previous post next post  

H&I* Fires, 13 MAY 2007

May 13, 2007 | | Comments (9)

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

*********************************
Kilcullen has a response to a particular criticism of the new COIN field manual: that it doesn’t deal with insurgencies inspired by religion.

There’s a lot in there.

But here’s a COIN lesson, or a warfare lesson, more of the American public needs to understand(I keep having to be reminded of it myself, so I’m not pointing fingers overmuch here): “… not templates, but generic expositions of principle; not cookbooks, but frameworks.” He’s talking about FM and doctrinal documents in general, but it is something that also applies to an understanding of how war works for many of us civilians. It isn’t like painting by numbers or baking brownies or an engineering problem. If you do a and then b you get result c is not how this works, but often how it’s talked about.

I too am an idiot and have to remind myself of it often when thinking about conflict.
--
A Jordanian paper brings the funny while hiding some serious issues within this op-ed. Condi’s legs are the roadblock to Peace in the Middle East, or at least talks about the Iranian nuclear program? Who knew?
--
The PR war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be going well according a couple of sources: NYT; The Nation(Pakistan, not the US rag). The ‘rogue, gun happy, American cowboys’ thing is something I’ve seen since ’02. That it hasn’t been put to bed says something. I don’t claim to know what it truly means other than we’re not winning hearts and minds in the numbers we should because of this stereotype.
--
ry (having been sufficiently chastised by Armorer and embarrassed by Blackhawk for not getting the date correct yesterday will you note that I got the date right today? Can I have my cheetos back, please? Ferrets need fud.)

************************************

Good. More, please.

Bad. If true. -the Armorer

***********************************

From CAPT H - the *real* American Idols. -the Armorer

***********************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

*Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs (oops, can't call 'em UAVs anymore - they're now Unmanned Aerial Systems... some Colonel got his Legion of Merit for that change...), er, um UAS's we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

Share This Article:

Categories:

9 Comments

By AW1 Tim on May 13, 2007 8:42 AM
Comrades, The key to defeating an enemy, as my poor mind understands such things, is your enemy. learn who/what the enemy is. Learn everything about them, how they train, how they deploy, how they work their logistics trains, how they encamp, how they dress, etc. Eventually, your enemy will tell you how to defeat him. His own people will tell you how to defeat him if you read their publications. Examine the articles and letters, seeing what subjects are chosen, how they are responded to. That will tell you the fears of his freinds and families. It takes time, and sometimes you don't have that luxury, and you go with what you have, fall back on your own basic combat doctrine. But, given time, the enemy will tell you himself how to defeat him. Respects,
 
By Mitch on May 13, 2007 8:55 AM
John - You are absolutely right about doctrine being a "framework," not a cook-book. You have to be a participant observer. [Here I jump in to say that insight is Ry's, not mine! -the Armorer] FM 3-24 does have a basic framework for understanding the religious component of insurgencies. See paras 1-75 to 1-83. I have some familiarity with the concepts in those paragraphs. There is a lot of "maybe this" combined with "but on the other hand" in those paragraphs because the religious component of the operational environment is complex, variable and subject to change. Kilcullen's most certain insight comes near the end of his piece: "Conflict ethnography is key; to borrow a literary term, there is no substitute for a "close reading" of the environment. But it is a reading that resides in no book, but around you; in the terrain, the people, their social and cultural institutions, the way they act and think. "
 
By Cricket on May 13, 2007 9:21 AM
um...brownies.
 
By Cricket on May 13, 2007 9:25 AM
Well...snarkasms aside, there are hundreds of recipes for brownies, but the point is there is a foundation from which to build. You have the basic ingredients but it is up to you to use them to get the desired result. Condi's legs being an issue, don't we have cultural attaches for that reason?
 
By Cricket on May 13, 2007 9:28 AM
Yes, well if a 'scantily clad' reporterette or Condi were the issue, the cultural attache would have given them a head's up. However, this is one way they have of trying to get us to beg and not give offense. There are days that being a nanny can be really tiresome. Grow up and grow some 'nads.
 
By Trias on May 13, 2007 12:02 PM
IMHO a key to winning a war is wanting to more than the enemy does. That is an oversimplification and hardly the only key but it's a point that seems to be quite an issue in this struggle. My take on the whole gun totin cowboys thing is that it is partly couched in reality. It's been said before even on other topics like the economic mess of the 80s. I suspect many Americans don't see much wrong with the cowboy image. However in some international circles which don't have the wild west romance, the cowboy image is seen negatively. It has a sense to them of recklessness, lawlessness and violence. Bush really started the cowboy thing off probably for support at home. He's Texan of course and his references to 'dead or alive' and other classically wild west phrases in the early days of this along with his ranch got the ball rolling. But to some the war in Iraq was seen as those negative things and so the view was firmed up and no doubt used in op pieces and blogs etc ever since.
 
