More soup, please

[Administrator]

In his thought-provoking article “Eating soup with a spoon” [AFJ, September], Lt. Col. Gian Gentile argues that our current doctrine on counterinsurgency lacks the fundamental essence of war: fighting. The foundation of this claim rests on two paradoxes that appear in the first chapter of the manual and that he claims establish the theoretical framework for how the rest of the doctrine should be read.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/01/3144507

[Detection]

1. Thanks
First, I would like to sincerely thank Lt. Col. Gentile and Maj. Rogers for risking their lives in Iraq along with all those troops serving 15 month tours to make the Surge a turning point. Fighting a counterinsurgency war is incredibly difficult, consequently it is totally appropriate to constructively criticize FM 3-24.

2. Surge Success
Against all odds, Gen Petraeus and our troops have achieved an important turning point in Iraq. For example, Iraqi civilian deaths have dropped from about 3,000 a month to about 550 a month. Stated in the manner of our FBI crime statistics, this is about 26 killed per 100,000 people per year. Interestingly, this is lower than the murder rate for the top 10 most dangerous US cities (see Wikipedia, "United States Cities by Crime Rate" or www.fbi.com). Detroit is our worst city at 47 murders per 100,000 with Wash DC in the top ten at 29 murders per 100,000. Stated another way, Petraeus has made it safer for a citizen of Iraq to live there rather than in Washington DC.

3. Pragmatic Approach
Whether the success of the Surge is due to FM 3-24, Petraeus, our troops or all three, what is important is build on this success. If it works, use it and improve it.

4. Gentile Critique - Disagree and Agree
I disagree with Lt. Col. Gentile's critique that "fighting" has been removed from FM 3-24. I think rather that the FM 3-24 approach is like Gen Krulak's "Three Block War". Block 1 is still "fighting", Block 2 is policing and Block 3 is civil affairs. FM 3-24's approach differs from the Westmoreland approach in Vietnam which was purely focused on "fighting" (Block 1 only) with destruction of enemy troops as the prize. For FM 3-24, the prize is the people. This does mean some fighting (Block 1), but, more importantly, it means winning the people by providing them with safety (Block 2) and good governance (Block 3). Where I absolutely agree with Lt. Col. Gentile is that there should be a whole lot more discussion about FM 3-24.

5. FM 3-24 is a technological zero
Lt. Col. Gentile criticized FM 3-24 for lack of emphasis on "fighting". Let me criticize it for an entirely different reason. It is a technological zero. Lt. Col. Nagl, one of the prime authors of FM 3-24, has stated that unfortunately our industry doesn't make any technological tools that help fight counterinsurgency. This is absolutely wrong. Our Dept of Homeland Security has plenty of technical tools it uses to fight terrorists, but FM 3-24 is unaware of any of them. For example, since 9/11 TSA of DHS has prevented terrorists from boarding our aircraft with knives or bombs by using x-rays and magnetometers. By contrast, our poor soldiers at roadblocks in Iraq can only search for car bombs with their eyeballs. Let the constructive criticism of FM 3-24 continue.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Detection

4. Gentile Critique - Disagree and Agree
I disagree with Lt. Col. Gentile's critique that "fighting" has been removed from FM 3-24. I think rather that the FM 3-24 approach is like Gen Krulak's "Three Block War". Block 1 is still "fighting", Block 2 is policing and Block 3 is civil affairs. FM 3-24's approach differs from the Westmoreland approach in Vietnam which was purely focused on "fighting" (Block 1 only) with destruction of enemy troops as the prize. For FM 3-24, the prize is the people. This does mean some fighting (Block 1), but, more importantly, it means winning the people by providing them with safety (Block 2) and good governance (Block 3). Where I absolutely agree with Lt. Col. Gentile is that there should be a whole lot more discussion about FM 3-24.

As long as "the liberators" exhibit little or no respect for "the locals" then "winning the hearts and minds" is a bootless task.

Unfortunately it doesn't even have to be all (or even most) of "the liberators" who have little or no respect for "the locals" to make the task a thankless one.

Equally unfortunately, if "the liberators" have no understanding of the mores and culture of "the locals" then it is all too easy for them to act (completely inadvertantly) as if they had no respect for "the locals".

On the other hand, if "the liberators" come from a culture that has inbred the belief that "WE are just naturally superior to everyone else, but we're too polite to say so - most of the time." then to expect that "the liberators" will have even the slightest interest in gaining an understanding of "the locals" is rather silly.

