Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 137

Thread: Operationalizing The Jones Model through COG

  1. #101
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Dayuan,

    My message is to stop meddling, not to meddle. To back out of roles where we are perceived as the source of legitimacy of governments that lack popular support. As you say, many of the small oil states have a wealth to populace ratio that makes the "no taxation, no representation" model function; others, like Saudi Arabia fall farther behind every day. Then there are the countries that lack the temporary wealth of oil.

    It’s complicated. You always twist my message into one of "pro manipulation", and seem to think all is calm in the Middle East. You need to study the news coming out of there more closely. Suppressed insurgencies in states with controlled media don't necessarily scream in the headlines. You have to read the signs. The Saudis have been suppressing all of their Shiite populace and large portions of their Sunni populace since inception; and in the past 60 years they have manipulated our fear of oil disruption to suit their royal needs.

    Follow the trails of foreign fighters back to where they come from and then research there first. Follow the trail of AQ "terrorists" back to where they come from and research there as well. Study how those populaces perceive the legitimacy of their governments. Study how they perceive the role of the US and the West in their countries. Study how they perceive their justice systems; or if they believe there is equal opportunity for all. Study how much control or influence they believe they have over their governance or even their personal fate. We've gotten into the middle of some messy situations. I'm saying we need to back out, not dig in. Not cut and run, but cut off the blank check of blind support and urge reforms be adopted if continued support is desired.

    I've always said the only perception of good or bad governance is that of the governed populace. You always try to twist that, and I don't know why.

    Governance is not Poor in the Middle East in many of our allied countries because I say so, but because the young men flocking to join AQ and local insurgent movements affiliated with AQ say so. And even larger cross sections of these same societies cutting checks and providing moral support say so as well. The people have no voice, but they are voting with their actions.
    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)

  2. #102
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    When I was with the Egyptian Army, they all believed quite seriously that they had never lost a war with Israel.
    Welcome the Middle East. We have three versions of history. Yours, ours and theirs!
    It does not surprise me then, that one with a background in Great Britain would have a similarly biased view of their own history.
    Welcome to Middle East...... etc etc.
    If 5 SWJ members, not of the empire, come up on the net and say "yeah, Bob, the Brits really rolled up the carpet as part of a master economic plan, and not due to the populaces of places like the US, India, or Iran throwing them out; then fine, I will hit the books and drill deeper. To say you have a strategy of reducing the empire because your strategy to hold the empire failed in the face of popular revolt, does not count.
    WW1 Bankrupted the Empire. There was simply no chance of holding onto it, especially as the UK had been left with policing what was left of the Ottoman Empire _ Palestine, the Trans-Jordan and Iraq. While economically of some benefit between the Wars, the Empire became "A-Strategic" after WW2. It was simply unsustainable - politically and economically.

    Now you do not have to read a lot of books to see that the vast majority of Colonial possessions were transferred peacefully, and voluntarily.
    Now it may be a fine line between the UK dissolving the Empire because both Political and economic circumstances made it impossible, and the issue that the UK probably could not maintain the Empire in the face of any serious opposition, even if it wanted too.

    Fact is the UK policy underlying all the major post 1945 insurgencies (except Ulster) was to set the conditions for a peaceful transfer of power - and even the IRA has given up the "Armed Struggle" - in line with the UK's stated policy.
    There were failures. In Aden, the UK announced a departure date, which actually made the existing insurgency worse, and the Palestine mandate was vacated with no agreement in place. Rhodesia declared UDI! - and War followed.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #103
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Getting back on track:

    Today's Development-Focused Population Centric COIN is very focused on producing effects that I would categorize as "Critical Capabilities." These are capabilities that one would expect to see as outputs of a healthy Populace-Governance relationship. I believe the rationale is that because these things are missing, there is insurgency; so if these things are provided artificially, there will be no insurgency.

