User talk:Hcberkowitz/FIDscraps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Insurgent Force (IF) 2 The Counterinsurgency Force 3 The Population 4 The International Community 5 United States 6 US Foreign Internal Defense Priorities 6.1 Africa 6.1.1 Horn of Africa 6.1.2 West Africa 6.1.3 Trans-Sahel/Trans-Sahara 6.2 Southeast Asia and the Phillipines 6.3 Central Asia 6.4 Latin America 6.5 US Controversy regarding inadequate use of FID capabilities 6.5.1 Direct Action versus Foreign Internal Defense 7 References

[edit] Insurgent Force (IF)

This is composed of the group (or groups in a multipolar situation such as Iraq) that is operating to oust the government or occupation force. In addition to fighters, it includes auxiliaries in the support network, leadership, and foreign assistants. When the IF acts as a shadow government, collecting taxes, it can be hard to tell when an individual is truly a supporter, or coerced into payment. Distinguishing between the voluntary insurgent, the coerced supporter, and the innocent bystander is one of the most difficult obstacles (if not the most difficult) for the COIN force. They [insurgents] typically have sources of support among the local populace of the same ethnicity with whom their separatist goals (or appeals to blood links) may resonate.^[1]

As in Iraq, multiple organizations can be both IF and competitors with one another. In Cuba and Vietnam, the IF still generally believed in a single-state solution, but Iraq is unpredictable. As part of Sudan's power-sharing agreement, there will be a referendum on whether to stay one nation or split on a north-south boundary.

[edit] The Counterinsurgency Force

The counterinsurgency force (CF) is the current government [i.e., Host Nation (HN)] or occupying force in the region. These are the forces on the ground that are in direct combat with the IF. There is normally a single force that is the lead in the COIN effort, but other troops, organizations, or countries can provide additional forces to augment the CF. The CF must integrate all elements of national power: civil, military, diplomatic, informational, economic, and financial capabilities. These forces include, but are not limited to: military, police, security forces, intelligence infrastructure, and trainers/advisors.

The CF is defined by the insurgent’s perceptions; if forces are present that believe they are not taking an active role in the COIN effort (i.e. peacekeepers or observers), but are perceived by the IF as influencing the situation, then those forces have become part of the CF. The corollary is true of the CF defining the IF, but the CF normally has a greater “burden of proof” dictated by the media and international oversight.

The CF must clearly identify legitimate targets among insurgents that can often blend in with the local populace, while the IF can easily identify conventional COIN Forces by their large and obvious signature (uniforms, bases, vehicles…).

[edit] The Population

The Population consists of the non-combatants in the disputed region. While support may be coerced out of the Population they are not considered insurgents until they provide additional support beyond that required to avoid reprisals. For example, during the War in El Salvador the insurgents (and often government forces too) required water and tortillas from the Population. Failure to provide this subsistence support was deemed to indicate affiliation with the opponent and would result in immediate reprisals.

The people that provided this support were not considered combatants (pro-insurgent or pro-government) until support was provided above (more than water and tortillas) or below (not even water and tortillas) the base level. When the people provide information, early warning, take up arms, or any other form of active or passive support, they are choosing a side and are no longer non-combatants or members of the population.

[edit] The International Community

McCormick defines this as the set of nation states, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that are not perceived as biased either to the IF or CF.

"The International Community can introduce troops into a region without choosing sides, for example peacekeeping forces, and thus retain non-combatant status as long as their presence does not construe support for the IF or CF. Maintaining the perception of neutrality can be a difficult task and members of the International Community can transition from external supporter to participant either intentionally or unknowingly.

For example, the Pakistani Military in Somalia was under the auspices of UN Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance; while providing food to starving Somalis. The UN forces viewed this as a neutral act which provided them sanctuary from attack. The Somali warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, viewed the distribution of food as a threat to his control over the population and ordered an ambush of a UN convoy killing 18 Pakistani soldiers. The IF perception of the UN had shifted. The UN Peacekeepers (i.e., UNISOM II) showed an influence that was not directed against the IF, but did have the indirect effect of undermining the IF authority and control. This perceived influence in the eyes of the IF made the peacekeepers members of the CF and legitimate targets.

