Comments on: The Accidental Guerrilla – Book Review http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-accidental-guerrilla-book-review.htm All things military history! Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:45:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Mark Stewart http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-accidental-guerrilla-book-review.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8511 Mark Stewart Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:07:47 +0000 http://www.armchairgeneral.com/?p=6067#comment-8511 Responding to the review itself, rather than the book (which I have not read). I would like to point out a weakness in current thought among those who claim to "get it" on COIN. Many intelligent, experienced, serious people thinking on the subject have assumed that the insurgent necessarily requires widespread support of the people. That is often times true. But not always. First, one must consider the goals of the insurgent, then the insurgent's strategy (which is not the same thing as his tactics, though his tactics are driven by his strategy). Some insurgencies can achieve most of their goals by creating a situation that is so utterly intolerable to their opponents that anything would seem preferable to the conditions created by the insurgent. This is why many insurgent groups engage in acts of terrorism - killing innocent people in marketplaces, on buses, or on trains. Such attacks create an intolerable environment in which the people look to their government and demand an end to the attacks. The government is unable to provide that instant cessation of terror attacks by the insurgents because defeating an insurgent organization take time. As a result,the people perceive that government has failed to meet its primary obligation to the governed: Civil security. The failure to provide civil security will eventually destroy the perceived legitimacy of a government and breed additional opposition ("accidental guerrillas"?) to the government. In some cases the insurgent may seek to take power in a coalition overthrow (Iran, 1979), and then eliminate its weaker partners to consolidate power. Such a strategy does not require widespread public support so much as it requires a lack of a unified, determined foe. That said, it IS certainly true that the COUNTERinsurgent requires widespread public support. To this end, the counterinsurgent would do well to concentrate on providing civil security - the most basic responsibility of government and deeply linked to legitimacy. However, assuming that popular support is zero-sum and thinking that because the insurgent lacks the support of the people that you, as the counterinsurgent, necessarily have gained it is deadly wrong. This may seem a fine distinction, but it is very important to understand if you want to "get it" at all (I'm not a fan of the "get it" term, but I hear a lot of people using it who generally only "get" about 80 or 90% of "it"). To wrap: YOU (the counterinsurgent), need the widespead support of the people. The BAD GUYS (insurgents), might or might not require that support - it depends on their strategy. In either case, know that popular support is NOT zero-sum. Just because you've taken from the other guy does NOT mean that you've gained it for yourself. Responding to the review itself, rather than the book (which I have not read). I would like to point out a weakness in current thought among those who claim to “get it” on COIN. Many intelligent, experienced, serious people thinking on the subject have assumed that the insurgent necessarily requires widespread support of the people. That is often times true. But not always. First, one must consider the goals of the insurgent, then the insurgent’s strategy (which is not the same thing as his tactics, though his tactics are driven by his strategy). Some insurgencies can achieve most of their goals by creating a situation that is so utterly intolerable to their opponents that anything would seem preferable to the conditions created by the insurgent. This is why many insurgent groups engage in acts of terrorism – killing innocent people in marketplaces, on buses, or on trains. Such attacks create an intolerable environment in which the people look to their government and demand an end to the attacks. The government is unable to provide that instant cessation of terror attacks by the insurgents because defeating an insurgent organization take time. As a result,the people perceive that government has failed to meet its primary obligation to the governed: Civil security. The failure to provide civil security will eventually destroy the perceived legitimacy of a government and breed additional opposition (”accidental guerrillas”?) to the government. In some cases the insurgent may seek to take power in a coalition overthrow (Iran, 1979), and then eliminate its weaker partners to consolidate power. Such a strategy does not require widespread public support so much as it requires a lack of a unified, determined foe.

That said, it IS certainly true that the COUNTERinsurgent requires widespread public support. To this end, the counterinsurgent would do well to concentrate on providing civil security – the most basic responsibility of government and deeply linked to legitimacy. However, assuming that popular support is zero-sum and thinking that because the insurgent lacks the support of the people that you, as the counterinsurgent, necessarily have gained it is deadly wrong. This may seem a fine distinction, but it is very important to understand if you want to “get it” at all (I’m not a fan of the “get it” term, but I hear a lot of people using it who generally only “get” about 80 or 90% of “it”).

To wrap:

YOU (the counterinsurgent), need the widespead support of the people.

The BAD GUYS (insurgents), might or might not require that support – it depends on their strategy.

In either case, know that popular support is NOT zero-sum. Just because you’ve taken from the other guy does NOT mean that you’ve gained it for yourself.

