In my experience, the term "common sense" is often thrown at stuff that indeed seems obvious after it is said--but no one has said it yet.

Here's a challenge: What do you think are the 10 next steps in counterinsurgency that you think we should take?

See, it is harder than you might think.

Cheers,
Tom

Pickle juice and academics aside, professor, there are three basic, but very hard to implement steps in the process of killing insurgents:
1. The first and hardest is to identify them, and in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, that's damn near impossible! And you're not going to get much help from the locals, either.
2. Once you know who your enemy is, you need to use ingenuity to draw them out--on your terms and at your time of choosing--without exposing yourself to unnecessary dangers. Hint: Riding and walking over the same terrain day after day in attempts to "flush out" the enemy is just plain dumb! You're not participating in a turkey shoot or hunting Pheasants. You're tracking very clever and ingenious fighters on their turf. Again, this isn't easy, but it's doable with planning and patience.
3. Killing the enemy without inflicting undue harm on the surrounding civilian population requires proper preparation, skill, accuracy, patience, common sense and a certain element of luck. For example, calling in an air-strike to "carpet bomb" a cluster of mud huts, in the middle of the night, in the hopes of killing a single "high value” insurgent, is totally unnecessary and counterproductive. You may get your man, but in the process, you’ll have made mortal enemies of his entire family, clan and tribe. This is where two man sniper teams come into play. Americans have a tendency to leave a huge “footprint” of where they’ve been when killing insurgents. When killing insurgents, the less the firepower, the better. And after nearly nine years on the job, on a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give the U.S. Military a solid 7. The company grade officers and NCOs are the best in the world, bar none. It’s the incompetent f**king L.I.F.E.Rs at the top of the flag pole, who are the U.S. Military’s biggest impediment to killing insurgents! FF.

GP, a lot of this stuff gets forgotten and we have a bad habit of ignoring the lessons learned. You are right, it is tough to ID the guys at times but the other points are a bit off. The locals often helps us, especially when they see REAL infrastructure changes and security. An example is a HWY (a Road back here) that was getting IEDs and Shelled, the locals liked to use it and it made life easier for them so they started giving over info and the TB and other involved parties stopped shelling it. That is just one example. The guys are getting better and better at knowing how to help the locals and give them real results, one way is to give them the materials and have or even pay them to build it-foot bridges, wells, etc...
As for the Air Strikes, they are more strict now then they were just 2 years ago and then you had to have to have a minimum of 250mts around a place that did not have homes, people, etc..before CAS could be called in.
Lastly, the LIFERS comments are silly and sound like something an E2 would say. Patton, MacArthur, etc.. were all LIFER's, they seemed to do all right. You also forget that when people get out you lose that corporate knowledge and for Junior to Field Grade O's that is a big loss. Your MARSOC is about to do this, lose Corp Knowledge because it is not a close looped MOS.
If you want to say that our Senior Leadership does not flex well, is career oriented, etc..I would agree with you as many of my posts in the past clearly show but this bitter silliness against folks who stay in and actually fight (on the enlisted side at least) really start to sound like a child whining. Call out some ways that you would improve them? Like maybe getting rid of the 18-24 month cycle of leadership, stop the ticket punching, encourage risk and initiative, encourage commanders intent, stop the up or out policy, etc..

For someone purporting to be a battle-hardened warrior of the world, you're awfully thin-skinned! I learned about the term, L.I.F.E.R. from a 41 year old Marine First Lieutenant, who was my company commander. He was one of many Marine SNCOs who were given battlefield commissions during that terrible mistake that occurred during the 1960s and early 70s in Southeast Asia. He was pissed-off to the max because he didn't get his railroad tracks before being reverted back to the enlisted ranks as an E-8. But if he had taken the time to check the regulations before he accepted the commission, he would've known that he needed 10 years of commissioned service to draw retirement pay as an officer. He had snow white hair and looked like he was 55 years old, and was a character straight out of a James Jones war novel.

It just got old, this was the first post ever you weren't just shouting out names only then you finished up on it. This was hardly your first post with that and for someone who can dish it, you should be able to take it ;)

I think you have confused a battlefield commission with the Corps' temporary commissioning program during Vietnam. All former temporary officers who were reverted back (not all were), having been considered automatically eligible, and promoted with their enlisted SNCO peer group while commissioned, were then advanced on the permanent retired list to the highest grade held while on active duty upon reaching 30 years coming off the FMF retired list to the permanent list or retiring after 30 years service (the next day). In addition, their pay was different than that of a regularly commissioned 2nd/1stLt.

There were only 62 enlisted men whose sustained service under fire was deemed meritorious by the Commandant to receive commissions under battlefield conditions - all belong to the National Order of Battlefield Commissions. : )

It was 39 years ago, but I can still close my eyes and see and hear him ranting and raving about the F**king c**Ks**kers at HQMC!

It is always the long held argument who is mightier the sword or the word, the practical man or the academic? I do not have all the knowledge and hands on experience like most of the posters here but what I have ample source of is ability to read between the lines, differentiate facts from opinion, and exppertly analyze an argument to distinguish genuine arguments from slates of handarguments (voodoo).

Fact is theoretical knowledge does not the practicality make, but with practical ability theoretical knowledge helps better execute and achieve your goals. So you have to set goals and you have to landmarks to gauge how fast or slow you are approaching the goal and also the things that are help or retarding your progress. if you choose the wrong incices, you will get wrong impressions of how you are doing. Hence comes the academic who has taken the time to study these issues and puts them down into step by step process format. he is the expert eventhough he may not have practical abilities. Sometimes you get those who have both theoretical and practical abilities and become excellent. In history some of those include Sung Zu, Ibn batuta and Scipio Africanus to name a few.

The practitioner who is able to incorporate the good theories into his practice always tends to achieve the most, when you exclude the effects of chance, which, one can never get rid of. Hence boxers, footballers etc all have their coaches mosst of whom were never that good at the sport.

So even though some of what Killckulen is saying sounds basic common sense, he has distilled it into a system of procedural guidelines to help in planning and in carrying out the actions otherwise like in most military ventures success will end up being boiled down to quantity of ground gained and number of "enemy" killed, creating a false impression of success which is not real.

Battle of the Bulge and the Bataan Death March? Whatever Patton or MacArthur were or weren't, those are poor examples to use. The retrograde movement into Bataan is considered a military feat and what occurred later after the surrender (unauthorized) was not MacArthur's fault. As for the Battle of the Bulge you cited: Patton's ability to get his command turned around and up into the battle should also be considered remarkable and the lack of delay and speed in doing so, probably saved lives in the end.

I have come to the conclusion there are no experts on implementing and carrying out COIN. Some people are only better than others along with the luck of the draw on what operating area your handed; some presenting unique challenges that impede progress, making one commander look better than another.

But I'll grant you, some leaders do show more competency and grasp of the situation facing them than others of similar rank and experience do, but I'd guess it's always been that way, which is why Patton and MacArthur are such historic figures, because despite their foibles, they both showed flashes of brilliance when it counted.

Speaking of flashes of brilliance or lack thereof GP, have a good weekend; I probably won’t.

Whatever else MacArthur did in his career the mismanagement of his command in the Philippines at the beginning of the war deserved (as George Marshall apparently thought) a general court martial and dismissal from the service. Just the single fact that he allowed his air force to be blown to pieces on the ground at Clark Field after the twenty-four hours notice of Pearl Harbor staggers the imagination. That MacArthur additionally refused his commanders pleas to transport the necessary munitions and food to the Bataan Peninsula (from the Manila depots) to sustain the forces was criminal negligence. This logistics plan had been long established and was not an improvisation. He had both the time and transport to accomplish this movement which was essential to the preservation of the force which retreated into the Bataan peninsula. The fact that all this was all done in the face of a Japanese force distinctly inferior in numbers, transport, food, munitions and an acute shortage of artillery speaks volumes. It was actually Lt. Gen. Masaharu Homma who distinguished himself as a resourceful combat leader not MacArthur.

Monday Morning QBing a battle that happened over 50 years ago is pretty easy. Also, look up a nice article called "China Hawks demand Cold War on the US" by Michael Sheridan of the London Times, last Sundays edition, off topic but figured I might catch you here instead of the old ones. ;)

It isn't just an opinion that MacArthur was inept in the Philippines (and Korea), it's the consensus conclusion of the vast majority of military historians. Calling it Monday morning quarterbacking is just silly. You can't have a serious discussion if the only opinion you respect is your own.

The historical jury is still out on Patton but there is a very strong body of opinion that he was not the guy his PR machine portrayed - and that's being very charitable to the guy who felt he had a right to slap enlisted men around (among other things).

As for the situation with China, it's so complex it's difficult to do a cursory summary of it in less than a few thousand words. When you call it simple you betray your ignorance.

It's clear that you are intelligent and have a pretty wide body of knowledge. It would be helpful if you had a little more respect for the other posters here - hell, you might even learn something; the folks who participate in this forum have unbelievably broad skill-sets, with experience, knowledge, and understanding of many arcane, obscure, yet very important topics. I learn several new things every time I read the comments to one of Tom's posts - obviously I learn from Tom and his contacts too.

