Time for a FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency Update

[William F. Owen]

Its all about timing isn't it.

By the time the army gets involved its too late already as the shooting has already begun. And to stop the shooting you either have to pull a Mugabe on the population or give away the farm.

Well the UK effectively suppressed the rebellions in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and even South Arabia, without measures that - at the time - drew large scale international criticism.
The success of the Rhodesian Armed Forces was that the transition to majority Government took place, under a negotiated peace, and not by force of arms as intended.

[JMA]

Well the UK effectively suppressed the rebellions in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and even South Arabia, without measures that - at the time - drew large scale international criticism.
The success of the Rhodesian Armed Forces was that the transition to majority Government took place, under a negotiated peace, and not by force of arms as intended.

I suggest all those "victories" came at a high cost.

Yes to Rhodesia and the same with the efforts of the South Africans in Namibia/South West Africa.

[William F. Owen]

I suggest all those "victories" came at a high cost.

OK, but in what sense? Certainly "victories" as military force achieved the political objective set for it. As to cost, the British Army lost <750 men across all four campaigns.
Other "human costs" may have been much higher.

[JMA]

OK, but in what sense? Certainly "victories" as military force achieved the political objective set for it. As to cost, the British Army lost <750 men across all four campaigns.
Other "human costs" may have been much higher.

The thousands of (all) lives lost in the respective struggles... and Britain lost the colonies (on a take it we're out of here basis).

... now I wonder why you did not include the suppression of the Boer insurgency in your list? Some skeletons in that cupboard on that one? ... and in the Sudan?

[Bill Moore]

Two of Wilf's posts tend to ring true to me:

Not true. Cambodia in the 70's, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, A'stan under the Taliban, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, North Korea etc etc etc.
This "power from the people" is not a reality in the real world, unless they do a lot of killing to get it, and unless they are prepared to keep killing, they can loose it.

The political problem may continue, BUT you use violence (military AND Police) to ensure it remains a political problem that the rebels will not seek to resolve by force. The ONLY thing armed force does is stop the other guy (rebels) using armed force. That is the key thing FM3-24 doesn't get.

I read every page of FM 3-24 when it first came out, but have rarely looked at it since. The manual has much wisdom in it based on years of COIN experiences, but it also definitely has a slant to it that IMO is misleading by excessively focusing on the populace to the extent of almost ignoring the enemy. While I understand Bob's points about force being a temporary solution at best, I think Wilf trumps that point by stating until we get the enemy (in this case the insurgents) to stop using force, a political settlement will remain a pipe dream.

In Afghanistan the populace doesn't know who will win at this point, and again as Wilf stated in much of the real world "power from the people" without force doesn't exist. We won't have a Ghandi like peace movement in Afghanistan. For us to confuse less developed, non-democratic States with the U.S.'s mature democratic bureaucracy and associated social norms is a dangerous mistake on part, and will result in the development of ineffective policy. The Khmer Rouge and other thug groups didn't obtain power by waging a peaceful election based on new ideas, but rather by employing brute force. The Taliban post-Soviet era obtained power by employing brute force, and now they're attempting to do the same (although this time they're also applying a fair amount of political savvy). IMO you can't effectively counter brutality with a peace movement and economic development. I know others disagree, but again I ask for historical examples of where the counterinsurgent effectively offered an olive branch without first establishing tactical dominance?

At the tactical level do we really need more than a manual on how to "defeat" the insurgent militarily? We all recognize this is not a victory in the traditional sense, but it sets security conditions for a real political settlement. The key is to aggressively pursue and surgically kill the enemy without alienating the populace, and yes defending the populace remains a key line of effort. That means we need to kill the enemy, take and "hold" territory (not return to base camps), and protect the populace, and do so at a fast enough pace to overcome the enemy's ability to reconstitute.

This goes back to the tank issue, if the Marines want tanks, then give them tanks. They have a tactical mission to accomplish and they know what tools they need to do it. They're not the Soviets and any comparison with the Soviets is simply foolish and misleading. People questioning their request reminds of the experts in the rear who questioned the TF's request for armored vehicles in Somalia, and then the subsequent Black Hawk Down situation. Higher gives lower a mission based on policy, and then lower best determines how to accomplish it, which includes determining what tools they need. We don't need a snoty nosed State Department employee in his young 30's influencing that decision by stating sending tanks sends the wrong message. Put the kid back in his lane, the right message is ensuring our forces dominate the enemy militarily. That enables the diplomats to more effectively negotiate as required. Based on my relatively short experience in Afghanistan I can see several cases where tanks could be effectively employed and if I was in the Taliban I would be plently worried if the Marines brought in some M1's.

