Art of War Papers

The Biggest Stick

The Employment of Artillery Units

in Counterinsurgency

 Richard B. Johnson, Major, US Army

 Command and General Staff College

 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
The cover photo courtesy of the Library of Congress is that of General 

Dwight Eisenhower giving orders to American paratroopers in England.
The Biggest Stick:

The Employment of Artillery Units

in Counterinsurgency

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army

Command and General Staff College in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE

Art of War

By

RICHARD B. JOHNSON, MAJOR, UNITED STATES ARMY

M.A., Webster University, Saint Louis, Missouri, 2006

B.S., United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, 1999

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

2011-01
ii

Combat Studies Institute Press 

publications cover a wide variety 

of military history topics. The 

views expressed in this CSI Press 

publication are those of the 

author(s) and not necessarily those 

of the Department of the Army or 

the Department of Defense. A full 

list of CSI Press publications, many of them available for 

downloading, can be found at http://usacac.army.mil/

CAC2/CSI/index.asp.

The seal of the Combat Studies Institute authenticates 

this document as an official publication of the CSI. It is 

prohibited to use CSI’s official seal on any republication 

without the express written permission of the Director of 

CSI.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Johnson, Richard B.

 The biggest stick : the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgency / 

Richard B. Johnson.

 p. cm. -- (Art of war)

 “A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General 

Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of 

Military Art and Science.”

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 ISBN 978-0-9837226-9-4 (alk. paper)

 1. Artillery--Case studies. 2. Counterinsurgency--Case studies. 3. Malaya-

-History--Malayan Emergency, 1948-1960--Artillery operations, British. 

4. Vietnam War, 1961-1975--Artillery operations, American. 5. Iraq War, 

2003-2011--Artillery operations, American. I. Title. 

 UF400.J65 2012

 358.1’24--dc23

 2012020261
iii

Abstract

The Biggest Stick:

The Employment of Artillery Units in 

Counterinsurgency

By Major Richard B. Johnson

This study uses a comparative analysis of the Malayan Emergency, 

the American experience in Vietnam, and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM to 

examine the role and effectiveness of artillery units in complex counterinsurgency environments. Through this analysis, four factors emerge which 

impact the employment of artillery units: the counterinsurgency effort’s 

requirement for indirect fires; constraints and limitations on indirect fires; 

the counterinsurgency effort’s force organization; and the conversion cost 

of nonstandard roles for artillery units. In conclusion, the study offers five 

broadly descriptive fundamentals for employing artillery units in a counterinsurgency environment: invest in tactical leadership, exploit lessons 

learned, support the operational approach and strategic framework, maintain a pragmatic fire support capability, and minimize collateral damage. 

Finally, the study examines the role of education for leaders in a counterinsurgency, and its influence on these imperative fundamentals.
iv

Objectives of the Art of War Scholars Program

The Art of War Scholars Program is a laboratory for critical 

thinking. It offers a select group of students a range of accelerated, 

academically rigorous graduate level courses that promote 

analysis, stimulate the desire for life-long learning, and reinforce 

academic research skills. Art of War graduates will not be 

satisfied with facile arguments; they understand the complexities 

inherent in almost any endeavor and develop the tools and 

fortitude to confront such complexities, analyze challenges, and 

independently seek nuanced solutions in the face of those who 

would opt for cruder alternatives. Through the pursuit of these 

outcomes, the Art of War Scholars Program seeks to improve and 

deepen professional military education. 

The Art of War Program places contemporary operations 

(such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan) in a historical framework 

by examining earlier military campaigns. Case studies and 

readings have been selected to show the consistent level of 

complexity posed by military campaigns throughout the modern 

era. Coursework emphasizes the importance of understanding 

previous engagements in order to formulate policy and doctrinal 

response to current and future campaigns. 

One unintended consequence of military history education 

is the phenomenon of commanders and policy makers “cherry 

picking” history—that is, pointing to isolated examples from 

past campaigns to bolster a particular position in a debate, 

without a comprehensive understanding of the context in which 

such incidents occurred. This trend of oversimplification leaves 

many historians wary of introducing these topics into broader, 

more general discussion. The Art of War program seeks to avoid 

this pitfall by a thorough examination of context. As one former 

student stated: “The insights gained have left me with more 

questions than answers but have increased my ability to understand 

greater complexities of war rather than the rhetorical narrative that 

accompanies cursory study of any topic.”

Professor Michael Howard, writing “The Use 

and Abuse of Military History” in 1961, proposed a 

framework for educating military officers in the art of 

war that remains unmatched in its clarity, simplicity, 

and totality. The Art of War program endeavors to 
v

model his plan:

Three general rules of study must therefore be 

borne in mind by the officer who studies military 

history as a guide to his profession and who wishes 

to avoid pitfalls. First, he must study in width. He 

must observe the way in which warfare has developed 

over a long historical period. Only by seeing what 

does change can one deduce what does not; and as 

much as can be learnt from the great discontinuities 

of military history as from the apparent similarities of 

the techniques employed by the great captains through 

the ages....Next he must study in depth. He should 

take a single campaign and explore it thoroughly, 

not simply from official histories, but from memoirs, 

letters, diaries. . . until the tidy outlines dissolve and 

he catches a glimpse of the confusion and horror of 

real experience... and, lastly, he must study in context. 

Campaigns and battles are not like games of chess or 

football matches, conducted in total detachment from 

their environment according to strictly defined rules. 

Wars are not tactical exercises writ large. They are...

conflicts of societies, and they can be fully understood 

only if one understands the nature of the society fighting 

them. The roots of victory and defeat often have to 

be sought far from the battlefield, in political, social, 

and economic factors which explain why armies are 

constituted as they are, and why their leaders conduct 

them in the way they do.... 

It must not be forgotten that the true use of history, 

military or civil... is not to make men clever for the 

next time; it is to make them wise forever.

Gordon B. Davis, Jr. 

Brigadier General, US Army

Deputy Commanding General

CAC LD&E

Daniel Marston 

DPhil (Oxon) FRHistS

Ike Skelton Distinguished Chair 

in the Art of War

US Army Command & General 

Staff College
vi

Acknowledgments

The largest amount of gratitude possible goes to my ladies: Lea, Lucia, 

and Stella. Unfortunately you shared my attention with the large volumes 

of writing listed in the Bibliography. The last class told us at the beginning that “it is only a lot of reading if you do it.” With your grace, I did it. 

Without your support and love, this paper would not have been completed, 

much less started.

To Aaron, Ben, Dustin, Mark, Nate, Rob, and Tom. Thanks for your 

patience as I tried to explain my incoherent themes while this project was 

in its infancy. Appreciation is also in order for our brothers in arms in both 

the British and American Armies, who extended us the best in hospitality, 

camaraderie, and discussion during our research trips. 

Thanks to the real experts who helped: Bruce Gudmundsson at Quantico for taking time out to discuss all things artillery, John Dubuisson in 

the CARL for showing me how to get to “the goods” in military history archives, and especially Dr. Daniel Marston for making sense of it all when 

I could not.

Finally, to the Paratroopers of the 1st Battalion, 319th Airborne Field 

Artillery Regiment and all of the attachments during the various iterations of Task Force Loyalty. Counterinsurgency is equal parts combating 

insurgents and combating a longing for home; I am in unwavering debt 

to you for the efforts with both. This work is dedicated to your sacrifices 

during The Long War. I have looked through a good portion of history and 

I cannot find another artillery unit that embodies the character of adaptiveness, perseverance, and determination in counterinsurgency better than 

this group...although I may be a bit biased.
vii

Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments.................................................................................. vi

Table of Contents .................................................................................. vii

Glossary ................................................................................................viii

Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: The Themes of Counterinsurgency and Artillery Units .......... 7

Chapter 3: The Malayan Emergency ...................................................... 39

Chapter 4: The American Experience in Vietnam................................... 65

Chapter 5: Operation IRAQI FREEDOM..............................................117

Chapter 6: Conclusions......................................................................... 187

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 197
viii

Glossary

AAB Advise and Assist Brigade

AEI American Enterprise Institute

ACR Armored Cavalry Regiment

APC Accelerated Pacification Program

AQI Al Qaeda in Iraq

ARA Aerial Rocket Artillery

ARVN Army of the Republic of Vietnam

BCT Brigade Combat Team

CAP Combined Action Platoon

CDE Collateral Damage Estimate

CEA Captured Enemy Ammunition

CENTCOM Central Command

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIDG Civilian Irregular Defense Group

CJTF Coalition / Joint Task Force

CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development 

Support

COSVN Central Office for South Vietnam

CPA Coalition Provisional Authority

CT Communist Terrorist

CTZ Corps Tactical Zone

DMZ De-Militarized Zone

DWEC District War Executive Council

EFP Explosively Formed Projectile

FA Field Artillery

FOB Forward Operating Base

FSB Fire Support Base

GMLRS Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

GOC General Officer Commanding

GoI Government of Iraq

H&I Harassment and Interdiction

HUMINT Human Intelligence

IA Iraqi Army

IED Improvised Explosive Device
ix

ING Iraqi National Guard

ISF Iraqi Security Force(s)

JAM Jaysh al Mehdi

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JSS Joint Security Station

MAAG Military Advisory and Assistance Group

MACV Military Assistance Command, Vietnam

MCP Malayan Communist Party

MiTT Military Training Team or Military Transition Team

MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System

MNC-I Multi-National Corps - Iraq

MND-B Multi-National Division - Baghdad

MNF-I Multi-National Force - Iraq

MNSTC-I Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq

MPABA Malayan Peoples’ Anti-British Army

MRLA Malayan Races Liberation Army

NP National Police

NVA North Vietnamese Army

OCO Office of Civil Operations

OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom

OND Operation New Dawn

ORHA Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian 

Assistance

PF Popular Forces

PGM Precision Guided Munition

PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team

RA Royal Artillery

RF Regional Forces

ROE Rules of Engagement

RPG Rocket-Propelled Grenade

SAS Special Air Service

SEP Surrendered Enemy Personnel

SOI Sons of Iraq

SVN South Vietnam

SWEC State War Executive Council
x

USAID United States Agency for International 

Development

USMC United States Marine Corps

VBIED Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device

VC Vietcong

WMD Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction

ARTILLERY UNIT: A brigade-, battalion-, or battery-level force capable 

of providing lethal indirect fires by means of integrated fire support tasked 

to maneuver units; a fire direction element; and assigned guns, howitzers, or 

launchers to deliver lethal fires.

COUNTERINSURGENCY: The actions taken by a government to limit or 

defeat an insurgency.

FIRE SUPPORT: The fires that support land, maritime, amphibious, and 

special operations forces to engage enemy forces, combat formations, and 

facilities in pursuit of tactical and operational objectives.

FIRES: The effects of lethal or nonlethal weapons.

INDIRECT FIRES: Fire delivered on a target that is not itself used as a point 

of aim for the weapon or the director.

INSURGENCY: An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a 

constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.

OPERATIONAL APPROACH: The use of operational art in a specific 

environmental context; the pursuit of a strategic objective by arranging tactical 

actions in time, space, and purpose.
1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Modern wars are not internecine wars in which the killing of the enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy 

in modern war, and, indeed modern war itself, are means to 

obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war.

― Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations, Program for the Pacification and Long-Term Development of 

South Vietnam

I have noticed that the mere mention of the word “pacification” to a group of soldiers, whatever their rank, usually 

brings forth deriding smiles. Many of them seem to think of 

pacification as the distribution of candies to the children and 

smiles to the old people. We certainly must show the carrot 

in our left hand, but only if we brandish a stick in our right 

hand. If skepticism about pacification is prevalent today, 

it is due to the fact that the stick has been too inconspicuous until now, or used too haphazardly and without a plan.

― David Galula, Pacification in Algeria

Artillery, The Counterinsurgent’s Biggest Stick

One aspect of successful counterinsurgency efforts is the amalgamation of attractive “carrots” and coercive “sticks,” even if these sticks are 

not necessarily lethal combat power.1

 Artillery units provide a counterinsurgency effort with the ability to brandish the stick of massed indirect fires. Since the advent of modern firepower, it has been a key element in warfare as practiced by western cultures.2

 In counterinsurgency 

warfare, there are few sticks larger than the ability to leverage accurate and predicted indirect lethal fires on an insurgent force among the 

population. Conversely, there are also few responsibilities higher than 

the requirement to minimize civilian suffering as a by-product of lethal action. To a certain degree, this is a reflection of the counterinsurgent’s imperative to sensibly restore the societal monopoly on violence 

to the governing power. But refined counterinsurgency approaches are 

not about the presence of attractive and coercive means, they are about 

the manner of employing those means with a nuanced understanding of 

their effects. As such, the employment of artillery units warrants a detailed analysis, especially in an era when the guerrilla and the physicist 

seemed to conspire to push “normal” warfare into the dustbin of history.3

Modern artillery is at a crossroads, but not a crisis. Senior leaders 

identify both the need to regain the core competencies of indirect fire 

proficiency after years of service in nonstandard roles, and the need to 
2

integrate this institutional experience in other missions.4 No analyst or 

strategist can faithfully predict the next war with complete confidence, 

so the need remains for flexible forces that are rooted in their primary 

combat functions. This requisite flexibility is found in tactical leaders who are broadly educated, to confidently put their experience and 

training into context in an amorphous and uncertain environment. It is 

quite possible that in the next conflict, it will not be the side with the 

best technology, training, or information that achieves their strategic objectives; it may be the side with the most competent leaders.5

Factors and Fundamentals

This study uses comparative analysis across three case studies to identify descriptive themes of the employment of artillery units 

in counterinsurgencies. This is not an attempt to isolate the prescriptive principles which govern the most efficient means of their utilization in a specific, defined form of warfare. By identifying trends 

while accounting for the peculiarities in each environment, four 

factors emerge which influence the integration of artillery units: 

1. The counterinsurgency effort’s requirement for indirect fires.

2. Constraints and limitations on indirect fires.

3. The counterinsurgency effort’s force organization.

4. The conversion cost of nonstandard roles for artillery units. 

These factors are developed further in Chapter Two and form the 

framework to analyze their employment in each case study.

Historical case studies provide an effective vehicle for comparative 

analysis. In the Malayan Emergency, British artillery units showed that a 

counterinsurgent force can achieve lethal effects through a practical, limited, and decentralized employment. The American experience in Vietnam 

illustrates that even the most capable and adaptive massed fires do not 

address the drivers of instability in an insurgency if they are part of an illsuited operational approach and strategic framework. The third case study, 

Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, examines the practical use of artillery units 

in many different roles, the organizational conversion cost of switching mission profiles, and the long-term effects on the units themselves.

The cumulative analysis of these case studies yields five broadly descriptive fundamentals which illustrate the imperatives for implementing 

artillery units in a counterinsurgency effort. These fundamentals include 

the requirements to:

1. Invest in artillery units’ tactical leadership.

2. Exploit lessons learned.

3. Support the operational approach and strategic framework.

4. Maintain a pragmatic fire support capability.
3

5. Minimize collateral damage.

These five fundamentals represent actions in a counterinsurgency, 

but they also describe actions which must pervade training and preparations prior to a counterinsurgency operation in order to be truly effective.

This study is limited by a reliance on primary sources to provide sufficient accuracy and credibility.6

 The Malayan Emergency, the 

American experience in Vietnam, and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 

(OIF) provide an appropriate level of variation and temporal separation to make meaningful comparisons. The first step in analyzing these 

counterinsurgencies is to examine the themes of counterinsurgency and 

artillery to establish a consistent lexicon and framework for analysis.
4

Notes

1. BI050, Dhofar Veterans Panel, Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, Nathan 

Springer, and Thomas Walton, United Kingdom, 28 March 2011. An SAS veteran of the Dhofar campaign alternatively described this dichotomy as “the velvet 

glove and the mailed fist,” which is a closer metaphor since it describes two symmetric elements (hands) with different equipment and inherent training (glove and 

mail). This study uses the carrot and stick analogy due to its relative familiarity 

and ubiquitous presence in counterinsurgency literature.

2. Robert Scales’ preface to Firepower in Limited War discusses this phenomenon at length. Refer to Robert H. Scales, Firepower in Limited War (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1995), ix-xi. For an illustration of the dominance of 

technology and discipline in the “western way of war,” see Geoffrey Parker, “The 

Western Way of War,” in The Cambridge History of Warfare, ed. Geoffrey Parker 

(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1-3. For a broader discussion on 

the relevance of culture in approaches to warfare, see Patrick Porter, Military Orientalism: Eastern War Through Western Eyes (New York: Columbia University 

Press, 2009), 2, 15-16, 193-195.

3. Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 153. 

This quote is paraphrased from Gudmundsson’s description of the environment 

in Vietnam, reflecting the presence of hyper-organized Communist insurgents and 

the specter of nuclear war: “In an era when the guerrilla and the physicist seemed 

to conspire to push ‘normal’ warfare into the dustbin of history.” The description 

holds true to this day, and begs the reader to contemplate if “normal war” even 

exists any more with the emergence of increased irregular (and hybrid) warfare, 

weapons of mass destruction, and global connectedness.

4. Michael S. Tucker and Jason P. Conroy, “Maintaining the Combat 

Edge,” Military Review 91, No. 3 (May-June 2011): 8-15; Patricia Slayden Hollis, 

“Division Operations Across the Spectrum-Combat to SOSO in Iraq: Interview 

with Major General Raymond T. Odierno, CG of 4th ID in OIF,” Field Artillery 

(March-June 2004): 11. In their discussion on the effort to recapture atrophied 

skills for conventional warfare, Major General Tucker and Major Conroy quote 

the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates: “The army has to regain its edge in 

fighting conventional wars while retaining what it has learned about fighting unconventional wars.” In General Odierno’s 2004 interview with Field Artillery, he 

asserted that “artillery has to be a versatile asset. The Army can no longer afford 

to have artillerymen just do artillery missions. So Redlegs also must be able to set 

up flash checkpoints, patrol, conduct cordon and search operations, etc.”

5. Mark Moyar advances this theory in his book A Question of Command, 

in which he describes a leader-centric approach to counterinsurgency warfare, 

with the attributes of effective counterinsurgent leaders being initiative, flexibility, creativity, judgment, empathy, charisma, sociability, dedication, integrity, and 

organization. Also, refer to Mark Moyar, “Development in Afghanistan’s Counterinsurgency,” Small Wars Journal, www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/

development-in-afghanistans-co/ (accessed 21 March 2011).

6. A complete investigation into the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgencies should include the Soviets in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, 
5

and the Israeli Defense Force operations in Gaza and Lebanon, but the unavailability of sufficient resources in English prevents their inclusion in this study. 

Additionally, the record is incomplete without a discussion on the Coalition effort 

in Afghanistan (Operation ENDURING FREEDOM) which should be conducted 

once artillery units’ operations there are complete and there is sufficient standoff 

to conduct an analysis.

7

Chapter 2

The Themes of Counterinsurgency and Artillery Units

All eyes turn to the soldier when violence erupts. Before 

this happens warnings given by the army and precautions recommended, are sometimes ignored or treated with disdain. It is 

the course of human nature to avoid the unpleasant for as long 

as possible, and potential insurgents are sure to give the public 

every encouragement to stick their heads in the sand whilst their 

preparations are in progress. But when the fighting starts the soldier will not only be expected to know how to conduct operations, 

he may also have to advise on government measures as well. 

— General Sir Frank Kitson, Bunch of Five

The more important the subject and the closer it cuts to the 

bone of our hope and needs, the more we are likely to err in 

establishing a framework for analysis. 

— Steven J. Gould, Full House

This chapter discusses the nature of counterinsurgency and artillery 

units. To provide clarity and a realistic scope for this research, several 

definitions and distinctions are required regarding the elements of counterinsurgency. This chapter examines counterinsurgency within the spectrum 

of warfare, in order to inform the review of existing theory and contemporary issues. These themes culminate with the four factors which influence the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgencies, to provide 

a framework for consistent analysis in further case study comparisons.

Counterinsurgency as War

Although some of the component activities of insurgency and 

counterinsurgency are nonmilitary in nature, counterinsurgency is 

still a method of prosecuting conflict within the spectrum of warfare. It is not separate from war, nor is it a complementary approach to 

war. The inclusion of social and political aspects in counterinsurgency 

does not remove it from the spectrum of warfare since war itself is a 

means to social and political ends. Several of the most influential military theorists in history cast insurgency and counterinsurgency within the larger subject of war, namely Clausewitz, Jomini, and Sun Tzu. 

Carl von Clausewitz1

 was a Prussian military officer and theorist whose 

writings have gained steady momentum within military academia over the 

past century. Now considered one of the classics on military thought, his 

work On War contains several invaluable perspectives on the nature of 

warfare itself. Although most of Clausewitz’s tactical theories are only 

marginally applicable today, his combination of intellectual realism and 

aestheticism with respect to the nature and strategies of war remain instructive to modern political and military thinkers. His contemporary paradigm 
8

of Westphalian nation-states colors his discussions on military strategy, 

but not his discussion on the nature of warfare itself. His work retains relevancy even though it is now separated from the present by the industrial 

revolution, two global conflicts and the collapse of a bipolar world order.2

For critics who see counterinsurgency as a chiefly political endeavor 

with limited military support, it is crucial to understand that war itself 

is political. Clausewitz successfully demonstrates that war should be the 

basic struggle for a political objective. This is true in the context of a large 

conventional state-on-state war and in a localized insurgency. Instead of 

the pursuit of vital national requirements, the political objective in counterinsurgency is “the weakening or displacing of a legitimate government,” 

as this study defines it. Clausewitz contends that when people go to war, 

their cause is political. He concludes that “war, therefore, is an act of policy.”3

 In this framework of war as an act of policy, Clausewitz continues to 

characterize the conduct of war as a continuation of an ongoing political 

struggle via alternate means.4

 This is reflected in his definition of war, as 

he states that war is “an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.”5

Separate from his descriptions of the political nature of war, Clausewitz shows an understanding for the human aspect of counterinsurgency 

since it is waged amongst the population. He also acknowledges that the 

population is a critical resource, much more than just a recruiting pool 

for either side of the conflict. He discusses the population itself as a third 

of his paradoxical trinity expressed by the people, the military and the 

dominant government policy. Clausewitz concludes that “the passions that 

are kindled in war must already be inherent in the people.”6

 Although On 

War does not focus on irregular warfare as we would recognize it today, 

his earlier lectures on small wars (the Kleinkrieg) and guerilla warfare (the 

Volkskreig) are integrated into his short passage “The People in Arms.”7

Where Clausewitz’s focus is on the broadly descriptive elements of 

strategy, Swiss military theorist Baron Antoine de Jomini8

 provides a 

somewhat surprising perspective that casts counterinsurgency as a broad 

form of war; surprising because his works reflect the prescriptive nature 

of a scientific reductionist. Jomini was Clausewitz’s contemporary and 

generally on the winning side of similar campaigns, and as such he was 

more engaged in the practice of distilling the keys to victory into tactical 

principles. However, Jomini’s own experience as an “eager revolutionary” 

in the Swiss revolution of 1798 would have been extremely influential, as 

this is when he began studying military art.9

 This is reflected in his discussions regarding insurgency and counterinsurgency, which he considers 

together as “national wars,” or alternatively “civil and religious wars.”10

Jomini recognizes the uniqueness of wars of insurgency and counterinsurgency amongst the population, but does not cast them in a different class: “Two hundred thousand French wishing to subjugate Spain, 
9

aroused against them as one man, would not maneuver like two hundred 

thousand French wishing to march upon Vienna.”11 He identifies the necessity to alter military tactics, but he does not insist that this makes it 

an activity separate from war. In his characterization of these national 

wars, Jomini continues to show the difficulties that face a counterinsurgency effort when such an aroused population is backed by a core of 

disciplined troops.12 Although he lives up to his main criticism of reducing warfare to a set of rules, Jomini shows an appreciation for counterinsurgency as an act of war, not strictly a social and political activity.13

Another influential military theorist that focuses on prescriptive tactical elements while understanding the nature of counterinsurgency is the 

Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu.14 Although he writes instructive principles for a field general, his work is based on the human element of warfare. 

This is a large part of what makes his theories applicable today, since human nature does not change with the rapidity of technology and tactics.15

Although Sun Tzu does not directly address revolutions or insurgencies, 

his principles show a deep understanding of war beyond the physical battlefield itself. Since Sun Tzu focuses his theories in the human dimension and 

on its participants, this quality makes his theories instructive towards counterinsurgency as well as positional open warfare. Sun Tzu acknowledges 

the integration of several bases of power which are applicable to successful 

counterinsurgency. He writes that leaders “must not rely solely on military 

power, as the fighting on the battlefields is just one front in a total war.”16 Although he wrote over two millennia ago, his principles of attacking weakness, avoiding strength and exercising patience are some of the key tenets 

of insurgent theory and practice today.17 Interestingly, they are applicable 

to the political aspect of counterinsurgency as well as the military aspect.

