Schmedlap.com

A weblog of periodic insights from a former know-it-all Infantry Officer

Repent while there is still time

Posted by Schmedlap at: 09:25 AM on 06 JUL 10 | Comments (49) | Reply to this post

Problem with enemy-centric COIN: If there are ten insurgents and you kill four of them, you do not necessarily have six remaining. You may have twenty because the relatives of the deceased are angry at you for killing their relatives.

Solution: Conduct population-centric COIN to secure the population and marginalize the insurgents without creating more insurgents.

Wait a minute. Still, problem: Even when you protect the population, and avoid killing reconcilable insurgents, you are still fighting the original ten insurgents, plus the additional relatives, because they are eventually paid to fight against you.

Pop-COIN: 10 + 14 = 24

Enemy-COIN: 10 – 4 + 14 = 20

That is obviously a bit oversimplified, given that those driven to fight for badal will probably be a tad bit more motivated than those driven to fight for dinero. But the futility of population-centric COIN should be evident when conducting it does not lessen the capability of insurgency.

An enemy-centric approach results in killing and capturing personnel and weapons, thus reducing a finite pool of recruits from which the insurgents can draw. It also increases the demanded price for services among a populace that realizes it has a much higher chance of getting blown away when it takes up arms against the counterinsurgent. A population-centric approach merely increases the required troops on our end, increases our logistical requirements, slows the pace of our operations, and reinforces the perception among the people that they need to remain on the fence and be ready to play either side, since there is no decisive advantage being obtained by either.

One of the saints of the pop-COIN religion, Sir Robert Thompson, is widely quoted:

“What the peasant wants to know is: does the government mean to win the war? Because if not, he will have to support the insurgent.”

That is certainly true in Afghanistan. We insist on moving into areas temporarily and then leaving; or moving into areas and demonstrating our inability to meet the needs or demands of the populace. There is an expectation that areas will return to Taliban control. So the people must sit on the fence and be ready to cooperate with the insurgents when they return. So what is the utility of pop-COIN? Are we gleaning better intelligence because of our demonstrated willingness to protect the population? Not likely. Who wants to be outed as an informant when ISAF leaves the village and the Taliban return?

Both approaches have their utility, METT-TC dependent. It seems quite a leap of faith to think that Afghanistan is an appropriate venue for a country-wide, population-centric approach.

One thing that I think many people forget about Iraq (or maybe it wasn't reported?) is that in 2007 and 2008 we were killing and capturing lots of people on a nightly basis. Protecting the populace was A priority. When speaking to the folks back home, in order to sell the war, perhaps we said that it was the priority. But on the ground, I do not recall a single Commander's Update Brief spending any time at all discussing what we had done to protect anyone. We were focused on punching al-Qaeda in the nuts at every opportunity and dismantling their networks. The reconcilables got the message loud and clear that they could take money and jobs in return for cooperation, or they would die a swift death when we came knocking down their doors in the middle of the night. The rest of the populace made it clear to them that they should take the offer. The only protection that the population got from us was good fire discipline so that we did not kill non-combatants. We made it clear that the government intended to win this thing and we did not send that message by delivering governance or digging wells. We shot motherfuckers in the face.

Pop-COIN blasphemers, your scripture is false teaching. Here is some truth:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
- Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 (KJV)

It's time to kill.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 09:25 AM on 06 JUL 10 | Permalink | Comments (49) | Reply to this post

Comments...

1. Brandon Friedman says, in response to the original post:

Amen.

It's time to kill. Or leave. Do you see the political will to do--as Colonel Kurtz would say--"what is necessary." Unfortunately, I don't.

Posted at: 10:03 AM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment
5 response to this comment by: Schmedlap kati15lee Levaquin Fiveamrunner FancyUnicorn

2. Schmedlap says, in response to Brandon Friedman:

For all of the wrong reasons, I think that will exists among half of this country - people who say that we need to fight like it's WWII. The other half will cringe at the fact that Obama might be doing something that resembles something Bush might have done. In other words, everybody is stupid.

Posted at: 10:07 AM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment
4 response to this comment by: clyvejive Cialis gerirbigum neilbetter

3. MikeF says, in response to the original post:

The leaders that I know on the ground understand your post. GEN Patraeus included.

Posted at: 10:31 AM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment
3 response to this comment by: Schmedlap nevzsy shivasprogeny

4. Schmedlap says, in response to MikeF:

Well, I never claimed to have any monopoly on knowledge. But I do hope that the people who count agree with me. My beef with the CNAS marketers has been that they have disingenuously (in my opinion) sold the concept of a kinder, gentler way of war to the public. They may not have said kinder and gentler, but that is the perception that was deliberately crafted. It's a load of BS. I don't care what kind of war you're in. If you're at war, it's because you need to kill someone. There are a lot of people who need to die and it's time that we were frank with the American people about that. Half of the US will come on board just because they're ignorant and only view war as a WWII-style contest between two armed groups. The other half will need to be swayed by some skillful, persuasive discussion. That is where the President needs to step up. Unfortunately, I think he's only as powerful as his teleprompter. I was willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but the doubt has been cleared up and I have little hope that he will step up and be a CinC rather than a typical politician more interested in hedging his bets for the upcoming election and his next campaign.

Posted at: 12:09 PM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment

5. Brandon Friedman says, in response to the original post:

Here's a 30-second clip in which Gary Oldman advises the U.S. government on how to defeat the Taliban.

Posted at: 8:49 PM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment
2 response to this comment by: Schmedlap pussycatxox

6. Schmedlap says, in response to Brandon Friedman:

I'm out of touch. I just read his IMDB and Wikipedia pages and I still have no idea who Gary Oldman is, nor what movie that scene was from. I need to get out more often. But, if the gist of it is that we can defeat the Taliban by killing them, rather than marginalizing them, then I agree.

Posted at: 8:56 PM on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - Reply to this comment
2 response to this comment by: Brandon Friedman mepopo

7. Brandon Friedman says, in response to Schmedlap:

You've never seen The Professional? Seriously?

Posted at: 11:01 AM on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - Reply to this comment
4 response to this comment by: Schmedlap zaqlyqh VideobyMe d0llyd4ddy

8. Schmedlap says, in response to Brandon Friedman:

From 02 to 08 I was on four deployments ranging from 7 to 13 months each. For the time that I was not deployed, I spent about two-thirds of that time in the field. For the remaining third of non-deployed time I was doing all-nighters at work. There wasn’t much time to have a life. I’ve been catching up over the past two years. I’ll add it to the bucket list.

Posted at: 11:20 AM on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 - Reply to this comment

9. Madhu says, in response to the original post:

Gary Oldman kind of creeps me out because of the late 80s, and early 90s roles, he played in. Back in the day, he was the hot young actor married to Uma Thurman, and he played Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy. How'd he morph into Mr. Generic Hollywood villain?

On COIN, the thing that freaks me out is how divorced the conversation seems - the public conversation anyway - from the very specific geography and history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Maybe I spend too much time reading think tank websites and not enough reading proper journal articles or books.

Well, it's not like I have a day job or anything.

Posted at: 5:48 PM on Friday, July 09, 2010 - Reply to this comment
2 response to this comment by: Schmedlap poloud

10. Schmedlap says, in response to Madhu:

Maybe I spend too much time reading think tank websites and not enough reading proper journal articles or books.

I don't know either. But I suspect the policy makers aren't reading enough.

Posted at: 6:54 PM on Friday, July 09, 2010 - Reply to this comment

11. zaqlyqh says: