is always first on the agenda. That is where we come in. But what happens next is very important and I don't think we really know what to do.

    To be honest, I am not even sure Iraq has the historical underpinnings for it to be totally functional there, but it is better than driving tanks through the streets and firing off Bradley's in the middle of the night as "shows of force".
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 12-26-2010 at 09:57 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  6. #26
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Regardless of how one slices the problem, or names the slices, "job one" for any government is to establish and maintain the perception in the populace they seek to govern of their right, their legitimacy, to govern.
    Tactics, capabilities and capacities for the "establish" mission are going to be significantly different than those required for the "maintain" mission.

    Any time a government rides to power on the back of some greater, intervening power, it is highly unlikely to be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the populace or the vanquished pre-existing power, either one. We ignore that messy little fact and go straight to the "maintain" mission with pop-centric COIN.

    This is the core problem with pop-centric COIN (Galula) vs threat-centric COIN (Tranquier), is that both are efforts to manage the symptoms of natural resistance to illegitimate government, coupled with little effort and no intent to ever address that base problem of illegitimacy. In fact, the primary purpose for such intervention is to create an illegitimate government that will prioritize the interests of the intervening power over those of their own people and nation.

    It like asking the populace if they would like to be punched in the balls with an Iron Fist, or a Velvet one? Would you like to live in an Iron Cage, or a Golden one? Just because one is preferred to the other, does not mean that either is going to be welcomed as an acceptable solution to the challenge of governance.

    Pop-Centric COIN is no more, and no less, than just one more chapter on tactics in how to implement Colonial COIN. How to create and sustain illegitimate government over others to serve one's own interests there.

    It is time to evolve away from Colonial COIN, and maybe we had to go through this phase to get to true change, but know that we are not there yet.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 12-27-2010 at 01:34 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  7. #27
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I also think that to distinguish where it will and will not work requires us to create a system of classifying not only the conflict but the conflict setting that currently does not exist. "Failed State" and "ungoverned territory" are not descriptive enough to determine what needs to be done.
    Excellent, and we used to have one. In what was called the 7 steps from Hell(I don't know why it was called that, probably so we would remember it) The 7 phases of Special Warfare/UW/whatever they are calling now.

    Under step 1-psychological preparation of the target audiences. You had to discover some portion of the population that was willing to stand up and fight the enemy and fight for change. If that population group was not there, you may want to look for other options. You didn't really think in terms of countries, it was about well......people groups. I call it the unknown population centric approach
    Last edited by slapout9; 12-27-2010 at 02:03 PM. Reason: icon stuff

  8. #28
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Under step 1-psychological preparation of the target audiences. You had to discover some portion of the population that was willing to stand up and fight the enemy and fight for change. If that population group was not there, you may want to look for other options. You didn't really think in terms of countries, it was about well......people groups. I call it the unknown population centric approach
    Hey Slap,
    I believe they still call it surrogate warfare. Loosely translated...get someone else to do the dirty work. Back then as I recall, there wasn't even a mention of this in Army doctrine (for probably very good reasons if you had been with members of 5th group where I was ).

    However and a little on the serious side, those programs were also very dependent on language and cultural expertise, and in the late 80's and early 90's we were hurting for those skills in Africa with demands in Bosnia, etc.
    Our JSOTF during the Rwandan genocide and civil war left a lot to be desired with only two French speakers and no Lingala speakers. In addition, few had a clue about the cultural aspects which made their job that much harder.

    I'm certain Bob will have much more on this subject
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  9. #29
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Hey Slap,
    I believe they still call it surrogate warfare. Loosely translated...get someone else to do the dirty work. Back then as I recall, there wasn't even a mention of this in Army doctrine (for probably very good reasons if you had been with members of 5th group where I was ).
    Company C-3rd Battalion-5th Group We need an Islamic Los Pepe's' group.

  10. #30
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Company C-3rd Battalion-5th Group We need an Islamic Los Pepe's' group.
    Say, you don't mean like the soldiers that put a terminal end to Pablo Escobar's drug trade, do you

    Good Company
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  11. #31
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Say, you don't mean like the soldiers that put a terminal end to Pablo Escobar's drug trade, do you

    Good Company
    Sorta, I think they call it by, with and through now days. I think the world sees us as a bunch of white boys with guns trying to tell everybody else what to do, and they don't like it. However if you can find a local(indigenous group) that you can align with because you have the same objectives (reason to fight) things are a lot easier. And if you are really smart and leave personal ideologies and beliefs out of it and just concentrate on common goals you might just make a few friends.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •