McChrystal’s Counterinsurgency Guidance Is the COINiest Thing Ever

By
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Before Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s June confirmation hearing to become commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, there was a question about whether a veteran Special Operator had too enemy-centric view of the conflict. Then he showed up as a thorough counterinsurgency advocate, calling the support of the Afghan people for the United States and its allies “strategically decisive,” and the doubters receded. Now he faces criticism in some quarters for being way too COIN-centric. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency guidance for his troops, published yesterday by Andrew Exum (an adviser to McChrystal’s recent strategy review), will definitely fuel those critics.

Counterinsurgency principles here are taken very, very far. McChrystal’s overarching message — that the loyalties of the population are the entire mission — are cashed out in ways that would make McChrystal look like a dirty hippie if he didn’t have four stars on either shoulder. He demands that his troops think about how they’d feel if a foreign army operated in their hometowns. A section called “playing into their hands” compares a unit that lumbers toward an engagement with an insurgent group to a bull chasing a matador’s cape. Civilian casualties “sow the seeds of our own demise.” Parables offered as sidebars urge commanders to respond to rocket attacks with school supplies. McChrystal compares counterinsurgency to “an argument”:

It is a contest to influence the real and very practical calculations on the part of the people about which side to support. Every action, reaction and failure to act, and all that is said and done become part of the debate. The people in the audience watch, listen, and make rational choices about who can better protect them, provide for their needs, respect their dignity and their community, and offer opportunities for the future. Ideology can influence the outcome, but it is usually subordinate to the more practical  considerations of survival and everyday life.

He goes on to say that the insurgents are a distraction from the business of attending to the needs of the population and that only five percent of military efforts ought to be directed at them. You can smell the patchouli.

There are some striking omissions, given McChrystal’s conceptualization of military operations in Afghanistan as — to put it as neutrally as I can — significantly nontraditional. Partnering with Afghan security forces at all operational levels is one thing, but there’s no effort at emphasizing partnership with civilian officials, either U.S. or Afghan, and instead places U.S. (and, by implication, Afghan) forces in traditionally civilian roles of outreach to the population. (The exception is an invocation to confront corrupt Afghan civilian officials.) Perhaps that’s a recognition that U.S. forces don’t have the luxury of waiting for the so-called “civilian uplift” to engage Afghan material needs, but it’s still a conspicuous absence.

There are also some larger strategic questions raised in a document that isn’t supposed to address national strategy. The judgment that the insurgent population is “effectively endless” barring some exogenous development is something that provokes additional consideration. If the Afghan population really is that willing to bandwagon with the insurgency, then Afghan strategy is far less viable then assumed. It’s possible that McChrystal’s guidance is deliberately overstated in order to serve as a counterweight for a military that has to fight a lot of institutional muscle-memory to embrace it. But that should still give pause to people at and above the general’s pay grade.

If it should be the case that McChrystal can’t make progress on security, though, the Army will very likely find a new generation of critics who fault McChrystal for being insufficiently martial in his focus. And that’s a deep irony for a Joint Special Operations Command veteran.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Comments

10 Comments

ryanADconsultant
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

It sounds like you're pretty critical of the General's patchouli-laced tactics… I think you need to take some of his advice to heart.

Supporting that report is eight, (8), EIGHT YEARS of GWOT counter-insurgency experience. The mere fact we're still involved in Afghanistan / Iraq after that long is evidence that conventional tactics cannot suppress the insurgents.

Where radical Islam is institutionalized, and a drug-money fueled economy fuels the terrorists in return, you find an entire population polarized between the insurgency and the Western coalition. Trying to “kill all the terrorists” will certainly create a fresh breed continually.

Maybe I'm missing the nuance of your critique.


knowbuddhau
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

So now it's all about the people? The success of the mission depends on how well we show ourselves to be kinder, gentler occupiers, but what is that mission?

Note how the general reduces Afghans merely to animals, saying all we have to do is solve day-to-day problems, doing the things a functioning national government should do, and they'll fall in line. I disagree: this is the same kind of Newtonian approach to social science that brought us torture. McChrystal is trying to manufacture support. Support, like trust and respect, can only be earned.

What makes us human: ideology, or fulfilling survival needs? Despite McChrystal's allusion to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, ideology does matter. And mythology matters even more.

To think we, the latest in a line of invaders and would-be occupiers, with our foreign ways and our foreign religion, can treat them well enough to convert them to seeing us as their Great Protector-Provider, is imperial hubris on display.

I doubt it's the people we're so concerned about. As an avid reader of Pepe Escobar, I'm betting it's the pipelines.

Pipelineistan goes Iran-Pak
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE29Df0…

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html


Weekly Web Watch 08/24/09 – 08/30/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH
Pingback posted August 31, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

[...] likely to see.”  Spencer Ackerman goes further, joking that it makes Gen. Stanley McChrystal “look like a dirty hippie.”  A different sort of document is offered by Indian Defense Review, which offers lessons from [...]


Scratching my head
Comment posted August 31, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

If this were a traditional war (i.e. identifiable enemy following the Geneva Convention) then yes, more troop would be the resolution. However, with the troops that are currently there not being managed correctly, and being placed in jobs outside of thier skill set and training, what would sending more accomplish? Having recently returned from Afghanistan, I can say without reservation, that the commanders are the ground are mismanaging the assets (personnel) currently assigned to them. Fewer regualr army soldiers is the way to go. But, so is firing the current commanders on the ground who, from my assessment, are only in it for promotions and ribbons anyway – not to beat the enemy.


louis vuitton bags
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 7:39 am

What makes us human: ideology, or fulfilling survival needs? Despite McChrystal's allusion to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, ideology does matter. And mythology matters even more.


louis vuitton handbags
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 7:39 am

I doubt it's the people we're so concerned about. As an avid reader of Pepe Escobar, I'm betting it's the pipelines.


louis vuitton handbags
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 7:39 am

I doubt it's the people we're so concerned about. As an avid reader of Pepe Escobar, I'm betting it's the pipelines.


No bark dog collar
Comment posted February 15, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic.


Venapro hemorrhoid relief
Comment posted February 16, 2011 @ 7:34 am

Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will come back later on. I want to encourage you to continue your great job, have a nice afternoon!


3663596
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

3663596 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.