By BloodSpite on May 13, 2007 2:57 PM
Condi's legs.....mmmmmmm.....owOwOW! Stop beating me dear!
 
By ry on May 13, 2007 9:58 PM
"Bush really started the cowboy thing off probably for support at home. He's Texan of course and his references to 'dead or alive' and other classically wild west phrases in the early days of this along with his ranch got the ball rolling. But to some the war in Iraq was seen as those negative things and so the view was firmed up and no doubt used in op pieces and blogs etc ever since."
Actually Trias, it goes farther than that. A French dude I know says that his research shows US troops are over reliant on firepower and have poor fire discipline. It's something people knock the US for a lot, regardless of Bush's 'Bring it on' comment. They cite WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and all the friendly fire incidents(not caring to look at rates, just number of incidences) to make their case. This guy, and a horde of others, than smile smugly that US troops are poor and Iraq was fated to fail because of our poor quality troops. That this vile slander hasn't been put to sleep and is rampant in amateur and serious mil historian circles outside the US is a fine example of how poorly we are getting whooped in the information fight. We're fighting a myth that's been around for 50 years and, to my eyes, have done little if anything to combat in that entire time. Chicken came home to roost on that one.(Now add to that the ethical survey? Oi vey. Wake me up when the drubbing's over. I can't bear to watch anymore.) Do I think US troop quality is poor? Absolutely not. I look at rates of incidences per 1000. We're as good as anybody else. Just because French Cote de Ivorie incidences(and other nations misdeeds) don't get as much play in the world wide media doesn't mean it doesn't show what French, or other nations, troops are of better quality. but the myth kills us in the PR realm. And I can't take credit for the non-cook book thing. The actual wording is Kilcullen's, and the idea is something I've gotten from friends and teachers who put up with my snail paced growth in understanding of the subject. It is something I think people should learn. Lot's of Ph.Ds around here(NW Indiana) think that because the US is 'the most powerful nation of the world' if we only did the 'right thing', and Bush hasn't so no wonder we're losing, a positive outcome is inevitable(who says Marxist thought is dead?). That isn't the case, and the sooner we as a nation learn that hard lesson the better off we'll be whenever we decide to send troops abroad.
 
By Trias on May 14, 2007 12:06 AM
I agree Ry a great deal further than that. I was just suggesting where the ball started rolling on this particular war. There is nothing at all new about calling Americans cowboys. Well I don't have the stats on hand and I also know from experience that incidents of the negative kind are not very honestly reported in official circles so comparing one nation's military with another is risky business if you want to be factual. Deciding on what precisely 'over reliance on firepower' might mean also brings up issues. There are different ways to look at this. Did I ever tell you I adore lists? 1) So what if some French dude tells you US troops are poor quality. Are the French troops so good? What have they achieved? What do the French know about the US that isn't coloured by French-US antagonism? 2) I question that the sentiment US troops are poor quality is widely held internationally. Even if assumptions about poor fire control are held that is only one part of the whole picture. The fear of the US military and the successes the US have enjoyed belie that. 3) Having the President stand before the world and boldly claim the US military is the best in the world has real effects internationally. One is to challenge them to find what's not good about the US military. I am hardly surprised some have worked on just that. There some real holes in the US military that are far more workable IMO, not that such makes US troops poor quality, but at least it's an arguing point worth something. Unlike the tripe that appears to be on offer. 4) The results in Iraq and elsewhere are from the US military as a whole. Troops are obviously integral to that but they are not exactly the same thing. If Iraq should fail i will face that the US military wasn't good enough (though i don't extend that to poor quality quite so readily). Then pick the carcass and see what the causes were IMO of course. It may not be the troops. In fact I highly doubt it would be the troops. 5) Eyes are upon the US military. This is possibly the most exposed war in history. Given the fantastic expectations I think US troops have done remarkably well. However, it's not at all hard to find dark spots under such a glare and there they are splattered all over the world media like it the only thing the troops do. Abu Ghraib is but one example. The point I'm making here is the focus on this is exaggerating the negative. 6) Yes 50 years in the cooker. A lot of these PR issues as you put it are rather long in the works. They are heavily repeated, many have roots of truth and they have passed into 'common knowledge' The US is not going to dissolve these instantly, presuming it bothers at all. Where was I? Oh yeah i wanted to ask you to explain this cookbook thing in email. I frankly have no clue what you're yammering on about which is probably how people feel about me.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.