Insurgency Themes

An endeavor to understand the nature of an uncertain and amorphous activity requires common terms to frame the discussion. There 

is a delicate balance between the need for precise terminology to accurately convey a theme’s limits, and the need for deliberately indefinite terms which ensure the inclusion of many important historical examples. Useful definitions serve as this foundation for analysis, and as 

such they must have a specific meaning to convey useful information. 

Sometimes the need for accuracy in definitions leads to an exclusion of some key components in insurgency and counterinsurgency. As 

will be discussed later in this chapter, the contemporary debate on population-centric and enemy-centric approaches to counterinsurgency focus 

on the activity rather than the complimentary components of each approach when considered together. The following definition and themes 

focus on the relationship between the component parts of each aspect in 

an attempt to describe the overall activity and organization of insurgency.
10

Insurgency Defined

Current US Army doctrine defines an insurgency as “an organized 

movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the 

use of subversion and armed conflict.”18 This definition limits insurgencies 

to those movements that specifically seek to overthrow a government, and 

unnecessarily restricts the means and objectives that an adversary uses to 

be considered an insurgent. Therefore, the definition of an insurgency for 

this study shall be an organized movement aimed at weakening or displacing a government through any combination of political and armed 

struggle. The goal of “displacing” a government reflects the fact that 

some movements simply seek the redress of a certain grievance or wider 

autonomy, and not a complete overthrow of a central government. This 

definition excludes pure social activism and political subversion when 

conducted alone, since they lack an armed component of the struggle. 

However, if these activities are pursued with any type of armed component such as terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or open warfare, then the overall 

effort could be considered a combination of the two forms of action (and 

therefore an insurgency). Conversely, an armed nonstate component without political considerations is not considered an insurgency. The nature 

of an insurgency is not linear; it does not necessarily follow a regimented 

path of disparate tasks which build upon each other sequentially. Defining insurgency simply as an “organized movement” illustrates that these 

separate actions may be in close concert, or in a distributed network with 

coincidental goals, provided that there is at least minimal coordination.19

Insurgency Theory

Although insurgents have many different grievances or ideological 

causes, their operations focus on a similar endstate: to weaken or displace 

a legitimate government. The ideological cause may either avail or obviate some resources specific to that insurgency, but the shared goal of displacing a legitimate government means that insurgency’s elements have a 

degree of portability between theorists. In the search for these elusive elements which support a successful insurgency, many theorists expound on 

their experiences or observations to unify the themes into a cogent strategy.

Mao Tse-Tung20 has a primary role among these insurgent theorists. 

Mao developed a hierarchically organized system to execute an insurgency strategy, writing prodigiously during and after his campaigns against 

the occupying Japanese forces and Chinese nationalist forces. His works 

show an astute realization that the underlying cause or ideology has primacy in an insurgency, and that organization along the lines of strict politicalmilitary integration was beneficial to his guerrilla effort. This principle extended as far as creating a political officer at the lowest possible echelons 

to mitigate against the uneven quality of forces raised from the population.21 One possible criticism of Mao’s work is that it is overly prescriptive, since he postulates a detailed structure for a guerrilla force that looks 
11

similar to a conventional army’s table of organization and equipment.22

Mao postulates his theory on the conduct of an insurgency by identifying three phases of warfare. In the first phase, the political movement 

develops and limited guerilla operations are directly controlled by the political party. The movement’s goal is to set conditions among the population and terrain for the following phases of operations, and sees this 

as a strategically defensive stage in the insurgency.23 This second phase 

consists of dispersed guerilla warfare which Mao casts as the strategic 

stalemate. In this phase, the insurgents focus on establishing secure base 

areas. One of the guerilla force’s goals is to entice the enemy into farranging and exhausting search-and-destroy missions. At the close of the 

second phase, Mao contends that territory can be categorized in three 

types of area: the enemy base area, the guerilla base area, and the contended area. He sees this protracted second phase as the transitional state 

in warfare, setting the stage for the “most brilliant last act.”24 Mao’s third 

and final phase marks the transition into conventional warfare (which Mao 

refers to as “orthodox warfare”) against the government force, supported 

by a continued guerrilla effort. Insurgent forces use a mix of positional and mobile warfare to connect territory to the base area and pressure 

the government force for capitulation.25 While guerrilla forces support 

conventional forces in the third phase, Mao cautions about creating a 

chasm between the two because he saw them as complementary forces.26

Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap27 refined Mao’s theories and 

adapted them in Vietnam. With external backing from China, Giap structured the military aspects of insurgency in Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh 

against Japanese occupiers, French colonial forces, and American intervention and support of South Vietnam. Similar to Mao, Giap sees insurgency in terms of a politically-motivated struggle that would eventually 

build to decisive conventional battles.

One of the clearest consistencies in the Mao and Giap methods is the 

reliance on the population for all forms of support: manpower, material, information and tacit protection. Giap echoes Mao’s analogy that the people 

play the part of the water where the insurgent forces are fish.28 Giap sees this 

in both ideological and pragmatic terms. He shows that an insurgency is the 

essential form of the people’s struggle, and therefore must maintain close 

contact with their ideology and grievances.29 In practical terms, he sees the 

discipline of insurgent forces as the paramount effort to maintain the people’s confidence and affection by respecting, helping and defending them.30

Giap espouses Mao’s three-phase model for insurgency in the same 

terms, but makes an important distinction regarding the synchronization 

across an insurgency.31 Whereas Mao describes the three phases in strictly 

nationwide strategic terms, Giap describes them in more localized or regional terms.32 This subtle difference illustrates Giap’s ability to implement the phases in different areas in different times. For example, one area 
12

may have an emerging political and subversive element with limited guerrilla operations, while a neighboring province could be transitioning from 

guerrilla operations to conventional warfare. This model reflects Giap’s 

central aim of exhausting the enemy’s manpower at its concentrated 

points without exhausting the limited guerrilla manpower in other areas.33

Both Mao and Giap demonstrated the utility of a highly-organized 

and ideologically motivated insurgency. Interceding insurgencies have 

not always shared these characteristics, and as such one criticism of 

these models is their reliance on the organizational and ideological fervor of a Marxist revolution.34 However, both theorists present their 

models in terms that have portability to other insurgencies regardless 

of the source of the conflict. They use their own personal leadership in 

Marxist civil wars and insurgencies to illustrate the finer points of their 

insurgency models, but not to define them. After discussing counterinsurgency theory, this chapter examines contemporary debates regarding the changing nature of both insurgencies and counterinsurgencies. 

Changing trends in ideological causes do not obviate cogent methods of conducting the political and armed struggle in an insurgency.

These insurgent strategies have an important implication for the use 

of artillery firepower, and by extension the employment of artillery units. 

Both Mao and Giap identify the population as their base of support and 

a source of their strength. In a conventional conflict, firepower can target 

enemy material resources which are considered high payoff targets, but a 

counterinsurgency cannot target the population writ large in an effort to 

destroy this base of support. Such efforts would immediately negate any 

legitimacy. This means that in the first two phases of a Maoist organized 

counterinsurgency, firepower is generally limited to attacking the insurgent himself and not his critical resources until they establish physical 

base areas. Consequently, artillery units may have comparatively fewer 

targets during the longest portion of the campaign, the middle phase in 

which areas are contested by dispersed guerrilla forces. Since there will inevitably be a much higher demand for indirect fires during the third phase 

in a counterinsurgency effort against Maoist forces, artillery units could 

see their roles shifting rapidly.

Contemporary Themes in Insurgency

Insurgency may have much in common with reality television in that 

both are reflections of a larger society. Accordingly, new theories on insurgency and counterinsurgency rise with changes in society and warfare. An 

undeniable trend over the past decade is the rise in globally-connected or 

federated insurgencies. 

British theorist John Mackinlay posits that the nodes of a disaffected population that are territorially separated constitute an “Insurgent Archipelago,” and that they are now connected by modern com-
13

munications to become part of the same global movements.35 In this 

view, Western powers are unwise to deploy forces in a counterinsurgency intervention before their own populations are secure.36 This aspect of modern insurgencies does not obviate older theories for counterinsurgency, and Mackinlay acknowledges this by stating that there 

is a need for a generic threat model to “encourage a uniformly more 

intensive and sophisticated understanding at the soldier level.”37

In another attempt to describe the emerging global nature of insurgencies, theorist David C. Gompert advances a model of four types of insurgency. A Type I insurgency is locally or regionally structured, with goals and 

means existing only within the borders of a given state. A Type II insurgency adds international support, and a Type III insurgency adds coordination 

with other insurgencies as part of a wider global struggle. Gompert’s Type 

IV insurgencies use these global relationships to target systems of states.38

Mackinlay’s and Gompert’s models provide a deep insight to the global nature of insurgencies, but they do not imply that existing counterinsurgency 

theories must be discarded even if they were authored with a single nation 

in mind. The notion of unity of effort still applies, perhaps on a larger scale.

Counterinsurgency Themes

The term “counterinsurgency” represents that this effort is more 

than just an opposing force to insurgency, and more than an “antiinsurgency” aimed at destroying its tangible effects. As the very essence of an insurgency is intangible, a determination to counter it by 

all means available is a more appropriate theoretical approach. Insurgencies appear in many different manifestations, and as such counterinsurgencies may have many different characteristics to address them. 

Counterinsurgency Defined

Keeping in mind that this study’s definition of an insurgency is an 

organized movement aimed at weakening or displacing a government 

through any combination of political and armed struggle, the definition 

of counterinsurgency for this study will be the actions taken by a government to limit or defeat an insurgency. Defining counterinsurgency in 

these terms allows for a broad range of actions and efforts that governments leverage against insurgents. There is no characterization regarding 

the supremacy of one source of power over another, since a counterinsurgency effort must consider political, social, economic and military resources among others. With respect to the endstate of a counterinsurgency 

in this model, allowance is made for a government effort that aims to simply limit the influence of an insurgent group. Specifically, this may prove 

useful in cases where insurgent groups represent a legitimate grievance 

within the population, and the government seeks to limit their destructive 

capability and pursue an approach of accommodation or reconciliation. 

This definition deliberately avoids making a distinction of host-nation or 
14

intervening counterinsurgent forces from another nation, since these forces 

may work in concert or apart from each other with the same goals. Additionally, some counterinsurgencies are fought almost entirely by an intervening 

force on behalf of a militarily weak but legitimate host-nation government. 

Consider counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq in 2004, when the United States 

and coalition partners formed the overwhelming majority of military means 

for security efforts while a sovereign Iraqi government formed slowly.39

Counterinsurgency Theory

An overview of counterinsurgency theory will illustrate some common themes in counterinsurgency strategies and operations, and it will 

provide depth for the case study comparisons in the chapters which follow. The following discussion is only representative of the major theories and elements of counterinsurgency, focused on some of the most 

enduring and articulate theorists. A complete discussion of counterinsurgency theory would constitute an entirely separate volume of work.

The British Experience and Theoretical Roots

Each nation draws on its unique shared experience to refine strategies for conducting counterinsurgency. This influence is particularly apparent with British counterinsurgency theorists and the unique character 

of their methods. British counterinsurgency efforts since World War II 

follow the pattern of earlier colonial interventions where military means 

were in aid to the civil power. This manifests itself in the theorists’ notions that military and political issues must be balanced in a counterinsurgency.40 British theory also tends toward decentralized leadership and ad 

hoc specialization, in part due to the fact that the British army’s regimental 

system allowed commanders to truly understand their soldiers’ strengths 

and weaknesses after long service together. The British conducted counterinsurgency nearly continuously since 1948, which lends credence 

that their principles counter more than one specific style of insurgency.41

Thompson

Civil administrator and theorist Sir Robert Thompson42 provides excellent views of counterinsurgent strategy and operations based on his 

extensive experience in the British Malayan Emergency and in Vietnam 

during the American intervention. Thompson’s theories seek to directly 

counter a Maoist hyper-organized insurgency, and he views the insurgent 

struggle as a “war for the people.”43 In this model, he describes the insurgent movement’s absolute reliance on a political cause. As the campaign 

progresses, insurgents may “tack on” many additional minor causes to develop a larger base of support within the population.44 Thompson makes a 

delineation between subversion and insurgency in terms of a violent component. He shows that subversion enables an insurgency, but the switch to 

an armed struggle indicates that peaceful subversion alone is inadequate 

in most cases.45 His theories focus on the government-level framework for 
15

defeating an insurgency, with a particular focus on organizational models and policy. Thompson advances five principles for counterinsurgency, 

which apply to insurgencies beyond those with a communist ideology:

1. The government must have a clear political aim: to maintain a stable 

and viable state.

2. The government must function in accordance with the law.

3. The government must have an overall plan which organizes all efforts.

4. The government must give priority to defeating subversion, not the 

guerrillas.

5. In the guerrilla phase, the government must secure its base areas 

first.46

Thompson describes counterinsurgency operations in time and space 

with the sequential phases of clearing, holding, winning, and won. This 

impacts the employment of artillery units, since they are more instrumental in an indirect fire role during the clearing and holding phases, and more 

useful in a nonstandard role while the force is winning over the population 

via expanded governance.

47 Another impact on the employment of artillery units reflects the ineffectiveness of attrition warfare in counterinsurgency. Thompson contends that targeting the infrastructure of an insurgent 

group will indirectly defeat their physical order of battle, but targeting 

their order of battle will not defeat the infrastructure. By extension, if the 

infrastructure is never defeated then the order of battle may regenerate.48

This illustrates the fact that firepower can only guarantee a gain in terms 

of short-term security, absent of a complimentary attempt to isolate the 

insurgent force from its infrastructure or hold the newly-cleared area. 

Kitson

Army officer and theorist General Sir Frank Kitson49 generally views 

insurgency in the same manner as Thompson, and makes a similar delineation between subversion and armed insurgency.50 He states that an insurgent’s goal is to overthrow the government, or at least force it to do something it otherwise would not do. In recognition of this and the need to oppose 

an insurgency with legitimate force, Kitson contends that the counterinsurgency effort is never wholly military nor wholly political.51 In his later writings, Kitson invokes Mao’s views of insurgency as an initial manifestation 

of total war. He describes insurgency and counterinsurgency as steps on a 

ladder, with a bottom step of “subversion” and a top step of “all-out war.”52

Kitson sees the larger themes of insurgency much in a similar 

vein as Thompson, but tends toward operational aspects of counterinsurgency rather than the strategic aspect. Whereas Thompson focuses on principles for counterinsurgency, Kitson frames his theories in a framework of four requirements for successful campaigns:
16

1. Coordination at every level for the direction of the campaign.

2. A frame of mind in the population which rejects insurgent activity.

3. An effective intelligence organization.

4. Government adherence to a legal system that is suitable to the needs 

of the moment.53

Kitson’s focus on operational and tactical techniques has the solid 

foundation of his experience in Kenya, Malaya, Aden, Oman, Cyprus, 

and Northern Ireland. He provides a detailed framework for the organization and leverage of tactical intelligence. Kitson asserts that there 

is a difference between intelligence on the general situation, and intelligence which is used to gain contact with the enemy. In this model, he 

contends that tactical commanders have the responsibility to develop this 

usable information.54 Kitson also developed the pseudo-gang technique 

for infiltrating insurgent groups while posing as their confederates.55

Kitson’s views of counterinsurgency operations have an impact on the 

employment of artillery units. He broadly categorizes operations somewhat 

classically, into offensive and defensive forms. In offensive operations, security forces attempt to identify and neutralize insurgents in the area.56 This 

is in contrast to Thompson’s preference of attacking the insurgent’s infrastructure. Kitson also reflects that units are generally successful by assuming risk in other areas while concentrating forces in a single area until it is 

secure and pacified.57 An artillery unit’s indirect fires are useful in an enemyfocused operation such as Kitson describes, especially if there is a concentrated and determined enemy. His defensive operations consist of guarding 

key infrastructure from the insurgents and protecting the population from 

their influence.58 If a counterinsurgency force is primarily engaged in these 

defensive operations, they may be more likely to employ artillery units in 

a nonstandard security role due to the implied manpower requirements.

The French Experience and Theoretical Roots

As with the British experience, the French colonial experience and 

military structure shaped counterinsurgency doctrine. France’s colonial 

military operations gave rise to the theories of Lyatuey and Gallieni, who 

were somewhat isolated in Africa and Asia and did not develop military 

theories in parallel with the large standing armies in Europe. These colonial policies contended that economic attraction would be a means to 

co-opt a rebel’s base of support. This was combined with the practice 

of the razzia, or large punitive campaigns.59 The French had a division 

between the colonial military and the metropolitan infantry in Europe, 

which meant that many of the same officers fought in counterinsurgency campaigns completely separate from the larger institutional army. 

Born of the efforts and defeats in Indochina and Algeria, modern 

French counterinsurgency theory also has an ideological influence act-
17

ing on it. Guerre revolutionnaire was the unofficial doctrine of many 

French officers that they adopted after the perceived political sellout in 

Indochina, and influenced the theory that emerged from the next conflict in Algeria. This theory asserted that the strength of communist insurgencies was their ability to hyper-organize the population. In order 

to combat this, the French nation as a whole would have to holistically counter-organize. Seen as the guarantor of French society, the army 

could take responsibility of all national means if needed. Guerre revolutionnaire described that communist insurgencies were part of a larger 

global effort against western democracies. Furthermore, guerre revolutionnaire implied that insurgencies could not be won via negotiation.60

Trinquier

Army officer and theorist Colonel Roger Trinquier’s61 theories provide an excellent view of counterinsurgency through the lens of guerre 

revolutionnaire. As a veteran of colonial infantry forces in Indochina and 

Algeria, Trinquier’s works show his emphasis on mobilizing the whole 

of society to fight an insurgency. He approaches insurgency as an entire 

clandestine organization instead of a group of individual armed elements 

which the government can address locally.62 Trinquier views terrorism as 

a tool within insurgency, which aligns with this chapter’s definition of 

insurgency as a form of warfare through combined military and political 

means. He states that the goal of an insurgency is control of the populace, so terrorism is an effective weapon because it is aimed directly at 

the population.63 He views the population as the center of the conflict, 

and his methods seek to tightly organize it through capable local leaders to act as a fence against insurgents’ penetration and the effects of 

their terrorism.64 Trinquier envisions using this organized population as 

a means of identifying insurgents, by training select locals to act as an 

“intelligence action” organization. This reinforces the theories of Thompson and Kitson by implying that it is more efficient to conduct counterinsurgency through the minority of the population which supports the 

government, instead of trying to attract the uncommitted middle portion.65

Trinquier’s theories of interrogation are objectionable to most military leaders when viewed through the current norms of military conduct. 

His discussion of physically harsh interrogation techniques comprise 

an extremely small portion of his writing, and they do not obviate his 

larger views on the nature and operational model of counterinsurgency 

warfare.66 The extreme nature of his methods alone have caused some 

critics to impetuously question if the entire French experience in Algeria should be omitted from the current discussion on counterinsurgency.67

Trinquier’s operational model for counterinsurgency affects both the 

role and distribution of artillery units. In spatial terms, Trinquier sees the 

counterinsurgency battlefield as three sets of areas: towns and urban centers, the inhabited rural area, and the insurgents’ refuge area.68 Trinquier 
18

designates grid troops to conduct the policing, control and organization of 

the population. The grid troops provide a presence within the towns and 

urban centers by living and working among the population. This constitutes a means of area defense. These troops have the lowest need for training in small unit maneuver tactics, since they are primarily intended to 

enforce resource and movement control measures.69 As this leaves the areas between the towns and urban centers vulnerable, Trinquier designates 

interval units that attack the insurgents’ political and military structure in 

that open space. He cites the need for the interval units to be composed of 

excellent, well-trained troops since they will be conducting primarily offensive operations.70 To attack the insurgents in the refuge areas, Trinquier 

describes intervention units to conduct search-and-destroy operations in 

isolated regions. Since these units are likely to conduct raids and other 

forms of offense against the insurgency’s strongest military points, Trinquier calls for only the most elite troops to constitute the intervention units.71

When commanders assign artillery units to a nonstandard role, they 

are more likely to serve as the grid troops in Trinquier’s operational model. 

They will have a relatively lower level of training in small unit maneuver 

tactics compared to infantry, armor, or cavalry units. When commanders 

retain their artillery unit as an indirect fire provider, they must be conscious 

of the need to support geographically static forces (the grid troops and the 

interval units) as well as mobile reactive forces (the intervention units).72

Galula

Army officer and theorist Lieutenant Colonel David Galula73 provides a 

complimentary approach to counterinsurgency from the French perspective. 

Trinquier focuses on protecting the population and using them to penetrate 

insurgent forces, while Galula focuses on using the population to build a 

counter-organized effort against them. Galula summarizes his counterinsurgency approach as the effort to “build (or rebuild) a political machine from 

the people upward.”74 To this end, he offers four laws of counterinsurgency:

1. The support of the population is equally important to both sides.

2. Support is gained through an active minority of the population.

3. Population support is conditional on who is perceived as the eventual victor.

4. The intensity of efforts and vastness of means are essential.75

Within this context, Galula defines victory in terms of isolating the 

insurgents provided that the mechanisms to isolate them are enforced by 

the population altruistically.76

Operationally, Galula divides insurgency into a cold revolutionary war 

when subversive actions are open and within the legal framework, and a 

hot revolutionary war when actions are violent and illegal. Galula’s spatial 

model describes red areas under direct insurgent control, pink areas which 
19

are openly contested, and white areas which are under nominal government 

control but already have undetected subversive elements.77 His operational 

model is an eight-step process which can be loosely defined as a clear, hold 

and build methodology. The first step of destroying insurgent forces serves 

to clear an area, the second step of deploying a static unit serves to hold 

the area, and the remaining six steps build that area’s political capacity.78

The impact on the employment of artillery units comes from this 

eight-step model. Galula asserts that the population must be directed and 

organized since their support is seldom spontaneous.79 He describes a myriad of tasks during the six steps of the building phase which are not necessarily the responsibility of the static unit holding the area. In this large 

requirement for manpower, commanders may look to their artillery unit 

for the manpower and command node to coordinate these tasks. During 

this phase, Galula cites the requirement for “some field artillery for occasional support” in recognition that the holding effort will require indirect 

firepower.80 However, the commander’s artillery unit and his enablers of 

mobile high-intensity combat may be assigned a role when their printers 

are more critical than their howitzers, pediatricians more valuable than forward observers, and concrete more useful than high-explosive munitions.81

The American Experience and Theoretical Roots

For all its modern experience in counterinsurgency, the American military has a surprising paucity of theory and doctrine on the subject. The 

American political and military traditions include decades of pacification 

in the American west, a successful counterinsurgency effort in the Philippines, and the institutionally traumatic experience of Vietnam.82 Still, no 

American theorists emerge from this with the cachet of a Thompson, a 

Kitson, a Trinquier, or a Galula. However, one lesser-known theorist provides a detailed insight into the nature of organizing a counterinsurgency.

McCuen

Army officer and theorist Colonel John McCuen83 provides a meticulous and prescriptive theory for counterinsurgency. Based on his experiences witnessing insurgencies in Malaya and the Philippines and advising forces in Vietnam, he shows how a hyper-organized government effort can counter a hyper-organized Maoist insurgency. His model is still 

valuable today because it illustrates the benefits of understanding an enemy’s approach and counteracting it with all available bases of power. 

McCuen’s theory is tailored to a host-nation government’s counterinsurgency effort, although he contends that his strategic objectives and tactical 

actions could transfer to another element of counterinsurgency forces.84

McCuen defines an insurgency in four progressive phases: organization, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and mobile warfare. As with Giap, he 

recognizes that insurgents in a different area may be in different phases 

simultaneously.85 McCuen asserts that the optimal solution is to counter-
20

organize along the same lines as the insurgency, which he refers to as “the 

application of its strategy and principles in reverse.”86 To accomplish this, a 

counterinsurgency force must establish strategic bases and begin to reverse 

the insurgency’s momentum and send them backwards through the four 

phases. McCuen illustrates that this effort starts with determining which 

phase the insurgency is in, then developing a strategy to secure bases while 

frustrating the insurgents’ attempts to establish their own bases. His method 

of securing a strategic base is to mobilize the population, then secure it to 

prevent insurgent retribution or penetration.87 Once strategic bases are secure, counterinsurgents must seize the initiative and organize a protracted 

effort to roll the insurgency back to a manageable state of organization.88

The employment of artillery units is affected by a second-order effect 

of McCuen’s theories. Since his operational methods rely on mobilizing the 

population, McCuen stresses that people must be persuaded to see that “the 

troops are friends and protectors rather than outsiders and destroyers.”89

This notion may lend itself to restrictions on the use of indirect firepower. 