Training and equipping health and education facilities are key FID capabilities. While Special Forces medical personnel can deliver clinic services and train local workers, there is an entire spectrum of ways to use FID to enhance public health. The US Navy's ^[2] Medical Research Unit No. 3 has been active in Egypt since WWII. Located next to the Abbassia Fever Hospital, the oldest and largest fever hospital in the Middle East, it does research with Egyptian personnel and scientific clinicals throughout Africa and Southwest Asia. It works closely with the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the U.S Agency for International Development and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NAMRU-3 is a WHO Collaborating Center for HIV and Emerging Infectious Diseases.

Unit	Location(s)	Specialization
NAMRU-2	Djakarta, Indonesia; expanded operations to other countries in Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Laos, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Cambodia.	Works with Indonesian Ministry of Health, the Indonesian National Institute of Health Research and Development, and the Indonesian Center for Disease Control. These joint activities include both collaborative research on diseases of public health significance and disaster relief in the wake of the 2004 Sumatra tsunami and the 2005 Central Java earthquake.
NAMRU-3	Cairo, Egypt; additional locations in Egypt, Syria, sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe.	NAMRU-3 has a long and distinguished record in infectious disease, as one of the pioneers in dealing with Rift Valley Fever. Major interests include meningitis, encephalitis, hepatitis, undifferentiated febrile illness, viral hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, malaria and dysentery. It is building a network of 12 hospitals in Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, for which it will be the reference laboratory and training center; it recently became 9th WHO Avian Influenza Lab, and is one of the sources for developing each year's new influenza vaccine. It is also involved in genotyping HIV-1 and Hepatitis E. Its entomology programs address detecting insecticide resistance and finding new insecticides with minimum side effects, as well as developing new repellents.
NMRCD	Lima, Peru; field lab at Iquitos on the Amazon	Works with Peruvian military (hosted by Navy), the Peruvian Cayetano-Heredia and San Marcos and various US Universities, Centers for Disease Control, Pan-American Health Organization, World Health Organization CNMRCD has capitalized on its access to infectious disease threats endemic to South America through strong institutional partnerships with over 24 institutions in 10 nations. Its interests include malaria and dengue fever, yellow fever, viral encephalitides, leishmaniasis, Chagas' disease, dengue and enteric diseases such as shigellosis and typhoid fever.

In contrast, Robert Komer was the head of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS) organization in Vietnam, originally reporting directly to the President but eventually fitting into the country team with the protocol equivalent of a four-star general and deputy Ambassador. Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), however, was a sub-regional command under United States Pacific Command.

[edit] United States

United States Army Special Forces' original mission was to train and lead guerrillas in a nation occupied by another. The most likely case, at the time Special Forces were created, would be to lead resistance groups in European countries overrun by the expected Soviet Bloc attack. Over time, the term guerrilla warfare, especially led by Americans, fell into disfavor, and unconventional warfare took its place.

Related activities, just after WWII, included a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), first in Greece ^[3]. Another MAAG went to French Indochina in 1950. The US really had no formal organization for providing FID, before the creation of Special Forces. MAAG organizations were intended to be advisory (i.e., noncombat), while Special Forces was designed initially for training and leading guerrillas against an occupier.

As US involvement increased in Southeast Asia, Special Forces personnel were assigned to FID missions with South Vietnamese troops. The MAAG converted to Military Assistance Command Vietnam in 1962, as a MAAG was not organized to command combat units. The first programs involved a CIA-sponsored program, operated by Army Special Forces, to work with Vietnamese Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) and Nung mercenaries to establish village defense. Subsequently, many of these units became Vietnamese Rangers.

Starting in 1965, while they were not as highly trained for working with host nation personnel, the US Marine Corps Combined Action Program (CAP) took on a similar role of reinforcing and training local village soldiers ^[4].

"An example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)"^[5] in the 1980-1992 Salvadoran Civil War. FMLN subsequently became a legal political party. Human rights violations, by both sides, took place. "During the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador." ^[6]. Unfortunately, human rights violations tend to be common during insurgencies. Western powers are under considerable pressure to be sure to include human rights training in the overall assistance to HN personnel, although the results vary. Part of the challenge comes when HN personnel go into combat without FID advisors to monitor their conduct.

Special Forces are operating with locals, in a FID role, all over the world, including Iraq. Also in Iraq, the Marines reinstituted a variant of the CAP ^[7].