    I see this as applying the same logic of if one imports thousands of Toyotas, and parks them in rows, that somehow a Toyota factory will appear. Maybe it will, but to me it appears that we focus on the wrong things, that these things cost way too much, and show little promise of producing enduring effects in terms of Good Governance and stability.

    The counterinsurgent approach focuses on defeating the insurgent himself. Again, as this approach does not address the root causes, and increases governmental oppression of the populace in the process, it typically merely suppresses an insurgency for some number of days, months, or years.

    The Jones Model directs attention to what are admittedly broad concepts, rooted in the top end of Maslow's hierarchy. The theory being that it is abuses of these fundamental, higher order human requirements that drive a populace to insurgency (at least the leadership, the heart and soul of the movement. The rank and file will recognize these causal perceptions, but may be driven by baser issues life, survival, and raising a family).

    So under the Jones Model:
    1. Security operations remain a critical supporting function. Always remembering that the insurgent is part of the populace, and tailoring violence accordingly. (As ADM Olson recently announced, there must be some counterinsurgent operations in counterinsurgency).

    2. "Population-Centric COIN" is fine, but it must be operationalized with a clearer understanding of the nature of Insurgency. Afghanistan is filled with well intentioned professionals and experts in a wide range of disciplines; sadly while some are newly minted "experts" on COIN, few know much about INSURGENCY. One cannot counter what one does not understand.

    3. This tool provides a methodology for going after those things the Jones Model identifies as most critical to removing the causal factors of insurgency.

    a. The first step is to, by focused district or area, assess and attempt to understand what the populace of that specific area's perceptions are on the 4 causal factors.

    b. Step two is to then determine your CVs or those CRs that are most important to that populace and that you are most likely to be able to positively affect.

    c. Step three is to then break this down in more detail by determining, across the disciplines of you COIN force, what type of engagement/projects you could specifically do designed to get directly at the CVs. In the example provided, where "justice" is lacking it is assessed that a regular, professional, fair, and assessable court system is lacking. Elements of providing this are ID'd as HVTs.

    d. Step four are your HVIs (Individual people or projects) that go toward building that missing capability or capacity that is deemed most likely to address the CV of concern in that community.

    e. Step five is to execute all of this in a manner that empowers the HN governance and keeps them to the forefront.

    f. Step six is to continue to assess and refine and minimize external influence (by both the FID forces AND the UW forces) at every opportunity.

    Updated operationalizing tool:
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Bob's World; 05-27-2010 at 05:40 AM.
    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)

  4. #104
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    In the example provided, where "justice" is lacking it is assessed that a regular, professional, fair, and assessable court system is lacking.
    OK, question: Surely if you can provide "justice" you've won, regardless of everything else. Populations support those that have power over them - "the man with a gun at their door, at midnight"-
    If you are the arbiter or what is right and what is wrong and you can demonstrate that, that is power. If no one can challenge that, you are in control. People will support who ever dispenses the justice they want. Is that not the case?

    Question 2: What is justice is this Power Point Slide? My guess is you mean promoting a US style form of justice, which folks will probably fight against, because if patently is not "just" in their eyes.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #105
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    All critical causal factors are as viewed from the perspective of the populace in question.

    What foreigners think matters not at all; and typically the HN counterinsurgent is blind to what the populace perceives as well, so there take will lead you astray as well.

    Current efforts In Population Centric COIN are on promoting "Rule of Law" - my point is that greater enforcement of a legal system percieved by the populace as unjust is tyranny.

    While Taliban justice is harsh, it is, by populace assessment, perceived as more "just" than that provided by the GIROA.

    So, yes, it must be the pursuit of "justice" ie, how the populace FEELS about the legal system that is the goal.
    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)

  6. #106
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    All critical causal factors are as viewed from the perspective of the populace in question.