Recurring Counterinsurgency Themes

These five counterinsurgent theorists represent varied concepts for dealing with the problem of an insurgency. It is interesting that four notions are 

common to all of their theories. The first common element is the concept of 

a unity of effort, or at least a mechanism to harmonize effort across all governmental means. The idea implies political primacy as the coordinating 

force for all viable long-term efforts. This leads into the second common 

element, operating within a framework of legitimacy, which includes the 

use of minimum force required when confronting insurgents.90 This lends 

itself to the notion that almost all insurgencies will be settled along political 

lines. The third common element is the requirement to isolate insurgents 

from their base of support, lest they grow or regenerate lost capacity. Finally, all five theorists describe the need to clear the armed insurgent element 

with force. There are no declarations that counterinsurgents can wait out 

their foes, no contentions that diplomacy and the redress of political grievances will satisfy every asset of the insurgency. They all describe the destruction of an armed insurgent in terms of the overt use of military force.91

These parallels in counterinsurgency theory are striking, especially in 

light of the different insurgencies, environments and strategic contexts that 

shaped their formulation. When reflecting on a counterinsurgency symposium in 1962, Kitson writes:

Although we came from such widely divergent backgrounds, 

it was if we had all been brought up together from youth. We 

all spoke the same language. Probably all of us had worked 

out theories of counterinsurgency procedures at one time or another, which we thought were unique and original. But when 

we came to air them, all our ideas were essentially the same.92
21

Contemporary Themes in Counterinsurgency

The current deliberations on counterinsurgency theory consist of its 

emerging global nature and operational implementation. Counterinsurgency practitioner David Kilcullen identifies the Global War on Terror 

as a war against a global Islamic insurgency, and concludes that counterinsurgency theory provides the best approach to the conflict. Since 

these theories are designed to defeat an insurgency in a single country, 

they must be refined for global application.93 With respect to operations, 

the debate on counterinsurgency focuses on the merits of populationcentric and enemy-centric approaches in doctrine. Colonel Gian Gentile 

asserts that the population-centric approach perverts a military’s ability to adapt to local requirements. Gentile refers to the population as 

“the prize” in this approach to counterinsurgency which he attributes to 

mainly to Galula. However, in most counterinsurgency theories (to include Galula’s) the population is not the prize, but a means to the prize 

of isolating and defeating the insurgency.94 Gentile also conflates the 

population-centric approach with nation-building activities, perhaps confounding some of the component activities which both activities share.95

In accordance with the framework of this study, there is no centricity 

in a proper approach to counterinsurgency. By categorizing counterinsurgency as two separate and distinct approaches, it implies a dualistic choice 

between black and white when a sound approach incorporates many 

shades of gray.96 As a senior US Army officer remarked, “I don’t think 

that you can differentiate between enemy-centric and population-centric. 

What you’re trying to do is separate the population from the enemy. So I 

think it’s two sides to the same coin . . . it’s sort of a false dichotomy.”97

Artillery Themes

Artillery units represent a relatively small element within the overall counterinsurgency, but an important one. Military forces are only one 

part of a full counterinsurgency effort, along with political, social, and 

economic components. But no element has the same instantaneous and 

lethal affect as artillery’s indirect fires, and few other military arms represent a similar potential for employment in nonstandard security roles 

due to an artillery unit’s array of equipment and combat-focused soldiers.

The Artillery Unit Defined

A comparative analysis requires a definition which frames the nature 

of artillery units and their functions. For this study, an artillery unit is defined as “a brigade-, battalion-, or battery-level force which is capable of 

providing lethal indirect fires by means of: integrated fire support tasked to 

maneuver units, a fire direction element, and assigned guns, howitzers, or 

launchers to deliver lethal fires.”98 The factor that distinguishes an artillery 

unit from another combat unit is its inherent ability to deliver indirect fires 

for a dedicated maneuver force, even if they are not currently perform-
22

ing tasks in that role. By defining an artillery unit as one that is capable 

of providing lethal indirect fires, the same terminology applies to units 

which are delivering fires or re-tasked for security missions. This is because the definition does not categorize based on the unit’s current role.99

There are several subtle implications with this definition. First, this 

definition does not make a distinction whether an artillery unit is assigned or attached to a maneuver force conducting counterinsurgency 

operations, since the maneuver commander has the authority to employ 

the force as needed in either command relationship. This principle extends to the fire support personnel within an organization. Whether administratively assigned to the artillery unit or the supported maneuver unit, fire supporters will generally perform their functions in the 

same manner during sustained operations.100 Within this study, the term 

“fire support” refers to both the function of the forward observer team 

which performs the technical tasks of employing fires with a maneuver force, and the fire support coordination element which performs 

the tactical or operational integration of fires with a maneuver force.

Additionally, this definition deliberately distinguishes between artillery units and mortar units. The mortar is a maneuver commander’s 

indirect fire weapon system unless specifically re-tasked by his higher 

headquarters. Since the mortarmen are assigned to a maneuver unit in the 

same manner as the infantry or tankers are assigned, it is a primarily internal decision for that unit’s maneuver commander to employ his mortars.

For comparative purposes, a battery generally consists of four to eight 

howitzers or rocket platforms which are further broken down into platoons or sections. The brigade is the largest, and the battery is the smallest echelon at which an artillery officer will serve as a commander to 

lead tactical action and direct the employment of the firing unit. At all 

echelons, the artillery unit depends on the supported maneuver unit’s 

structure for most external sustainment and information requirements.101

Artillery Theory

There is an abundance of theory available for an examination of insurgency and counterinsurgency but very little theory exists regarding the 

use of artillery firepower, let alone the employment of artillery units in 

counterinsurgency. Firepower in Limited War by Major General Robert 

H. Scales provides an in-depth historical analysis, but offers little in the 

way of a resulting theory at its conclusion.102 Additionally, the subject of 

firepower considers a much wider array of assets besides artillery, and 

the subject of limited war considers a much wider array of conflict than 

just counterinsurgency. Attempts to reflect on contemporary artillery operations are similarly lacking, with a 38-page occasional paper from the 

U.S. Army Combat Studies Institute representing the most thorough effort. Unfortunately, it is similar to Scales’ work in that it is only an over-
23

view and covers the broad subject of Military Operations Other than War 

rather than counterinsurgency.103 As evidence that contemporary artillery applications are more praxis than theory, much of the current military scholarship and writings in professional journals focus on narrow 

subjects within the artillery, such as integrating indirect fires in Iraq or 

adapting artillery to the environmental requirements of Afghanistan.104

In general, the evolution of technology and materials science impacts 

the employment of artillery more so than evolutions in doctrine or theory. 

As the ability to achieve effects via indirect fire increases, militaries seek 

new methods to integrate and exploit this capability. These capabilities are 

generally expressed in terms conducive to conventional maneuver warfare, which retards the process of implementing them into a counterinsurgency doctrine. This is because the use of indirect firepower generally enables maneuver in high-intensity conventional combat, whereas maneuver 

generally enables the use of indirect firepower in counterinsurgencies.105

The modern artillery unit is a result of the evolutionary process of 

institutional combat experience. As maneuver forces gained abilities to 

conduct coordinated attacks across a wider front in World War I, the German Colonel Georg Bruchmuller developed a centralized and task-oriented system to synchronize artillery fires. To a certain extent, this legacy 

is seen in most modern artillery units.106 The U.S. Marine Corps experience with combined arms in World War II led to the development of 

a fire support coordination element, which was implemented and refined 

by many nations during the Korean War. This element shifted the burden 

of assigning firepower assets to target arrays from the artillery headquarters into a staff which directly served the maneuver force commander.107

The Vietnam War, which is examined in detail in Chapter Four, has a 

massive influence on the evolution of the modern artillery in a counterinsurgency environment. The two key virtues for artillery in Vietnam were 

responsiveness and coverage for a vast area of search-and-destroy operations.108 To satisfy these requirements, the artillery de-centralized and developed an omnidirectional capability. For the first time since World War I, 

the artillery began to decentralize in order to support the counterinsurgency force’s overall change in structure.109 In 1966, infantry units began to 

operate in decentralized battalions instead of brigades in an attempt to hold 

areas after large search-and-destroy missions. To maintain a responsive 

firing capability, many artillery battalions broke down to isolated batteries 

in order to directly support infantry battalions.110 In an effort to provide 

artillery support in every direction, units established battery-level firebases. As a result, fire direction was now focused at the battery level. Contemporarily, fire direction remained at the battalion level for conventional 

units assigned to Europe and consequently for the institutional army.111

Contemporary artillery and fire support is rich in doctrine and tactics, 

but does not have a guiding theory that attempts to explain the underlying 
24

reasons and benefits for its utilization. Perhaps the best attempt to satisfy 

this need is the US Army’s functional concept for fires. This document is a 

broad concept of operationally adaptive fires, describing fires in offensive 

and defensive terms. In this concept, offensive fires pre-empt enemy action 

in an attempt to seize, retain, or exploit the initiative.112 This type of offensive fires conceptually supports forces similar to Trinquier’s intervention 

unit in counterinsurgency. Defensive fires protect friendly forces, population centers and critical infrastructure to provide persistent protection.113

These fires seemingly support forces similar to Trinquier’s grid units and 

interval units or the white areas in Galula’s model of counterinsurgency. 

Contemporary Themes in Artillery

The advance of technology is having an impact on artillery fires, 

and consequently the capacity and character of artillery units. Precision 

Guided Munitions (PGMs) represent an excellent advance in munitions 

accuracy, but are susceptible to the axiom that “precision munitions miss 

precisely.”114 This reflects the fact that a PGM will only be as accurate as 

the given target location. However, the proper and judicious use of PGMs 

allows a single artillery unit to aggregate effects across a wide range simultaneously instead of achieving a massing effect at a single point. Combined with the fact that PGMs are still relatively cost-prohibitive for universal use, they are generally reserved for prioritized targets which meet 

certain selection standards to isolate any target location error.115 Artillery 

fires, and by extension artillery units, must be employed with the understanding that “no amount of technology or firepower will make secure 

a region unless the support of the population has been gained.”116 This 

reflects the concept that increases in technology and firepower only lend 

an absolute advantage in linear systems, but in a complex system like the 

counterinsurgency environment it is only a relative advantage. As the ensuing case studies illustrate, this relative advantage may be negligible.117

The Four Factors

Factors which influence the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgency provide a useful mechanism for analysis in the case studies which follow. These factors are presented as recurring themes, and 

are not intended to provide a predictive analysis of artillery employment in theoretical conflicts. Each emerging conflict must be carefully 

studied to inform the decision on how to use an artillery unit within a 

unique set of circumstances. These four factors engender the main considerations for utilizing artillery units, and as such they are useful in informing that decision but not strictly predictive of a successful result.118

Requirements for Indirect Fires

A major factor which influences the employment of artillery units is 

the requirement for tactical firepower. If the military environment has an 

abundance of targets which security forces cannot adequately affect, com-
25

manders are more likely to employ artillery units to deliver indirect fires. 

This may be the result of insufficient means to engage and destroy targets 

with security forces, or an ill-suited security framework that attempts to 

continually clear insurgents without holding that ground afterwards. Two 

dynamics contribute to the requirement for tactical indirect fires in a counterinsurgency: dispersion of the enemy and the frequency of contact.119

If an insurgent force is deliberately dispersed or conducting subversion activities, they will generally not mass in sufficient numbers that 

compel a security force to call for indirect fires. This insurgent force will 

be extremely difficult to detect, but most counterinsurgent forces will be 

able to overwhelm them with superior organic firepower if they are detected and remain engaged. In recognition of this, Kitson states that artillery fires are only needed when insurgents “openly take to the field.”120

The frequency of contact also impacts the requirements for tactical 

indirect fires. In general, more frequent contact with the enemy creates 

a demand among security forces for more indirect fires. This is manifested in the degree of risk a commander assumes. If the insurgent enemy operates in a concentrated force for short time to make a limited attack, a robust indirect firepower capability is only beneficial during that 

limited timespan. In this case, the commander uses his artillery unit to 

hedge his risk against insufficient firepower but for the remainder of the 

campaign, the unit sits idle. If the commander assumes risk with respect 

to indirect fires during these few engagements, his benefit is the availability of the artillery unit for other tasks. This reactive capability to 

mass indirect fires at a critical point is distinct from the deliberate, preplanned fire missions that a relatively small firing unit can perform. As 

evidenced in several of the case studies which follow, some commanders 

strike this balance by detaching a small element from the artillery unit to 

provide fires while the majority engages in another task. This not only 

serves to hedge some of the risk associated with a concentrated enemy 

force, it also provides a resource to conduct pre-planned fire missions.

Constraints and Limitations on Indirect Fires

In the counterinsurgency environment there will be both constraints and limitations acting on the use of an artillery unit’s indirect 

fires. This is not unique to counterinsurgency, since all forms of warfare exhibit constraints and limitations such as a justified Rules of Engagement (ROE). Constraints are the restrictions that a higher echelon 

places on a lower echelon, whether political or military. Limitations 

are physical restrictions on the application of indirect fires. Perceptive 

leaders will be able to distinguish between the two, and review constraints to ensure they are not unduly restricting the use of artillery fires.

The ROE is the chief constraint on a commander’s ability to leverage 

an artillery unit’s indirect firepower. These restrictions are equally con-
26

ceptual and pragmatic. Conceptually, the use of minimum force serves 

to reinforce the legitimacy of the counterinsurgency effort by exhibiting 

restraint and the responsible application of violence. Pragmatically, commanders seek to apply force properly in order to maintain a positive image 

of their soldiers within the population. 

Collateral damage considerations are often conflated with general 

ROE application, but here is an important distinction. The ROE addresses 

intentional conduct, while collateral damage policies address incidental 

effects due to a weapons system’s lack of scalability or its inherent limits 

of accuracy. With indirect fires, this is a major concern. On a dismounted 

patrol, a soldier may suffer a momentary lapse of concentration and commit a negligent discharge with his rifle. In almost every case, the round 

will arc into the imperceptible distance or lodge itself harmlessly into a 

wall.121 But when a round of high-explosive artillery strikes inaccurately, 

the effects are generally more severe. Collateral damage estimation is not 

supposed to delay immediate calls for indirect fire, but the ability to prosecute deliberate targets is restricted when estimated collateral damage exceeds the threshold set by a higher headquarters.122 Minimizing collateral 

damage is important to local commanders. McCuen illustrates this fact by 

stating that counterinsurgents “should be very careful to avoid the shotgun approach: this is, accepting a few neutral civilian casualties to get a 

few rebels. It does not work this way because the few neutral casualties 

create ten-fold new rebels among the casualties’ friends and relatives.”123

Limitations on the use of indirect firepower largely result from the 

physical and demographic terrain of a given area. Galula sees terrain as 

so important that some insurgencies are doomed to failure before they 

even start.124 Conversely, some counterinsurgent efforts suffer greatly 

from the fact that they do not choose the setting of the conflict either. 

Features such as dense jungle, urban terrain or mountainous regions cause 

a decrease in the effective range of indirect fire weapons systems since 

they must usually be fired at a high angle.125 In an urban environment, 

population density may be so high that indirect fires are rarely used due to 

extreme collateral damage. A barren and flat terrain lends itself to the use 

of indirect fires, but the aggregate of any other features limits their use. 

Counterinsurgent Force Organization

The overall composition of the counterinsurgency effort also has a large 

impact on the employment of artillery units. Metaphorically, there are forces 

that pull and push artillery units into nonstandard roles. A lack of sufficient 

security forces pulls artillery units into those roles, while the effectiveness of other firepower platforms may push them into nonstandard roles.

Having more units to conduct security operations in a counterinsurgency is almost always beneficial. With increased numbers, security 

forces can disperse to hold more area, or concentrate additional forces 
27

in critical areas. With increased numbers, a higher number of security 

forces working among the local population increases the daily contact 

between the two. This helps to increase situational awareness within 

the counterinsurgency force and prevent the reintroduction of insurgent 

forces. On the basis of this advantage, sometimes commanders use artillery units in a maneuver role to perform security tasks. If a counterinsurgent force is stretched thin in an economy-of-force mode, there will be 

a strong pull to employ artillery units as additional security. If there are 

already sufficient units to hold secure areas, this pull will not be as strong. 

No matter which role an artillery unit performs, there are considerations of adequate force structure when converting one to an alternate role. 

An artillery battery is generally three-fourths the size of a sister rifle company, and has the junior leadership for two firing platoons compared to 

three rifle platoons. At the battalion echelon, this disparity in force structure is magnified. An artillery battalion will generally have less than half 

of the end strength of a sister infantry battalion, and is organized into only 

two firing batteries compared to the four companies in an infantry battalion.126 Kitson recognizes this general disparity and concludes that it is 

necessary to combine two artillery units into one for the infantry role.127

Aside from the need for additional security forces, there is another strong pull for forces to conduct those tasks which the combat unit 

is structurally ill-suited to perform. Since the brigades and battalions in 

modernized states are generally structured for conventional operations, 

they do not have specified units that train to perform critical tasks such 

as unit advisers or civil coordination. When deployed as individual units 

to a new counterinsurgency, brigades and battalions cannot rely on units 

from higher echelons to perform the tasks of route security or force protection. Galula recognizes this fact and asserts that while a commander 

always needs “some field artillery for occasional support,” a majority 

of the artillery force must be reorganized to face the myriad of tasks in 

counterinsurgency to include interdicting prohibited movement, conducting information operations, and implementing reforms.128 Some critics go as far as contending that the field artillery branch itself should be 

the primary source for combat adviser teams in counterinsurgency.129

While the needs for additional security, advisory and other forces in 

counterinsurgency constitute a metaphorical pulling force on artillery units, 

the effectiveness and availability of complementary firepower constitutes 

a pushing force. If similar indirect firepower is effective and readily available from other sources, it relieves artillery units for another task. In the 

purest example of this, another artillery unit providing general support to 

the whole counterinsurgency force may fulfill the requirements for indirect 

fires in a relatively stable area. Likewise, in a low threat environment, a security force’s own mortars may be sufficient to fulfill these requirements. 

Unless another element can replicate the ability to mass indirect fires 
28

in almost any condition and remain indefinitely available to the commander, they are not a suitable alternative to an artillery unit. Although aviation 

assets provide excellent fire support options for maneuver forces, they are 

subject to the limitations of weather, payload, and loiter time. Unless an 

aviation asset is coordinated for a pre-planned mission, they will also be 

limited by their mix of munitions on board, transit time to the point of 

conflict, and a lack of scalable munitions. Commanders that replace the 

indirect fires capability of an artillery unit with that of an aviation asset assume a certain level of risk. In this instance, it is less of a force that pushes 

the artillery unit into another role, and more likely a case of the artillery 

unit being pulled into another role with external aviation assets mitigating 

the loss of indirect fires capability.

Artillery Unit Conversion Cost

The fourth factor that influences the employment of artillery units in 

counterinsurgency is the cost of converting these units to perform in an alternate role, and the cost to re-convert them to deliver indirect fires. As Kitson states in Low Intensity Operations, “neither the officers nor the soldiers 

of arms other than infantry are properly trained to act as infantry.”130 This 

reflects the fact that artillery units cannot simply receive a new tasking and 

hope for success; it requires sufficient time to train and develop small teams, 

leaders and collective actions. One major difficulty is the balance between 

training an artillery unit for work as a maneuver force in counterinsurgency 

while simultaneously providing indirect fires for other forces’ train-up.131

When artillery units return to firing operations after a long-term tasking in another role, they must have an intensely focused training regimen 

to regain the technical competencies and procedures that ensure reliable 

firing operations. For this reason, the use of an artillery unit in another 

role must be short in duration due to the rapid deterioration of technical skills. This entails training and certification for both crews and fire 

direction centers. If the fire support element has not been adjusting and 

controlling fires from other sources, they will also require training and 

certification. The commander at the higher echelon must acknowledge 

that there is time required to train between completion of the nonstandard role and a return to firing capability.132 Generally, a motivated unit 

without external taskings can accomplish this in 10 days at a secure location, even after a full year of employment in a maneuver force role.133
29

Notes

1. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian military officer with 

service during the Napoleonic wars. His theories examine moral, social, and political aspects of warfare in terms of operations and strategy.

2. Peter Paret, “Clausewitz,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Peter Paret 

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 186-187.

3. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter 

Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 86-87.

4. Clausewitz, On War, 87.

5. Clausewitz, On War, 75.

6. Clausewitz’s “paradoxical trinity” is often presented as having several 

layers. He describes the abstract trinity in On War as a “blind natural force; of the 

play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and 

of its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject 

to reason alone.” In the following paragraph, Clausewitz continues to show how 

each of these forces of the trinity express themselves: the blind natural force expressed as the attitude of the people, the play of chance and probability expressed 

as the professional qualities of the army (due to his view of war as being inherently uncertain and unpredictable), and the subordination to policy expressed as the 

political aims of the government in war. The primordial violence inherent to the 

irrational force of the population serves to expand war past the limited political 

objectives. Clausewitz, 89; Michael Howard, Clausewitz (Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press, 1983), 20.

7. Werner Hahlweg, “Clausewitz and Guerrilla Warfare” in Clausewitz 

and Modern Strategy, ed. Michael Handel (London: Frank Cass, 1986), 128-131; 

Clausewitz, 479-483.

8. Baron Antoine-Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) was a Swiss military officer with service to the French and Russian forces during the Napoleonic era. A 

contemporary of Clausewitz, his theories focus more on the tactical prescriptions 

for success on the battlefield.

9. John Shy, “Jomini,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Peter Paret 

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 143, 148.

10. Jomini, Baron de., Summary of The Art of War, or A New Analytical 

Compend trans. Major O. F. Winship and Lieutenant E. E. McLean (New York: 

Putnam, 1854), 40, 46.

11. Jomini, Summary of The Art of War, 41.

12. Jomini, Summary of The Art of War, 42.

13. Shy, “Jomini,” 164.

14 Sun Tzu was a Chinese military strategist and theorist (or alternately, a 

pseudonym to lend cachet to a cumulation of separate theorists) who lived sometime between the 7th and 4th centuries B.C. His writings have been widely adopted and applied to ventures outside of the military sphere, such as negotiations 

and corporate conduct.
30

15. Sun Tzu, Manual for War, trans. T.W. Kuo (Chicago: ATLI Press, 1989), 

12.

16. Sun Tzu, Manual for War, 35.

17. John Shy and Thomas Collier, “Revolutionary War,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 

823.

18. Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2006), 1-1.

19. Counterinsurgency theorists all provide alternate definitions for insurgency, which are discussed in the later section in this chapter devoted to counterinsurgency theory. David Gompert of the RAND Corporation provides another 

clear definition, describing an effort that will “seek to replace an existing order 

with one that conforms to their political, economic, ideological, or religious vision.” David C. Gompert and John Gordon IV, War By Other Means: Building 

Complete and Balanced Capabilities for Counterinsurgency (Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 2008), 23.

20. Mao Tse-Tung (1893-1976) was a Chinese Marxist revolutionary leader 

and eventual ruler of the People’s Republic of China. Mao was born to a middleclass peasant family, and found the communist cause through his studies at Peking 

University. Mao’s writings reflect a rare combination of revolutionary leader, conventional military leader, and political leader. 

21. Mao Tse-Tung, On Guerrilla Warfare, trans. by Samuel B. Griffith (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1961), 44-45.

22. Mao, On Guerrilla Warfare, Tables 1-4. At times, Mao’s works were 

overly prescriptive because they also functioned as an inspirational field guide to 

revolutionaries who did not have the benefit of formal Marxist training. This accounts for the dual nature of his writings, which often switches from prescriptive 

details to broadly descriptive themes. 

23. Mao Tse-Tung, The Selected Military Writings of Mao Tse-Tung (Peking: 

Foreign Language Press, 1972), 211.

24. Mao, The Selected Military Writings of Mao Tse-Tung, 212-214.

25. Mao, The Selected Military Writings of Mao Tse-Tung, 214.

26. Mao, On Guerrilla Warfare, 54-55.

27. General Vo Nguyen Giap (b. 1911) is a former Vietnamese military leader who distilled his insurgent theories into practice during his wars in Indochina 

against the French colonials and the American-backed South Vietnam. Initially 

attracted to Vietnamese nationalist movements, Giap joined a communist movement during protests against French rule in the 1930s. 

28. Mao, On Guerrilla Warfare, 92-93.

29. Vo Nguyen Giap, The Military Art of People’s War, ed. Russell Stetler 

(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), 168, 175.

