Economics and Irregular Warfare

[Surferbeetle]

The gist of the reasoning was that CERP only gets you short term gains. Ad hoc projects do not address the underlying causes of economic decay. They only fill gaps in what the community needs. They are good for obtaining goodwill and temporary cooperation. But after you conduct a project, the people are happy for about a week. Then they start asking, "what have you done for us lately?" Therefore, we were instructed to use them for temporary cooperation or to ameliorate genuine need of a community to solve some serious problem. If we needed longer-term cooperation (for example, enough cooperation over a period of months to purge the area of AQI), then we needed to plan projects that would occur in succession, ideally with a bit of overlap, so that as goodwill from the first project leveled off, we would begin another project to sustain that goodwill, and so on.

Many of my experiences with the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP),as well as development programs in general, were and are different than your description. None the less the proof of any program/system, to include CERP, is always in the results. Do the operators and recipients of the associated projects maintain and use them? Were the associated projects completed on time and under budget? Over the long run we taxpayers will have plenty of time to judge if our development programs were synchronized and effective systems which capitalized upon the power of unity of effort or if they were isolated one-year tour efforts repeated X times and of marginal utility.

5-year planning cycles are common in many parts of the world. In engineering-land this is typically due to synchronizing scarce resources with the time and resource intensive requirements associated with developing statement of works, cost estimates, project schedules, quality assurance/quality control plans, full blown engineering designs, construction and construction management systems. There are many similarities between engineering planning efforts and the Military Decision Making Process.

During my tour in 03-04 we initially shot for identifying all ongoing and planned projects conducted by Iraqi’s, NGO’s, IO’s, USG elements, and Contractors in our AO. From there we worked to prioritize projects among the stakeholders and used CERP to fund gaps with Iraqi's taking the lead in executing many of the projects. We also worked to translate all of that info into mil-knowledge via the concepts of mission analysis (receipt of mission, facts, assumptions, specified tasks, implied tasks, essential tasks, gaps, COA development) and unity of effort. This is not to say that our efforts in our AO resulted in the creation of a lasting oasis of peace or an enduring 'Little America' nor that they were a bloodless effort devoid of any setbacks or WTF moments.

The CERP and USAID links I provided in my post emphasize the importance of synchronized development systems which strive for unity of effort. Only time will tell, however, if the costs and benefits of our coalition development efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will have surpassed, equaled, or fell well short of the costs and benefits of the ~13 billion USD Marshall Plan (1952 US GDP ~358 billion?).