The "lol" stuff is disrespectful and not appropriate for what is mainly a respectful and thoughtful exchange of ideas.

Is your understanding of Chinese history, culture, foreign policy, and economic policy deep enough to scoff at others points of view? You have a right to your opinions, but that's all they are; opinions. It might be more effective to engage in more discussion and less sneering.

You have a lot to offer, but your disrespect of others opinions - not to say facts - makes it difficult to engage in a productive way.

ERIC, thanks for tip off on the Michael Sheridan article in the Times as Sunday. I normally read the Times but missed that one. Actually, I don’t think there was anything new in the article, which would be considered surprising. China like Russia has their own flock of agitated hawks just as we do. As I have mentioned before to you on this forum I am a strong believer in ignoring speculations about the utterances and intentions of other countries and instead focus on their military and naval capabilities. We can never know what any countries true intentions are particularly a country like China so fruitless obsessing over warlike statements really means very little. Additionally, I would say that that policy should definitely include Iran, a country in which we need to concentrate more on what their true capabilities are not the imaginings of American or Israeli hawks conspiring with ulterior motives.

However, China’s naval and developing space capabilities are real and thus legitimate areas of concern that need to be address in our war planning, doctrine and procurement. If China has acquired the means to interdict our spaced based reconnaissance and communications systems then we need to defend those systems with a counter capability. If China has also acquired ballistic and cruise missile capability extending anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 miles into the Pacific then we also need to develop the systems to neutralize those capabilities. China has definitely developed a submarine capability and doctrine, which can be used to attack our carrier attack groups with both conventional/nuclear torpedoes and cruise missiles, again another area where we need robust defense and counter attack capabilities.

Afghanistan and Iraq are small potatoes to the possible new Cold War atmosphere developing amongst China, Russia and ourselves. While we are diverting our attention to what is essentially a modernized version of an imperial ascendency China grows its economy, strengthens its military and develops global political clout. In the meantime we drain our strength with sideshow wars, and contaminate our economy with astronomical levels of debt, with much of it owed to China. Also, our deindustrialization inhibits our ability to meet these challenges face on in the future.

BTW, the professional historical evaluations of MacArthur's performance in the Philippines are not really very contentious or controversial. And since FDR, George Marshall and Henry L. Stimson pretty much agree with my take on that episode of MacArthur’s life I feel I am standing in pretty good company. Sort of interesting that if you have the right political clout you can though incompetence decimate your entire command and subsequently be awarded the Medal of Honor. :-)

J, first, when did I say only my opinion matters? Second, what you did and what Historians do is Monday Morning QB, that is why they are Historians.
MacArthur only large mistake in Korea was underestimating the Chinese coming into it and one reason is that he did not care if they did, he assumed that he would get the support and that the gov't would fight the was like a war should be fought, all out. He did not get the support at all. As for the PI, yes, he made a lot of mistakes however to act like he knew exactly what was coming against him is a bit of stretch, 24 hours for a heads up makes a lot of what he did in retrospect suspect but he did what he thought was right at the time and he was the guy on the ground. I do not know enough about his debacle in the PI, not my area of strength but I have an instinctive reflex not to second guess people on the ground unless it is something glaring and then yes, they should be court martialed if what they did was incompetent but I was not there nor do I know everything that happened so I will give him the benefit of the doubt until then. Also, for Patton, even the Germans thought he was a great General and many of his movements, Battle of the Bulge, Sicily, etc..were quite good by there accounts, so I am going to go with them on there opinions of Patton. What Jury is still out on him?
Lastly, the point of the article is that the perception of the US is weak and they are a VERY different culture and far to many people tend to look at them through American eyes and think our economic ties matter more than there move towards becoming the dominant power in the Pacific Rim and the new world player that they have always wanted to be. Despite the fact that they have a very oppressive gov't, very little freedom in comparison to us yet they are still a very nationalistic country. It is something new to read that article because here in the states you have people who tend to be of your opinion, correct me if I am wrong, that the odds of any conflict with them are long and we are to tied up via trade to go to war. Not many articles at all in the states raise any concern except in conservative editorials or articles and they are usually discounted due to being conservative unfortunately. I would check who actually owns many of the companies that are Chinese operated and look into how much they are even involved in our own backyard in S and C America.

