ARMY COUNTERINSURGENCY DOCTRINE CHARTS A NEW COURSE

The U.S. Army has completed a long-awaited new manual presenting
military doctrine on counterinsurgency. It is the first revision
of counterinsurgency doctrine in twenty years.

In several respects, the new doctrine implicitly repudiates the
Bush Administration's approach to the war in Iraq.

"Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a
flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally
astute leaders," the foreword states.

The new manual emphasizes the importance of planning for
post-conflict stabilization, and it stresses the limited utility
of conventional military operations.

"The military forces that successfully defeat insurgencies are
usually those able to overcome their institutional inclination
to wage conventional war against insurgents."

A copy of the new 282 page unclassified manual was obtained by
Secrecy News.

See "Counterinsurgency," U.S. Army Field Manual 3-24, December 15,
2006 (12.9 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

If I remember correctly the brass in the Army was fighting this tooth and nail.

They, the last time I checked, want to fight the huge battle as they trained forty years for against a Soviet style enemy.

And they are good at that kind of fighting, no Army in the history of this planet is better at what they do than the United States Army; look what they done to the Iraqi Army, twice.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2408117.php
• Says a solution is ultimately political and requires the application of all instruments of national power and interagency cooperation.
• Says securing and controlling the people isolates them from the insurgency and is an effective tool for stability.
• Recognizes the importance of having people in the host nation and their governments in securing their own freedom with help from U.S. and coalition allies.
• Recognizes the importance of nonmilitary activities, such as those involving humanitarian organizations, to stabilizing the host nation.
• Emphasizes the importance of cultural intelligence and operation-level logistics.
• Says insurgents seek to force political change, exploiting a cause that may have no bearing on their actual intent to gain support of the population.
• Says insurgents will change their causes based on their effect on the population.
• Makes the host nation�s legitimacy the main objective of counterinsurgency and says unity of effort is essential.
• Says soldiers and their commanders must understand the environment and rely on intelligence gathered from all sources to drive operations.
• Declares that fighting a counterinsurgency is a long-term commitment.
• Says the military must learn and adapt to constant change, knowing when to use force, empowering decisions at the lowest levels and giving the host nation the support it needs to establish a rule of law and meet the population�s basic needs.

Yep Vaughn, it's says all that.

Now let's see how the dinosaurs in the pentagon put it into practice. You may hate to hear it but Rumsfeld tried many of the same things without much success.

Much of it has been said before:

The Art of War
The Little Red Book
and
Steel My Soldiers Heart - Lt. Col. David Hackworth

But, it all goes back to defining mission...
you can't chose government for people.
The military shouldn't defend an "approved" government.

Instead, give military folks a military mission that is clear,
possible and worthy. Give 'em that and step aside...
(or let them standdown)...

I've been saying the United States Army needs to rethink what it's doing for about 20 years now. Back when I was assigned to NATO and the old Soviet Union was still blowing and going I never could figure out the manpower utilization of NATO's troops in the event of an Article Five deployment why the US Army was adamant to sacrifice any light infantry units under their command to blunt any Soviet armored thursts in the opening shots. I guess what mainly upset me about sacrificing the light infantry units was Marines are light infantry, eh?

Well, light infantry is a much neglected field of endeavor in the United States Army, it would pay for them to look at what the German Jaeger can do. They can't go head to head with an armoured unit but they will be like lice in the waistband of any opposing Army they tangle with.

For all the claimed reassessment, guess who was the spokesman for
the Bush Administration tonight on CNN:

The American Enterprise Institute - the neo-cons that beat the war
drums to invade Iraq. Cheerled by Richard Perle, a former head
of the Defense Policy Board and a resident fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute.

It's the same old shell game...generals on the ground? B.S.-
it's the AEI that's advising the fools at the top. Expect failure.
There ain't a lick of combat experience among 'em.