Where I disagree with Wilf is that there are many unique aspects of Small Wars that differ significantly from conventional combat, so a good Small Wars TTP manual and associated doctrine is required, but in the end the common military objective between conventional and small wars remains the same and that is to take away from the enemy the option of using force to obtain their goals. It is political and psychological warfare so there is more involved than just shooting, but on the other hand that doesn't mean the shooting war takes a back seat while we experiment with a broke IO program, civil military projects, and economic development. We sure has hell aren't going to deter the North Koreans with our civil-military projects and economic development (we tried). They understand the deterrence of might, and so do many hard core insurgents.

Back to Bob's excellent points, which ultimately are the right answer, but they're the right answer at the policy level, and while the lines between the military and policy wonks are admitedly gray, I think we would be better off if our military doctrine focused on defeating the enemy (the tactical fight), and then re-emphasizing (once again) the whole of government approach to achieving a a strategic political settlement. We seem to be out of balance with our current approach. I state the above with some apprehension, because I have little faith in the Department of State to develop effective in lieu of politically correct policy. DOS has some exceptional diplomats, but unfortunately that isn't the prevailing norm, and for one I hate to see our troops committed to a fight where they're trying to support a lame policy that feels good (democracy and economic development for everyone) instead of a policy that is achievable, so from my view it is understandable why the military has over stepped into this role.

In a more perfect world we would have realistic policies and an interagency doctrine based on realsim (not simly idealism) for these types of conflicts. Based on our political system, I realize that is a pipe dream, but I still think our doctrine for small wars manual should focus on how to defeat the insurgent at the tactical level. We would probably use 60% of what is in the current FM, but the slant would be different this time.

[Bob's World]

Bill,

Nice post. This is always the big question, of what to do first, and what to prioritize. The majority position in military circles is to establish security first. Some come to that because, like Tranquier, they see security as the entire issue. Some because they see the populace as the prize, but rationalize that they can't get at them effectively to bring them under control until they have a reasonable degree of security in place. Like a sinking boat with a large hole in it: does one bail or plug the hole?? There may be too much water to get at the hole, or the water may be threatening to swamp the boat. But the bailing may not be able to keep up with the amount coming in the hole, or perhaps is only marginally faster, so the process is guaranteed to be long and tiring, but water never tires... Security first is bailing the boat. Balance and prioritize.

I ran into a similar circumstance when I left the regular army to go to law school. Wanting to stay in the military in some capacity I joined the Guard. Going from an ODA Commander in 5th SFG to being the new guy in a Guard Light Infantry Brigade was a bit of a culture shock. Lesson one was that the AC is a training readiness focused organization, while the Guard is a personnel readiness focused organization. Success of Commanders, Budget decisions, what states get what units and what equipment, etc are all made based upon the ability to produce units with a high percentage of available MOS qualified personnel. Period. How well they could perform was not a factor. This led to the great debate: should one train to unit capability, or should one focus on recruiting and individual capability? The standard Guard position was that a unit could not train until it was well manned, so focus on recruiting and individual training. The problem was they never got there, so they never trained. Also, as units spent so much time at the armory doing boring individual tasks, or events and parties intended to attract recruits, most really good soldiers would give up after a few years, and the organization in a Darwinian way became predominated by guys who saw it more as a social club than a military organization (with notable exceptions of course).

Ever the iconoclast, myself and another young major took the position of "train to retain"; and pushed for aggressive collective training and maximization of drill weekends. We soon build a cult following of young soldiers and junior leaders who really wanted to soldier. Social soldiers went to other units or got out, and soldiers who wanted to really soldier were drawn to the units that made training a priority. I never saw a unit that focused on hard, realistic training suffer for long for low numbers. The key was in determining the decisive point.

For Guard recruiting and retention I determined that the decisive point was when the soldier returned home following a drill weekend, and when he went to work. It was how he answered the question of "how was your weekend" by a spouse whose sister's wedding she had attended alone that weekend, or by a child who had a big ball game, or by a co-worker who had gone on a big hunting or skiing trip. If his answer was "I had to go to drill and we hung out at the armory" I knew the follow-on question would be fatal "so why do you do it?" Recruit the soldier, but retain the wife. If he had great war stories to tell with fire in his eye about how hard it was the wife and kids would support him and his buddies would want to join. By focusing on the decisive point the "recruit or train" question was easy to answer.

But what is the decisive point for COIN?