    What foreigners think matters not at all; and typically the HN counterinsurgent is blind to what the populace perceives as well, so there take will lead you astray as well.
    As a statement in isolation, I can agree with all of that.
    However you may end up supporting the mutilation of women, death sentence for minors, and Shariah Law - so essentially support the policy the population wants - the Population sets the Policy, not your CoC?
    Current efforts In Population Centric COIN are on promoting "Rule of Law" - my point is that greater enforcement of a legal system percieved by the populace as unjust is tyranny.
    OK, but there is never one populace with one opinion. Insurgencies/rebellions are usually the product of a minority.
    While Taliban justice is harsh, it is, by populace assessment, perceived as more "just" than that provided by the GIROA.
    In most cases the Taliban are the ONLY form of justice because they are the only ones doing it - thus people support it.
    So, yes, it must be the pursuit of "justice" ie, how the populace FEELS about the legal system that is the goal.
    So, if I may, the objective is to force into place a level of control that the population will largely accept. - thus you need to destroy the other competing forms of control?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #107
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default ???

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post

    So, if I may, the objective is to force into place a level of control that the population will largely accept. - thus you need to destroy the other competing forms of control?

    No, the objective is for the Governance of a particular populace to gain a better understanding and empathy for the concerns of their own populace; and to rededicate themselves to meeting those needs.

    The insurgency and the insurgent are merely symptoms that come in many flavors. As you say popualaces are diverse. One can see this in Afghanistan as there are actually multiple insurgencies going on. But they are all in response to the failures of ONE government.

    One can chase down all of the many groups that sprout up in response to percptions of poor governance within the various segments of a society; or they can fix the one root cause, the failed government itself. The engagement to work those fixes would then be tailored by the perceptions of the many different communities and populaces involved.


    this whole idea of "forcing" and "controlling" strikes to my problems with UK COIN. That last real COIN in the UK was the failed effort against Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s, resulting in the execution of King Charles in 1649.

    All subequent "COIN" efforts have been all about maintaining control and legitimacy over the governments of others. That is a very different game altogether. True COIN can only be done by a governemnt within its own borders, with its own populace. Once you take it next door you are doing FID or UW. Current vogue of mixing and merging these concepts is not helpful. States often force controls on the populaces of others, working through governments that they have either placed in power, or at least taken on the role of sustaining in power. THAT IS NOT COIN.

    The last US COIN campaign was the government's efforts to resolve the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's.

    (Of note, our kinder, gentler approach; rooted in understanding and addressing the legitimate concerns of the insurgent segment of the populace, was much more effective that applied by King Charles in England's last insurgency.)
    Last edited by Bob's World; 05-27-2010 at 07:33 AM.
    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)

  8. #108
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    827

    Default

    I was reading a summary of a big pow-wow at Leavenworth. The summary indicated that they needed good census data on these places.

    Sorry, folks, but as a planner/demographer, I simply don't buy into a lot of this stuff about how we can re-shape major themes and events in the non-Euro, non-US spaces by rearranging deck chairs and scattering trinkets around (schools, cash, health clinics).

    So much of the world, and particularly Centcom and conflict zones are undergoing massive demographic, economic and social/political transformations on an unprecedented level (for them). Populations exploding (and mostly with youngsters unprepared and unable to engage positively), populations crowding to cities (mostly slums), and face-to-face conflicts between previously rural and isolated villages and cultures with the forces of change, conflict, challenge or oppression.

    Last week, I read a WP story about "honor killings" in India, and a family that is in Indian courts now to challenge the practices, after their child was killed for marrying out of love, but against the village elders' "accepted" ancient wisdoms. Even India is decades away from coming to terms with all these issues, as populations press against each other, new versus old cultures collide, and ancient farming techniques come face to face with genetically altered seeds, high-growth production techniques, localized water catastrophies emerging because of the new practices, and old fashioned farmers being driven to suicide due to borrowing to stay competitive with the new techniques.

    This is down-right tough stuff, being boiled down in the soup of these populations. Massive new challenges they are trying to sort out (some running for the cover of ancient ways, some deathly fearful of outside influences, and some marching to a new and different tune). Amongst it all, money lenders, schemers, and scammers of every kind are emerging. It only gets worse in immediate post-conflict phases where populations have been shattered by displacements and refugee flows, and "good governance" vanished when pre-existing village and tribal structures collapsed, giving way to gangsters and grafters.