30. Vo Nguyen Giap, Inside the Vietminh: Vo Nguyen Giap on Guerrilla War

(Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1962), I-10.
31

31. Giap uses the terms stage of contention, stage of equilibrium, and stage 

of counter-offensive. Giap, Inside the Vietminh: Vo Nguyen Giap on Guerrilla 

War, I-4. 

32. Giap, The Military Art of People’s War, 179-181.

33. Giap, Inside the Vietminh: Vo Nguyen Giap on Guerrilla War, I-9-I-10.

34. This must be contrasted with the Marxist revolution in Cuba, and its 

resulting theory of “focoism” (foco referring to a mobile point of insurrection). 

In contrast with the Maoist model, Fidel Castro’s small rebel band did not politically organize before initiating an armed struggle, relying on the momentum of 

the masses as they advanced to Havana, enabled by the extreme unpopularity of 

the ruling Batista regime. When this model was theorized by one of his lieutenants, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, he attempted to apply it in Bolivia to disastrous 

consequences since that population was not naturally attracted by the means of 

violence. Shy and Collier, 849-850; Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare, ed. Brian 

Loveman and Thomas M. Davies (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 

1985), 47-48.

35. John Mackinlay, The Insurgent Archipelago (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 221-222.

36. Mackinlay, The Insurgent Archipelago, 7.

37. John Mackinlay and Alison Al-Baddawy, Rethinking Counterinsurgency

(Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008), 56.

38. For an in-depth description of these types of insurgency, see Gompert 

and Gordon, 25-32.

39. For an illustration of the preponderance of US forces in these operations, see Carter Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq,” in Counterinsurgency 

in Modern Warfare, ed. Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 293-295.

40. Robert Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency (London: Chatto 

and Windus, 1966), 55; Frank Kitson, Bunch of Five (London: Faber and Faber, 

1977), 283.

41. This reflects the following counterinsurgency operations: Malayan 

Emergency 1948-1960, Mau Mau Uprising (Kenya) 1952-1960, Cyprus 1955-

1960, Aden 1963-1967, Oman and Dhofar 1965-1975, Northern Ireland 1969-

2007, Afghanistan since 2001, and Iraq 2003-2009. Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare contains a chapter on each of these conflicts except for Kenya and 

Cyprus, which Kitson describes (along with Malaya and Oman) in Bunch of Five. 

Julian Paget also describes Malaya, Kenya, and Cyprus in Counter-Insurgency 

Operations: Techniques of Guerrilla Warfare.

42. Sir Robert Thompson (1916-1992) was a British administrator and adviser, with service during the Malayan Emergency and within the British embassy 

during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1965. Thompson wrote several volumes of 

theory and constructive critique of the Vietnam conflict. 

43. Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 51.

44. Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 21.
32

45. Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 28.

46. These five principles are paraphrased from the original, found in Defeating Communist Insurgency, 50-58.

47. Robert Thompson, No Escape From Vietnam (New York: David McKay 

Co, 1969), 167-168. Thompson describes the military role as expanding government-controlled areas (clearing) and denying freedom of movement in rural areas 

(holding), although in practice it usually focuses on the destruction of main force 

units. 

48. Thompson, No Escape From Vietnam, 167.

49. General Sir Frank Kitson (b. 1926) is a former military officer and theorist with service in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, Oman and Northern Ireland. 

He eventually rose to become the Commander-in -Chief of the UK Land Forces.

50. Frank Kitson, Low Intensity Operations (London: Faber and Faber, 

1973), 3.

51. Kitson, Bunch of Five, 282-283.

52. Frank Kitson, Warfare as a Whole (London: Faber and Faber, 1987), 2-3, 

175.

53. These four requirements are paraphrased from the original, found in 

Bunch of Five, 284-291.

54. Kitson, Bunch of Five, 296-297.

55. For his account on the creation of pseudo gangs in Kenya, see Bunch of 

Five, 29-41. 

56. Kitson, Bunch of Five, 296.

57. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, 133.

58. Kitson, Bunch of Five, 294-295.

59. For a complete discussion on the works of these French colonial theorists, see Douglas Porch, “Bugeaud, Gallieni, Lyatuey: The Development of 

French Colonial Warfare,” in Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 376-407.

60. Douglas Porch, “French Imperial Warfare, 1945-1962,” in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, ed. Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian (Oxford, 

UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 94.

61. Colonel Roger Trinquier (1908-1986) was a French military leader and 

theorist. His theories represent some of the more extreme measures based on the 

concept of guerre revolutionairre. Trinquier’s experience includes Indochina and 

Algeria. 

62. Roger Trinquier, Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency

trans. Daniel Lee (London: Pall Mall Press, 1964), 9.

63. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 16-19.

64. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 29-34. This study uses the population 

whereas Trinquier’s translated work refers to the inhabitant and the population 
33

seemingly interchangeably.

65. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 4, 39.

66. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 20-23. Unfortunately, Trinquier states that 

“If the prisoner gives the information requested, the examination is quickly terminated; if not, specialists must force his secret from him. Then, as a soldier, 

he must face the suffering, and perhaps the death, he has heretofore managed to 

avoid.”

67. For a recent effort to this end, see: Geoff Demarest, “Let’s Take the 

French Experience in Algeria Out of U.S. Counterinsurgency Doctrine,” Military 

Review (July-August 2010): 19-23. Dr. Demarest contends that the overall operation was a strategic disaster, so that it should be removed from US Army study 

and doctrine. This point does not address the fact that the French in Algeria were 

extremely successful militarily in the nearly complete destruction of the insurgent 

force even after they abandoned the use of torture. Aspects of this seem very valuable for study in a military manual. In a larger sense, failed missions have as much 

value as successful missions to inform the study of counterinsurgency. 

68. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 70-71.

69. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 72-74.

70. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 75-76, 90.

71. Trinquier, Modern Warfare, 80-86, 91.

72. These implications are supported by evidence in OIF. When artillery 

units were assigned in a security force role, they were generally employed as 

“land owners” with a geographic area of operations which Trinquier would recognize as a grid unit. Additionally, separate artillery units were deployed in direct 

support to units which served as the elite intervention units in theater.

73. Lieutenant Colonel David Galula (1919-1967) was a French military 

leader and theorist. Raised in French North African territories, Galula observed 

the Maoist Chinese efforts as well as the Greek Civil War and the Huk Rebellion 

in the Philippines. By the time he served as a company commander in Algeria, he 

had an urge to test his basic theories which he describes in Pacification in Algeria. 

74. David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (New 

York: Praeger, 1964), 136.

75. These four laws are paraphrased from the original, found in Galula, 

Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 74-80.

76. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, 77.

77. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, 63-64, 70-71.

78. Galula devotes Chapter Seven of Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory 

and Practice to describing the operational and tactical methods of this model.

79. David Galula, Pacification in Algeria, 1956-1958 (Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 1963), 114.

80. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 93.

81. Paraphrased from Galula’s description of a converted infantry force into 
34

a role supporting the building phase. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory 

and Practice, 94.

82. The dual American experiences of policing vast western territories for 

Native American uprisings and quelling the insurgencies of a pseudo-empire had 

a brief overlap in 1898. Andrew J. Birtle, U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine 1860-1941 (Washington, DC: Center of Military 

History, 1997), 99. 

83. Colonel John J. McCuen (1926-2010) was an American Army officer 

and theorist, with experience as an adviser in Vietnam. He continued to serve as 

an instructor on counter-guerrilla operations at the U.S. Army War College. 

84. John J. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War (Harrisburg, 

PA: Stockpole Books, 1966), 21. 

85. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, 40-44.

86. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, 77.

87. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, 54-58.

88. McCuen describes these four steps in a short chapter, “The SolutionCounter-Revolutionary Strategy.” McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary 

War, 77-80.

89. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, 62.

90. This notion is concurrent with the concept that counterinsurgencies are 

in large part a competition in government. As such, the “legitimacy” of the counterinsurgency effort must be in the terms of the local population, not the central 

government or any intervening forces. This can include some extremely draconian and coercive methods, as Chapter Three discusses in depth. Additionally, this 

concept is not a values-based moral imperative, it is a pragmatic attempt in most 

counterinsurgency literature. For a good introduction on the effects of legitimacy 

and the Rule of Law fostering bottom-up reform from the local level in a counterinsurgency, refer to David Kilcullen’s chapter titled “Deiokes and the Taliban” 

in Counterinsurgency. David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency (Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press, 2010), 147-161. 

91. The task of clearing insurgents with armed force pervades all other tasks 

for the counterinsurgency effort, although this is not the military forces’ sole mission.

92. Kitson, Bunch of Five, 200. Kitson refers to a symposium directed by 

President Kennedy in April, 1962 which was conducted by the RAND Corporation. Stephen Hosmer and Sibylle Crane, Counterinsurgency: A Symposium 16-20 

April 1962 (Santa Monica: RAND, 1962), www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R412-1.

html (accessed 30 May 2011).

93. David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency (Oxford, UK: Oxford University 

Press, 2010), 166.

94. Gian P. Gentile, “A Strategy of Tactics: Population Centric COIN and the 

Army,” Parameters (Autumn 2009): 5.

95. Gentile, “A Strategy of Tactics: Population Centric COIN and the 

Army,”, 15.
35

96. To paraphrase David St. Hubbins from the 1984 movie This is Spin̈al 

Tap: the two approaches are like fire and ice, and the proper approach is to be 

kind of the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water. Michael McKean, This 

is Spin̈al Tap. Directed by Rob Reiner. Wilmington, NC: DiLaurentis/Embassy 

Pictures, 1984).

97. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson and Thomas Walton, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 22 February 2011.

98. US Army Field Manual 1-02, Operational Terms and Graphics, defines 

fire support as “fires that support land, maritime, amphibious, and special operations forces to engage enemy forces, combat formations, and facilities in pursuit 

of tactical and operational objectives.” 

99. US Army Field Manual 1-02, Operational Terms and Graphics, defines 

fires as “the effects of lethal or nonlethal weapons,” and indirect fire as “fire delivered on a target that is not itself used as a point of aim for the weapon or the 

director.” Although artillery units may also engage targets with direct fires given 

certain conditions, their core competency of delivering indirect fires is the distinguishing characteristic for this study. For an overview of the overall warfighting 

function of “Fires,” see Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0, Operations

(Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2008), 4-4.

100. There is an enduring argument within the military regarding the best 

method of assigning fire support personnel. Proponents of assigning them with 

the maneuver force cite the need to develop cohesive teams, while proponents of 

assigning them with their parent artillery unit assert that this ensures standardization, more responsive fires and senior artillery leader mentorship.

101. As of the writing of this study, the current US Army doctrine which 

describes the echelons of artillery units and their command support relationships 

was published in 2001, before the transformation to modular BCTs. For this description, see Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-09.21, Tactics, Techniques 

and Procedures for the Field Artillery Battalion (Washington, DC: Department of 

the Army, 2001), 1-2. Updated doctrine is still in final draft form, with a disclaimer that “The material in this manual is under development. It is NOT approved 

doctrine and CANNOT be used for reference or citation. The approved FM is still 

current and must be used for reference, or citation, until this draft is approved and 

authenticated” dated 18 October 2010.

102. Robert H. Scales, Firepower in Limited War (Novato, CA: Presidio 

Press, 1995), 287-296.

103. Larry Yates, Field Artillery in Military Operations Other Than War: An 

Overview of the US Experience (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute 

Press, 2005). 

104. Patrovick G Everett, The Role of Field Artillery in Counterinsurgency 

(Fort Leavenworth, KS: Command and General Staff College, 2005), 49-55; Joseph A. Jackson, “Howitzers on the High Ground” (Monograph, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2009), 44-49.

105. J. B. A. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower (Oxford, UK: Oxford 

Military Press, 1989), 241.
36

106. Bruchmuller’s actual methods were closely copied by the Soviets and 

survive in some form to this day; the general concept of a task-based artillery 

system is a major element of modern American fire support. For Bruchmuller’s 

impact on American artillery, see David T. Zabecki, Steel Wind: Colonel Georg 

Bruchmuller and the Birth of Modern Artillery (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 

116-117.

107. Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 

148.

108. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 151. These qualities of responsiveness and 

coverage will be discussed at length in Chapter Four.

109. David Ewing Ott, Vietnam Studies: Field Artillery, 1954-1973 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1975), 42-43.

110. Boyd L. Dastrup, King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army’s 

Field Artillery (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1992), 283.

111. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 240.

112. US Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-

3-4, U.S. Army Functional Concept For Fires 2016-2028 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2010), 11, 23.

113. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-4, U.S. Army Functional Concept For Fires 

2016-2028.

114. The origin of this saying is unknown, but it is widely used within US 

Army fire support circles. The author first heard it used in 2004 from a senior fire 

support NCO during an artillery live fire exercise.

115. John J. McGrath, Fire for Effect: Field Artillery and Close Air Support 

in the US Army (Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2007), 162. 

116. Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 61. 

117. Linda P. Beckerman, The Non-Linear Dynamics of War (Science Applications International Corporation), Section 1.5.

118. As introduced in Chapter One, these four factors are the broadly descriptive aspects which influence the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgency, and are not derived from an existing theoretical or doctrinal source.

119. This description of fires as a function of the dispersion and frequency of 

targets is the author’s own, but is illustrated by the US Army’s doctrinal approach 

to targeting, the “decide-detect-deliver-assess” methodology. With an extremely 

dispersed enemy or an infrequent amount of contact, insurgent formations will 

rarely meet a rational threshold for target selection standards. Department of the 

Army, Field Manual 6-20-10, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for the Targeting Process (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1996), 1-4, 2-7.

120. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, 136.

121. Author’s experience as a company-level commander during OIF 06-08 

(2007) and 07-09 (2009). A majority of unintentional consequences from small 

arms are the result of improper target discrimination or poor marksmanship under 
37

the stress of combat patrols, not negligent discharges.

122. Under the Law of Armed Combat, all soldiers have the inherent right to 

defend themselves. However, this does not alleviate the legal and moral responsibilities to minimize civilian casualties.

123. McCuen, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, 61.

124. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 35.

125. The issue with firing in these conditions is the cotangent of the angle of 

fall, which describes the angle at which a round will strike the target. If a target is 

between tall buildings, on a steep reverse slope or in extremely dense foliage, then 

this angle must be considerably high. For a detailed discussion on the merits of 

high-angle and low-angle fires in urban environments, see First Lieutenant Christopher Boris, “Low Angle Fires for MOUT,” FA Journal (November-December 

2001): 43.

126. The approved end strength for a US Army light artillery battery in a 

BCT is currently 94 personnel, compared to 131 in a comparable rifle company. 

The approved end strength in a light artillery battalion was 287 personnel, compared to 693 in an infantry battalion. These numbers exclude Forward Support 

Companies habitually assigned to each battalion. Refer to the US Army Force 

Management Support Agency, www.fmsweb.army.mil for these Tables of Equipment (access requires US DOD Common Access Card registration).

127. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, 184. Kitson does not indicate who 

gets to command this combined unit; the author proposes a cage fight in such a 

circumstance.

128. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, 93-94.

129. For the most cogently constructed argument in favor of this, see John A. 

Nagl and Paul L. Yingling, “The FA in the Long War: A New Mission in COIN,” 

FA Journal (July-August 2006): 33-36.

130. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, 184. 

131. Author’s experiences as a battalion operations staff officer while training a MLRS battalion for OIF I (2003) and an airborne artillery battalion for OIF 

06-08 (2006).

132. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, 184.

133. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson, United 

Kingdom, 1 April 2011.

39

Chapter 3

The Malayan Emergency

The answer lies not in pouring more soldiers into the 

jungle, but rests in the hearts and minds of the Malayan 

people.

— General Sir Gerald Templer

The Malayan Emergency provides an excellent example of a pragmatic and evolving approach to an insurgency, with attention to a population’s 

legitimate grievances.1

 The British and Malayan governments’ counterinsurgency efforts illustrate the utility of a coordinated framework of legitimacy, an attempt to isolate insurgents from their base of support and 

integrate the disaffected population into society. Throughout the Emergency, the British Army’s use of artillery units demonstrated that a counterinsurgent force can achieve lethal effects through a practical, limited 

and de-centralized approach.

Background

One of the most influential features of the Malayan Emergency was 

the physical country itself. Dense rainforest jungle provided a small dismounted force almost limitless concealment and standoff from observation and direct fire weapons. Much of the year sees daily temperatures 

above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. A central range of mountains as high as 

7,000 feet runs along the middle of the peninsula, and other regions are 

subject to seasonal monsoons. These factors formed a foreboding environment that the foreign intervening force took several years to appreciate.2

Ethnically, the country was a mix of Malays (44 percent) and Chinese 

(32 percent) with smaller minorities of Indians (10.5 percent), Europeans 

(1.5 percent), and undocumented aboriginal peoples in the deep jungle.3

The total population of just over 5 million had urban and rural components, but one of the most influential facets of ethnic distribution was the 

presence of isolated Chinese squatter populations at the jungle fringes. 

With respect to structured governance, the British had a limited ability to direct and harmonize operations initially. At the close of World 

War II, British civil administration returned many possessions that were 

occupied by Japanese forces. Although Chinese forces generally stood 

against Japanese occupation and the Malay rajahs generally cooperated 

with them, the British could not force them to incorporate the Chinese 

into society for effective governance.4

 Additionally, the British were 

only formally in charge in one of the nine provinces, though they maintained the authority to coordinate the foreign policy of the federation.5

Although they did not enjoy the freedom of action associated with direct political rule in most of Malaya, the British were able to deftly em-
40

ploy indirect rule with a mix of military, economic, and social power.

The Insurgency

The Chinese minority’s grievances fostered an environment to support 

a protracted insurgency, though that insurgency did not directly constitute a movement of the people. The Chinese were systematically excluded 

from service in security forces and administration, although they held a 

plurality in six provinces and formed a middle class which maintained 

a better standard of living than the Malayan middle class in most urban 

centers.6

 The Malayan Communist Party (MCP) exploited this narrative 

and added an element of anticolonial struggle in an attempt to gain wider 

appeal among Malayans of all ethnicities. The Marxist rhetoric was not 

a reflection of the Chinese community; in many senses it was a best-fit 

model to organize elements of the subversion and terrorism campaigns. 

Later, reports from Surrendered Enemy Persons (SEPs) indicated that recruits were not attracted on ideological grounds, and that they had to be 

conditioned to view their contemporary politics as an existential conflict. 

Conditioned recruits “not only expected that physical violence was likely 

to be the final arbiter, but believed that hostility and aggressiveness were 

characteristic of political activities.”7

As the MCP moved from subversion to armed insurgency, they relocated from urban centers to a completely rural base in the jungle. It organized its armed component as the Malayan People’s Anti-British Army 

(MPABA) to invoke the theme of anticolonialist struggle by harkening 

to the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army. Simultaneously, the MCP 

organized its support activity in the squatter settlements, the Min Yuen. 

Membership in both the MPABA (quickly renamed the Malayan Races 

Liberation Army, or MRLA) and the Min Yuen was based on MCP party 

membership status, not on merit or potential.8

The MRLA began with extremely small and limited attacks, which 

were initially misread by the government as simple banditry along ethnic 

lines. The nature of their efforts changed drastically in the public’s eye on 

16 June 1948 when three British planters were killed.9

 In recognition that 

they had rashly initiated a government response, the MCP leader Chin 

Peng decided to slow operations and settle in for a protracted campaign.10

The MRLA slowly increased operations and by early 1950 they were capable of moderate but coordinated attacks, such as the attack and burning 

of a village which left more than 1,000 homeless refugees.11 The MRLA 

targeted planters and other soft targets when they could not gain overmatch 

with small security-force units.12 This is a reflection of their challenges to 

procure heavy weaponry, as they did not have a third party arming them. 

Another symptom of their limited arms was that the MRLA’s jungle camps 

were never defensive positions and had to be heavily guarded with sentries 

for early warning to facilitate an escape.13
41

The Counterinsurgency Effort

Similar to the MRLA, the colonial government was not prepared for 

an armed conflict when it declared a State of Emergency in response to the 

killings of 1948. They lacked sufficient intelligence on the MCP as well as 

an appreciation of their inroads to the Chinese community.14 The British 

narrative to their own troops borrowed from the remarks of Dato Ono bin 

Ja’afar, a leader of Malayan nationalism:

Let that be fully understood by everyone . . . that what was 

termed in 1945 and up to the middle of 1946 as “racial trouble” 

between the Chinese and Malays cropped up. But let me assure 

my Chinese friends that that trouble was not started by the Malays; that trouble was not started by law-abiding Chinese; it was 

started by the very people we are fighting now.15

The view of counterinsurgency as a form of war may be conceptually 

sound, but only if it is appreciated as a form of war with different social 

and political limits than conventional war. In this respect, Major General 

C. H. Boucher’s operational approach of large-scale search-and-destroy 

techniques was flawed from its inception. As the General Officer Commanding (GOC) Malaya, he visualized military operations as a means to 

sequentially eradicate small groups of Communist Terrorists (CTs) and 

their immediate support structure. These sweeps lacked the conceptual 

limits inherent to counterinsurgency operations, and security forces conducted them similar to conventional operations with shoot-to-kill practices 

and the use of heavy force.16 Many junior commanders’ feelings that attrition was the only way to defeat the CTs is further evidence that they did 

not understand the nuances of counterinsurgency warfare, nor the need to 

address the Min Yuen as a base of support.17 To compound the difficulties 

of these clearing operations, there was no force capable of adequately securing ethnic Chinese areas since the Malayan Police force was composed 

of ethnic Malays and Britons recruited for their similarly ill-fated experience in Palestine.18

The British slowly began to address their tactical inadequacies by 

harnessing the institutional experience of jungle warfare in Burma during 

World War II. Boucher was duly impressed during a review of Lieutenant 

Colonel Walton Walker’s “Ferret Force,” which organized in July 1948 to 

use small-unit tactics and jungle warfare expertise. Many of the officers 

in the Ferret Force had combat experience with Force 136, which had 

served with some members of the MRLA against the Japanese occupation 

in World War II.19 Although the Ferret Force would be disbanded later 

in 1949, Boucher and the Commander-in-Chief of Far East Land Forces 

General Sir Neil Ritchie decided that all incoming units from the United 

Kingdom should receive sufficient training in these areas. Ritchie appointed Walker with the task of establishing a Jungle Warfare School.20
42

Although units improved their tactical capabilities across Malaya, 

the operational approach of large-scale search-and-destroy and disjointed 

government efforts failed to achieve success in defeating the CT threat. 

Additionally, Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s decision to formally recognize communist China in January 1950 had deep implications in Malaya. 

British planters felt that it was “like being kicked in the teeth by your best 

friend,” and the decision created an environment where the population 

doubted the long-term commitment of British forces.21

These operational and strategic shortcomings greeted retired General 

Sir Harold Briggs when he was designated as the new Director of Operations, arriving in Malaya on 3 April 1950. Briggs’ post was intended to 

unify the overall effort, but the post lacked command authority for both 

security forces and government operations.22 As a retired officer, Briggs 

arrived in Malaya as a civilian which assuaged some of the fears that the 

Emergency would be overly militarized.23 Briggs was eminently qualified 

for the position, since he had experience with jungle operations in as the 

Commander of the 5th Indian Division in Burma during World War II, and 

the experience of supporting an Asian government after the war.24

Briggs incorporated his vision with a series of measures which were 

intended to destroy the MRLA’s base of support in the Min Yuen and the 

ethnic Chinese population, and incorporate a framework of coordination 

at all levels. In general, the “Briggs Plan” is described in the following 

five actions:

1. Resettling the distant Chinese into population concentrations, and 

regrouping Chinese laborers in protected mines and factories.

