« Book Review - Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? | Main | The Manhattan Declaration: A Christian Call to Arms »

March 11, 2010

Krauthammer Nails it on Counterinsurgency
Are We Finally Beginning to Understand How to Win?

Charles Krauthammer last night on Fox News as one of the "all star" commentators:

...I think it fits with the interesting strategy that McChrystal has because the objective is not the killing of the Taliban. The objective is to gain the confidence of the civilians.

If you announce in advance you will do Kandahar, the capital [of the Taliban], the prize here, you hope that the small bands of the enemy roaming around will think twice about hanging around and facing the U.S. Marines, because they will lose.

And you are doing is appealing to the less fanatical and less ideological and the less suicidal enemy who will sneak around and join the population and give up the fight and become civilians. And we aren't against that.

The idea is once they get integrated in society, that's OK. You don't want a victory where you have to surrender on the battleship Missouri. What you want is to win the confidence of the population.

I don't know whether to be happy or sad when I read this. I didn't see the video, but Krauthammer seems to think this is some sort of a unique strategy. If so, I'm disappointed, because protecting the population as opposed to simply hunting and killing insurgents was the entire strategic basis of the surge in Iraq. I guess that Charles hasn't been reading The Redhunter.

I've gone over this a kazillion times on Redhunter, but once more can't hurt. Maybe there's a new reader who cares about this stuff.

Our strategy for what became known as the "surge" in Iraq was published in December of 2006 in the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24("3-24" is sometimes written as "3024" for reasons I'm not clear on). Long story short, the manual was written by a team led by then-Lieutenant General David Petraeus. A few months later Petraeus was promoted to four-star rank and sent to Iraq to implement the strategy he developed.

The authors of the manual examined the history of insurgency over the past hundred years or so to determine their nature and what strategies worked and which failed. The team included civilians as well as military personnel.

The essence of the new strategy was that raiding from remote bases does not work. Troops must get off their big bases and live among the people. Rather than concentrate on hunting and killing insurgents, troops should focus on protecting the population. There were three basic phases: Clear - Hold - Build.

Small Wars Journal explains it best, and quotes from the section of the manual written by Lt. Col. (Dr) David Kilcullen:

Counterinsurgency: FM 3024 / MCWP 3.33.5 defines the true meaning of the phrase hearts and minds as the two components in building trusted networks in the conduct of COIN operations:
"Hearts" means persuading people that their best interests are served by COIN success. "Minds" means convincing them that the force can protect them and that resisting it is pointless. Note that neither concerns whether people like Soldiers and Marines. Calculated self-interest, not emotion, is what counts. Over time, successful trusted networks grow like roots into the populace. They displace enemy networks, which forces enemies into the open, letting military forces seize the initiative and destroy the insurgents.

I think Dr. David Kilcullen defined hearts and minds as two components of COIN operations quite nicely during a COIN seminar at Quantico, Virginia, several weeks ago.

In addressing the reality of hearts and minds Kilcullen explained how the following 1952 statement by General Sir Gerald Templer, Director of Operations and High Commissioner for Malaya, has been misinterpreted:

"The answer lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the Malayan People"

General Templer did not mean (or say) that we must "be nice to the population" or make them like us. What he meant, and his subsequent actions played out, was that success in COIN rests on the popular perception and this perception has an emotive ("hearts") component and a cognitive ("minds") component.

Kilculen continued - what is essential here is making the population choose. The gratitude theory - "be nice to the people, meet their needs and they will feel grateful and stop supporting the insurgents" - does not work. The enemy simply intimidates the population when COIN forces / government are not present resulting in lip-service as the population sees COIN forces / government as weak and easily manipulated. In time, this leads to hatred of COIN forces / government by the population. On the other hand, the choice theory - "enable (persuade, coerce, co-opt) the population to make an irrevocable choice to support COIN forces / government usually works better. The population typically desires to "sit on the fence" and not commit to supporting any side in an insurgency / COIN environment. COIN forces / government need to get the population off that fence and keep them there. This requires persuading the population, then protecting them, where they live. While this cannot be done everywhere, it must be done where it politically counts.