]]> By: DE Teodoru http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-accidental-guerrilla-book-review.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8279 DE Teodoru Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:53:37 +0000 http://www.armchairgeneral.com/?p=6067#comment-8279 As Bracevich points out in NATIONAL INTEREST, there is here the sound of an interested party whose career depends on the US trapped in endless COIN ops. Just as carpenters insist we need more nails and boards banged together, the COIN guys insist we need more Cion warfare-- for Afghan case alone they want another decade. But let us recall what happened to Vietnam. The VC were doing fine because, as in Iraq/Afghan efforts, career officers depended on being action-Jackson but since it had to be with low casualties, thy prepaired the ops terrain by stralizing it with ordnance, destroying all protein on it.. This led to massive massacre of civilians before our troops went in. In Iraq, "shoxk&awe" reached the point of criminal, given our intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb invasion. Now in Afghanistan we get the benefit of Kilcullen's once-quick-thru trips and the advice of one year tours from sililarly intel blind, language deaf, culture dumb officers. But the Vietnam lesson is fogotten. There, our "Better War" towards the end almost won because, while in the begininig the VC were fish swimming in a sea of willing peasants, our ordnance mania made them all refugees to the cities, turning South vietnam from 85% rural to 75% urban. There the peasant, according to VC documents, became "petits bourgeois," with new lives in commerce. This called for a war that, according to Hanoi's Communist Party history was totally won by DRV regulars because the VC was no more than an "anoyance" to Saigon. What Kilcullen does not deal with is the Muslim unity in the face of his fellow Christian American "Crusades" there. If instead our troops were to play a passive protective role, rather than massacre civilians blindly, USAID could, as did CORDS in South Vietnam, create an urban settings where youth and women could take refuge, slowly draining the rural "sea" (in which swim the Taliban) with industry and commerce. Ditto for Pakistan. But instead we have been feeding corruption blindly as in Iraq. So maybe it would be best to let the Shanghai Accord states that includes all its neighbors, including Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India and Central Asian states, deal with Taliban and we just leave. Taliban did not do 9/11 and will not do the next. Kilcullen&Co will all have to get regular jobs selling door to door or something. As Bracevich points out in NATIONAL INTEREST, there is here the sound of an interested party whose career depends on the US trapped in endless COIN ops. Just as carpenters insist we need more nails and boards banged together, the COIN guys insist we need more Cion warfare– for Afghan case alone they want another decade. But let us recall what happened to Vietnam. The VC were doing fine because, as in Iraq/Afghan efforts, career officers depended on being action-Jackson but since it had to be with low casualties, thy prepaired the ops terrain by stralizing it with ordnance, destroying all protein on it.. This led to massive massacre of civilians before our troops went in. In Iraq, “shoxk&awe” reached the point of criminal, given our intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb invasion. Now in Afghanistan we get the benefit of Kilcullen’s once-quick-thru trips and the advice of one year tours from sililarly intel blind, language deaf, culture dumb officers. But the Vietnam lesson is fogotten. There, our “Better War” towards the end almost won because, while in the begininig the VC were fish swimming in a sea of willing peasants, our ordnance mania made them all refugees to the cities, turning South vietnam from 85% rural to 75% urban. There the peasant, according to VC documents, became “petits bourgeois,” with new lives in commerce. This called for a war that, according to Hanoi’s Communist Party history was totally won by DRV regulars because the VC was no more than an “anoyance” to Saigon. What Kilcullen does not deal with is the Muslim unity in the face of his fellow Christian American “Crusades” there. If instead our troops were to play a passive protective role, rather than massacre civilians blindly, USAID could, as did CORDS in South Vietnam, create an urban settings where youth and women could take refuge, slowly draining the rural “sea” (in which swim the Taliban) with industry and commerce. Ditto for Pakistan. But instead we have been feeding corruption blindly as in Iraq. So maybe it would be best to let the Shanghai Accord states that includes all its neighbors, including Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India and Central Asian states, deal with Taliban and we just leave. Taliban did not do 9/11 and will not do the next. Kilcullen&Co will all have to get regular jobs selling door to door or something.

]]> By: The Accidental Guerrilla | Book Review http://www.armchairgeneral.com/the-accidental-guerrilla-book-review.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8149 The Accidental Guerrilla | Book Review Thu, 28 May 2009 02:26:40 +0000 http://www.armchairgeneral.com/?p=6067#comment-8149 [...] indepth reviews, see  The NY Times, thearmchairgeneral.com, The Economist (below a review of Ricks’ The Gamble), Bacevich’s criticism and [...] [...] indepth reviews, see  The NY Times, thearmchairgeneral.com, The Economist (below a review of Ricks’ The Gamble), Bacevich’s criticism and [...]

]]>