Great Paper on Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam

[Brill]

Malaya and Oman are again classic examples of successes of COIN doctrine.

Both were UK sponsored, yes?

 

[Florida173]

What?

In what way could WWII ever be misconstrued as an insurgency?

I had learned that Post war Japan had an active insurgency, but doing some basic research now it seems that there has been a reverse on that idea.

There was of course the werewolves in Germany after the war, but that was apparently not all that significant.

 

[Gunz]

I disagree, unless of course you are singling the USA out on this post.

Malaya and Oman are again classic examples of successes of COIN doctrine.

USA only, Pardus, in response to Lindy's question.

Malaya and Oman stand out, but in terms of scale don't approach the massive operations in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Malaya we're talking about an estimated 8000-9000 insurgents; in Oman, less than 2000 rebels. And in neither case were the insurgencies backed by outside third parties. North Vietnam had two superpowers and the rest of the Iron Curtain countries backing it up and an army of more than a quarter million. I just think a small-scale conflict is easier to manage and contain and provides a more realistic environment for COIN.

 

[Blizzard]

The problem with a "win" is what do you define as a victory?

To me, this question gets to the heart of the issue. How is one defining a "victory" or "loss"?

1. Is it ousting the current regime and decimating their armed forces? We did that...quickly and efficiently in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If so, unquestionable win.

2. Is it the nation building/COIN once the aforementioned is complete? Well, that's another question. The answer becomes complex and becomes a rather slippery slope...

I'll quote from one of my past posts on a similar topic:

"From the Air Force Officer's Guide: "The armed forces exist to serve the United States by providing the military wherewithal to deter war and, should that fail, to fight and conclude war to the advantage of the United States. The armed forces do not exist for themselves, as a source of employment, as a market for American industry, or as a social welfare tool for social engineering."

Former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogelman summed it up well, and his statement is applicable here, when he said, "The Air Force is not a social actions agency. The Air Force exists to fight and win wars. That's our core expertise; it is what allows us to be called professionals. We are entrusted with the security or our nation..."

"Air Force" can be substituted with "armed forces" in Fogelman's statement above."

Do we have an obligation to ensure a country we've waged war against is successful in our aftermath or is the simple removal of a regime and decimation of their existing military capability enough? This is really a moral, ethical, and political question as opposed to a military one. Is this what defines victory? If so, who really owns the nation building process; DoS, some OGA, or the military? My view is that ownership primarily lies with DoS. This is their mission statement (contrast this with the bolded statements above):

"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system."

However, the reality is this comes with it's own challenges, not the least being DoS's very political and changing nature and the line defining the military's role continues to blur more and more. Isn't success or failure in this arena truly the result of subsequent diplomacy?

Retired Army Lt Gen and Former Ambassador Karl Eikenberry actually wrote an interesting read with some fair points (as well as a number with which I disagree) called "The Limits of Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan". In his conclusion he makes the statement, even if in passing, that, "..while making Afghanistan a better place to live is certainly a noble goal, it is not necessarily a vital U.S. national interest..."

Something to ponder.

 

[AWP]

Retired Army Lt Gen and Former Ambassador Karl Eikenberry

YMMV, but I personally discount anything uttered by that political hunk of stupid, especially where Afghanistan is concerned. He is pompous, arrogant, and out of touch with AFG despite his years of "service." He failed harder than Betamax.

Do we have an obligation to ensure a country we've waged war against is successful in our aftermath or is the simple removal of a regime and decimation of their existing military capability enough? This is really a moral, ethical, and political question as opposed to a military one. Is this what defines victory? If so, who really owns the nation building process; DoS, some OGA, or the military? My view is that ownership primarily lies with DoS. This is their mission statement (contrast this with the bolded statements above):

The military doesn't define the end state, it works towards that end state. The goals are defined by the President, his NSC, Congress, State, and whoever else is on the decision matrix. State doesn't carry that burden alone, it executes the civil side of both war and peace.

Even with goals set by the President or NSC, State and/ or the DoD can fail and render the other's contributions irrelevant. Given DoS and DoD's animosity towards one another (among a laundry list of contributing causes) we'll never successfully prosecute COIN on a large scale.

Also, Eikenberry is a tool.

 

[Blizzard]

YMMV, but I personally discount anything uttered by that political hunk of stupid, especially where Afghanistan is concerned. He is pompous, arrogant, and out of touch with AFG despite his years of "service." He failed harder than Betamax...

...Also, Eikenberry is a tool.

LOL. I understand and share your disdain. Nonetheless...

 

[Gunz]

The military can't make miracles happen. It can only try it's best to perform the tasks it's given, and sometimes it's given unrealistic tasks.

...we'll never successfully prosecute COIN on a large scale...

I think you're right. Large scale requires such a total committment, unwavering resolve, a harmony of purpose and the kind of resources I doubt we'd ever see.