On Counterinsurgency

I’m frequently troubled by conservative blog posts and comments that reflect a belief that we just have to “get tough enough to win.” For example, think about prisoner abuses. To read much on the internet, one might think that the only people who have a problem with prisoner abuse are those who want to kowtow to Amnesty International, Al Jazeera, and the Arab Street, as well as woolly-headed moral relativists who want to hold American forces to impossible standards, while giving a free pass to terrorists. For example, this comment at Ace’s a couple weeks ago:

Kindness and all that are fine when times are good, but you win wars by thinking like a Visigoth.

I beg to differ.

There is, I believe, an “insurgency” in Iraq. Counter-insurgency (COIN) methods are not ineffable mysteries. While they require work, commitment, and application to the specific case, the techniques are generally known. US Army General Petraeus and US Marine General Mattis have written the book on COIN. Not exactly moonbats.

Here’s a very brief excerpt, a list of successful and unsuccessful practices.

Successful Practices
• Emphasize intelligence.
• Focus on the population, their needs, and security.
• Establish and expand secure areas.
• Isolate insurgents from the population (population control).
• Appoint a single authority, usually a dynamic, charismatic leader.
• Conduct effective, pervasive psychological operations.
• Provide amnesty and rehabilitation for insurgents.
• Place police in the lead with military support.
• Expand and diversify the police force.
• Train military forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
• Embed special operations forces and advisors with indigenous forces.
• Deny the insurgents sanctuary.

Unsuccessful Practices
• Place priority on killing and capturing the enemy, not on engaging the population.
• Conduct battalion-sized operations as the norm.
• Concentrate military forces in large bases for protection.
• Focus special operations forces primarily on raiding.
• Place a low priority on assigning quality advisors to host-nation forces.
• Build and train host-nation security forces in the of the U.S. Army’s image.
• Ignore peacetime government processes, including legal procedures.
• Allow open borders, airspace, and coastlines.

I suppose it’s useful to think about which of these practices we have focused on, to-date in Iraq.

But I’m making a very different point here. And that is, we should care about things like prisoner abuse, NOT because we want to be (what some might call) pre-occupied with human rights, but because we want to win.

I’ll press this a little more. I am troubled by exchanges I’ve had, in comments and via email, with ostensibly reasonable people on this score. In response to messages like that in this post, I too frequently get, “Yes, that’s all well and good, but we just gotta kill them and break them, ruthlessly and efficiently.”

Comments

  1. canuckistani wrote:

    I agree and disagree with you, Commisar. Everything you say is correct, except for one thing; you need to resist acting like barbarians not because it will help you win, but because it is the right thing to do. I think it would be a better thing to lose the war on terror by acting morally than win and turn into a new monster nation which will violate any inconvenient law for its own benefit.

    As it turns out, though, acting morally will help you win, especially in the long run. The world will be watching to see if democracy and human rights can stand up to terror and religious fundamentalism. You won the Cold War because you did not sell out your ideals; communism could not stand against the tide of democracy after 70 years. If you sell out your ideals of freedom and human rights for a quick and dirty victory in Iraq or Iran, you won’t win that long term victory of ideas against terror and oppression.

  2. DavidC wrote:

    I’m frequently troubled by conservative blog posts and comments that reflect a belief that we just have to “get tough enough to win.”

    That depends on what getting tough means. In terms of treatment of prisoners, I make a distinction between enemy suspects and known enemies. In my opinion, abusive treatment of suspected enemies can be counterproductive and bad for military discipline and morale. On the other hand, if we have a known member of Al Quaeda in custody, the rules should be different, and we should do what ever is necessary and most efficient to extract needed information. In certain situations and with certain individuals, methods that constitute abuse, or even torture, may be the most effective. They shouldn’t necessarily be our first resort, but they shouldn’t be ruled out either.

  3. John the Marine wrote:

    Holy mackerel! What the heck just happened? I agree with Canuckistani? The World must be coming to an end.

    Usually I’m pretty hard line, and rather cynical. But the gentlman from the Great White North is right.

    I would only add that we have to run up the middle respecting this matter. We don’t want to be a bunch of softies but then again we don’t want to be Visagoth’s either.

    In Desert Storm we were very careful not to shoot those who wanted to surrender. Furthermore we treated prisoners very well. Not because we were warm and fuzzy guys, but because we wanted the word to get out that you are better off surrendering than fighting and dying. Give the enemy an alternative. However, when good Marine fails… It is time for bad Marine.

  4. commissar wrote:

    Thanks John,

    Joining your effort to get this comment thread back on track, I’d note the very first “unsuccessful practice”

    Place priority on killing and capturing the enemy, not on engaging the population.

    All the news reports of “latest AQ #2 in Iraq killed.” .. Good, I guess. But the book, the US military’s book says that doesn’t help much.

  5. andrewdb wrote:

    I just finished LTC Nagl’s book, “Eating Soup with a Knife.” I had the same reaction as you did, Commissar. I fear Mr. Rumsfeld will be remembered with Mr. Mcnamera.

    And I am willing to go Roman if it means we win, but it won’t.