Sections

Expert Analysis

Fighting Unconventional Enemies with Unconventional Means - Psychological Operations and COIN

by ·

Much has been written about counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies and tactics being used in Afghanistan and Iraq - or rather not. Back in my army days in Kandahar in 2007-2008, I remember  commanders endlessy bragging about how “we totally nail that COIN thing,” keeping on gargling out quotes from the likes of COIN scholar David Galula, a French army officer who fought in the Algeria Independence War and is considered the leading COIN theoretician. (Galula was cited as an inspiration to David Petraeus’ “Surge” strategy in Iraq, which helped make that war a little less of a fiasco than it eventually became.)

Except we weren’t. At all. This is the last of a three-part series of articles that addresses serious issues about the way US, Canadian and other NATO countries conducted what they thought were COIN operations, and suggests new approaches that, in current and future conflicts, may improve efficiency and minimize civilian deaths so that wars can no longer be, in the words of my former PSYOPS platoon commander, “about buying time.”

Part 3: PSYOPS

Like I previously mentioned, fighting an unconventional enemy with conventional means is an accelerated pathway to a strategic defeat against an enemy that, despite possessing far less firepower and equipment, makes up for these shortcomings with deep cultural knowledge and fighting on its own ground. They stem from the very population that Western countries claim to be helping and, therefore, know people’s vulnerabilities, sensibilities and everything that makes them tick.

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING.

Your subscription is important and supports our editorial integrity. Advertisers are sometimes afraid of being associated with controversial news topics, and your subscription is vital to ensuring we can continue to publish the courageous news we are known and respected for.

Get Insider Access and Expert Analysis Today

SUBSCRIBE NOW

or Log In

SHARE THIS

BECAUSE, FACTS DON'T TAKE SIDES

Your Subscription Supports Honest News Efforts

TRY 4 WEEKS FOR $1.99

Comments

Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

  • Avatar
    dboi73

    "they need to understand that fighting an unconventional enemy calls for unconventional means"... Damn right, mate. War is a byproduct of failed diplomacy. So when the politicians fail at their jobs and send us in to clean their messes up they need to stay to f**k out of our way until we say we're done. But unfortunately, the politicians just can't wait to come back in and screw things up again as fast as possible.  This is directed at all those DoS and ***Aid departments who effectively counter any progressive actions the military takes in conflict zones to correct their BS politics. If it were up to our Generals (those who didn't have a keen eye on politics following their military careers) on how we fought each war to the end, we'd be home a lot more. And perhaps those countries that we assist would have greater trust in our Nations.

  • Avatar
    LadyHW

    good write up.  just an observation, but PSYOPS (as you describe it) may be a misnomer. Maybe it should be called MARK-OPS (Marketing Operations?). or INFLUOPS (influence operations? ) -- but that sounds like influenza -- so maybe not!   It seems to me that knowing your enemy: that is understanding the culture, the ideology, the internal religious doctrines -- those that might be used against the enemy, cultural rituals, understanding the psychology behind the local language (that is word use and idioms), and sociological structure (tribal vs central government) these are the real benefits of PSYOPS. Such items are the key to knowing how to influence positively (or negatively). As we say in my field, language is power. You speak a person's language (word choice and syntax, etc) and you can influence  -- at least a little.   Still, I curse the big question: Why go to all this trouble? What is the purpose? to change the culture? to win and walk away? to punish? to what?  Understanding the direction and goal of the war will make all the difference.

  • theWolf

    In my opinion and experience as a PSYOP team member ( reserve side, 6 years, 2 deployments to AFG), I think we're recruiting the wrong people into the branch. I believe we need, even at the lowest level, experienced personnel, both with civilian marketing and combat or some level of operating on the tactical level. It should not be an "entry level" MOS. It is a tricky job to execute properly and effectively.  Experience plays a huge role when trying to get your team into the "fight" - 1. you can relate to the commander and his staff and 2. you have an understanding of the culture and can communicate to the locals in your respective AO. Anyway, there are many things wrong with how PSYOP is employed by battle space owners. One is just using them to "use" them - to make reports sound better. I had to fight this MANY MANY FUCKING TIMES. It was akin to being in a parallel universe - Is this really fucking happening" I'm not meaning to rant but it holds a soft spot in my heart. I loved being PSYOP.  I should right a collective piece on the subject...

  • Avatar
    MysterBlack

    Thanks for the article.  Certainly a key part of picture that does not get its due.

  • Avatar
    Loren Schofield

    CarpeNoctem Heaven forbid anybody thinks we are out there killing people.