February 21, 2006
SHIFTING THE CENTER OF GRAVITY:
U.S. Counterinsurgency Academy Giving Officers a New Mind-Set: Course in Iraq Stresses the Cultural, Challenges the Conventional (Thomas E. Ricks, February 21, 2006, Washington Post)
If the U.S. effort in Iraq ultimately is successful, one reason may be the small school started recently on a military base here by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq.Called the COIN Academy -- using military shorthand for "counterinsurgency" -- the newest educational institution in the U.S. military establishment seeks, as a course summary puts it, to "stress the need for U.S. forces to shift from a conventional warfare mindset" to one that understands how to win in a guerrilla-style conflict. Or, as a sign on the wall of one administrator's office here put it less politely: "Insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different outcome." [...]
Again and again, the intense immersion course, which 30 to 50 officers attend at a time, emphasizes that the right answer is probably the counterintuitive one, rather than something that the Army has taught officers in their 10 or 20 years of service. The school's textbook, a huge binder, offers the example of a mission that busts into a house and captures someone who mortared a U.S. base.
"On the surface, a raid that captures a known insurgent or terrorist may seem like a sure victory for the coalition," it observes in red block letters. It continues, "The potential second- and third-order effects, however, can turn it into a long-term defeat if our actions humiliate the family, needlessly destroy property, or alienate the local population from our goals."
At points, the school's leaders seem to go out of their way to challenge current U.S. military practices here. Short said in an interview Friday inside his sandbagged headquarters that he has issues with "this big-base mentality" that keeps tens of thousands of troops inside facilities called forwarding operating bases, or FOBs, which they leave for patrols and raids. Classic counterinsurgency theory holds that troops should live out among the people as much as possible, to develop a sense of how the society works and to gather intelligence.
As Apache attack helicopters clattered overhead, Short also offered an unconventional view of Iraq's December elections, which many U.S. officials have portrayed as a great victory. "You can ask just about every Iraqi, 'What about the elections?' " he said. "They'll say" -- Short shrugged his shoulders -- " 'Well, we voted five times, and nothing's happening out here.' "
Recent attendees at the school came away impressed. "I think it's an incredibly insightful course," said Army Maj. Sheldon Horsfall, an adviser to the Iraqi military in Baghdad. "One of the things that was brought home to us, again and again, was the importance of cultural awareness."
"The course opened my eyes to some of the bigger picture," said Lt. Col. Nathan Nastase, the operations officer for the 5th Marine Regiment, based near Fallujah. He said he especially liked hearing about the role of Special Operations Forces in Iraq, as well as learning about the tactics being used by successful commanders.
The school's greatest effect seems to be on younger officers. "My initial impression of it was it was a waste of time," said Capt. Klaudius Robinson, commander of a cavalry troop in the 4th Infantry Division. "But after going through it, it really changed my thinking about how to fight this insurgency. I came to realize that the center of gravity is the people, and you have to drive a wedge between the insurgents and the people."
Posted by Orrin Judd at February 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Shouldn't they have been learning all this a lot earlier?
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at February 21, 2006 1:38 PMAli:
No. That's why it's a waste to maintain a big military. We always have to relearn and retool everything. And big bureaucracies are best begun from scratch,
Posted by: oj at February 21, 2006 1:42 PMDecorum and charity demand a measured reply.
Counter-insurgency is not war. In the case of Iraq it is the mopping up done after victory in war.
We still need war-fighting and war-winning capabilities as a condition precedent to having earned the privilege to engage in counter-insurgency.
This means technology and application of the historic principles of war.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 21, 2006 5:04 PMNo, in the case of Iraq it's mopping up after the idiocy of occupation. We wouldn't have occupied had we not maintained to large a military to begin with.
Posted by: oj at February 21, 2006 5:11 PMWe're concerned about Indonesia mullahs?
Posted by: erp at February 21, 2006 6:40 PMThis proves two things: 1) The idiocy of the Leftist charge that the U.S. is imperialist. If we were, we'd be better at it. 2) The truth of Rommel's assessment of the American army in North Africa: "I never saw an army so badly trained or one that learned so fast."
Posted by: PapayaSF at February 22, 2006 1:29 AMLou is still right, of course. We face guerillas because nobody is going to waste their time trying to beat us conventionally, but if we were weaker conventionally that would change pretty quickly . Edward Luttwauk used to be very good at this sort of thing, he would patiently explain over and over why there is no substitute for a broad-based effort.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 4:47 PMwe face guerillas because we're an occupying force.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 4:59 PMObviously. But then the converse must also be true, no? If occupation guarantees guerillas, then the appearance of guerillas is a sure sign of occupation. Therefore we'd better bug out of Manhattan, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Madrid, and London before there's any more trouble.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 6:43 PMThe Brits did, no?
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 7:17 PMYou're about that close to calling them Minutemen. Be real careful what you say next.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 7:29 PMjoe:
If you were an Iraqi wouldn't you want the occupier out?
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 7:35 PMVery likely, but I am an American, not an Iraqi. As are you. I am aware that you feel a duty towards universal sympathy, which twists at your thinking in strange ways; and that there are universal aspirations in our founding ideal; however we are also a land and a people, and your first duty is to those. If this be dread nationalism then make the most of it.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 7:47 PMIn other words, don't go native. Something the Green Berets had to learn to watch out for also.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 7:48 PMjoe:
Yes, so a military strategy that is based on occupying nations, rather than just decapitating the regime, invites guerrilla warfare and is patently unwise. A massive force like that we still have invites such unwisdom. Reducing manpower would effectively prevent us from repeating our own mistakes.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 8:06 PMWell, it took a massive force just to do the decaptitation in this latest instance. It also took eight months and twenty-four days, I believe: the ground invasion kicked off on March 20th, and Saddam was pulled out of his spider hole on December 14th. Remember that the Iraqi army mostly scattered in the face of that massive force but had the force been lighter they would not have. Things seen, and things unseen.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 9:01 PMDecapitation. We didn't cut their boobies off, we're not barbarians.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 9:03 PMjoe:
With Saddam hiding and his forces scattered why invade?
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 9:09 PMHe didn't and they didn't until we did.
Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 9:16 PMHe did. He was never seen after the decapitation strike.
More importantly, had we not made a big deal about invading he'd have been easy to whack with one Predator.
Having a big, slow military makes us think big and slow.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 9:21 PM