    These nasty, brutish conflicts are playing themselves out on a very large scale, and will continue to until, as Dayuhan suggests, they find their way through it. It has nothing to do with COIN, and COIN offers little or nothing to it. At best, in my opinion, the COINISTA thought leadership is just a bunch of ex-soldiers with little serious training in the relevant subject fields, trying to draw quickie inferences for highly complex problems being their grasp or appreciation.

    Oh, that's right, Afghanistan is somewhere in there, but compounded by extensive foreign and extra-territorial factors.

    Like WILFs comment, the British Empire gave way when the economics changed. They made a fortune for centuries, and ended it when it didn't work anymore. Is the UK really any worse off for having done so? In the big scheme, they have done pretty well for themselves in adapting to modern times, while still giving a nod to limited foreign exploits grounded in that old history (keeping the old folks happy). There is a lesson in that.

    Iraq is a very different country, generally on the way to modernization, but in need of serious post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction. Like it or not, even as a post-conflict success story, Iraq, because of its history, culture and geography, will, like Iran, straddle an unique set of challenges that will always drive others a little crazy.

    This is not the same problem set as Afghanistan and its comparable environments who are all in the midst of profound demographic, economic and social changes.

  9. #109
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post

    All subequent "COIN" efforts have been all about maintaining control and legitimacy over the governments of others. That is a very different game altogether. True COIN can only be done by a governemnt within its own borders, with its own populace. Once you take it next door you are doing FID or UW. Current vogue of mixing and merging these concepts is not helpful. States often force controls on the populaces of others, working through governments that they have either placed in power, or at least taken on the role of sustaining in power. THAT IS NOT COIN.
    BW, so we (USA) are either doing FID or UW because it is literally impossible for a foreign power to do COIN?

  10. #110
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    BW, so we (USA) are either doing FID or UW because it is literally impossible for a foreign power to do COIN?
    "COIN" is just a fancy word for a government doing the best it can to support its own populace. As day to day governance grows more and more out of touch with its populace the populace discontent grows as well, manifesting in subversion and, if left unchecked, ultimately insurgency.

    The role of the Government never changes, it is to govern. It is to provide Good Governance. We call that COIN when it is done in the face of growing insurgency. When someone comes in to help you govern, they are "helping with COIN" We call that FID, or IDAD or a variety of things. Too often of late we call it COIN, and push the primary provider aside, because A. we think we can do it better, or faster; and B. because if it’s the same mission, what does it matter who leads?

    Because who leads is an essential factor of effective COIN!

    Steve the Planner says "Hey England exploited the globe until it was no longer in there interest to do so, so they then just tossed those used and abused populaces aside of their own volition and look, it was all great for England." What about those populaces???? Was it great for them too??

    Virtually all of the insurgencies of the past 100 years have been rooted in populaces risking everything to rid themselves of such benevolent European Colonial rule. Oh, sure, England brought them European technologies, and governance; and also exploitation, slavery and disease and the right to be treated as a second class citizen in your own land.

    I hear Americans making the same arguments today, how American exploitation brings technology, governance, the rule of law. But it brings those same humiliating second order effects as well. Until we can walk in the shoes of those whose lands we work our national interests in, and treat them with the same respect we treat our own citizenry with, there will be movements to throw off the governments we put in place, or sustain in place over the will of the governed. More and more as the world becomes more globalized and connected those populaces will seek to travel to the homes of those who oppress them and strike them there.

    Even now we call those states that dare to reject European forms of governance as "failed states". Read Foreign Policy. Read their definition of a "Failed State." Pure Western arrogance. We define failed as a rejection of doing it our way.