J, one more thing, lighten up Francis! ;) Some people I respect on here others I do not. Sorry, have you seen some of the posters on here with the conspiracies and the nefarious shadows of evil they see lurking everywhere? Come on dude, there are some moonbats here. lol (Not meant to be disrespectful, meant to laugh because many a moonbat is here)
I greatly respect JPWREL, TY, HUNTER, yourself and many others and try to be courteous to them, often the lol is just being playful when it is at them, more like a kid looking up at an older man he respects and being a wise ass. Things like that help get across nuance that are hard to do in email, text, etc...it is like saying "Come on!" at times to others and really, some of the stuff put out on here is great but a lot is not and embraces paranoid stereotypes and that does get me a little pissy. I know my posts are opinions but when someone spread that they think there are coverups, murders, does not know the ROEs, that the military is committing all sorts of atrocities, yeah, I am going to mock them a bit for being uninformed. The only other thing that gets me going is when people come up with false facts or place there belief of "rights" as being facts (Women in Combat Post from before) and yeah, on that one, I was a fresh bastard but I know what the heck I am talking about on that one and none of the posters came back with any facts or tried to dispute mine, they merely accused me of being sexist, that it was there right, etc..except good old Ducky of course, who if you do not agree with on things then you are a racist. I admit, I was a little discourteous to you as well on that one but thought I put you in the other category now? :) So, let's be honest here, some people deserve it, if they are going to give it they should be able to take it. If you are going to come on and make just crazy posts like some do then yeah, I am going to call them on it. I do not mind a little sarcasm thrown my way even.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand-
I think Patton rules, so did the Germans, so there ;)

I do not know enough about MacArthur, will concede to you and JPWREL on that. I just have a habit of being reflexively defensive on people making the calls on the ground.

Kilcullen makes some great points that are still relevant and that a lot of guys have been doing for years but like Ricks', I think common sense is not always common and I forget stuff too at times. What worked for me there in 08' may not work now. So, it is nice to have a baseline to go from.

So, you really do not think that we have as much to worry about with them? (China) I see them starting to throw there weight around already and combine that with decreased military spending advocated by the President (Outside of the conflicts, that is his long term view) and his push to have the "Global Community" resolve things instead of our power being able to nudge people in the right direction. The purchase of the D Boats by China and shadowing our Carrier Groups sounds just like the old Cold War stuff we used to do, the 100k workers they have on the Panama Canal, the inroads into S. America and Africa, etc..so maybe I am an alarmist but I think we need to take a long term look at them as the next big adversary. I know this is off topic so you have my email if this is going to much off the topic.

OPSEC aside, does the main BX still sell burkas? And if so, can they be ordered online? Thanks.

I am in Iraq right now, so no, not here at least. I am sure that the bazaars in BAB still have something you could get though. I know when I do my shopping I just go to "Role Playing.com" still have to find a chick to wear the darn things though, I think my money is just as green as the other guys darn it!!

ERIC, you apparently did not fully read my comments about China very closely. I will repeat again, I believe that we must closely study their capabilities and offset them with our own war planning, doctrine, collecting allies and new procurement in other words ‘be prepared’. I thought I was pretty clear on that point – same with Iran. Perhaps you are fishing for me to declare some sort desire for a preventive war based on over heated Chinese or Iranian rhetoric? I will leave that to the chicken hawks that inhabit the Heritage Foundation and the drumbeaters in the loony right wing of the GOP.

Gigidy gigidy goo, you read my mind, Quagmire! Try Savannah, Southern Belles are hell at night!

I just remember you being a lot more skeptical is all. Just getting looking to get your overall view really. That post was a lot more aggressive than the previous ones on that topic so just looking to get your total view.

My quarterly supply of DVA prescription drugs arrived in the mail yesterday, so I'm good to go for another 88 days!

We have the wherewithal to mount successful assaults on places like Falluja and Marja, but I don’t think that we should expect continued US global dominance.

The Sicily battle in WWII is a near perfect example of Patton's combat philosophy. "Grab em by the nose and kick em in the pants." Montgomery was bogged down on the coast trying to get past Mt. Etna. Like that couldn't have been foreseen. Anyone who has been to Sicily and actually seen the ground there would know it was a natural choke point. No doubt Patton also saw it and used the opportunity to implement his ideas, with brilliant success. Most histories focus on the competitive aspects of the Patton/Montgomery relationship during Sicily, and completely miss the bigger picture. So much for military historians.

MacArthur used the same philosophy at Inchon, also with brilliant success. That said, MacArthur was a mundane conventional officer who owed more of his success to his mother lobbying Congressmen on his behalf than to any innate brilliance as an commander.

There is no published version of the Kilcullen essay, which is one reason I gave it so much space. If one surfaces I will post it.
Cheers,
Tom