2. Strengthening local governance and administration.

3. Increasing coordination between the army, the police and local leaders.

4. Building or improving access roads to the isolated parts of the country to increase legitimate government presence.

5. Controlling cleared areas to prevent the MRLA from returning.25

The Briggs Plan did not directly end search-and-destroy missions initially, but it did set the stage for a competition in governance instead of an 

all-out civil war along ethnic lines.26

To increase the coordination of the counterinsurgency effort, Briggs 

directed the establishment of War Executive Councils at the federal, state 

and district level. The appropriate civilian leader headed the council at 

each level. Although Briggs himself initially led the Federal War Council, the High Commissioner himself took the position to lend the council 

more authority.27 The councils acted as action bodies, which meant that 

they were manned by the unit commanders or heads of specific govern-
43

ment services. Additionally, the councils created operations centers to coordinate continuous operations, handle routine business and disseminate 

information.28 As with any endeavor to command by committee, the State 

War Executive Committees (SWECs) and District War Executive Committees (DWECs) engaged in much deliberation before the civilian authority could direct a mutually satisfactory decision.29

As the government and security forces began to implement the Briggs 

Plan’s measures, the British army continued to evaluate the changing situation. In July 1950, the new GOC Malaya, Major General Roy Urquhart, 

called for a crucial conference to review tactics. The significant outcomes 

were the importance of debriefing patrols, the requirement for undetected 

insertion and movement into the jungle, and the establishment of the Malayan Scouts to engage in deep jungle operations and be resupplied by 

air.30 These measures were implemented, and by the end of 1951 battalions started decentralizing into company operations. Briggs accepted that 

large-scale search-and-destroy operations were not working, and stressed 

the importance of these smaller distributed operations.31 The importance 

of the Jungle Warfare School was reasserted, and beginning in 1952 company commanders attended a twice-a-year course. Incoming junior officers 

and NCOs attended courses as well, and units began periodic rotations to 

retrain on tactics. These initiatives aided the progress towards common 

doctrine and structured assessments.32

The new Conservative administration in London prompted a comprehensive assessment of the Emergency in late 1951. Oliver Lyttleton, the 

Secretary of State for the Colonies, reviewed operations in Malaya and 

concluded that there was a need for a unified commander to direct all 

military and civilian forces instead of a military force under one command which aided the civilian efforts.33 Lieutenant General Sir Harold 

Templer was the government’s choice, and he began in February 1952. In 

Templer’s new role that combined the Director of Operations and the High 

Commissioner, he had the power to direct all operations whereas Briggs 

had to lead by consensus and was hampered by the individual components’ 

ability to appeal his decisions. As such, Templer answered to London and 

could afford to make hard decisions that were initially unpopular within 

his command in Malaya.34

Templer did not come in with a sweeping new plan; instead he added 

guidance and additional structure to Briggs’ earlier measures. On the way 

to brief the Prime Minister before departing for Malaya, he remarked to 

an aide that his three priorities would be to coordinate intelligence under 

one person, to reorganize and retrain the hastily expanded police forces, 

and to improve communications between the government and its people 

so they would understand the purpose of coercive measures in a larger 

context.35 He envisioned counterinsurgency as a broader struggle along 

military, political, social, economic and even spiritual lines. To strengthen 
44

the measure of population resettlement, Templer directed the expansion 

of government services to make these protected villages an attractive opportunity for the Chinese squatters. Templer also sought to institute “white 

areas” where citizens would be free of population control measures if the 

area was successfully cleared and held from CTs.36 Luckily, rising tin and 

rubber prices due to the Korean War provided ample funding for Templer’s expanded programs, since the Emergency was completely funded 

via Malaya.37

Narratives of the Emergency commonly equate Briggs with the failed 

search-and-destroy approach and equate Templer with the successful 

hearts-and-minds approach. This assertion ignores the fact that Briggs 

himself directly ended such large-scale search-and-destroy operations in 

1951, and that he was limited in his ability to direct actions since all entities could appeal his decisions.38 Briggs abandoned his plan of sequentially clearing states from south to north after the first iteration in Johore 

proved too difficult to coordinate with his limited powers.39 Additionally, 

this notion implies a dichotomy in approaches and conflates the heartsand-minds approach with a nonmilitary focus. Templer’s leadership ability and expanded powers served to galvanize the counterinsurgency effort, 

but he was quoted as giving Briggs due credit for the plan itself: “All I did 

was make it [the Briggs Plan] work, which it did in due course to the tune 

of some 560,000 people in about 500 new villages. And it happened under 

my administration because I had the powers and the unfortunate General 

Briggs did not.”40 Within the context of Malaya, the hearts-and-minds approach was not simply positive political policy or civic action, but the 

synergy of both attractive and coercive actions with military security and 

information operations.41 The search-and-destroy approach and the heartsand-minds approach were not a mutually exclusive dichotomy but were 

two ends to a continuous range of conflict in Malaya.42

One of Templer’s priorities was to reorganize and retrain security 

forces in Malaya, especially the Special Branch.43 Due to rapid expansion at the outset of the Emergency, the police force was undertrained, 

ineffective, brutal, and almost completely ethnic Malays.44 The military 

also continued to improve during Templer’s tenure. In late 1952, Templer countered the Urquhart Committee’s contention that existing Mission 

Training Pamphlets were sufficient to inform unit tactics and operations, 

and brought back Walker to develop a manual for all forces to deal with 

jungle warfare. The result was The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations 

in Malaya, colloquially known as the ATOM. Walker completed the task in 

only two weeks, as he was able to draw on his previous material he wrote 

for the Jungle Warfare School, older Indian Army manuals and his own 

experience in command of 1/6th Gurkha Rifles.45

Military units continued to decentralize into more distributed operations, concentrating on the new villages to support food-control measures 
45

and locate CT camps. This included the integration of SEPs into the counterinsurgency effort, sometimes in such a rapid and pragmatic manner that 

they were simply handed uniforms and assigned to British platoons for the 

next patrol.46 At higher echelons, division staffs engaged in the resourcing 

and administrative support to smaller units, but did not direct operations 

since this was purview of the associated SWEC or DWEC. This led one 

major general to say that “as far as I can see, the only thing a divisional 

commander has to do in this sort of war is to go around seeing that the 

troops have got their beer.”47

Military units also took the fight to the CTs deeper into the jungle. 

As a result of the Urquhart conferences in July 1950, Lieutenant Colonel 

Michael Calvert initiated the creation of a light unit trained in deep jungle operations which could be resupplied by air. As a result, the Malayan 

Scouts were founded, which was renamed the 22nd Special Air Service 

(SAS) Regiment later in the Emergency.48 By 1955, eleven jungle forts 

had been established, providing the interior aboriginal population with access to medical, educational and economic means.49 The attractive nature 

of the jungle forts proved much more effective than trying to regroup that 

specific population, and the CTs in the area were isolated form yet another 

source of information and supplies.50

Within the effort to improve government services, Templer prodded 

the British components of the civil service to begin a deliberate process 

of Malayanizing the government with the goal of national independence. 

Local elections were tied to positive behavior in white areas and took some 

appeal away from the MCP’s anti-colonial narrative.51 At higher levels, the 

SWECs and DWECs began Malayanizing their elements in order to aid 

the transition to an independent national government; Malayans now had 

responsibility for their decisions in the counterinsurgency fight.52 These 

graduated elections at the village, district, and then state level also served 

to stimulate the formation and maturation of political parties.53 As a result, 

the multiethnic Alliance Party won the first election in preparation for independence in 1957. The dual successes of independence and a mature 

multiethnic political party in power served to undercut much of the MCP’s 

anti-colonial narrative.54 One SAS officer who commanded in Malaya 

summarized this by saying that “independence won it. Chin Peng and all 

his men had the carpet pulled from under them.”55 The overall framework 

of counterinsurgency operations were not disrupted because this had been 

a slow and deliberate process.56

By 1960, the CTs were scattered and ineffective, while successive 

states enjoyed the improved socioeconomic environments of the white 

areas. With a concerned, capable and independent government firmly in 

place, the government declared an end to the Emergency. Much of the 

success that led to this victory can be traced to components with roots in 

the Briggs plan, but matured under Templer’s tenure: the harmony of all 
46

counterinsurgent efforts, isolation of CTs from their base of support, the 

connection of the Chinese to effective governance, a phased and deliberate Malayanization, and security force reforms in the police and Special 

Branch.57 Across all of these efforts, the military component slowly matured through an iterative process of incorporating best practices from previous experiences in the jungle and best practices from the contemporary 

fight.58

The Employment of Artillery Units

The Royal Artillery (RA) had the distinction of engaging in counterinsurgency efforts even before the Emergency was declared in 1948. One 

RAND Corporation monograph concerning the organization of counterinsurgency forces in Malaya cites the example of the 26th RA, which began 

escorting convoys and patrolling roads as early as 1947 using the vast 

stores of demobilized World War II equipment they found in Singapore.59

This is corroborated by a veteran’s memorial website, which states that 

the 26th RA began patrolling for CTs in November 1947.60 The account of 

the 26th RA’s service in a nonstandard security role in The Royal Journal 

of Artillery contends that they had been in action during the anti-bandit 

campaigns beginning in 1946.61 Whatever date the field regiment actually 

began active patrolling may be debatable, but it is clear that their contributions as a security element predate the declaration of the Emergency in 

1948. This employment as a security force would not last long, as another 

RAND study from 1964 suggests that by the final phase of the Emergency, 

the Malaya Command was “using every gunner they had at his regular 

trade.”62

This was not a unique role for British gunners.63 They were also used 

as infantrymen in Kenya, nearly contemporary to the Malayan Emergency.64 However, the employment of artillery units as maneuver forces was 

short-lived. By late 1950, there were several RA units serving in Malaya: 

one troop from 1 Singapore Regt RA under the 26th Gurkha Infantry Brigade at Johore Bahru and 26th Field Regiment RA (plus one battery of 

25th Field Regiment RA) under the 63rd Gurkha Infantry Brigade at Seremban.65 In 1951, the batteries were reconstituted and then dispersed as 

independent two-gun troops which operated up to 465 miles apart.66 This 

created a manpower-intensive force structure because it required up to 190 

men per battery to keep these dispersed sections in action.67 In 1952, the 

commander of the 25th RA laid down principles to ensure the efficient use 

of these troops. He contended that the RA should be used to either drive 

CTs into prepared ambush sites or harass suspected camp locations in the 

jungle. This was prompted by the inefficient use of the dispersed troops by 

maneuver forces, since they would employ them in turns rather than in a 

prioritized and task-oriented manner.68

This was the first attempt to govern the effective use of artillery in 

Malaya, and it would continue with the inclusion of a specific chapter on 
47

artillery support in the ATOM. The ATOM refined the roles of artillery fires 

as: Flushing (into ambush areas), Harassing, Destructive Shoots (against 

CT camps), Blocking Escape Routes, Deception, and Illumination.69 In 

response to the limited success of air strikes in the Emergency, the ATOM

also included the advantages of using artillery support:

1. All-weather capability.

2. Day and night capability without the use of a searchlight.

3. Better tactical surprise than a loud approaching aircraft.

4. Better accuracy, so it could be employed closer to friendly troops.

5. More capable of sustaining an effort over several days.

6. More flexible due to the intimate relationship of gunner and infantryman.70

There is ample evidence that security forces took advantage of these 

capabilities. Guns were generally not sitting idle; their operational tempo 

and firing records indicate an unending cycle of movement, occupation of 

a firing point, and a sustained delivery of fires. The ATOM set forth a planning factor of 100 rounds per day from a troop of two 25-pounder guns 

in an operation.71 The record of operations from the 93rd Field Battery, 

25th RA shows an astounding tempo. In January 1953 alone, the battery’s 

troops fired 17,262 rounds from 30 different positions, travelling 1,646 

miles along the way.72 Gunner James Daniel Lamb’s war diary indicates 

that in his eight months as a conscript, his troop travelled to 16 different 

positions. As the troop’s driver for resupply trips, he regularly resupplied 

the two-gun positions with 200 rounds, generally every four days.73

In response to this demand for artillery fires, the force expanded in 

1955 from 16 guns to 44.74 To give the additional troops a requisite command structure and support, the 2nd RA and 48th RA joined the order 

of battle.75 In another sign of the increased appreciation for indirect fires 

in counterinsurgency operations, in 1955 the infantry also replaced the 

3-inch mortar with the 4.2-inch mortar at the battalion level.76 This increase of indirect firepower coincides with the steady increase of its utilization, and in a review of operations in 1957 the practices of Flushing, 

Harassing, Deception and Illumination were credited as effective means to 

employ both artillery and mortar fires.77

Two operations illustrate the use of artillery units during the Emergency. An example of the remarkable use of artillery fires is found in 

Operation Nassau, a DWEC-level operation in the Kuala Langat district 

of Selangor. Beginning in 1954, this nine-month operation aimed to support food-denial measures and defeat several MCP branches in the nearby 

jungle. The operation had a contingent of 25-pounders from the 25th RA, 

which initially fired at suspected locations to flush CTs into prepared engagement areas. After the initial phase, the troops switched to continuous 
48

harassment fires, and finished with more than 60,000 rounds fired to compliment an additional 30,000 mortar rounds. In conjunction with effective 

food-denial to the CTs and the use of small patrols, the constant harassment from all available fires support assets was credited with the success 

of the operation. The district was declared a white area on 22 September 

1955.78

Operation APOLLO in 1954 demonstrates a more limited role of artillery fires in a successful operation. The Pahang SWEC decided to launch 

an operation with the intent of supporting food-denial measures, isolating 

CT camps and defeating them sequentially.79 The operational command 

took control of one field troop from the 25th RA and one platoon of Malayan mortars.80 Indirect fires were used to harass CT camps in the jungle 

and deny terrain, but not in any other role that the ATOM describes.81 Although the guns stayed longer than their initial six-week attachment, they 

were not credited as a major factor in the success of food-denial operations 

as they were in Operation Nassau.82

Although the military as a whole sought to Malayanize the security 

operations and create capable Malayan units, the RA did not raise an indigenous force until the last months of the Emergency. The 1st Field Battery, Federation Artillery activated in May 1960 after training by a seconded British officer.83 Although many members of this new battery were 

ex-members of the 1st Singapore RA, the regiment was not used during 

the Emergency.84

The employment of artillery units directly contributed to the military 

and security successes in the Emergency. Whether it was serving in a nonstandard capacity during the early days when every combat arms soldier 

was needed for patrolling, or providing lethal fires for jungle patrols, the 

men of the RA are “justifiably proud of its ability to turn its hand ... to 

unorthodox forms of fighting for which it is not intentionally designed.”85

However, these lessons did not permeate the larger British artillery institution nor did they extend to the American employment of artillery units in 

Vietnam. In the Royal Journal of Artillery, the only article written about 

the RA in Malaya is an account of the 26th RA and their patrols during 

the early emergency. The only other mentions from 1948 to 1960 are a 

one-page article on the activation of the 1st Field Battery, Federation Artillery and a short book review of Richard Miers’ Shoot to Kill.86 Although 

there are plenty of articles on horse racing and ski vacations, there is not a 

single article devoted to firing artillery or the employment of units during 

the Emergency. The lessons of employing distributed artillery troops in 

a counterinsurgency did not permeate the institutional British Army that 

was focused on the conventional Cold War threat at the time, but the lessons were leveraged during operations in Borneo.87 Although the British 

would adapt other aspects of the Malayan Emergency such as population 

resource control to other counterinsurgencies, utilizing artillery would not 
49

be one of them.88

This may be responsible for the inaccurate narratives found in American studies of the Emergency. One analysis conflates the use of artillery 

with a conventional approach by critiquing a commander’s assessment 

that “artillery support proved invaluable for night harassing attacks and 

to sustain pressure over a wide area” after Operation SPRINGTIDE in 

1951.89 This is an unfounded criticism since the evidence of a “conventional approach” lies in the use of a maneuver force in a large-scale sweep 

instead of in a decentralized effort to locate CT camps based on intelligence.90 Another history of the Emergency erroneously asserts that “artillery units spent more time acting as infantrymen than in serving the 

guns.”91 This notion influences further studies on the subject, contrary to 

the aforementioned evidence of the employment of artillery units. There is 

only one monograph from the US Army’s School for Advanced Military 

Studies that analyzes field artillery in counterinsurgency, and it cites this 

as a central piece of evidence that artillery units were under-utilized in the 

Emergency.92 The following section provides an analysis of the employment of artillery units in the Emergency, based on the evidence that they 

were utilized in a pragmatic and decentralized fashion. 

Analysis

During the Emergency, government forces were able to unify their 

effort. Although the structure of the military and government in 1948 did 

not lend itself to coordinated actions, Briggs’ advent of the War Executive 

Committee system achieved such a function. Reflecting on the counterinsurgent apparatus prior to the Briggs Plan, Thompson wrote that “we 

were running into trouble. No High Commissioner could handle the government, the country, deal with the Malay Sultans – and still have time to 

coordinate the various security forces including the police.”93 To capitalize 

on the British experience in other counterinsurgencies and emergencies, 

the military served in aid to the civil power.94 Initially eschewed by military commanders, the legitimacy of the SWECs and DWECs is noted by a 

battalion commander in 1955:

Now warfare by committee is a positive anathema to the 

soldier who has been trained all of his life to make up his own 

mind on the conduct of operations and then carry them out. But 

the ponderous committee system was forced on us by the fact 

that in Malaya the Army was acting merely in support of, and 

not in place of, civil administration.95

As with any major organizational change, the system took some time 

to be accepted by the forces that would carry out the councils’ planned operations. Initial issues included a paucity of qualified civil and police administrators, weak intelligence and low funding.96 Over time, the councils 

proved their worth by remaining action bodies instead of just coordination 
50

centers.97 As a fringe benefit, they also served as an expedient vehicle for 

Malayanization. As the councils replaced British members with Malayans, 

it tied them to the conduct of the campaign and restored accountability to 

Malayans ahead of elections and independence.98

The security forces operated within a framework of legitimacy even 

while prosecuting some very harsh and coercive population control measures. The Handbook to Malaya and the Insurgency provided guidance to 

soldiers that even though detention did not require evidence that would 

stand up in a court of law, they were not operating in a police state but 

in a state of emergency.99 In a larger sense, British forces understood the 

legitimacy of their operations since a premature withdrawal would jeopardize the security of a population that the British were legally responsible 

for.100 Even while instituting tough measures such as a 22-hour curfew 

while halving rations in the village of Tanjong Malim, security forces applied them within the framework of established emergency regulations 

and eventually tied them to security in a given area.101 As the government 

addressed the legitimate grievances of the Chinese minority and an independent government took over in 1957, much of the MCP’s narrative 

lost its appeal.102 This could not have been accomplished with a force that 

operated outside of legitimate mandates.

The government’s forces were also able to effectively isolate the CTs 

of the MRLA from its base of support, the MinYuen. After the ill-framed 

operational approach of large-scale search-and-destroy was abandoned in 

favor of supporting population relocation and security, isolation became 

the cornerstone of security operations. Historian and career civil administrator Robert Komer103 provides six coordinated civil programs which 

he credits with breaking the link between the insurgents and their support 

base:

1. Registration, travel control, curfews, and identification checks.

2. Resettlement of the Chinese squatter population in protected new 

villages.

3. Pervasive food and drug controls to deny CTs access to sustenance.

4. Accelerated social and economic development in the new villages.

5. A steady movement to self-government and independence.

6. Effective information campaigns to inform the population of the 

measures.

The centrally planned program of resettlement embodies these civil 

programs. By 1954, more than 570,000 had been resettled into new villages, and an additional 650,000 laborers of all races would be regrouped into 

1,500 protected mines and plantation estates.104 This process was made 

considerably easier by the fact that the relocated population was almost 

entirely ethnic Chinese, allowing the government to focus on one initially 
51

unpopular segment of the population and their needs.105 Food- and-drug 

control programs took months to have an effect on the CTs which depended on the Min Yuen, but they invariably had an effect over time since the 

CTs could not cultivate rice without observation by air.106 Although this 

program became a well-practiced process by military and civil administrators, initial efforts were disastrous and threatened to condemn the entire 

counterinsurgency effort. The coercive nature of the program had legal 

roots in the Emergency Regulations of 1948 and 1949, but the combination of inadequate provisions and mass punishment in the early iterations 

of relocation showed that “there was a substantial element of repression to 

the strategy as well.”107

These efforts to isolate the insurgents through the severance of their 

support were complimented by an attractive policy towards the targeted 

population. After several initial failures, the government quickly realized 

that the resettled locations must be an attractive option for the Chinese. It 

leveraged civil programs to achieve this. Emergency Regulations did not 

have their intended effects until the population was consolidated with effective local governments.108 These programs proved extremely effective 

as only six of more than 500 new villages were abandoned, mostly due to 

security issues.109 To complement the effective reach of governance, the 

people in the new villages were held accountable for their own security 

via the Home Guard, a local security force raised from reliable citizens in 

the new villages. This force marginally increased security in the new villages, but more importantly the Home Guard served to empower the Chinese minority and further undercut the CT appeal as protectors. Likewise, 

special constables were trained to perform local security in and around the 

regrouped labor centers.110

The security forces were also able to clear areas of MRLA forces 

and eventually maintain them to support governance and development. 

While the military owes this ability to the aforementioned improvements 

in tactical methods, it is also attributable to the abilities of junior commanders fusing intelligence with operations in a decentralized structure.111

The military also learned to leverage the core competencies of different 

organizations, which is evidenced in the success of army units patrolling 

to clear CTs in the jungle while the Home Guard held the new villages.112

Finally, the military developed the ability to conduct operations in the remote aboriginal areas of the deep jungle, taking away their last option for 

refuge.113 Of particular relevance to this study, the military also developed 

a flexible and economical use of artillery fires to support the armed clearing of insurgents.

The Emergency provides a unique opportunity to analyze the employment of artillery units in counterinsurgency because they were generally 

used in a maneuver security role prior to 1951, and generally used in an 

indirect-fires role from then until the end of the Emergency. The require-
52

ment for tactical fires and the organization of the counterinsurgency force 

were the two factors that had the most influence. The limitations of the 

physical environment were a lesser influence, and the cost of converting 

units themselves has little impact on their employment.

The requirement for tactical fires had a great influence on the employment of artillery units. Without an enemy that massed in sufficient 

strength, there was a low demand from the maneuver forces for firepower.114 The dispersion of MRLA forces is well documented by practitioners 

during the Emergency. Thompson also contends that the true nature of 

targets in the Emergency were not always an element that lethal fires could 

interdict, since “[i]t’s all very well having bombers, masses of helicopters, 

tremendous firepower, but none of these will eliminate a Communist cell 

in a High School which is producing 50 recruits a year for the insurgent 

movement.”115 In most accounts of those who actively patrolled for CTs in 

the jungle, they rarely massed in groups of 20 men or larger.116 Even small 

patrols could overmatch these dispersed CT elements, especially since the 

MRLA generally lacked any firepower larger than a rifle.117 The resulting 

low demand allowed artillery units to operate in smaller de-centralized 

units, in accordance with the priority of fires. 

In addition to the smaller scale and dispersed nature of contact in the 

jungle, it was also infrequent. An operational evaluation assessed that it 

took 1,800 man-hours on patrol to gain contact with a CT element.118 The 

MRLA also attacked soft targets such as British planters where there was 

little state security presence and no tactical communications link to coordinate artillery support.119 This contributed to the inability to conduct 

deliberate targeting, and often the default for fires was a harassing role. 

Although it was effective in many cases, it strengthened the force that 

drove artillery units to operate in smaller echelons since there was no need 

for massed preparatory fires. Examples include:

1. SWEC-level Operation GINGER in 1957; there were 172 known 

CTs in the operational area but not a single known location.120

2. SWEC-level Operation APOLLO in 1954; there were 68 known 

CTs but only vague descriptions of their general area.121

3. SWEC-level Operation SWORD in 1953; there were no deliberate 

targets in an operational area for three battalions; units failed to gain and 

maintain contact for on-call fires even though 25-pounder and 5.5-inch 

guns were attached.122

4. In a DWEC-level operation described by Richard Miers in Shoot 

to Kill, his battalion could only use artillery to “discourage the CT from 

breaking out” since they had no deliberate targets.123

The other factor that significantly influenced the role of artillery units 

was the overall composition and strength of the military during the Emer-
53

gency. During the early years, the military forces could only field ten battalions, which put approximately 4,000 men in the field after adjusting 

for staff and support units. This was definitely an understrength endeavor, 

since estimates are that the MCP could field 4,000 CTs itself. Although 

the military would deploy more units to raise its strength to more than 

8,000 men in the field by 1951, the MRLA had a corresponding increase 

and could also field roughly 8,000 CTs.124 In this environment, it is easy 

to understand why the 26th RA and other gunners were pressed into service to act as infantrymen. With the decline of the operational approach 

of search-and-destroy attrition warfare, the requirement for provisional infantrymen decreased and the gunners could once again support operations 

with indirect firepower.

