The Art of Battalion Command in Counterinsurgency: Part Three - The Local Approach

The Marine Corps University Counterinsurgency Leadership In Afghanistan, Iraq and Beyond: The Art of Battalion Command in Counterinsurgency transcript (PDF) is so good, I have decided to post the entire thing in four installments. I believe there are important insights in these discussions not only for Afghanistan, but in the context of US Navy discussions as well. The participants were:

Bing West, Correspondent, The Atlantic
Col. Dale Alford, Institute for Defense Analyses, USMC
Col. William M. Jurney, US Joint Forces Command, USMC
Col. David Furness, Marine Corps Liaison Office, US House of Representatives

Held on Wednesday, September 23, 2024 at 10:30 at the National Press Club, Washington DC, part three is the presentation by Col. William M. Jurney.

Good morning. Dr. Moyar, again asked us to address a few points from the battalion perspective regarding lessons and experiences from Ramadi, ’06, ’07 timeframe.
I would start by saying that the employment concept of military forces is first and foremost based on getting at the enemy so that’s the perspective that I’m going to come from.

With an offensive mindset and not defensive you look for and go after that which allows you to take and maintain the initiative against that which opposes you. There is no cookie-cutter solution or template for this. And I think all too often, that’s what we see folks seeking, that there’s got to be one set template approach. And I would submit to you that that’s just not going to be the case.

However, in counterinsurgency, you can’t expect the key terrain to be the population. We’ve heard some folks talk about that today. So the question comes up as to whether you should be population focused or enemy focused. And I submit to you that the answer is yes. You cannot look at one without understanding the full implications to the other.

The key thing that I said just now was “understanding,” which is much different from assuming or misplacing your own Western bias onto the actions or reactions of particular events in a given AO. Wide variances can exist from one local area to the next, therefore you must account for and understand these specific nuances for each local area or community.

From that point, you can already see that an effective tactical concept of employment, by necessity is going to come predominantly from a bottom-up point of view.

Nevertheless, back to the question of population focus or enemy focus - in my framing of the two, I would submit that the population is viewed more as a means to get at the enemy versus a standalone end state. It’s not that CMO or civic actions should not be aligned to meet the needs of the people. It’s just that they have to be more closely aligned and prioritized by that which gives you the greatest tactical advantage to get to the enemy first.

Oftentimes, I’ve seen civil military actions that are not connected to either the needs of the people or anything else that ties to improving a unit’s ability to hurt the enemy.

Now, that’s not meant to be a disparaging comment about our civil affairs efforts but rather at the decisions of commanders because it is a commander’s decision no different than ordering an attack, which brings me to my next point which is that you cannot understand something that you do not live with, sleep with, and operate with every day and night.

Effective COIN operations in and around populated centers require a permanent, persistent, credible security force. It cannot be part time. You will not gain the level of understanding of the situation, nor the trust of the people if you’re not there 24/7.

The best security force is homegrown. It’s local. Some might think that I’m simply advocating the last experience in Ramadi with the Awakening. Actually, no. The Awakening was a growing movement that was making a difference outside the city of Ramadi in late ’06. And although it helped in providing new recruits for outside the city of Ramadi - which was a good thing - this movement and its recruits were from surrounding rural areas and they would not operate within the city proper. And therefore, not the ideal local type that you want, who knows the streets and knows the people.

Yes, at some point we hoped that a national identification of governmental forces transcends a struggling country psyche, but near-term COIN is not going to happen. Make no mistake.

The best security and sense of security for locals are a local, and that local security force will also know the area and its people in such a way that no level of cultural understanding will ever bring.

A local security force is the enemy’s worse nightmare come to town. If the enemy loses its ability to hide in plain sight, he then loses his freedom of movement and action. He also loses the ability to replenish its own ranks with new recruits. So you’re hurting the enemy and you’re meeting the essential needs within your AO for employment, money, prestige, honor, and even a sense of adventure for some by joining a legitimate government security force which also allows, culturally speaking, a desired venue to prove yourself a man and a warrior.

Some will argue that a 24/7 combined action battalion concept for partnering and entire battalion and its leadership with newly forming security forces in the populated areas is simply too risky. I would not disagree more. I submit there’s not only greater risk to the force but also an even greater risk to successful accomplishment of the mission if you choose to operate from some isolate disconnect FOB while conducting independent or intermittent partnered U.S. ops that lack permanent presence and a connection to the people.

Lastly, I suggest that our tactical concepts of employment must pursue multiple lines of effort concurrently if you’re going to take the initiative.

Kinetic and non-kinetic, regular, irregular, conventional, non-conventional - you pick the moniker of the day. There are many. However, focusing on the enemy by only pursuing U.S. targeted raids, all under the framework of “clear, hold and build” are not enough to truly be on the offensive and take the initiative. They’re essential and they’re viable ops. But I would not suggest that such a narrow approach would be pursued.

I have seen time and again the limited activity of general purpose forces waiting on the big one, waiting on the big one to emerge for that game changing targeted raid, the kill or capture an all important individual. This single line of effort is simply not going to work in gaining you the initiative, nor will it work for a unit that simply follow a lockstep sequential approach along the clear, hold, build construct.

I suggest that building or holding one might in fact clear the enemy without a firefight. If so, then why would you limit yourself to only those tools that traditionally associate with conventional ops against a fixed enemy force especially when you can’t even find the enemy?

Therefore, you should cast your net wide along all viable lines of effort if they can help you get at the enemy. Actions that you take should either directly or indirectly lead to improving our ability to impose our will on the enemy.

Discussions of civil military ops, key leader engagement, training employment of local security forces, restricting lines of movement, population control measures, census taking, improving governance and essential services, all are techniques and methods to be applied and/or combined as a leader sees fit based on a continuous process that sees a tactical advantage at taking up such actions.

If not, then I submit that you’re likely putting men and women at risk for nothing. Moreover, you could actually be making your own situation worse by inadvertently disenfranchising the most critical element of getting at the enemy: the population.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to the Dale who I know has been on the ground in Afghanistan. Thank you. (Applause.)