Do No Harm

And I'm feelin' glad all over
Yes I'm-a glad all over
Baby I'm-a glad all over
So glad you're mine
--Glad All Over, The Dave Clark Five

The moon gazed on my midnight labors,
while, with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness,
I pursued nature to her hiding-places
--Frankenstein, Mary Shelley

Look at the noises on the moor at night.
There's not a man would cross it after sundown
if he was paid for it
--The Hound of the Baskervilles,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
______________

Denizens here know that Ranger is opposed to military action in "The Good War" (= Afghanistan), as well as in Iraq. However, this entry is a la O.J. Simpson -- If I did it, this is how I would have done it.

Special Forces Mike Forces would have carried the action. They are the U.S. Army's Mobile Guerrilla Groups (MGG), patterned on the French model. If there is one lesson in COIN, it is that any military application of force must be aimed at the insurgents/guerrillas, and the civilian population must be kept from harm.

The Hippocratic Oath should also apply to soldiering: First, do no harm. The scalpel may wielded against diseased tissue, but not at the expense of too much healthy tissue, which is actually the stuff keeping the organism alive, and which will reconstitute it after the excision. It does no good to remove a cancer if the body is left too weak to survive. Same with a nation.

MGG's and Mike Forces were Company and Battalion-sized units utilizing indigenous troops commanded and tactically employed by French or American personnel. These units were generally employed in the hinterlands and denied areas and took the fight to the enemy. The Mike Forces utilized guerrilla tactics, living in the jungles and fighting as light infantry.

Their organization and employment mirrored that of the enemy. This is the basic difference between Rangers and Special Forces. Rangers go in and do their job, whereas SF goes in, stays in, trains, equips and leads the indigenous forces. Both the Rangers and Mike Forces are direct action, but the Mike Forces stay on target for months at a time. No showers, no hot meals, no nice stuff.

The legacy of the Mobile Strike Forces (Mike Forces) comes down through Rogers Rangers, the Green Mountain Boys, Francis Marion and Merrill's Marauders, and later the Philippine Resistance (1942-45), 1st Indochina War (French MGG's) and 2nd Indochina War (U.S. Mike Forces.) All of the above units were military in nature, yet operated behind enemy lines, or in enemy-controlled areas.

The Mobile Guerrilla Groups were effective programs in the Vietnam Wars but went generally unknown to the Army as a whole. These Mike Forces -- the Unconventional Warfare/Guerrilla Warfare (UW/GW) assets of the U.S. Army -- were down and dirty, and their tremendous efforts usually went unheralded.

Add to this the fact that the implementation of the Special Forces branch was highly influenced by Ranger types, and one can see the evolution of the SF into Ranger-mentality type units. Direct action gained ascendancy over UW/GW, a fact evident in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A more optimal approach in Afghanistan would have been that of the Mike Forces, which insures that most fights will be away from built-up areas, thereby minimizing civilian casualties. SF assets are wasted when they are employed solely as assault-type troops. The latter is a Ranger function.

Why aren't U.S. mobile guerrilla type troops carrying the action in the Afghan scenario? This theatre would be ideal for Mike Forces. Why has the Army forgotten the effectiveness of the Mobile Groups, indigenous in composition but led by Special Forces?

If we had used the Mike Force concept in Afghanistan, there would have been no need for conventional assets. This concept is what puts the "special" into Special Forces.