    Until you can develop empathy, you cannot understand insurgency. Until you understand insurgency, you cannot understand counterinsurgency. Until you understand counterinsurgency, you cannot effectively travel to the land of another and help him effectively with his insurgency.

    Most need to start at square one. Develop empathy.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 05-27-2010 at 10:46 AM.
    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)

  11. #111
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Go to the link below. Just look at the map for a while. As you look at the map, ask yourself, how many of these states that are deemed most troubled have "benefited" from Colonialism?

    Look at the factors of "failure"
    1. How many are capabilities that we see as critical aspects of Westphalian sovereignty? How many of those same factors were important to those populaces givern the forms of governance they have employed for centuries prior to Western intervention? Are they "failing" or are they evolving to find a form of governance better suited for the populaces being governned?

    2. Of the remaining factors, how many are typical of insurgency? How many of these states have leaders that were either selected by foreign powers, or sustained by foreign powers?

    3. Of those with "failure", how many have borders drawn by others, and populaces either separated or cobbled together by others?

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...p_and_rankings


    Q: What does "state failure" mean?

    A: A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of elements of the risk of state failure, such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods.

    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)

  12. #112
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    "
    Steve the Planner says "Hey England exploited the globe until it was no longer in there interest to do so, so they then just tossed those used and abused populaces aside of their own volition and look, it was all great for England." What about those populaces???? Was it great for them too??
    No it was not great for them and in a few places they did not want the UK to leave. Generally things went downhill. So what? UK policy is for the furthering of UK interests.
    Virtually all of the insurgencies of the past 100 years have been rooted in populaces risking everything to rid themselves of such benevolent European Colonial rule.
    OK, let us just assume that might be correct. Does it include the Native Americans? but so what? What causes Revolts and Rebellions is a desire to alter the distribution of political power using violence. Same, same, 3,500 years or more. Policy usually demands that any attempt to do so be resisted, not accommodated or rewarded.

    If I understand you correctly Bob, your thesis is rooted in the idea, that if someone takes up arms against a government, they have a good cause and it's the fault of the goverment?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  13. #113
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Close, but not just anyone.

    If a significant distinct segment of a populace does, with the armed aspect being much like the above surface portion of an iceburg, yes. It is the duty and the right of such a populace to rise up in insurgency when the govenance is perceived as despotic by them.

    If it's a handful of wingnuts without broad popular support, no.

    Does the state have the legal right to suppress a populace exercising this moral right? Yes as well.

    But if the state wants to resolve the problem in the best way possible they will recognize their own shortcomings and address them. Too often the state just hides behind it's legal rightness and simply suppresses those who dare to complain. This is the most common form of COIN, and it is bad COIN. It merely suppresses the inevitable, and promotes despotism and governmental arrogance.

    We can be smarter, we can be better. In the emerging world where individuals are more impowered than every before we MUST be better and smarter. Before you could get away with it. Now you can't.
    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)

  14. #114
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    OK, let us just assume that might be correct. Does it include the Native Americans? but so what? What causes Revolts and Rebellions is a desire to alter the distribution of political power using violence. Same, same, 3,500 years or more. Policy usually demands that any attempt to do so be resisted, not accommodated or rewarded.
    I honestly don't think you can include the Native Americans in an insurgency discussion, at least not in a blanket sense. You could make that argument in certain locations and during specific time frames, but that's about it. The Modoc War, many of the Apache excursions after about 1875, and the Crow Uprising would certainly qualify...but that's under my own interpretation of the Indian Wars (which considers something a possible insurgency after a tribe had been shifted to a reservation).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  15. #115
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I honestly don't think you can include the Native Americans in an insurgency discussion, at least not in a blanket sense. You could make that argument in certain locations and during specific time frames, but that's about it. The Modoc War, many of the Apache excursions after about 1875, and the Crow Uprising would certainly qualify...but that's under my own interpretation of the Indian Wars (which considers something a possible insurgency after a tribe had been shifted to a reservation).
    Steve, actually I do not necessarily disagree with your point. I try not to use the word "Insurgency". Rebellions and Revolts are far more accurate. Were there armed uprisings by Native Americans? If so, then I submit that they would be in that category.

