Is Counterinsurgency the Graduate Level of War?

[SWJED]

Is Counterinsurgency the Graduate Level of War? by COL Dave Maxwell, SWJ Blog.

Some Random Thoughts on COIN Today

I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that “counterinsurgency is the graduate level of war.”

Despite being an avid believer in and advocate of COIN (and FID and UW) for most of my nearly 30 year career I still believe that that the graduate level of war has to be full spectrum and those that are practicing the graduate level of war are those that can shift between major combat operations and stability operations and when necessary assist a friend, partner, and ally in the conduct of COIN. Now that everyone is chasing the shiny (but not really) “new” thing (COIN) and calling it the graduate level of war I it think is disparaging to our great general purpose forces out there who are still going to be required to conduct major combat operations in some form or fashion and will have to be able to combine those operations with stability operations once the battle is won.

The graduate level of war is any form of war because war is as complex in major combat operations as it is in stability operations. The real “PhDs of war” are those that are able to recognize that the actions they take in the beginning of conflict (e.g., March-May 2003) are going to have effects on the outcome and the post conflict phases (e.g., May 2003 to the present)...

[John T. Fishel]

While the metaphor that COIN is the "graduate level" of war was briefly useful, Dave Maxwell's comments are absolutelyon the mark. Small Wars - by any name - are what we have done for most of our history and will likely continue to do most of. But, as he says, the real PhDs in war will be able to transition to BIG wars and back again without missing a step. The PhD in war will folow the Clausewitzian maxim of knowing the kind of war one is fighting and not mistaking it for something it is not.

Hear, hear!!!!!

Cheers

JohnT

[Entropy]

I've never been a fan of the "graduate level of war" meme. Education level is a poor analogy for warfare, IMO. One might argue that all war is "graduate level" because if you lose you're just as dead.

[MSG Proctor]

One extremely important distinction between current COIN Ops and historical examples of insurgency is the central role of religion in the WoT. Wars always involve ideology and frequently contest competing theological visions. Yet this war is being waged against the west by those whose raison d'terre (sp) is 'God's will'.

In this sense, my humble opinion is not so much that COIN as a theory requires graduate level aptitude, but that COIN involving the complex dynamics of Islam (in the biblical location of the Garden of Eden, Abraham's birthplace, ancient Babylon, no less) requires a cognitive expertise exceeding previous wars because of the possibility of inflaming religious tensions that may/can instigate not only WW III, but perhaps the Apocalypse envisioned by all three Abrahamic Traditions.

See: Rand National Defense Research Institute's study: "Heads We Win: Improving Cognitive Effectiveness in Counterinsurgency".

[selil]

I cringe inwardly when the military absconds with academic titles and concepts as if the trappings of academia invoke legitimacy when more often they represent dusty thinking. "The graduate level of war" concept was briefly useful as memetic for effect. It got the concept of counter insurgency noticed, but only briefly truly reflected a graduate level of study and all that "graduate level" should mean.

When information assurance and security courses began to make inroads into the University they all occurred at the graduate level. The level of thinking, adapting and cognitive processing required was just not available in the undergraduate level. Partly this is because there was no base level of understanding and all of the learning was at a synthesis level rather than rote. As the processes and concepts were matured the courses were moved to earlier and earlier into the graduate curriculum and then into the undergraduate level. In the University there are a lot of reasons that faculty and administration like to keep courses at the graduate level ($$$$$) but the fact remains most of the high level stuff now is simplistic.

In a lot of ways that is similar to small wars, insurgency, and counter insurgency. That does not mean there is not a graduate level of war though. Consider that a bachelor or undergraduate program is the engineer, the do'er, the journeyman and you have a good idea of the breadth most practitioners of war need to be at. The undergraduate acquires knowledge, skills, and abilities to apply them to particular tasks.

The graduate level is about mastery, artistry, and even a little bit about expansion of the art. The graduate level of any program is about synthesis and the creation of knowledge. Any element of the spectrum of war and the methods/tactics used can have that higher level expectation beyond the practitioner. There can be problems when to tightly focusing on a single aspect. Much like computer science faculty spent way to much time on encryption giving over much of the practical research in information technology the master of military arts can focus on one aspect and lose some of their discipline in a myopic view.

A doctoral level of war is about the creation of knowledge and the rigorous application of the disciplines standards to the practice. The epistemology of the discipline is applied to validate the concepts, knowledge, contributions and the more rigorous that application the more valuable the knowledge.

