In 2009, then-US Marine Corps Major and Middle East foreign
area officer Ben Connable published a characteristically elegant article in the
august journal Military Review in
March entitled “All our Eggs in a Broken Basket” regarding the US Army decision
to augment sociocultural understanding of brigade combat teams in Iraq and
Afghanistan with civilian social scientists, rather than develop an organic
expertise within the service components.
I was reminded of that title when reading the House of
Commons’ Defence Committee’s critique of UK intelligence on the ground in Iraq.
Following on from my previous post here regarding the imprecise, amorphous
language of the Army 2020, the dangerously abstract terms in which the
UK Defence establishment now couches its analysis renders any understanding of
a particular stance, or indeed comprehension of a single direction, impossible.
I was reminded of Connable’s title because to me the UK
Defence reports now try to position no eggs in any baskets at all.
When the philosopher Sir Karl Popper produced his theory of
falsification to demarcate the line between science and pseudoscience, he
showed that rigorous definition was the key to scientific understanding, that
it had to be precise enough, and consequentially testable, such that it could
be proved false. In that way, to some degree, science is afforded a direction,
built upon a level of concrete rigour.
Consider in opposition to that the UK Defence position in Iraq
as outlined by the House of Common’s Defence Committee’s critique
on 5 February 2015.
Just as in the problems I outlined in the post below, the
same elements recur:
The
Committee was shocked by the inability or unwillingness of any of the Service
Chiefs to provide a clear, and articulate statement of the UK’s objectives or
strategic plan in Iraq. There was a lack of clarity over who owns a policy—and
indeed whether such a policy exists.
This again is soldier sorcery: the magic of describing thin
and indistinct threats in order to place no eggs in any baskets at all. Perhaps
the most telling problem, not for Iraq, but for the general efficacy of UK
Defence strategies, was here, also in the summary:
The
report recommends that the UK invests heavily in staff to develop a better
understanding of the situation on the ground
This, by chance, is a very interesting recommendation,
because we might inevitably ask that from a UK force size in-country of 4000 in
2008 in the ongoing Operation Telic (reduced by 1600 from the previous year
after the completion of Operation Sinbad in Basra), we find it necessary to
suggest in 2015 the heavy investment in human capability.
So what happened? The US example, as the primary foreign
agent in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 is instructive. In order to ensure a
handover, the surge of forces placed men and materiel on the ground between
2007 and 2009. During that time, remarkable social science research was
undertaken on the ground by organic and non-organic elements within, or
attached to, the deployed service components.
At least two teams on the ground conducted semi-structured
interviews with the Sons of Iraq, the bureaucratic embodiment of the Anbar
Awakening, in order to ascertain how the handover of payment from US forces to
al-Maliki’s predominantly Shia government should work for them. The results indicated
that there was likely to be some significant discrepancy between the reality of
the work provisioned for them under Maliki and their expectations having
suppressed the AQI surge in the territory.
At that point then in 2009 it would be reasonable to assume
that our knowledge of the country was reaching its apogee. But military
interest in foreign theatres is ephemeral. With the departure of materiel and
manpower, the ability to securely visit all areas of the country ceased. And as
Iraq dropped from the foreign affairs radar, the motivation to do in-depth
social science research was reduced. Hence both means and motivation
effectively ceased.
The British experience in Iraq was more wounding, and hence
the motivation to continue research in the theatre was less attractive. In
effect, the war could be written off and unlearned. Only, the Maliki government
effectively disenfranchised the Sunni minority to the extent that Sunni
insurgents were apparently
openly greeted when they entered Mosul in June 2014. They came not as
oppressors, but as liberators from a corrupt and vicious regime.
From that point forward, the US and Britain have been
playing catch up. The spectrum of horrors employed by the Sunni insurgents, all
familiarly violent motifs in the annals of war fighting, was rendered visceral,
globally-available, and immediate by the use of social media to proliferate and
control the message.
Unlike the British experience in Iraq, which effectively
unlearned the conflict, for the insurgents in that life or death battle, they necessarily
evolved sophisticated platforms to control narratives and finance their
operations. This evolution has been borne from harsh assessments of past
campaigns and the centre of gravity for insurgent operations (see for example, al-Suri’s
Global
Islamic Resistance Call for the requirement to control a successful media
campaign, and a book from which many elements seem to have been adopted by ISIL).
According to one
report, ISIL now controls an area in Iraq and Syria in which there are 15
million civilians, making their own amorphous, indistinct and fragile territorial
gain, in terms of population larger than that of Ecuador.
Socio-cultural knowledge is a pre-requisite to successful UK
Defence operations. It is relatively inexpensive and requires few personnel.
Done well, it can highlight problematic contours such as with the disbanding of
the Sons of Iraq, or the leader networks in areas, or inequality, or
trajectories of disenfranchisement. Without this capability, we end up with
amorphous and meaningless assessments of our positions in countries and when
this ephemeral requirement to act returns we are left without understanding of
the appropriate manner in which to do so.
The UK Defence establishment may bemoan recent and
anticipated spending cuts, but without a better understanding of the threats
faced, and a much more coherent propagation of that message, no political
entity will have the motivation to reverse this trajectory of change.
ISIL, or DAESH (al-Dawla al-Islamyia fil Iraq wa’al Sham) to
use the on-the-ground name for the Sunni insurgent group (as the UK House of
Commons Defence Select Committee did), took UK and US Intelligence by surprise
precisely because of that lost human capital on the ground. That is not to say
that ground in the race cannot be regained.
Like any new product, ISIL in
control of its new territories is a hostage to the cycle of hype:
As we pass the group’s peak of inflated expectations and
civilians experience the deep disillusionment of political control by a
religious authority, the opportunity for Iraqi government to regain strong
narrative and enfranchised societal gains in order to steal away popular approval
of the group from its amorphous territorial gain on the ground must begin. As a
brand, it is necessary to take away the group’s appeal.