21.02.2013 Views

The Canadian Army Journal

The Canadian Army Journal

The Canadian Army Journal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

to safe havens with the Morice Line in Algeria, there are also more recent examples<br />

including NATO’s attempts to target the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. 36 In each<br />

case, the COIN force was attempting to destroy the enemy’s cohesion and will to fight<br />

rather than engage in a costly effort to destroy the insurgents themselves.<br />

Taken together, the paragraphs above show that manoeuvre warfare theory is<br />

applicable to COIN campaigns and that the fundamental principals and methods that<br />

make up that theory are not only limited to high-intensity, mechanized warfare.<br />

Examples of the application of these principals and methods in the fight against<br />

insurgencies abound throughout history, even if the practitioners themselves would not<br />

have described their tactics as ‘manoeuvrist’. Nonetheless, instances of pre-emption,<br />

dislocation, and disruption can be found and are often associated with the more<br />

successful COIN campaigns.<br />

<strong>The</strong>refore, to answer the question posed at the introduction to this essay:<br />

manoeuvre warfare is applicable to COIN. Much of what was developed by Western<br />

armies in the 1980s and 1990s in terms of manoeuvre warfare doctrine can be of use in<br />

the insurgencies now faced by the West in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not necessary to<br />

return to the drawing board to develop a COIN doctrine from scratch with no links to past<br />

doctrine; rather, it is only necessary to view the current wars through our pre-existing<br />

doctrinal lens. Of course there are clear differences between conventional and lowintensity<br />

wars such as the increased emphasis on political considerations; and the<br />

complexities of a battlefield where the contested feature is the will of the population<br />

rather than a piece of terrain. <strong>The</strong>se differences may necessitate special training and<br />

knowledge in military forces but they are not so fundamental as to render the principles<br />

and methods of manoeuvre warfare irrelevant. Ultimately, a western army that starts<br />

from scratch in writing its COIN doctrine, ignoring manoeuvrist principles developed and<br />

taught to its officers, is indeed throwing the baby out with the bathwater.<br />

About the Author …<br />

Maj Alex D. Haynes joined the CF in 1994 and graduated from Simon Fraser University in 1998<br />

with a BA in History. An officer of <strong>The</strong> Royal <strong>Canadian</strong> Regiment, he served with the 1 st Battalion<br />

from 1998 to 2002 and is currently serving with the 3 rd Battalion as Officer Commanding Quebec<br />

Company. He deployed in 1998 on Op KINETIC in Kosovo as a Platoon Commander and more<br />

recently, in 2005, on Op ARGUS in Afghanistan as a Strategic Advisor. Maj Haynes is currently<br />

working on his MA in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada.<br />

Endnotes<br />

1. Thomas X. Hammes, <strong>The</strong> Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2006), 44.<br />

2. Contemporary military journals abound with examples of articles written post-9/11 that examine past COIN campaigns<br />

with the stated or implied aim of providing lessons for current COIN campaigns. See Timothy K. Deady “Lessons From a<br />

Successful Counter-insurgency: <strong>The</strong> Philippines, 1899-1902,” Parameters 35, 1 (Spring 2005); Robert M. Cassidy, “Back to<br />

the Street without Joy: Counter-insurgency Lessons from Vietnam and Other Small Wars,” Parameters 32, 4 (Summer<br />

2004); and, Kalev I. Sepp, “Best Practices in Counter-insurgency,” Military Review 85, 3 (May-June 2005) as some<br />

examples.<br />

3. For the <strong>Canadian</strong> definition see Canada, Department of National Defence, B-GL-300-001/FP-000 Conduct of Land<br />

Operations—Operational-Level Doctrine for the <strong>Canadian</strong> <strong>Army</strong> (n.p.: 1998), 15-16; for the USMC version see United<br />

States, Department of the Navy, MCDP 1 Warfighting (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997), 36-39; and,<br />

for the British interpretation see United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Design for Military Operations—<strong>The</strong> British Military<br />

Doctrine (London: <strong>The</strong> Stationary Office, 1996), 55-61.<br />

4. William S. Lind, Maneuver Warfare Handbook (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985), 6.<br />

5. Ibid., 9-24.<br />

6. Robert Leonhard, <strong>The</strong> Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare <strong>The</strong>ory and Air Land Battle (New York: Ballantine Books,<br />

1991), 19.<br />

7. Ibid.<br />

<strong>Canadian</strong> <strong>Army</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> Vol. 11.1 Spring 2008<br />

33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!