But what if the populace is not the "prize" and the insurgent is not the "cause"??? Perhaps we are all focused on the wrong problem. I just read the great French piece on Galula to Petraeus http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...d-galula-to-p/ and it lays out the key points of Tranquier, Galula, Kilcullen and Petraeus. Tranquier is great for those doing CT; but is not COIN. The other three are all in the beaten zone for COIN, but in my opinion miss two critical points:

1. All saw/see the intervening power as the "counterinsurgent." In the current globalized environment I believe this is even more of a fatal mistake than it has been historically. But in the colonial era the role of the intervening power was to sustain in power a government that answered to them first, and then to the populace. Today this just is not the case, and is a habit we must break. This is the flaw of all colonial COIN, be it French, British, or USMC Small Wars Manual. The intervening power today does NOT want "control" over the Government or the Populace either one. To do so, to even create the Perception of Control is to:
A. Render the Host Nation Government Illegitimate in the eyes of the populaces, thereby stoking the flames of insurgency, and
B. Make the intervening power the target of terrorist attack, at home as well as in the host nation.

2. All fail to identify the government as the principal factor of causation. Tranquier placed all blame on external UW actors. The rest place blame on a populace that yes, questions legitimacy, but more importantly does so due to the effects of insurgent ideology and lack of effective government services.

So, I think this causes us to mis-identify the decisive point, and therefore make poor decisions as what to prioritize and how to balance our efforts. I say make fixing the government the priority, balance that with information operations that admit to past failures of government, agree with and co-opt vast swaths of the insurgent's message, and proclaim hard internal fixes being made to address all of the above. Only third after this comes security efforts focused on key elements of governmental outreach and key nodes of the insurgency itself.

A long post, I realize, but these two points of the intervener not being the counterinsurgent and the repair of governance as the decisive point largely missed in mainstream COIN doctrine and theory is critical. More so than ever in today's information age of empowered populaces.

[Dayuhan]

The intervening power today does NOT want "control" over the Government or the Populace either one.

One hopes this is so. At the same time, though, it raises the question of what the intervening power DOES want. Nobody intervenes for the sake of the country being intervened in: if somebody's intervening they are doing so because they have very significant interests at stake. The intervention is generally shaped by these perceived interests, not by the interests of the government, populace, or insurgents of the country being intervened in.

I say make fixing the government the priority, balance that with information operations that admit to past failures of government, agree with and co-opt vast swaths of the insurgent's message, and proclaim hard internal fixes being made to address all of the above.

That raises other questions...

What brief have we to run about fixing other people's governments? What if the government doesn't want to be fixed, or the populace doesn't want us involved, or both? How do we go about inserting ourselves into another country and declaring that we propose to fix anything, let alone the government...

Given that we are not the government, how do we admit to the past failures of government? Are you suggesting that we force or influence the government to admit to what we believe to be its failures, or that we just go ahead and admit to someone else's failures, which amounts to an accusation. What if the government doesn't share our perception of failure?

If the primary message of the insurgent is "get the @#$%& furriners out", how do we co-opt that?

Do we proclaim "hard internal fixes", or do we actually produce them? Isn't producing a hard internal fix a governance function? How do we do this without actually taking over governance?

Overall, I think this overlooks the difficulty - and potential undesirability - of trying to control the government of another country. I know you said we don't or shouldn't want control, but how do you fix a government without control?

I suspect that much of the difficulty we have in applying our traditional COIN discourse to Iraq and Afghanistan traces back to the reality that our traditional COIN discourse tends to be based on the premise that we are intervening to support an allied government threatened by insurgency. What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is quite different, and might better be described as "phase 3 regime change".

Assume regime change has 3 broad phases:

1. Remove previous government (generally fairly easy)

2. Install new government (easy to do badly, hard to do well)

3. Suppress armed resistance to new government and support it until is able to govern (very hard, especially if phase 2 was done badly).

There are significant commonalities between traditional COIN and phase 3 regime change, but also very real differences, particularly in the perceived and actual relationship between the intervening power and the Government of the host country. Pretending that they are the same thing is self deception, and while the lessons of one may at times apply to the other, it's important to maintain awareness of the differences.

[William F. Owen]

Where I disagree with Wilf is that there are many unique aspects of Small Wars that differ significantly from conventional combat, so a good Small Wars TTP manual and associated doctrine is required, but in the end the common military objective between conventional and small wars remains the same and that is to take away from the enemy the option of using force to obtain their goals.

Agree a 100%. I cannot see where we disagree. Suppressing armed rebellions requires some unique TTPs - and those tend to be theatre specific.