Other sources of indirect firepower were not sufficient to make artillery units available for service in a nonstandard role. Although the 4.2-

inch mortar was an improvement, it did not provide enough firepower or 

range for a commander’s needs during many patrols.125 Most commanders 

contended that aerial firepower was ineffective in the jungle environment, 

but one unit proved that this was due to inaccurate target location and 

the abandonment of camps. In his anecdote of an operation he called the 

“Yellow Pin,” Richard Meirs’ unit used Special Branch assets to verify the 

occupation of a camp, and employed close air support to kill 13 CT’s in 

one strike.126 However, after 1951 there was a pervasive notion in Malaya 

that in general, artillery was a superior alternative to aerial firepower.127

This is also reflected in the fact that the CTs felt that they could dig a hasty 

foxhole and survive almost all attacks from the air.128

The constraints and limitations on artillery fires during the Emergency 

were a significant factor in the employment of artillery units. There were 

not many organizational constraints on the use of fires, and the rules of 

engagements were extremely permissive. Founded in the legitimate emergency regulations, units could use a shoot-on-sight policy in the declared 

black areas. However, unit commanders themselves had to weigh the use 

of artillery fires and its effect on the attitude and mentality of the local population.129 Collateral damage was not a significant concern since a majority 

of the fighting was in unpopulated areas. To mitigate against collateral 

damage at the edge of the jungle, the ATOM recommended using patrols 

to deny terrain within the first kilometer of the jungle fringe.130

The limitations caused by the terrain in Malaya had a far greater effect. Although the mountainous nature of the interior played a minor role 

by adding a degree of difficulty to indirect fires, the primary factor was the 

jungle. The Malayan jungle had two varieties, the ulu (primary jungle) and 

the belukar (secondary jungle, the result of prior logging). Movement in 

the ulu is comparatively easy, but visibility is only 20 to 30 yards. Due to 

the mass of undergrowth, movement in the belukar is extremely difficult 

and there is effectively no visibility.131 The effect of patrolling in the jungle 
54

was that enemy contact was generally a short burst of small arms fire, followed by pursuit in a single file. In this scenario, there was neither time 

nor continuous observation to call for artillery fire.132

The jungle had more effects than just the conduct of small patrols. 

Since it was a foreboding and remote area, there was little survey and 

maps were generally based on terrain features. This was adequate for the 

infantry’s navigational purposes, but proper artillery survey was not leveraged until the Emergency was well underway. Discussions on survey were 

non-existent until the ATOM was published.133 Due to the limited accuracy 

of maps, the ATOM limited predicted fires to within 500 yards of troops 

for 25-pounder guns and 1,000 yards for 5.5-inch guns.134 Through experience, commanders would later be comfortable with observed fires as close 

as 200 yards while in the jungle.135

Due to limited visibility, the observation of fires was a severe challenge 

to effectively integrate artillery with maneuver.136 The use of aerial observers was widespread for priority operations137 and included in the ATOM as 

a best practice.138 The military tried a variety of innovative approaches that 

included the testing of remote infrared sensors, but they proved ineffective.139 The effect of the jungle was a limitation in the reactive quality of 

artillery fire support, and thus decreased the overall requirements for large 

artillery units to standby for massed fires. This made the use of smaller 

detached troops a more attractive option, since they could be dispersed to 

a wider area with less overall resource requirements.

The cost of converting artillery units had a negligible effect on their 

employment, since they did not change roles back and forth between indirect fires and nonstandard missions after the overall shift in 1951. As 

soldiers in a combat arm, the gunners of 26th RA had ample training in 

tactical mounted movement and were able to embrace the transition to patrolling in armored cars prior to 1948.140 Their main challenge was to train 

their cooks, mechanics and administrative personnel as infantrymen. As 

with other artillery units, they were comparatively smaller and needed every man available as a quick-reaction force.141 Throughout the later years 

of the Emergency, gunners needed little retraining on core competencies 

since they were generally firing artillery.142 The 25th RA advocated a periodic retraining and certification period of 10 to 14 days for each six weeks 

a troop spent supporting priority operations.143 This was a reflection of 

the British Army’s commitment to both initial and periodic retraining in 

Malaya.144

Conclusion

The Malayan Emergency showed the effectiveness of an approach to 

isolate insurgents from their base of support and integrate the disaffected 

population into society. The British and Malayan counterinsurgency effort was able to skillfully co-opt certain parts of the insurgent appeal and 
55

defeat the rest through an application of both attractive and coercive measures. Although the Malayan Emergency was not an archetype of flawless 

counterinsurgency practice, it does provide an illustration of what is possible through steady adaptation and enduring social and political solutions.

This led to the employment of artillery units in a manner which supported an eventually sound strategy, instead of providing fires as a means 

unto itself or additional troops for an ill-suited approach. The next chapter 

will examine their employment in a role that focused almost exclusively 

on attritting enemy formations through indirect firepower as an extension 

of a different strategic concept. Although the terrain, population, and insurgent organization in Vietnam would be immediately recognizable to a 

veteran of the Malayan Emergency, the scope and use of artillery would 

not. 
56

Notes

1. In this chapter’s epigraph, Templer is indirectly quoted in Robert 

Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect: Organization of a Successful 

Counterinsurgency Effort (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1972), 54. Although the 

term “hearts and minds” arguably appears as early as the Sandeman enterprises 

in modern-day Afghanistan, the term entered the public lexicon during the 

Malayan Emergency. For further research into the Malayan Emergency, some 

of the most helpful resources are as follows: for an in-depth background on 

the social and political components of the MCP’s insurgency, see Lucian Pye’s 

Guerrilla Communism in Malaya; for an overview of the counterinsurgency 

effort, refer to Richard Stubbs’ “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds: 

The Evolution of British Strategy in Malaya 1948-60” in Counterinsurgency 

in Modern Warfare and The War of the Running Dogs: How Malaya Defeated 

the Communist Guerrillas 1948-1960 by Noel Barber; for studies into the 

British military’s efforts to adapt during the Emergency, see Daniel Marston’s 

“Lost and Found in the Jungle” in Hew Strachan’s Big Wars and Small 

Wars; Raffi Gregorian’s 1994 article “Jungle Bashing in Malaya” in Small 

Wars and Insurgencies; and John Nagl’s Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: 

Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam; outstanding personal 

accounts by tactical leaders in the counterinsurgency include Frank Kitson’s 

Bunch of Five and Richard Miers’ Shoot to Kill; and finally Riley Sunderland’s 

series of RAND reports and Robert Komer’s The Malayan Emergency in 

Retrospect: Organization of a Successful Counterinsurgency Effort provide the 

first sets of analysis for the conflict.

2. For detailed description of the terrain and its effect on military 

operations, see Raffi Gregorian, “Jungle Bashing in Malaya,” Small Wars and 

Insurgencies 5, No. 3 (Winter 1994): 344-346. As described by an artilleryman 

with first-hand experience, see T. W. Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” in The 

Royal Journal of Artillery 77, no. 3 (July 1950): 257.

3. Different sources cite different percentages of the Malayan population 

along ethnic lines. These figures are drawn from Richard Stubbs, “From Search 

and Destroy to Hearts and Minds: The Evolution of British Strategy in Malaya 

1948-60” in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, ed. Daniel Marston and 

Carter Malkasian (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 102-103, 106.

4. Malaya I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 4 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

5. Malaya I Panel Discussion.

6. James Corum, “Training Indigenous Forces in Counterinsurgency: 

A Tale of Two Insurgencies,” Strategic Studies Institute, www.

strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/ pubs/display.cfm (accessed 28 March 2011), 

20.

7. Lucian W. Pye, Guerrilla Communism in Malaya (Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 1956), 168. Additionally, Kitson describes these 

efforts as “fraudulent” to the legitimate Chinese population. Frank Kitson, 

Bunch of Five (London: Faber and Faber, 1977), 73.
57

8. Pye, Guerrilla Communism in Malaya, 87-91.

9. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 101.

10. Kitson, Bunch of Five, (London: Faber and Faber, 1977), 73.

11. John Coates, Suppressing Insurgency (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 

1992), 80.

12. Richard Miers, Shoot to Kill (London: Faber and Faber, 1959), 164. 

Throughout his first-hand account as a battalion commander, Miers describes 

several attacks on British rubber planters and other isolated vestiges of the 

pseudo-colonial structure in Malaya.

13. Raffi Gregorian, “Jungle Bashing in Malaya,” Small Wars and 

Insurgencies 5, No. 3 (Winter 1994), 344.

14. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 101-102.

15. Federation of Malaya, Handbook to Malaya and the Insurgency 

(Singapore: Regional Information Office for the United Kingdom in South East 

Asia, 1953), 19. The British government used the term “emergency” instead of 

“war” only to ensure that it did not cause a contractual increase on insurance 

premiums for Malayan enterprises back on the London insurance markets. 

Refer to the author’s notes in Noel Barber, The War of the Running Dogs: How 

Malaya Defeated the Communist Guerrillas 1948-1960 (London: Cassell, 1971), 

114.

16. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 103-106.

17. For example, a battery commander from the 26th Royal Artillery 

Regiment (which was acting as a mounted security force) recounted that 

“Come what may, this ‘hard core’ will never accept terms, and until it has been 

eradicated by process of attrition the present troubles will continue.” Refer to 

Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 257.

18. Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 104.

19. Daniel Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” in Big Wars and Small 

Wars, ed. Hew Strachan (London: Routledge, 2006), 97-98.

20. Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 98-99.

21. Barber, The War of the Running Dogs, 113.

22. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 80-81.

23. Barber, The War of the Running Dogs, 114.

24. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 81. Additionally, Briggs had 

experience in World War I in France, as well as Mesopotamia, Palestine, and 

India which endowed him with an appreciation for both conventional warfare 

and operations in aid to the civil power.

25. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 107. The list 

is paraphrased from Stubbs’ description of the Briggs Plan.

26. Malaya I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 4 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 
58

27. Robert Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect: Organization of 

a Successful Counterinsurgency Effort (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1972), 27.

28. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 28-29. 

29. For a Brigade commander’s account of SWECs in action (which could 

be facetiously referred to as a “a SWEC’s inaction”), see M.C.A. Henniker, Red 

Shadow Over Malaya (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1955), 61-70. 

30. Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 101.

31. Marston, , “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 101

32. Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 102.

33. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 108.

34. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 108-109.

35. Leon Comber, Malaya’s Secret Police 1945-1960: The Role of the 

Special Branch in the Malayan Emergency (Melbourne, AU: Monash University 

Press, 2009), 178.

36. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 109-110.

37. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 109. Earlier 

in the Emergency, government forces were having issues in just meeting the 

payroll demands.

38. Malaya I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 4 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

39. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 94. One consideration for this abortive 

attempt in 1951 is the proximity of Johore to a large ethnic Chinese community 

across the border in Singapore.

40. Comber, Malaya’s Secret Police 1945-1960, 174. Templer is quoted in 

a letter dated 1977. See Comber’s endnote No. 9 for the complete context of the 

note. 

41. Malaya II Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 7 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

For an additional discussion on the synergy of political, military and information 

operations, see Riley Sunderland, Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People: 

Malaya 1948-1960 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1964). 

42. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 115-118.

43. Comber, Malaya’s Secret Police 1945-1960, 181 and 183. In 

most security forces with a British heritage, the Special Branch is a police 

organization tasked with the collection of intelligence against banned political 

parties or other organizations that pose a subversive or terrorist threat to the 

government. While many may try to compare them to the American FBI or 

Secret Service, there is no direct counterpart in American law enforcement. 

44. Templer brought Colonel Arthur Young to oversee this overhaul of 

the police forces. Young aimed to turn the police from a force to a service by 

restoring discipline, and enhanced the Special Branch’s status by separating it 

from the other police functions. Under the direction of Guy Madoc, the Special 
59

Branch would begin to mature into one of the government’s most reliable 

intelligence sources. Templer also directed the close coordination between the 

special branches of Malaya and Singapore, which also supported his priority of 

coordinating intelligence. The success of these efforts was evident by 1955 when 

the Special Branch Training School was widely regarded as the best of its kind 

in Southeast Asia. Comber, 173-217. 

45. Martson, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 103.

46. AA1009, Retired General Officer, Interview by Ken Gleiman, Brian 

McCarthy, Travis Molloere, and Carrie Przelski, United Kingdom, 4 October 

2010.

47. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 48.

48. Martson, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 102.

49. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 93.

50. BI070, Retired General Officer, Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben 

Boardman, Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, United Kingdom, 30 March 2011.

51. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 114.

52. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 32.

53. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 66.

54. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 114-115.

55. BI070, Retired General Officer.

56. BI070, Retired General Officer.

57. Malaya II Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 7 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

58. Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 106.

59. Riley Sunderland, Organizing Counterinsurgency in Malaya, 1947-

1960 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1964), 17.

60. The Virgin Soldiers, “British and Commonwealth Units That Served 

in the Malayan Emergency,” www.britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html 

(accessed 6 June 2011). The veterans’ descriptions of the order of battle 

corroborates the order of battle cited later in E.D. Smith’s work.

61. Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 258.

62. Riley Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960 (Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, 1964), 243.

63. The colloquial term for a British artillery soldier is gunner, analogous 

to the American use of artilleryman. Therefore, both terms will be used in this 

study accordingly, based on nationality.

64. J. M. Forster, A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and 

Malaya (Operational Research Unit Far East, 1957), 64.

65. E. D. Smith, Counter-Insurgency Operations 1: Malaya and Borneo
60

(London: Ian Allan, 1985), 12.

66. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 235-236.

67. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 237.

68. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 238.

69. FARELF Training Center, The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations 

in Malaya (St. Petersburg, FL: Hailer), Chapter 18, Section 5. The final version 

of the ATOM was published in Malaya in 1958. It was recently re-printed in the 

original form by Hailer Publishing.

70. FARELF Training Center, The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in 

Malaya, Chapter 18, Section 3. 

71. FARELF Training Center, The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in 

Malaya, Chapter 18, Section 7.

72. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 241.

73. James Daniel Lamb, “25th Field Regiment in Malaya,” www.britainssmallwars.com/malaya/malaya-25field%20reg/25_fieldregt.html (accessed 6 

June 2011). The war diary of Gunner James Daniel Lamb, F Troop, 93d Field 

Battery, 25 RA. This account was posted online at a veteran’s memorial website, 

and it also contains over 100 of his photos showing the daily operations of a 

decentralized troop in the Emergency.

74. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 238.

75. Smith, Counter-Insurgency Operations 1, 107.

76. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 238.

77. Forster, A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and 

Malaya, 65.

78. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 152-155.

79. The State Secretariat of Pahang, Pahang SWEC Operation No. 2: 

Operation Apollo (1954), 1-2. 

80. District Office of Kuala Lipis, Lipis DWEC Operation No. 2: Operation 

Apollo (1954), 2.

81. District Office of Kuala Lipis, Final Operation Report.

82. District Office of Kuala Lipis, Annex A.

83. G. C. K. Rowe, “Presentation of a Silver Centre-piece to the Federation 

Artillery,” The Royal Journal of Artillery 87, no. 3 (Summer 1960): 128-129. 

84. Rowe, “Presentation of a Silver Centre-piece to the Federation 

Artillery,” 129; Smith, Counter-Insurgency Operations 1, 107.

85. Daniel “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 257.

86. The author searched every issue of The Royal Journal of Artillery

from 1948 to 1970, available in bound copies at the US Army Combined 

Arms Research Library. The only articles directly related to the Malaya were 

the aforementioned “Man Hunting in Malaya,” book reviews of Shoot to Kill 
61

and The Long Long War; and “Presentation of a Silver Centre-piece to the 

Federation Artillery,” a one-page article detailing the activation ceremony for the 

Federation RA.

87. Smith, Counter-Insurgency Operations 1, 68-69; J. P. Ferry, “Full 

Employment,” Royal Journal of Artillery 92, No. 1. (March 1965): 21-29; R. G. 

S. Bidwell, “Gunner Tasks in Southeast Asia,” Royal Journal of Artillery 91, No. 

2 (September 1964): 85-96; C. Beeton, “Locating in Borneo,” Royal Journal of 

Artillery 96, no. 1 (March 1969): 14-18.

88. Karl Hack, “The Malayan Emergency as Counter-insurgency 

Paradigm,” Journal of Strategic Studies 32, No. 3 (2009): 22. Hack lists several 

of these aspects and traces their adaptation in other counterinsurgencies within 

his conclusion.

89. John A. Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency 

Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

2002), 73.

90. Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife, 73.

91. Larry E. Cable, Conflict of Myths: The Development of American 

Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War (New York: New York 

University Press, 1986), 90. Cable does not provide a citation for this assertion.

92. Edward E. Hoffer, “Field Artillery Fire Support for Counterinsurgency 

Operations: Combat Power or Counterproductive?” (Monograph, School for 

Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1987), 16-17. This study 

also reflects the erroneous notion that Templer’s hearts-and-minds approach 

obviated the need for firepower.

93. Barber, The War of the Running Dogs, 111.

94. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 26.

95. Miers, Shoot to Kill, 39.

96. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 26. As noted above, the 

issues with low funding were eventually overcome by the boost of Malaya’s tin 

and rubber economy during the Korean War.

97. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 27.

98. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 32.

99. Federation of Malaya, 20.

100. Federation of Malaya, 50.

101. Wade Markel, “Draining the Swamp: The British Strategy of 

Population Control,” Parameters (Spring 2006): 39-40.

102. Stubbs, “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds,” 114-115.

103. After studying the Malayan Emergency for RAND, Komer would go 

on to head the United States’ CORDS program in Vietnam. Both he and the 

program are discussed at length in Chapter Four.

104. Figures for resettlement are drawn from Stubbs, 107. Figures for 

regrouping are drawn from Coates, 91.
62

105. Markel, “Draining the Swamp,” 36.

106. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 58, 60. Due to the 

Malayan climate, rice generally spoiled after 24 hours. For an account of 

the effect of hunger motivating CTs to surrender and their efforts at illegal 

cultivation, read Richard Miers’ and Frank Kitson’s accounts with SEPs in Shoot 

to Kill and Bunch of Five respectively.

107. Markel, “Draining the Swamp,” 38-39.

108. Richard L. Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War (New York: Praeger, 

1966), 40-41.

109. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 89.

110. Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 40.

111. For an illustration of this, refer to Kitson’s account in Bunch of Five, 

80-112.

112. Malaya I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 4 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

113.BI070, Retired General Officer.

114.Komer, The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect, 52.

115.Smith Counter-Insurgency Operations 1, 17-18. 

116. Miers, Shoot to Kill, 77. This is corroborated by Kitson’s accounts in 

Bunch of Five and the enemy analysis in the operations orders for Operation 

Nassau and Operation Apollo.

117. Gregorian, “Jungle Bashing in Malaya,” 344.

118. Miers, Shoot to Kill, 150.

119.Barber, The War of the Running Dogs, 149. War of the Running Dogs

provides a narrative one rubber plantation that withstood 25 attacks occurring 

over a two-week span in summer of 1951. The plantation only had two veterans 

from Palestine assigned to defend it.

120. The State Secretariat of Central Perak, Central Perak SWEC Operation 

Order No. 1-57: Operation “Ginger” (1957), Annex A.

121. The State Secretariat of Pahang, 4-6.

122. D. J. Wilford, Some Aspects of Anti-Terrorist Operations: Malaya (Fort 

Bragg, NC: 7th Special Forces Group, 1963), 6. 

123. Miers, Shoot to Kill, 149.

124. Clutterbuck, The Long, Long War, 42-44.

125. Refer to Wilford’s Some Aspects of Anti-Terrorist Operations: Malaya

for some anecdotes of mortar use during ambushes late in the Emergency 

(1958), 16 and 18. 

126. Miers, Shoot to Kill, 56-72. His chapter “Yellow Pin” describes this 

operation in detail, the name referring to the colored map pin which marked the 

target on his command post’s mapboard while they planned this mission. 
63

127. ATOM, Chapter 18, Section 3. 

128. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 231-232.

129. Forster, A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and 

Malaya, 75.

130. ATOM, Chapter 18, Section 4. 

131. Gregorian, “Jungle Bashing in Malaya,” 344-346.

132. Gregorian, “Jungle Bashing in Malaya,” 346.

133. ATOM, Chapter 18, Section 6.

134. ATOM, Chapter 18, Section 4.

135. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 238.

136. Forster, A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and 

Malaya, 64.

137. Forster, A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and 

Malaya, 71.

138. ATOM, Chapter 18, Section 4.

139. Coates, Suppressing Insurgency, 167.

140. Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 260.

141. Daniel, “Man Hunting in Malaya,” 259.

142. Gunner James Lamb’s war diary indicates that they were, on occasion, 

used in support of food-denial operations due to the intense manpower those 

efforts required.

143. Sunderland, Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960, 239.

144. Marston, “Lost and Found in the Jungle,” 102.

65

Chapter 4

The American Experience in Vietnam

In South Viet-Nam, the West is still battling an ideology 

with technology, and the successful end of that Revolutionary 

War is neither near nor is its outcome certain.

— Bernard Fall, Street Without Joy

The end of the fight is a tombstone white

With the name of the late deceased,

And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here

Who tried to hustle the East.”

— Rudyard Kipling, The Naulahka

In Vietnam, American artillery units fired an incredible amount of munitions from a network of distributed base areas, which became an important aspect of the war itself.1

 This method of employment did not directly 

counter the insurgency via pacification or development because artillery 

units strictly focused on the delivery of indirect fires. This was mainly due 

to search-and-destroy operations’ requirements for tactical fires, and the 

organization of the counterinsurgency force. The American experience in 

Vietnam illustrates that even the most capable and adaptive massed fires to 

defeat enemy main force elements do not address the drivers of instability 

in an insurgency if they are part of an ill-suited operational approach in a 

complex environment.

The Vietnam War and the Malayan Emergency share several superficial similarities and provide a seemingly convenient vehicle for comparisons.2

 Both wars are comparable in terms of terrain, the Maoist origin of 

insurgent methods, grievances arising from a breakdown in local governance, and an intervening force that could not impose direct reforms on 

the host nation. However, these similarities are outweighed by many glaring contrasts. In Malaya, the insurgency was a subset of a distinct ethnic 

minority, but in Vietnam there was no major fault along ethnic lines.3

 The 

MRLA remained scattered and isolated in the jungles, while in Vietnam, 

the enemy periodically massed in large mobile formations yet maintained 

a complimentary capability of discrete subversion at the village level. In 

Malaya the MCP had virtually no external aid or safe havens, but in Vietnam these factors practically defined the strategic context. Finally, Malaya 

was a sideshow to the Korean War, while Vietnam was a worldwide media 

focus.4

 Any comparison between the two wars must account for these nuanced differences.

A major difficulty in analyzing Vietnam through the lens of counterinsurgency is that the war itself was a hybrid of several forms of warfare. 

The American experience in Vietnam was neither a counterinsurgency nor 

a conventional war. It was an amalgam, with elements of both at various 
66

times and places. This hybrid nature is precisely why it was such a difficult 

conflict to understand contemporaneously, and such a difficult environment in which to develop a well-framed operational approach.5

In addition to this hybrid nature, the war also had several layers. There 

was a layer of conflict along the lines of a competition in governments, 

with an unstable central democracy contending with a Marxist-Leninist 

rural model. There was a layer of conflict across social strata, with an 

emerging urban middle class challenging a traditional agrarian majority. 

There were even traces of religious conflict, as the Catholic minority gravitated toward the forces of the government.6

Furthermore, this conflict blurred the lines between strategy and tactics. Emerging technology and elements of media, mobility, and firepower 

challenged the existing categories of warfare. One Vietnamese General’s 

analysis is that the Americans and their South Vietnamese partners had 

sound tactics but employed the wrong strategy, while the North Vietnamese had the wrong tactics but employed a sound strategy.7

 Tactics and strategy both had an important influence on the US military’s employment of 

artillery units in this war.

Background

As with the Malayan Emergency, the terrain and geography had a major impact on operations. The Republic of South Vietnam (abbreviated 

SVN)8

 was 67,000 square miles of varied terrain, roughly the size of Florida. This included a 1,500-mile coastline on the south and east, and a 950-

mile border with Laos and Cambodia to the west. The distance between 

the border and the sea varies between roughly 30 and 100 miles. The terrain along the coastline is generally open and flat, with much of the border 

regions containing central highlands with rugged jungle peaks of 3,000 to 

8,000 feet of elevation.9

 These central highlands were sparsely populated, 

with a majority of the rural population density spread across the fertile 

Mekong River Delta region of the south. Coastal urban centers dominated 

the central and northern regions of the country.10

Demographics reveal some of the divisions within the country at the 

outset of conflict. Of an estimated population of 15 million, a 1960 census 

showed tribal minorities in the central highlands totaling 1 million. Of 

the remaining population, there was only a 15 percent ethnic minority of 

Khmer (Cambodian) and Chinese.11 Religiously, there were roughly 12 

million self-identified Buddhists and 2 million Catholics, with small minority communities of Cao Dai and Hoa Hao practitioners in the remote 

regions of the delta.12

Historically, Vietnam had French colonial administration and rule 

since the 19th century. What distinguished Vietnam from most other European dominions across the globe was that the Vietnamese were expanding 

from their northern base in a southward colonial fashion of their own at 
67

the same time European powers began competing in southeast Asia.13 This 

provided for a somewhat antiquated but ingrained view among the Vietnamese that there was a significant difference between the northern and 

southern regions in Vietnam. Nominal French rule continued through the 

first stage of World War II, since Japan allowed the sustained administration of Vietnam by a government loyal to the Vichy French. This uneasy 

setup lasted until metropolitan France was liberated by Allied forces, and 

the French government in Indochina received direct support from American OSS and British Force 136 teams.14

Japan acted swiftly and destroyed the French presence in Vietnam 

through overt force in 1944. America refused to send combat air support 

in Vietnam, even as British allies made a supreme effort to support the 

French from airbases from the west. The Japanese won a swift victory. 