Mr. Gates' dismissal of every other country in the world - albeit rapidly retracted when someone told him that he had offended almost every ally that the United States of America has in the "Guess What? Osama's Tough!" - is indicative of such an inbuilt arrogance.

[Detection]

Let me agree and disagree with the Universal C. Certainly, the more US troops understand the local culture the better. However, I disagree that this is anywhere near the only cause of the problems in Iraq. Certainly, Sunni Iraqis and Shiite Iraqis know each other's culture far better than US troops ever will. However, this doesn't prevent Sunnis from blowing up Shiite Mosques or bazaars. It isn't the lack of cultural understanding by US troops that is causing this. Similarly, it isn't US troops that are causing the killings of Sunnis by Shiite militieas. Theres is a fundamental problem in Iraq and other Muslim countries (not all of them; e.g. Turkey). They are missing the "tolerance" gene. In America and Europe, people may disagree with each other, but they decide their differences with their votes and not their bullets or car bombs. In many Muslim countries, this just isn't the case. Iraq is only one example. Lebanon is another. Pakistan is another (e.g., Bhutto killed on the third assassination try). Let's not blame "all the problems" on US troops when the more fundamental problem is Muslim intolerance of other Muslims.

If the lack of cultural understanding were the root of all problems for US troops, we should have failed to bring democracy to Japan after WWII because we certainly didn't understand their culture. Yet democracy did succeed there. I think focussing exclusively on US troops and not focussing at all on the people of the country involved is incomplete.

[The Universal Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Detection

Certainly, the more US troops understand the local culture the better. However, I disagree that this is anywhere near the only cause of the problems in Iraq.

True, but, then again, I wasn't even thinking about attempting to address ALL of the problems in Iraq - only the ones between "the liberators" and "the locals".

Originally Posted by Detection

Certainly, Sunni Iraqis and Shiite Iraqis know each other's culture far better than US troops ever will. However, this doesn't prevent Sunnis from blowing up Shiite Mosques or bazaars.

Quite right, equally it doesn't prevent the Shi'ite from blowing up Sunni mosques and bazaars.

On the other hand, the lack of any appreciation that this would happen (on the part of the "directing minds" of the "liberation" of Iraq [Remember, Mr. Bush didn't even know that Muslims "came in two flavours"]) meant that it came as a total, consequently unplanned for, surprise to everyone involved in the "liberation" - a surprise somewhat more fatal to those who had to carry out the plan than to those who made it.

Originally Posted by Detection

It isn't the lack of cultural understanding by US troops that is causing this.

Quite right, but the lack of cultural understanding by US troops (from E-1 right on up to C-in-C) isn't helping the situation at all.

Originally Posted by Detection

Similarly, it isn't US troops that are causing the killings of Sunnis by Shiite militieas. Theres is a fundamental problem in Iraq and other Muslim countries (not all of them; e.g. Turkey). They are missing the "tolerance" gene.

Not necessarily. The number of "inter-sect" bombings and murders under Saddam Hussein was negligible. (Which should definitely NOT be taken as saying "Saddam Hussein was a good guy.")

Originally Posted by Detection

In America and Europe, people may disagree with each other, but they decide their differences with their votes and not their bullets or car bombs.

Quite right, and that is cultural - but it wasn't always that way. (HINT)

Originally Posted by Detection

In many Muslim countries, this just isn't the case. Iraq is only one example. Lebanon is another. Pakistan is another (e.g., Bhutto killed on the third assassination try). Let's not blame "all the problems" on US troops when the more fundamental problem is Muslim intolerance of other Muslims.

OK. Fair enough. But, you see, I didn't do that.

Originally Posted by Detection

If the lack of cultural understanding were the root of all problems for US troops, we should have failed to bring democracy to Japan after WWII because we certainly didn't understand their culture. Yet democracy did succeed there.

And interesting point, that misses two minor factors:

1. Japan was a democracy PRIOR to WWII (HINT - the UK, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and Norway are all democracies).

and

2. The way that Japanese democracy works now is almost identical to the way that it worked PRIOR to WWII.

Please don't come back with "Well, at least we introduced democracy into Germany." because Germany was a democracy PRIOR to WWII as well.

Originally Posted by Detection

I think focussing exclusively on US troops and not focussing at all on the people of the country involved is incomplete.

Of course it is incomplete. On the other hand, if you have a flat tire is there any real benefit to checking the wear level of the upholstery?