Go to the right sidebar on this blog, and under "Categories" you'll see some for Iraq. Choose Iraq II 2007 - 2008 and scroll away. Time and again you'll come across our commanders saying that the key to victory was living among the people so that we can protect them.

Or you can watch Gen Petraus give the definitive speech on the matter, or just read my summary of it at my October 12, 2008 post: Gen Petraeus' Speech on Iraq - How We Did It .

Or if you want to hear it from the colonels who commanded the brigades themselves read

Iraq Briefing - 04 Feb 2008 - "We do not drive or commute to work"
Iraq Briefing - 22 Feb 2008 - "We are Living with the Population"
Iraq Briefing - 14 April 2008 - "From Clear to Hold and Build"
Iraq Briefing - 09 June 2008 - Job Creation to Defeat the Insurgency
Iraq Briefing - 04 August 2008 - Achieving Durable Security

Did it work? Even the leftist rag Newsweek, something I usually pay absolutely no attention to but saw at my gym just this evening, says so. In an article titled "Rebirth of a Nation: Something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq. It may not be 'mission accomplished'--but it's a start" they basically admit that in the end Bush's surge strategy worked.

Yes yes, I know, we're not out of the woods there yet. There are dangers galore. Ditto that of the United States until the civil rights movement of fifty years ago, if you want to play that game. We won, the insurgents and naysayers lost, and we need to apply those lessons to Afghanistan and wherever else we need to fight.


Posted by Tom at March 11, 2010 9:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1545

Comments

So much of everyone's "strategy" for Iraq or Afghanistan rests on what they think insurgents, terrorists, the average Iraqi or Afghan or Al Queda will do if we do this or that. The reality is you can't predict what an irrational nut will do. You can't predict what a scared peasant in Afghanistan will do. We don't even really know what we will do because we have to wait and see what the other groups will do than react.

This is no way to fight a war. We need to leave. Victory is continually being defined. Yesterdays friends are today's enemies and vice versa. It's totally unfair to our Soldiers that we ask them to fight and die for a cause that is constantly being redefined. We need to bring them home and give them the honor they earned through their selfless service.

Posted by: Truth 101 at March 13, 2010 11:28 AM

Snake Hunters Sez,

There you have it, Tom. Damn few care enough about
our military objectives. Even fewer understand Islam's goal of world domination.

Who will take time away from their Golf, Pro- Sports, or Celebrity Worship, to read the ugly doctrines in Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52 in the Holy
Qur'an?

There is no national committment by the inane "baby boomers" to defeat these
suicidal killers before Iran gets their nuclear capability!

Winston Churchill said it best: "The appeaser feeds the crocodile, in the hope that he will be eaten last!"

reb
________________________________________________

Posted by: Ralph E at March 13, 2010 5:30 PM

Why can't we have a draft like we had in WWII and Vietnam? Isn't the current enemy as dangerous to us and to democracy as were the Nazis and the Japanese Empire and the VietCong? All my dozens of men relatives, and my husband and his relatives who received draft notices just shrugged their shoulders and left to join the service branch of their choice. Why are people afraid of a draft now? Do they just want to talk and not walk?

Too many servicemen (and unfortunately women too) are being deployed over and over again, they feel so depressed, get on drugs, commit suicide more and more from what I hear. We don't have enough boots over there to clear, hold, and build.

Jesse Ventura, former gov of Minnesota, said had his state's National Guard been conscripted when he was gov he would have objected and demanded a draft. He is a former Navy man who didn't shirk his duty. He said our National Guard is for our protection here at home and if you use them up, what then? Why should we not have as huge a force as Iran?

No, disorganized militias with their own agendas won't do in their place. Israelis by law have to serve two years, men and women, even though they think we have a commitment to protect them. What is wrong with us that we don't have such a law?

Baby boomers--aren't they the ones who mostly said, "Hell, no, we won't go?" Weren't they the "me generation" of the past two decades? Seems they always take and never give, and they have raised two more generations just like themselves.

Bring back the draft.

Sorry about the rant.

Emilie
Port Orchard, WA

Posted by: Emilie at March 14, 2010 4:32 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)