They garrisoned Vietnam with more than 50,000 troops, and simultaneously informed the Vietnamese Emperor Bao Dai that his country was 

independent on 10 May, 1945.15 The Viet Minh began as a resistance force 

to the Japanese occupation, supported by both Chinese forces and the remaining American OSS teams.16 While the Viet Minh did not succeed in 

ejecting the Japanese from Vietnam, they did gain considerable structure, 

experience and popular support. After Japan surrendered to Allied forces 

in 1945, chaos ensued in Vietnam as the Viet Minh, Chinese forces, British 

forces, American advisers, and French POWs all sought to establish varying degrees of control and governance.17 Bernard Fall offers a description 

of the emerging dynamic in Vietnam as the French re-established colonial 

administration:

Viet-Nam, as a unified independent state had again disappeared. . . . So again Viet-Nam was divided into two distinct 

states, but from 1946 until 1954 this was to be a new, strange 

urban-rural division rather than a north-south division, with 

the Viet-Minh holding much of the countryside including the 

hill-tribe areas, while the French and later the non-Communist 

Vietnamese administration were to hold the lowlands, and especially the cities.18

In 1953, after nearly a decade of counterinsurgency, French airborne 

units established a lodgment and airfield near Dien Bien Phu in order to establish an operational reach into Laos and interdict key Viet Minh routes. 

General Vo Nguyen Giap responded by moving an army of more than 

50,000 to encircle this position, and leveraged a supreme effort by the 

population to sustain the siege on Dien Bien Phu.19 As it became clear 

that the Viet Minh would prevail unless there was an outside intervention, 

President Eisenhower and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) considered options including air support, a coalition of ground forces and even tactical 

nuclear weapons. In the end, no American military support was offered to 

the beleaguered French defenders.20 In the face of constant artillery bom-
68

bardment and ground attacks, the defenses at Dien Bien Phu fell in May 

of 1954. French officers and historians correctly view this as a defeat, not 

a surrender.21

As a result of the tactical and operational defeat at Dien Bien Phu, the 

French could not continue operations without a significant broadening of 

the strategic framework in Indochina. As of 1954, the United States began to send all military assistance and support directly to the provisional 

governments in Indochina rather than through the remaining French apparatus. To this end, it established a Military Assistance Advisory Group 

(MAAG) on the Korean War model of rolling out conventional divisions 

in “an assembly-line fashion.”22 Communist subversion continued in the 

south, and by late 1957 it had evolved into outright terrorist attacks on 

the village mayors and administrators who formed the backbone of rural 

governance in Indochina. This number steadily increased to the point of 

more than 4,000 assassinations and killings in 1960 alone.23 On 21 October 1960 the war took on a new character, as more than 1,000 Communist troops infiltrated into Kontum and crushed the ill-equipped positional 

army garrisons.24 In response to this, the JCS activated an expanded advisory mission, the Military Assistance Command–Vietnam (MACV). In 

1962, MACV superseded the MAAG to coordinate all security activities 

within SVN.25

The Insurgency

As with any counterinsurgency effort, the insurgent facet of this hybrid 

war exploited some very authentic grievances among a disaffected population in South Vietnam. In a study of the Long An province, historian and 

political scientist Jeffrey Race illustrates that the Communists recognized 

the need to redistribute wealth and income via land reform. Accordingly, 

their land tax was effectively less than the combination of the government’s land tax and additional rents. The Communists also understood the 

need to redistribute power and wealth because preferred jobs required the 

equivalent of a college degree and therefore precluded the rural lower and 

middle classes. Communist-structured jobs at the village and district-level 

provided the poor with upward mobility and increased status, albeit with 

a single avenue for advancement.26 With this focus, early subversion deliberately ignored the smaller urban population, choosing to focus on the 

vulnerable rural population of more than 10 million. They reinforced this 

with a claim that President Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime of urban elites had 

taken over two-thirds of the agricultural land in South Vietnam, further 

deepening an existing wedge between the urban and rural populations.27

These insurgent methods exposed a critical vulnerability of the GVN. 

During the years of French colonial administration, ethnic French citizens 

took not only the middle class but also the lower class government jobs. 

This left an inordinate gap of bureaucrats in Diem’s emerging government of Vietnam (GVN).28 Diem struggled to find an appropriate political 
69

theme, shown by his statement in 1956 that “democracy is neither material 

happiness nor the supremacy of numbers . . . [but] is essentially a permanent effort to find the right political means of assuring all citizens the right 

of free development.”29

In his 1972 debrief, Major General John H. Cushman illustrated the 

difficulty of the American military to understand the Communists’ organization and methods, lamenting that “after all this time, [the enemy] is 

still far from understood and capable of surprise.”30 One of their main advantages was a pragmatic organization which capitalized on the benefits 

of seeing the revolutionary movement in terms of a social process instead 

of a military process.31 Communists sought to achieve concepts such as 

the balance of force, security, and victory, but these were seen through the 

lens of social power ratios instead of military power ratios.32 This reflects 

the fact that in Giap’s model of warfare, propaganda was almost more important than military strength, although the two should be inseparable in 

accordance with the application of Lenin’s theories of revolution.33 They 

were also decentralized instead of district-minded, which allowed them to 

raise more forces through attractive policies at the local level and establish critical links between the people and the Party.34 In this manner the 

Communists were assimilated forces, which ensured that they were local 

and representative, performed functions directly useful to the local community, and were both incentivized and resourced by the local community. 

As a result, they did not need to protect lines of communication or critical 

infrastructure.35

Communist methods complemented their organizational structure, and 

were also adaptive to the requirements of local subversion. An analysis of 

these methods and tactics yields critical insight to the utility in creating a 

hybrid war of both regular and irregular components. Their techniques and 

practices were potent. After decades of mixing conventional arms with 

insurgency, Giap referred to it as a weapon in and of itself: 

Our weapon is the invincible people’s war, and we have 

gained experience in conducting it. That is to say that if there 

is a greater invention than atomic weapons, that is, the people’s 

war, then the Vietnamese people have effectively contributed 

to the perfecting of this new arm and keeping it firmly in their 

hands.36

This reflects the fact that Giap’s aim was to keep US and GVN forces 

focused on large-scale operations to address the conventional threat and 

keep them away from successfully pacifying the coastal areas which the 

Communists prized most.37

In this manner, the dual means of conventional war and insurgency 

exhibited a symbiotic relationship. Conventional means gave insurgent 

means ample breathing room, while insurgent means gave conventional 
70

means ample support. Through 1966, the Communists’ insurgent military 

force, the Viet Cong (VC), required only 12 tons of supply per day from 

the north via the infiltration networks in Laos and Cambodia.38 Besides the 

most technical weapons and highly-trained specialists, all other requirements were self-sustaining, a phenomena that was exposed as early as 

1964 but discounted by MACV.39 To coordinate efforts across all fronts, 

North Vietnam established the Central Office for South Viet Nam (COSVN) which harmonized operations for subversion, terrorism, and open 

military operations within SVN.40

Of special interest to this study, the VC and the North Vietnamese 

Army (NVA) relied primarily on mortars and rockets as their artillery 

arms. Larger artillery pieces were not regularly moved into South Vietnam 

until conventional incursions later in the conflict because of challenges 

with mobility and logistics over infiltration routes. After the exclusive 

use of mortars until early 1967, the VC adopted the rocket as the weapon 

of choice after a successful attack on the American air base at Da Nang. 

Within six months the 122mm rocket system was the “prime weapon” for 

indirect fires.41 The American military and the Army of the Republic of 

Vietnam (ARVN) fought these weapon systems with aggressive patrolling, force protection, and counterfire measures. A comprehensive guide 

to VC and NVA artillery equipment and techniques was not promulgated 

until 1970.42

The Counterinsurgency Effort

Although GVN officials sensed an external attempt to overthrow the 

system of governance, they did not sense the attempt to overthrow the 

social system itself.43 The GVN did not have the resources to militarily secure rural areas, and soon they realized that they were past a critical point 

at which the government could not provide enough security to the local 

populace.44 MACV saw these early efforts in terms of a military enterprise 

as well, which is somewhat reasonable given that they were a military 

organization tasked with supporting a government that saw the issue as a 

security problem. However, this viewpoint extended to American political 

leaders and national strategists who eventually adopted a similar militarycentric outlook on objectives in Vietnam.45

The first attempt to address security and pacification in rural areas 

took the form of the Strategic Hamlet program. This effort to extend governance to the countryside and provide a local counter-organization to the 

VC had theoretical roots in the Malayan Emergency, and the British imprint on this program is evident in the way it was carefully planned to be 

gradually executed.46 Unfortunately, the execution and scope of the Strategic Hamlet program left much to be desired, as it did not garner early 

support from MACV, did not incorporate enough local security, and began hastily in the richer delta region due to political connections with the 

Diem regime.47 MACV’s advisers viewed this as an attempt by the GVN 
71

to extend governance into the countryside, while the VC viewed this as an 

opportunity to insert their “sleeper cells” into the villages themselves.48 In 

any case, the eventual collapse of the Diem regime effectively terminated 

the program.49

The Strategic Hamlet program failed to achieve any cohesive strategic

effect, and by 1963 there were an estimated 23 VC battalions operating 

in the Mekong Delta, the very region where the program was initiated.50

In the face of these challenges, the American military sought to disrupt 

VC infiltration routes into South Vietnam rather than address their support 

structure within the countryside itself. In May 1963, the JCS directed the 

Commander-in-Chief, Pacific to develop a program for SVN hit-and-run 

operations in North Vietnam, which were to be nonattributable and carried 

out with American equipment, training, and advisory assistance. The plan 

was approved in September 1963, without being forwarded to the White 

House for approval.51

Measures such as this demonstrate the willingness and ability of 

MACV and the larger US military to address operational and strategic issues on their own, apart from governmental oversight in the GVN. Diem’s 

regime was increasingly nepotistic and insular, and in November 1963 he 

was assassinated during a coup d’état in which the United States deliberately chose not to intervene.52 Diem was replaced by a short-lived military 

junta, which was replaced in another coup by General Khanh in January 

1964. In standing by during these turbulent political machinations, American leaders felt complicit in the events, and therefore obligated to the 

GVN’s survival rather than a single, unifying leader.53

MACV’s operational scope steadily expanded, and in January 1964 

General William C. Westmoreland arrived to lead the buildup of advisers, logistical assets and headquarters elements already totaling more 

than16,000 personnel.54 Ambassador Maxwell Taylor and Westmoreland 

enjoyed a prior relationship that translated into the MACV Commander 

serving as a deputy to the ambassador for military affairs; this was not an 

official policy directive.55 As part of his orientation to the theater of operations, Westmoreland and others visited Malaya for a tour with Thompson 

in 1964 to speak with participants in the Malayan Emergency and glean 

lessons from that conflict.56 Westmoreland visualized the conventional 

component of the effort and the clearance of VC units in the countryside 

as a war of attrition. This was due to the fact that, in Westmoreland’s view, 

the political and strategic limits placed on the counterinsurgency effort in 

Vietnam left no other alternative.57

To provide security for the pacification effort at a local level, the territorial forces which were originally conceived in 1961 began to materialize 

as Regional Forces (RFs) and Popular Forces (PFs) in 1964.58 This gave 

the GVN a force to fight an insurgency that had grown from a “brush fire 

subversion,” since they had to focus the conventional forces of ARVN 
72

along the border.59 RFs constituted a military force at the disposal of a district-level or provincial-level leader, while the PFs served a military function for local security in individual villages. Westmoreland accepted the 

fact that these forces were being created more in the image of an American 

military force than a force to mimic effective insurgent capabilities, or a 

even paramilitary force comparable to the Home Guard in Malaya. After 

the war he argued:

What was the alternative – small mobile forces not unlike 

guerrilla units? By very definition the insurgents have the initiative, capable of striking where, when and in such strength as 

they wish and are able to muster, unless government forces can 

intercept them in advance. . . . Except for some special units, 

government forces, unlike guerrillas, cannot be elusive.60

This quote is illuminating since Westmoreland’s conventional understanding of concepts such as “initiative” and the ability to “intercept them 

in advance” would govern the tactics of search-and-destroy operations in 

upcoming campaigns. 

The Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 served to increase the international tensions regarding the war, but it did little to expand the scope 

of the war itself.61 Aside from the implications of the Presidential use of 

military force prior to legislative branch approval, the strategic implication for Vietnam was that President Johnson only declared a limited response toward North Vietnam. In his press conference, he stated that “we 

still seek no wider war,” though the response eventually included bombing 

selected targets in North Vietnam itself.62

The lack of an adequate and effective strategy through 1964 prompted 

discussion regarding the deployment of American ground forces in an offensive role rather than strictly an advisory and supporting role. In 1964, 

General S. L. A. Marshall63 saw two courses of action: the counterinsurgency effort could be transitioned to GVN-only capacities and the Americans withdraw immediately; or a large deployment of troops with “enough 

tactical force to bring off a decision” on the part of North Vietnam.64 The 

Americans could only gather limited support from a coalition that never 

included European allies with major military or civic action assets.65 As 

1965 approached, Westmoreland and his MACV staff realized that the 

disjointed strategy of defending large bases to be used for bombing North 

Vietnam’s limited military hard targets was having little effect in SVN.66

The overall goal for the counterinsurgency effort at the time was to provide breathing space for the GVN to consolidate power and stand up for 

itself, but the prevailing perspective was that the government, and society 

in South Vietnam, was about to collapse without intervention. Intelligence 

and local leaders’ intuition indicated that in some regions the Communists 

were making the transition from a Maoist second phase of guerrilla warfare to the third phase of open, mobile warfare.67 The national government 
73

in SVN was in chaos, so no pacification programs were coordinated or 

effective enough to counter the hyper-organized Communist threat. One 

American political-military analyst said that even he could never quite tell 

who was in charge within the GVN during these years.68

The ensuing discussions on a refined strategy in Vietnam were to set 

the framework for a significant part of the buildup and escalation in SVN. 

Aides close to the President at the time viewed these discussions as having 

three camps: 

1. Secured air bases for the continued but limited bombing of North 

Vietnam, favored by the Johnson administration.

2. A strategy of linked defended enclaves, favored by Ambassador 

Taylor.

3. Tactical search-and-destroy operations, favored by MACV and the 

JCS.69

The strategy of defended enclaves was the initial justification for deploying American combat troops to Vietnam, with the goal of securing 

base areas for ARVN to attack the VC and NVA forces in the countryside. 

Two combat divisions with 17 battalions total deployed to defend these 

enclaves, which Taylor wanted restricted to the coastal areas in order to 

minimize direct contact by American forces and keep casualties low.70

Westmoreland had another long-term vision for South Vietnam once 

the initial force secured these enclave areas and emboldened the GVN. 

His plan for 68 battalions would initially secure a network of logistics 

bases and conduct occasional counters to large-scale enemy operations 

in order to “halt the losing trend.” In the second phase of operations, this 

force would gain the initiative via attacking the VC and NVA sanctuaries, 

and begin to reinstitute pacification programs. The third phase would consolidate these gains and push the enemy back across the Cambodian and 

Laotian borders to be contained by an improved ARVN. Pacification and 

expanded assistance to ARVN and territorial forces would run throughout the offensive.71 On 28 July 1965, President Johnson announced the 

commitment of a force package with an additional 44 battalions, with the 

important caveats that Westmoreland sought: additional troops as needed 

and the freedom to maneuver.72

By November 1965, American forces were beginning to gain and 

maintain contact with both VC and NVA forces in search-and-destroy operations. Lieutenant Colonel Harold Moore, commander of some of the 

first airmobile troops to see combat in the Ia Drang Valley, cited the need 

to establish a working group to study the strategy and get the GVN to reestablish control in the areas cleared by combat forces:

If they couldn’t make it work in Bong Son – where the 

most powerful American division available had cleared the en-
74

emy forces from the countryside – how could they possibly 

hope to re-establish South Vietnamese control in other regions 

where American military presence was much weaker?73

This shows the emerging trend facing MACV in 1966: how to capitalize on the ability to clear the enemy in the face of an institutional inability to hold or develop those areas. As 1966 progressed, more largescale search-and-destroy operations successfully kept enemy main force 

units away from population centers, but they did not focus on integrating 

pacification efforts.74 Units tried to incorporate civic development where 

they could, with the US Marine Corps (USMC) units around Da Nang 

making an effort to distribute Combined Action Platoons (CAPs) to the 

village level. CAPs were focused to destroy the insurgent support network 

in the villages, protect the population, organize local intelligence nets, and 

train their partnered PF platoons.75 CAPs were independently successful 

with a lower casualty rate than their counterparts conducting search-anddestroy missions, but USMC leaders failed to link their efforts operationally. Without a unifying theme, and with Army leaders casting this as a 

“do-nothing” approach, the CAPs technique did not gain a theater-wide 

implementation.76

Search-and-destroy operations continued through 1966 with increasing scope and intensity, especially in the northern provinces.77 MACV 

drafted plans to more than double the American troop levels, taking them 

from 184,300 to 429,000 in an attempt to reach the elusive crossover point 

in attrition warfare where the losses inflicted on the VC and NVA would 

exceed their ability to replace those casualties.78 Unfortunately, the crossover point was almost impossible to reach within the framework of a politically limited war. By limiting MACV’s operational and theater strategic 

options to counter the VC and NVA, President Johnson unwittingly gave 

Giap the ability to transfer 60,000 troops from guarding the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) against incursions.79 Thompson viewed the pursuit of 

a crossover point in the midst of strategic limits as a farce, noting that “all 

the people of North Vietnam had to do between 1965 and 1968 was to exist 

and breed.”80 Even in the midst of continuing tactical success by American 

forces, it became clear that a new approach must be considered. Unfortunately, most discussions in 1966 and 1967 were framed with pacification 

seen as a corollary to conventional operations.81

One exception was a March 1966 report titled “PROVN” which identified an operational approach of pacification along security, political, and 

economic lines.82 The report contended that strategic victory could only be 

achieved if the rural population willingly supported the GVN individually. 

Therefore, the actions at the village, district, and provincial levels required 

a greater emphasis; the war should be fought there and not just to deny the 

VC and NVA sanctuary and infiltration.83 PROVN contained key recommendations that addressed the lack of a unified effort in Vietnam:
75

1. Concentrate operations at the provincial level.

2. Give rural construction primacy among joint MACV and ARVN 

efforts.

3. Authorize direct involvement of US officials in local GVN affairs.

4. Designate the US Ambassador as the sole manager of all US activities.

5. Direct the sole manager to develop a single, unified plan.

6. Re-affirm the goal of a free and independent non-communist South 

Vietnam.84

Although the report focused mainly on pacification and organizational 

changes, it was not a soft-handed approach or an attempt at appeasement; 

the first of four specific initiatives PROVN recommended was to “destroy 

PAVN and Main Force VC units and base areas.”85 To balance these requirements, PROVN advocated a refined organizational approach:

Social change within SVN, at this point in time, hinges on 

US provision of an institutional scaffolding capable of assisting, and, if necessary, assuming a primary agent role in the introduction of needed change. The presence of such an effort, 

coupled with the already existent military scaffolding, could 

provide motivation consistent with the degree of pressure required to produce change.86

Westmoreland mistakenly believed that many of the actions PROVN 

promoted were already being pursued, and the unity of effort between 

MACV and the GVN was eschewed to avoid making the regime look like 

a puppet government.87 The team behind PROVN was not alone in its assessments, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s visit to SVN in 

October 1966 left him with the impression that pacification and a longterm shift in policy were in order.88 These notions were integrated into the 

strategic framework to a certain extent, but the campaign plan for 1967 

only cast pacification as an ARVN task, with the American forces still 

firmly rooted in search-and-destroy missions to provide security for that 

effort.89 Ironically, Giap may have been the only one to publicly expose 

this inadequacy, writing in an open source that: “Precisely this makes it 

impossible for the aggressors, though they may bring in several hundred 

thousand men, strategically to avoid losing command of the situation and 

compels them to scatter their forces defensively as well as offensively.”90

The call to increase support for pacification did not completely fall on 

deaf ears, and in February 1967 the Office of Civil Operations (OCO) was 

formed under Deputy Ambassador William J. Porter. The organization had 

six departments, drawing personnel from the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) and the Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA): Refugee, Psychological Operations, New Life Development, Rev-
76

olutionary Development Cadre, Cheu Hoi (reconciliation of surrendered 

Communists), and Public Safety.91 The OCO had parallel organizations 

in each province, and furnished liaisons to major ARVN commands due 

to their priority for pacification resources and efforts.92 Some within the 

MACV staff felt that the OCO was the Johnson administration’s ploy to 

gain US primacy in the pacification mission, with an eventual transition to 

MACV itself.93 Because individual agencies maintained control over their 

assets, the OCO functioned primarily as an instrument that attempted to 

harmonize pacification efforts, but could not direct them.94

The two largest search-and-destroy operations occurred early in 1967 

with the multi-divisional Operation CEDAR FALLS clearing the Iron Triangle area in January and the multidivisional Operation JUNCTION CITY 

clearing War Zone C in February.95 Following these operations, many 

American critics within the Johnson administration and SVN saw evidence 

that the continued use of search-and-destroy tactics were not working. CIA 

reports showed that the VC and NVA were primarily supplied from within 

SVN, evidence that they could count on vast and loyal resources.96 Other 

reporting showed that the VC regained sufficient strength after the introduction of American troops, and that they were increasingly returning to 

a Maoist phase-two guerrilla warfare method. Additionally, they retained 

the tactical initiative, initiating 88 percent of all contacts in SVN.97 Still, 86 

percent of all operations by American forces were search-and-destroy missions through September.98 During a stateside trip, Westmoreland admitted 

to President Johnson that the search-and-destroy effort could go on forever 

without a change in policy, either a change in tactics on his end or a change 

in strategic limits on the President’s behalf.99

The year 1967 did have a major boost for the counterinsurgency effort, as General Nguyen Van Thieu won open elections in September with 

over 81 percent of the population voting in the face of VC intimidation. As 

such, the population saw this as the first legitimate iteration of the GVN.100

In this political environment of hope, the American counterinsurgency effort made several major changes to organizational and leadership positions. Originally, President Johnson considered appointing Westmoreland 

as the next ambassador, to which most of his advisers objected. Westmoreland stayed on to head MACV, while Johnson selected his Vice Chief 

of Staff of the Army, General Creighton Abrams, to serve as a deputy to 

improve ARVN. He also selected his interim National Security Advisor, 

Robert Komer, to serve as the deputy for pacification. In this arrangement, 

the civilian Komer was to take charge of all pacification operations, but 

not as a deputy commander in the military chain of command.101 Together, 

Westmoreland and Komer decided to merge the remaining OCO structure 

with MACV’s Revolutionary Support Directorate. This resulted in the first 

organization in the counterinsurgency effort which truly directed pacification efforts, the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support 
77

program (CORDS).102

CORDS did not run through unit chains of command below the Corps 

level, but instead it ran through GVN administrative divisions down to the 

district level. This was deliberately structured in order to prevent subordination of pacification efforts by military leaders, witnessed in Operation 

CEDAR FALLS.103 CORDS kept the same six departments as OCO and 

added four administrative departments. With the merging of civilian and 

military agencies to form CORDS, the new organization had many civilian 

supervisors for military subordinates and vice versa.104 The ARVN territorial forces represented the overlap in the CORDS and military spheres of 

influence, so Komer focused CORDS on their overall effectiveness as a 

security force while Abrams’ military advisers managed their technical 

and tactical and training via ARVN.105 CORDS also sought to develop an 

awareness of the conditions at local levels, and developed the Territorial 

Forces Evaluation System and the Hamlet Evaluation System. Both programs sought to rate those elements in a linear system, often forcing the 

evaluator to assign quantitative ranks for qualitative measures. Many of 

the CORDS advisers who were actually in the field disparaged the correlation of CORDS data and reports to the effectiveness of pacification and 

Vietnamization in their areas.106 Although the ratings could not be changed 

by a higher headquarters to ensure accurate reporting, the system was not 

well received because of its scope and inflexibility.107

In November 1967, President Johnson authorized Westmoreland’s request for the “minimal essential” force package, rather than the one that 

Westmoreland saw as the optimum force, since the larger package would 

require a call-up of American reserve units.108 This forced MACV to examine the role and effectiveness of the territorial forces more closely. Security forces were conceptually arrayed in three concentric rings for the counterinsurgency effort: US forces and ARVN to fight enemy units massed 

in battalion strength or larger, RF units to secure the cities and villages 

from smaller enemy units, and PF units and the local police to counter 

communist subversion and penetration in the villages themselves.109 The 

benefits of these locally recruited forces was easily appreciated, as seen in 

the RF-PF Handbook for Advisors: “They know which families have relatives fighting on the side of the VC. They are recipients of information regarding VC movement, meetings, supplies, and future operations. In most 

cases, they have grown up in their own operational areas.”110 The territorial 

force’s chief weakness was a lack of support, and a US force’s presence 

remained the biggest correlation to security at local levels.111 This aspect 

would be recognized under the most extreme measures in the months to 

come.