[edit] US Foreign Internal Defense Priorities

While the large operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are most visible, including direct combat as well as FID, other areas are even more promising for multinational, national, and local FID programs to strengthen weak states and close gaps.

[edit] Africa

Most worrisome is Africa, with different issues in different regions. Recently, the US has created a regional command for Africa, which, along with the Southern Command for Latin America and the Caribbean, is less a headquarters for combat forces and more one for coordinating development.

[edit] Horn of Africa

The states near the Middle East are a high priority, not only due to the terrorist threat, but for piracy. Countries of interest include Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Sudan. With its patchwork quilt of troubled states, this region has a long history as a base of operations for Islamist terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda and sympathizers such as the Somali-based group Al-Ittihad al-Islamiya^[8]

[edit] West Africa

Nigeria has had to deal with Islamist extremists in the north. West Africa, however, has the Blood Diamond problem, as a regional one including Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Liberia, the Republic of the Congo, and Sierra Leone.

Some of the most effective sub-regional FID and nation-building has taken place under the ECOWAS organization, with its ECOMOG military and nation-building force. Western assistance to this region has involved the UK in Sierra Leone and France in Ivory Coast.

[edit] Trans-Sahel/Trans-Sahara

This region includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Eritrea, Senegal, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan. The countries vary significantly in their problems and resources. Nigeria is a major regional power both in the Sahel/Sahara and in West Africa, and is an established oil exporter, while Chad and Sudan are in early phases of an oil industry.

[edit] Southeast Asia and the Phillipines

A second region of concern is Southeast Asia and the Philippines, which the US State Department characterized in its 2003 annual terrorism report to Congress as “an attractive theater of support and logistics for al-Qaida” and other regional and transnational groups. Also in the report, the State Department highlighted the link between regional terrorist groups in Asia and al-Qaeda and the resultant implications for the region. An equally dangerous and violent group also having strong ties to Al-Qaeda is Abu Sayyaf, a Philippine-based Muslim separatist organization that was the target of a vigorous and largely successful Philippine eradication effort following the attacks of 9/11. This group has recently reemerged, prompting the Philippine national security advisor to assert in August 2004 that Abu Sayyaf is “by far the most dangerous group in the country today^[8]

[edit] Central Asia

The third troublesome area of weak states is Central Asia, consisting of the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Here, central government authority is weak, poverty is widespread, and control of the more remote mountainous regions is tenuous, at best. Taking full advantage of this weakness is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a terrorist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda, which has taken root in the region.

[edit] Latin America

US interaction with Latin America goes back farther than with other areas, including unfortunate periods of exploitation and human rights violations, with movement to a more balanced effort that has shown some successes. Those programs that worked in Latin America may be models for a better start in Africa.

Properly trained and equipped police and military forces can help close the security gap. Work with the World Health Organization and Pan-American Health Organization work with the capacity gap. Regional HN operations to interdict drug traffickers, destroy labs and seize drugs helps close the legitimacy gap by reducing the bribery of local officials.

As has been mentioned, the illegal drug trade is a natural spillover effect from weak states. Fully understanding that the US must do its part on reducing demand, the US Southern Command supports HN activities against both drug production and transportation. The "source zone" are the countries in the Andes that are the largest drug producing areas: Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Nations in Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean play roles in transit.

US intelligence sharing includes ground-based and airborne radar^[9], with air mission planning at the USSOUTHCOM’s Joint interagency Task Force East located in Key West, Florida.

[edit] US Controversy regarding inadequate use of FID capabilities

Not all special operations forces have FID or UW capabilities, which require skill at training, area and cultural knowledge, and foreign language skills. In the US, these have been the classic role of Special Forces groups rather than other special operations units, such as the direct action specialists of the 75th Ranger Regiment, or direct action and special reconnaissance with Marine Force Recon or United States Navy SEALs. FID is inherently a force multiplication function, so using FID-qualified personnel for other special forces missions may not be their most effective assignment.

While other units have been assigned to training, there is a concern that the best-qualified FID specialists are being overused in counterterror direct action ^[10]: "The problem with Rumsfeld’s thinking is that he overemphasized the “direct action” piece of the SOF portfolio, which involves the capture and killing of terrorist operatives. His plan gave short shrift to one of the other major missions of special operators: the training of foreign militaries in critical regions of the world, says Dick Couch ^[11], a retired Navy SEAL and author of “Chosen Soldier: The Making of a Special Forces Warrior." ... "Special Forces are the only members of the military whose primary job is to teach other forces how to fight, he explains...