The military should be wary of attempting to acquire the trappings of an academic metaphor in the application of knowledge and creative process. As a quip the "graduate level of war" can help to generalize the value of the ideas and concepts. As a rule academic rigor can stagnate and impede the evaluation and construction of knowledge.

We have all used the phrase "That is academic".

Consider that phrase and what it means. Often used in a derogatory sense it means something important. It is the application of knowledge tools against concepts that bear not only on the surface of meaning but the deeper philosophical and tangential issues of an idea. The construction of valued science must meet the highest standards or be ridiculed no matter the social value of a discovery. Semantical deconstruction of concepts and ideas is entirely to important to science to be thrown away. Is this idea ever going to be that important to the military that an academic metaphor would truly apply?

Look at the cultural negativity that the vast majority of military members show towards the academia, and especially the low esteem held by the military for academics. Last week as an academic another military member (major) mentioned that I was a widget builder. I was also referred to as a "pet academic". I find it a little humorous that a military that holds academia as such an inferior organization would then go about adopting the terms, traditions, trappings, and titles of the inferior institution. In fact you might say the roles are that of insurgent and counter insurgent. Don't be to hasty in where you judge those roles to reside. Who is adopting what traditions?

With the greatest respect to the members of the military this old, fat, ugly, slow former Marine corporal would suggest a few things for the elite officer corps to think about. If I pinned on an officer rank it would basely and rightly offend all members of the military. Yet the military would abscond with the traditions of academia and use terms like "graduate level", "doctorate level" without concern or respect for academe traditions. This is a deeper problem in the power roles between the entities. The question is do you call a colonel by his rank, or his academic title if he is also a doctor? Is it defined by geography, role or something else?

So it is interesting to see the perspectives and discussion about terms and memes that turn around the issue. Beyond civilian and military relations there is a deeper current between academic and military members. A search for legitimacy whether needed or not, and a shared communal fracture in the pathways of communication. I would suggest there is a current insurgency between the entities and let the individuals involved sort the roles each chooses.

[Bill Moore]

I prefer to debate COL Maxwell because I respect his intellect and I know I'll get schooled when I challenge him, but unfortunately this time I can find nothing to disagree with.

[120mm]

But if COIN were the graduate level of war, couldn't we choose to take 20 years to fight the "African-American Women's Issues Among Red-headed step-children born under a blue moon in Westchester County, New York Between 1920 and 1922?"

And would Grant Writers become the most important aspect of warfighting?

[UrsaMaior]

There is too much emphasis today on specialisation and on cases which are the extremities of any given system and, at least as far as I see it, woefully little to general knowledge and to 'common sense'. As a freshly graduated historian I just cannot understand why so many relevant historical examples are simply left out of consideration.

Examples like Mao's advices in Three main rules of discipline and the eight points for attention, or the roman legions' soft power activities so brilliantly summarised in Monthy Python: Brian's Life. If we speak of the legionnaires I would like also add that apart from buidling activities, they participated in the administration of the provinces, conducted road patrols, served as embedded advisors in indigenous armies etc. Now that's full spectrum.

We just don't have to reinvent the wheel all of the time.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by UrsaMaior

Examples like Mao's advices in Three main rules of discipline and the eight points for attention, or the roman legions' soft power activities so brilliantly summarised in Monthy Python: Brian's Life. If we speak of the legionnaires I would like also add that apart from buidling activities, they participated in the administration of the provinces, conducted road patrols, served as embedded advisors in indigenous armies etc. Now that's full spectrum.

I must just correct you. It is Monty Python's, Life of Brian which is a master work, and much revered here, amongst the majority secular community in Israel. Otherwise your point is excellent and well made.

We just don't have to reinvent the wheel all of the time.

Exactly! - and some folks should be confronted about the selective raiding the historic and operational record to support the latest bumper sticker idea, which usually has no merit.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Must agree that so called "counter-insurgency" is not graduate level warfare. Personally feel its graduate level diplomacy.

Disagree with the Colonel regarding "PhDs of war" being those who understand that their actions at the beginning have consequences later.

This is not too much to be asking of anyone at the undergraduate level. Everyone should know it not just the enlightened few, but everyone.

Roger, actions have consequences, decisions have ramifications, that's part of the challenge of leadership.