Is the COIN Manual the Answer?

2016-02-07T21:30:24-05:00

If COIN is so good why are we still fighting after invading Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. For the fundamentals of COIN why are the governments considered illegitimate? Why are the militaries paper tigers? Why can we not prevent support and the base for insurgents? Why are their sympathies towards the Insurgencies. Why do the insurgents have safe havens? Why do the insurgents have free reign of the countryside and some urban terrain?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2016 9:38 PM

2016-02-07T21:38:06-05:00

Coin is ok and still needs to be taught at all levels... but we won't need coin for our next war..so let us go back to NTC to be ready to fight a country who takes us on with Soviet- style weapons and tactics. NTC and JRTC rotations again since we lost our edge (being stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan) for taking on MIBNs and regular militaries...again since Putin is preparing so we should too.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Feb 7 at 2016 9:39 PM

2016-02-07T21:39:42-05:00

MAJ Ken Landgren W/o a government respected and accepted by the populace, our efforts are useless.

Do you recall- early on-in 2002? an SF ? MSG Ortega did organize a 'government in his AO? Big Army (82? couldn't let him continue to operate and maintain a working model of that sort?

We are too softhearted and want to allow them self governance. "They" are not ready for an autonomous government of their own making. We need to annoint leaders and support them w/o expecting a democracy until the indigenous people have experienced a real government!

Response by LTC John Shaw made Feb 7 at 2016 11:28 PM

2016-02-07T23:28:03-05:00

COIN is a toolset against counter insurgency. The US military and the military of another nation cannot make the government of another nation legitimate. Only that government can. As soon as political leadership sets the condition of success outside the military service control then we have no guarantee of victory.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 8 at 2016 6:35 AM

2016-02-08T06:35:25-05:00

COIN was a disaster.

Response by MAJ Brett Rosequist made Feb 8 at 2016 7:18 AM

2016-02-08T07:18:06-05:00

I think COIN has a place in military operations. However, I think it is a symptom of a tremendous amount of scope creep, which pushed the military to take on roles it cannot accommodate.

To set the stage - the Army and other military branches have a primary purpose is acting on behalf of our country's political will, as a hammer to crush another nation's military, when other means are not an option. The Army does, and should, structure training to achieve this end. Part of training consists of utilizing the tools which enable us to have the most disproportionate advantage over an opposing military. Part of training is how to best communicate and coordinate as a team to meet military objectives. And, at an individual Soldier level, this also involves fostering a mindset that is prepared to take violent, lethal action against other human beings.

What this list (rightly) does not include is nation building or social change. Even if we subdue most of the violent armed action against a civilian population within a given area, this does nothing to change the "host society's" overall culture, education, or mindset. If we provide security for contractors to build schools for the area, this still does not impact the curriculum taught at a local level. If we talk to the members of the community on the street in an unstructured way, they are not going to spontaneously adopt some of the values that help bind our own society.

COIN does suppress the immediate symptoms, by preventing local militias from dominating areas via physical aggression. However, once the military suppression is removed, local leaders and militias aligned to their interests will again have this intimidation/aggression ability.

The way to resolve this situation is through radical social change and the development of a functioning local government, complete with capable, strong institutions, such as police, courts, permitting, infrastructure services, etc. This is something that the Army is not capable of doing. Nor should it be capable of enacting such change, since the focus should remain on violently suppressing other armed entities.

If stabilizing host nations was truly an objective of our country, I see this as a failure of our government to properly support the effort of nation building and social change in a comprehensive way. Instead of utilizing the Department of State or setting up a specific governmental entity to truly push host nation social and institutional change, our government decided to utilize the military to merely suppress the symptoms, and assume that would be enough. For all of his brilliance, I think GEN Petraeus took steps to extend the scope of the military beyond its true focus, perhaps in desperation for the lack of any alternative provided by our non-military institutions.

Poor results in stabilizing host nations will continue to happen, no matter how superior our military is, time and again, unless our government solves the problem of transforming the values of the people within unstable regions.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 9:40 AM

2016-02-08T09:40:30-05:00

The 500 lb gorilla in the room is the fact that these "governments" have mastered the ploy of gaining USA dollars, while preserving ties to their local power brokers. I don't think it was ever fully appreciated how much of the "support" the Afghan government gave us came on the heels of significant financial "promises" by the State Dept. Anyone who served as an adviser will tell you that the ANA/ANP were riddled with corruption and divided loyalties.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 8:14 AM

2016-02-09T08:14:14-05:00

I haven't understood this. We, the United States Armed Forces, have been involved in COIN operations in just about every generation going back to the civil war. We call it different names and we look the other way, but in the end it is still COIN. However, there are not many times we have gotten it right. The most recent example of us getting it right was the involvement in Central American affairs during the 1980s.
That being said, I don't thing COIN is the entire answer. I don't see a tank on tank war coming anytime soon. Asymmetric warfare will be the fight of the future. Teaching leadership the concepts of COIN and how to receive, process, and act/develop along LOEs as mission variables appear will give us more bang for the buck. If we want to be a mission command Army, we have to be a mission command Army. We are now at the point were we have to burn the village to save the village. The Cold war era of fighting and thinking is not going to help us as we move into the next wave of conflict. Why there is an insistence to holding on to that doctrine and mindset baffles me.
We have to train or Army from the start about how to conduct COIN, how it fits into Asymmetric Warfare, and we allow the Army to do it. Everyone from the AG private to the BCT Commander needs to know their place in the fight and how their LOEs enable the over all effort in the war. Enablers have to know what they are enabling. Commanders have to know how to utilize Multipliers. Until we get to that point, we are succeeding in spite or ourselves.