"The U.S. military will have a tough time fighting terrorism as long as missions such as foreign-internal defense are underappreciated and considered unglamorous." Failing to train foreign internal defense forces, however, will mean that US regular forces may have to intervene to fill the lack of local forces.

In the Quadrennial Defense Review issued in February 2006, ^[12] a one-third increase in Special Forces battalions was projected. Special Operations personnel interviewed, however, believe this projected increase will be devoted completely to direct action missions, which have been the specialty of the Joint Special Operations Command.

While direct action is also one of Army Special Forces' "seven principal missions," the other missions, including unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, information operations, civil affairs, place a high priority on Special Forces' language skills and cultural awareness (each of the Army's seven SF groups has a regional focus).

"My concern is that all we're focused on is direct action, to the absolute exclusion of all other things," said Mark Haselton, a retired Special Forces lieutenant colonel. "The war we are fighting (and will be fighting for years to come) will require the ability to export training in ways that others can use to organize their own capabilities. If we spend the rest of our lives 'capturing and killing' terrorists at the expense of those SF missions that are more important — gaining access to the local population, training indigenous forces, providing expertise and expanding capacity — we're doomed to failure."

SOCom spokesman Ken McGraw said the facts did not support the critics' contention that nondirect action special ops missions, such as foreign internal defense (FID) and civil affairs, are undervalued. He said combined joint special operations task forces with Special Forces at their core are performing foreign internal defense missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Philippines. "FID missions are also taking place in other parts of the world," he added. "[SOCom commander] Gen. [Bryan "Doug"] Brown says all the time that civil affairs is the key to winning the global war on terror, because it attacks the underlying causes of terrorism."

According to retired RADM Hamlin Tallent, who had been director of operations at US European Command, "The occupation of Iraq and the counterinsurgency fight there unfortunately are draining scarce SOF resources, which means that fewer operators are available to conduct foreign-internal defense missions in areas that are gradually becoming terrorist sanctuaries, such as Africa." Tallent also observes that if local forces are not trained, US forces may have to do the job. With an overstretched military and political considerations, many analysts question if using FID-capable assets on counterterror DA is a wise choice.

[edit] Direct Action versus Foreign Internal Defense

Developed countries will face many of the same demands for enhanced counterterrorism and counterinsurgency capabilities over the coming decades that exist today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries. It will also face a complex mix of steadily more sophisticated state and non-state actors. These will normally operate with a high degree of independence, but they have collectively and individually already found a form of low technology swarm tactics that can defeat high technology US forces unless the US can depend on local allies.

Time literally is on the side of such enemies. They can afford to fight wars of attrition, out wait the US, and pause their activities to regroup. Swarming warfare inherently is "pulsed" and allows the insurgency to pace itself both in terms of resource availability and dramatic impact. Commercial cellular and satellite telephones, websites, text messaging, and conventional telephones can provide needed communications, especially in urban areas. Open source intelligence OSINT can provide much of the information they need. They can rely on open source reporting for much of their intelligence and knowledge of what targets, tactics, and propaganda provide the most combat effectiveness. .

Such threats will seek to operate below the level of US and allied conventional superiority. They will use proxies and avoid battles when they can. They will prefer low-level wars of attrition and avoid present conventional targets. They will attack US, allied, and local civil targets using suicide bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and other tactics in ways that are hard to anticipate or fully defend against

Terrorists can exploit religion, ideology, culture, and ethnic and sectarian identity to attack and isolate the US and outside allies. This means such threats will also seek to fight above the level of US conventional superiority. They will try to shape the ideological, political, and psychological battlefields in ways that make the US an invader, occupier, or crusader. They will use the support they gain to disperse and hide among the population, and seek to force the US to use tactics and detainments that alienate the people in the areas where they operate.

It is a FID axiom that "Unless the US can rely on local forces and local allies, this mix of attack tactics will often deprive the US of much of its ability to exploit superior weapons, IS&R assets, and conventional war fighting expertise.

[edit] References