    The US did actually come into conflict with the Sioux Nation, as the UK did with the Zulu Nation. These were actually de-facto nation states, but the "warfare" was arguably Irregular in nature. Again and again, I am at a loss to understand why calling something an "Insurgency" or saying "COIN" brings any benefit.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  16. #116
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Wilf,

    The instances I mentioned could be considered rebellions in that the tribes in question had been settled on reservations prior to the conflicts. For me the precise line of demarcation is the establishment of a reservation (and that's also based on how the Army tended to approach the situation).

    The Sioux were one of many tribes engaged by the U.S. military (and using the term "nation" for the Sioux is rather misleading...it could perhaps better be applied to the Kiowa or many of the Eastern tribes), and were not necessarily the most powerful.

    I could ramble on and on about this stuff, but I'll stop now.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  17. #117
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    For what it's worth on the indian stuff; our GWOT strategy is almost a direct lift from our strategy for subduing the Sioux. Pick a leader for them, expect them to govern and live like us, then label anyone who refuses to confrom to our wishes as a "terrorist" and conduct capture/kill operations on them.

    Otherwise, I'm with Steve, an insurgency implies a rebellion by the populace of a state to challenge it's own governance. The Native Americans had their own Governance, and their own concepts of what their territories were. The fact that some white guys had drawn lines on a map and determined that they lay within the US was moot to them. Much more state on state warfare; though obviously the cultures had very different perspectives on what that meant, to the demise of the Indians.
    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)

  18. #118
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    For what it's worth on the indian stuff; our GWOT strategy is almost a direct lift from our strategy for subduing the Sioux. Pick a leader for them, expect them to govern and live like us, then label anyone who refuses to confrom to our wishes as a "terrorist" and conduct capture/kill operations on them.
    We'd tried that with other tribes before and after the Sioux, with mixed success. FWIW, the technique worked best (and that's a relative term) with tribes like the Kiowa who had their own fairly developed political infrastructure (although it didn't work along our lines, it was close enough for early officers and agents to manipulate) and failed horribly when applied to tribes without that framework (the Apache peoples spring first to mind, although the Comanche had a similar loose clan-like structure). And even with the Kiowa, there was a lack of understanding of the social structure that underpinned the politics, which contributed in no small measure to the 1874 Red River War.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  19. #119
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Point one is that "the source of governance" as well as how governance is sustained in power are the keys to the critical causal factor of "Legitimacy." If the populace does not recognize either one you are on the fast track to insurgency. When Regime change by a foreign power occurs their is a presumption of illegitimacy that is virtually possible to overcome.

    Point two. Insurgent leaders are not "ideologically driven"; they are politically driven and use ideology to motivate and drive the masses to support their political goals. Not saying their ideology is not often very important to them, it just isn't what drives them.

    BW, I think you meant to say virtually IM-possible did you not? Which is more in line with what I learned years ago. The cause(will of the populace) has to come from the indigenous population it cannot be manufactured or inserted by a foreign government, but it can be discovered by a foreign government and then supported to enable the establishment of good government based of the consent of the governed. But consent can not be based on force or fraud or the insurgency will flair up again.

  20. #120
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Slap, good catch.

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    BW, I think you meant to say virtually IM-possible did you not? Which is more in line with what I learned years ago. The cause(will of the populace) has to come from the indigenous population it cannot be manufactured or inserted by a foreign government, but it can be discovered by a foreign government and then supported to enable the establishment of good government based of the consent of the governed. But consent can not be based on force or fraud or the insurgency will flair up again.
    Yes, Impossible.

    As an aside, during QDR one of the service reps (Brigadier) in the session I was in, tried to put "regime change" on the table as a future mission that we needed to resource and train to. Thankfully he was roundly shot down and told to purge the term from his vocabulary.
    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)

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
  •