The Tet Offensive of 1968 commenced across SVN on the night of 

30-31 January 1968 in the midst of the largest holiday on the Vietnamese calendar, and it culminated within two weeks except in Hue and Khe 
78

Sanh. Crucially, artillery and aviation assets remained on alert during the 

holiday’s planned cease-fire hours due to prior indicators of enemy activity.112 The VC suffered enormous casualties, and this reinforced support 

for Westmoreland’s approach since the Army was killing the enemy in 

large numbers. Leaders puzzled over how the enemy could mass in such 

large numbers with such a depth of penetration, not understanding the 

breadth of the resources available to them within SVN.113 Immediately, 

differing views of the Tet Offensive emerged. Marshall saw the offensive 

as desperation on the part of the North Vietnamese, and it had the effect of 

bolstering ARVN.114 Westmoreland saw it as an attempt to create another 

Dien Bien Phu (specifically, at Khe Sanh) to prompt a negotiated settlement, and to capture a few northern provinces since the communists never 

negotiate from a position of weakness.115

Besides Hue and Khe Sanh, virtually all vital population centers and 

infrastructure was regained in short order by ARVN, as US forces isolated 

the enemy main forces to prevent reinforcement. ARVN cleared Kontum 

City, Phu Loc, My Tho, and Ben Tre, with only Ben Tre requiring a significant intervention by US forces.116 Since the A Shau valley had been 

lost prior to Tet, the NVA was able to infiltrate over a division’s worth 

of combat forces almost directly into Hue from base areas in the highlands. This was the only instance where a NVA unit succeeded in planting 

their flag atop a major Tet Offensive objective. With Hue’s psychological importance as the central city that historically tied the northern and 

southern regions of Vietnam together, the battle to recapture the city was 

contested for 25 days. ARVN committed 11 battalions backed by three 

USMC battalions to clear the city, while two brigades from the American 

1st Cavalry Division isolated Hue.117 At Khe Sanh, American forces faced 

a determined attempt by Giap to create another Dien Bien Phu at this isolated outpost. Reportedly, it was so important to Giap that he personally 

visited the area around Khe Sanh himself prior to the operation.118 Khe 

Sanh was the key to interdicting NVA infiltration routes from Laos, and 

it also provided the western “anchor” along the DMZ’s defense in depth. 

Contemporary critiques were that the American forces got tied down at 

Khe Sanh when the physical terrain of the region held no value. However, 

it should be noted that the 6,000 defenders at Khe Sanh leveraged an inordinate amount of indirect firepower to attrit and fight off 15,000-20,000 

enemy troops. Westmoreland’s account of the campaign begs the question 

of who was tying down whom at Khe Sanh.119

The aftermath of the Tet Offensive would shape the remainder of the 

war in Vietnam. Short-term counterinsurgent reactions included the rearming of territorial forces, additional American troop deployments, and 

accelerated pacification measures. The long-term effect was a realization 

that the GVN’s military and security forces must stand on their own intrinsic worth and resources, hence a program for the Vietnamization of the 
79

force. The Tet Offensive was an undeniable loss for the North Vietnam tactically, but a strategic victory for Giap because it set the counterinsurgency 

effort on the misguided path of long-term Vietnamization of ARVN instead 

of a crushing consolidation and counter-offensive.120 Although Westmoreland may be maligned for thinking in terms of a conventional linear 

battlefield, there is merit to his assertion that President Johnson “ignored 

the maxim that when the enemy is hurting, you don’t diminish the pressure, you increase it.”121

The Tet Offensive showed that the territorial forces must be armed 

to meet the threat of the enemy’s periodically massed main-force threat. 

A total of 477 outposts were abandoned during Tet in contrast to the relative level of resolve shown by ARVN units.122 It was clear after Tet that 

the RFs and PFs were out-gunned by the VC. In conjunction with the first 

programs for Vietnamization, Territorial forces were armed with first-rate 

American weapons such as the M-16 assault rifle, M-79 grenade launcher, 

M-60 machine gun, and the Light Anti-tank Weapon.123 Territorial forces 

would take on an increased role because the enemy’s casualties during 

Tet allowed counterinsurgent forces to break into smaller formations and 

consolidate security gains.124

Another short-term result of the Tet Offensive was a final deployment 

of additional US troops. Since the intense fighting placed a new media 

spotlight on Vietnam, this decision took on a more political character than 

any previous decision for an increase of military end strength. President 

Johnson directed his new Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, to engage 

the senior military leadership on this subject. When he pressed the JCS 

and MACV leaders to articulate an endstate or describe what constituted 

“victory” in 1968, neither could give him a concrete answer.125 But even 

in the face of this uncertainty of the role for additional troops, Clifford 

did not directly oppose the attrition strategy when an additional 100,000 

reservists were called up for this force package.126

A third short-term result of the Tet Offensive was the hastening of 

pacification programs. This is evidence that after Tet, both MACV and the 

GVN began to see the value in a more holistic approach to the counterinsurgency effort. In an attempt to maintain the initiative, President Thieu 

instituted a general mobilization along with the Accelerated Pacification 

Campaign (APC), which was an acceleration of resources rather than a 

fresh set of programs.127 Many leaders in both governments had a cautious 

optimism following the Tet Offensive, and the APC embodied the only 

method that met the communist threat in the villages head-on and simultaneously supported American policies and goals.128 Even though the APC 

was basically a coercive method to establish governance through security 

at the village level instead of an attractive political policy, CORDS saw 

it as the most successful program launched by the GVN in the war.129 An 

examination of the internal statistics regarding village sympathies reveals 
80

this successful trend: Immediately after Tet, less than two-thirds of villages in SVN had effective GVN security, whereas in under two years 

only 4.5 percent of the villages remained “contested” and just 2.8 percent 

were under outright “VC control.”130 In another measure of effectiveness 

for the APC, the North Vietnamese were forced to rely heavily on the Ho 

Chi Minh trail for resources instead of relying on a sympathetic rural infrastructure within SVN.131 The APC also improved ties between Americans 

and GVN administrators at the provincial and district levels, though a sort 

of distrust remained between American soldiers and their ARVN counterparts.132 However, one criticism of the APC is that it masked the fact that 

the GVN was not stronger, and success during the APC was due to the 

severe weakness of the VC after the Tet Offensive.133

This was one symptom that drove the need for a long-term solution 

after Tet, and the Johnson administration pursued another limited strategy 

instead of one that widened the war. The concept of Vietnamization, or 

increasing Vietnamese primacy in all areas of military security and governance gained political cachet, was accelerated under the Nixon administration starting in 1969.134 Upon taking command of MACV in 1969, 

Abrams saw Vietnamization in three phases: transitioning ground combat 

to Vietnamese forces, increasing their capabilities to defend their borders, 

and then finally diminishing US presence and assuming an advisory role.135

Under the conceptual umbrella of Vietnamization, Abrams had an opportunity to fuse the approaches of American attrition warfare and GVN 

pacification efforts. Although the yearly campaign plan was a Vietnamese 

document since 1967, the 1969 Combined Campaign Plan was the first 

one in which the GVN had the objective of protecting the population from 

Communist control rather than the military destruction of the enemy.136

Thus, this was the first year in which the American military’s focus shifted 

from search-and-destroy tactics to security for pacification support and 

training ARVN under the concept of a “One War Plan.”137 As American 

combat forces began their phased withdrawal in support of Vietnamization, CORDS took on an increasingly critical role in harmonizing the effort in SVN.138

Combat operations stressed the Vietnamization project as soon as it 

began, with the North Vietnamese launching an offensive in 1969 to regain 

areas that the VC had lost during the reconsolidation after the Tet Offensive. The partnered American, ARVN, and territorial forces were so successful that some units even used the “tethered goat” tactic to lure enemy 

forces into engagement areas.139 After a swift reconsolidation, American 

and ARVN forces were able to break down into small units to support pacification efforts again, as they had in the post-Tet APC.140 VC losses were 

so severe that some units had their resources cut off almost to the point 

of physical starvation, and many units were forced to return to a Maoist 

phase-one effort of subversion to reassert themselves in the newly defend-
81

ed villages.141 American forces were not without internal issues though, as 

the force began to exert serious discipline issues once the redeployment of 

forces began in earnest. Westmoreland attributed this to an organizational 

idleness in many combat units as tactical requirements passed to ARVN, 

reflecting that “idleness is the handmaiden of discontent.”142

Vietnamization continued at an accelerated pace, and the results were 

becoming evident to the MACV staff. Abrams noticed a marked increase 

in the professionalism and ability with ARVN.143 By June 1970 there were 

31 RF battalions and 232 RF companies in SVN, allowing them to form 

some mobile groups at the discretion of district and provincial leaders.144

CORDS significantly reduced their presence in secured areas through 

1971 as part of the overall American drawdown.145

Ironically, the strategic limits of the Johnson administration were replaced with a pragmatic context that enabled large-scale incursions into 

NVA safe havens. American-led operations into Cambodia were moderately successful, while the ARVN-led Operation LAM SONG 719 was unable to operationally sever the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos.146 By late 1972, 

American military leaders knew intuitively that North Vietnam was preparing for a large-scale campaign in SVN, but conventional wisdom at the 

time was that if pacification was completed, then the enemy could not survive.147 The North Vietnamese launched a massive conventional offensive 

on 30 March 1972 (dubbed the “Easter Offensive”) which dissipated in 

the face of American-backed forces. Although this offensive represented 

a climax in both military and diplomatic efforts, most US Army battalions 

still in SVN did not directly enter this combat. With American firepower 

backing them, ARVN and the territorial forces held just enough during the 

Easter Offensive that the North Vietnamese halted the offensive.148

As MACV continued to draw down forces, diplomats brokered a 

cease-fire in Paris for 27 January 1973, effectively ending American involvement in Vietnam. This caught many military and civilian organizations in a race to hand over responsibilities to ARVN and the GVN to 

redeploy because progress in the talks was kept close to President Nixon. 

The State and Defense Departments, the JCS, and the CIA were not even 

informed of the talks until 1972.149 President Thieu was in a sort of race 

as well. Since the GVN controlled 75 percent of the area and 85 percent 

of the population in SVN, they sought to consolidate gains while they 

still had the tail-end of American military and civil assistance.150 Redeployment timelines were accelerated from the initial projection of 69,000 

Americans for the 1973 campaign, and the last military forces departed 

SVN in March.151 Concurrently, CORDS suspended all operations to allow for a timely withdrawal in 1973.152 The territorial forces had already 

displayed their mettle during the Easter Offensive, leading some advisers 

to conclude that CORDS’ work was complete in many areas anyway.153

As a postscript to the American experience in Vietnam, the Commu-
82

nists overwhelmed forces in SVN in 1975 with a massive conventional 

invasion. Giap watched the withdrawal of American forces and the institutional adjustments in SVN attentively, realizing that he did not have to 

win the revolutionary war in the countryside anymore. Reflecting after the 

war, he recalls that he needed just enough guerrilla forces to attack and 

hold GVN weak points so that their limited NVA regular force units could 

concentrate on specific objectives.154 The NVA expected to gain key areas 

in their 1975 offensive to shape the battlefield for a decisive campaign in 

1976, and were surprised by their initial success.155 Since ARVN developed a dependence on American military advisers and firepower, it could 

not lead or employ fires during the 1975 conventional war as it had in 

1973.156 In retrospect, Vietnamization can be considered a success or failure depending on the length of a timeline for the analysis. When measured 

in terms of President Nixon’s goals with an end date of 1973, Vietnamization allowed the United States to disengage at a strategic stalemate, with 

the GVN intact and building civil capacity throughout the country. When 

measured in long-term results with an end date of 1975, Vietnamization 

failed since it improved ARVN material but did not improve the leadership 

enough to defend the borders alone. 

In any case, the result at the end of the second war in Indochina was a 

unified Vietnam, firmly under the banner of Communism.

The Employment of Artillery Units

Westmoreland’s widespread employment of American artillery units 

in an indirect fires role to support counterinsurgency efforts in SVN should 

not come as a surprise because he was an artillery officer himself. His 

first meeting with Taylor was an effort to sell his battalion’s firepower to 

Taylor and General Gavin during the World War II campaign in Italy while 

he was supporting the 82d Airborne Division. His perceived influence of 

artillery was reinforced during a discussion with retired General Douglas 

MacArthur, the last man he visited before departing for command in Vietnam. Westmoreland’s recollection of MacArthur’s parting advice was:

[D]on’t overlook the possibility, he concluded, that in order to defeat the guerilla, you may have to resort to a scorched 

earth policy. He also urged me to make sure I always had plenty 

of artillery, for the Oriental [sic], he said, “greatly fears artillery.”157

This approach has roots in an institutional American proclivity to exchange firepower and resources for decreased casualties in warfare. Some 

critics contend that this tendency to shape the battlefield for combat with 

superior conventional firepower was a driving force in the adoption of 

attrition warfare.158 This is evidenced in the unofficial motto of the 1stBrigade, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) seen in December 1966: “Save 

Lives, Not Ammunition.”159 This motto was not completely unfounded, 
83

given the political and public pressure to minimize American casualties at 

the time. Westmoreland viewed the role of artillery in terms of “interlocking fire-support bases, [where] artillery units could support each other.”160

This led to an environment where, at the apex of American troop levels in 

SVN, 61 artillery battalions supported 59 infantry battalions.161

The French experience in Indochina provided a lesson for fire support in search-and-destroy operations, which American tacticians duly applied. Unfortunately, this was not a decisive advantage beyond the actual 

combat engagement of conventional units. In an analysis of the artillery 

employed at Dien Bien Phu, it becomes obvious that firepower alone will 

not secure a region unless the support of the population is secured first. 

Any insurgent force that controls the rural countryside and has the additional advantage of a safe haven can escalate the level of warfare in the 

region almost at will. The French invested more than 500 artillery pieces 

and 100,000 troops in the Red River delta region, but the effort was futile 

since it was by the means of conventional military security.162 At Dien Bien 

Phu, the French actually found themselves out-gunned by the Viet Minh, 

in large part due to the Viet Minh’s control of the countryside and this ability to escalate the level of warfare when it benefitted them. In SVN, the 

American force took careful measures to never find itself out of range of 

overwhelming firepower.163

If the French Indochina campaigns provided a negative example in the 

employment of artillery units for counterinsurgency, the Malayan Emergency provided a positive example. In addition to the ongoing confrontation in Borneo, there were several contemporary techniques of leveraging 

fire support from dispersed artillery units in mountainous jungle terrain.164

Although no direct link to the British lessons are cited, the 25th Infantry 

Division Artillery conducted grueling trials in 1962. They developed and 

promulgated techniques that required only ropes, pulleys, and the organic 

cannon crew to move a 2.5-ton 105mm howitzer across the water and terrain on Oahu that replicated the mountain, jungles, and delta regions of 

SVN.165

The war in SVN became a proving ground for many innovations and 

equipment refinements in the artillery world, to include forward observer 

optics, means of target acquisition, and computerized technical fire direction. However, the introduction of a new array of artillery pieces had the 

greatest impact on the employment of artillery units. The self-propelled 

105mm (model M108), 155mm (M109), and 8-inch (M110) all made their 

debut, as did the towed 105mm (M102), 155mm (M114), 8-inch (M115) 

and 175mm (M107). These pieces would become the mainstays of American artillery in SVN with their increased range, lethality, ability to traverse, and mobility.166

In general, the virtues of coverage and responsiveness governed the 
84

employment of artillery units in Vietnam.167 In 1964, one of the first contemporary reviews of artillery use in operations by an in-country American artillery adviser revealed that “[g]reater than the need to mass batteries 

and battalions is the need to cover all vital areas with the greatest amount 

of artillery available.”168 Initial American operations in SVN showed the 

difficulty in ensuring this coverage. During the first week of battles in 

Plei Mei and Ia Drang, towed artillery was out of range to support operations, prompting the first use of airmobile-delivered Fire Support Bases 

(FSBs).169 As American maneuver forces expanded their role in SVN, artillery units emplaced more FSBs to provide lethal indirect fires in both 

direct support and general support. Due to the “customer service” attitude 

of fire supporters, modern radio communications, and the ability to rapidly 

resupply FSBs via air, artillery coverage was so good that many infantry 

companies went on extended missions without their weighty 81mm mortars.170

To complete the coverage and responsiveness of artillery, several new 

platforms emerged. To increase the responsive quality for airmobile units, 

the army introduced Aerial Rocket Artillery (ARA) units. These units consisted of UH-1 helicopters with large 2.75-inch rocket pods attached. A 

crucial quality that differentiated them from traditional close air support 

platforms was that they functioned within the artillery organization, and 

operated on tactical artillery radio nets during combat. The ARA units were 

extremely responsive because they could reposition as a combat engagement developed and were used efficiently to engage fleeting targets of opportunity.171 By 1967, ARA pilots began to self-identify as artillerymen.172

To increase the coverage of artillery units in the delta region, artillerymen 

established riverine fire bases with limited mobility.173 After several failed 

attempts to mount howitzers to standard US Navy pontoons, the LCM-6 

landing craft was adopted as a suitable firing platform with some mobility 

on the waterways. This development gave American forces in the delta 

region a means of artillery support in an area with very few trafficable 

roads.174

Artillery units were able to provide a wide coverage of responsive 

fires, but there was a heavy resource cost associated with this capability. 

Obviously, aerial and naval platforms were expensive means to fill the 

gaps in artillery coverage and responsiveness. But in the effort to establish 

more FSBs, the cost in terms of manpower and combat unit requirements 

began to compound. Battalions often reorganized from three- to four-battery configurations in order to occupy more firing positions. While they 

were able to cross level existing gun crews, they required a much higher 

authorization for support personnel.175 There were also requirements from 

other combat arms to support this framework. Although there were great 

improvements in projectiles and techniques for local defense of the FSBs 

beginning in 1966, it generally required a full infantry company to secure 
85

an FSB that supported one or two artillery batteries.176 Specific munitions 

such as the Beehive round177 and the Killer Junior technique178 were two 

key elements of improved positional defense. Still, artillery units did not 

have enough manpower to simultaneously man the gun positions and provide local defense for an FSB, so there remained a large manpower bill for 

the supported maneuver unit.

The final factor that increased coverage and responsiveness was the 

ability to fire in a complete circle from the FSB. The two key developments that enabled this were the new ability to fire artillery pieces in a 

complete 6400-mil circle,179 and a new method of plotting fire direction 

charts in all directions from the firing unit. The use of field-expedient pedestal jacks gave 105mm and 155mm pieces the ability to rotate and fire in 

any direction from the same gun position, and this technique was distributed throughout the force.180 Techniques were also developed to rotate even 

the heaviest artillery pieces, the 175mm and 8-inch howitzers.181 Concurrently, omnidirectional fire direction techniques were developed stateside 

and promulgated through the Artillery Trends professional journal and 

were adopted in 1967 as the sole method for plotting and determining firing data in US Army artillery.182 With the increased distribution of artillery 

units to remote firing locations in smaller elements, fire-direction centers 

were established at the battery and even the platoon level.183

Artillery units were so distributed that many issues in support specific 

to artillery arose during sustained operations. During the chaotic environment of the Tet Offensive, many headquarters found it more practical to 

leave the artillery in place at their FSBs, and instead change the command 

relationships with the unit they supported.184 Beginning in 1965, Field 

Force Artillery Headquarters supported each Corps Tactical Zone (CTZ) 

to manage the requirements of artillery survey, metrological data support 

and artillery-specific ammunition management.185

The qualities of coverage and responsiveness describe the approach 

for using artillery units in an indirect fires role, and methods for the operational and tactical employment of these units developed throughout 

the war. When the first artillery units deployed in 1965, there were few 

sources available for artillerymen to inform their opinions on the use of artillery in counterinsurgency environments. The 1963 edition of US Army 

Field Manual 31-16, Counterguerrilla Operations, echoes the ATOM in 

its laundry list of possible uses for artillery: assisting in the defense of 

static positions, harassment, flushing guerrillas into ambushes, deception, 

illumination, blocking escape routes, and inflicting casualties in “tightening the noose” operations.186 Although American artillery delivered fires to 

accomplish all of these tasks in Vietnam, few would be as contentious as 

the use of fires as harassment and interdiction (H&I). They were effective 

in this role in Malaya because they were used continuously to dispirit an 

enemy when his demoralization was an integral part of the overall attempt 
86

to turn CTs in the jungle. In Malaya, H&I fires complemented food denial 

and psychological operations successfully. Within SVN, they were an attempt to use firepower as a substitute for additional patrols. By 1966, 65 

percent of all fire missions were unobserved H&I fires. Even with an institutional focus on reducing them due to the intense logistic requirements 

or supporting artillery at distant FSBs, these unobserved H&I fires only 

fell to 45 percent of the total in 1967.187 H&I fires were eventually reigned 

in only by strict regulation; in 1968, a directive banned unobserved H&I 

fires unless they had a piece of intelligence corroborating the suspected 

locations.188

The integration of artillery in large-scale search-and-destroy operations evolved swiftly, and a comparison between Operation CEDAR 

FALLS and Operation JUNCTION CITY shows evidence of this rapid 

development in SVN. Operation CEDAR FALLS was a multi-divisional 

operation to attrit enemy forces in the Iron Triangle area to clear that insurgent base area. The operation commenced in January 1967 with a poorly 

coordinated and synchronized preparatory fire plan that disoriented pilots 

as they discharged maneuver forces at initial landing zones, although the 

fires were sufficient to suppress the enemy.189 Continuing through the operation, H&I fires were unobserved, so it was only assumed that they were 

effectively interdicting the enemy.190 Command and control was also an 

issue. Due to the large number of artillery units participating in a fluid maneuver environment, battalions had up to five firing batteries, which was 

more than they could effectively command and control.191 Although one 

brigade after-action review praised the proactive fire control of artillery 

and air assets, the US 1st Infantry Division had such a difficulty in this task 

that they had to delegate fire control to their direct support battalions.192

Operation JUNCTION CITY, another multi-divisional search-and-destroy operation, followed in February and April 1967. This time, objective 

area was War Zone C northwest of Saigon. Eighteen artillery battalions 

participated, an indication of improved ability in command and control 

artillery units. The initial preparatory fires for Operation JUNCTION 

CITY used a shorter duration of artillery firepower, which was successful 

in eliminating opposition at the landing zones without the confusion and 

disorientation of Operation CEDAR FALLS.193 The operation had better 

coordination between air and artillery assets, leveraging ad hoc Artillery 

Warning control centers, and the use of artillery rounds marking targets 

for close air-support strikes.194 A Battery, 3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne 

Field Artillery Regiment conducted the war’s only drop zone fire mission, 

delivering artillery fires after jumping in the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s 

parachute assault. Although the mission was a success and validated the 

concept of airborne artillery support during operations in SVN, there was 

not another airborne operation large enough to warrant direct support artillery fires.195 Air assets were also used in a logistical capacity, as the 1st 
87

Infantry Division Artillery used an air drop to deliver critically needed ammunition to a remote FSB during the operation.196 That same unit resolved 

fire control issues from Operation CEDAR FALLS, and even integrated 

target acquisition assets.197

Operation JUNCTION CITY did reveal some limits for the employment of artillery units, and firepower in general, within the counterinsurgency effort. Although fratricide was extremely low in the operation, 

American forces did suffer casualties attributed to probable errors in range 

associated with firing large volumes of artillery.198 After initial challenges 

in penetrating some of the thicker jungle canopies with artillery rounds, 

high-angle fires were used to great effect.199 Although the resupply of artillery units was generally sufficient, the supply chain could not manage 

artillery ammunition lots, which undoubtedly contributed to a decrease in 

first-round accuracy.200

Artillery tactics and techniques improved steadily with each searchand-destroy operation until the massive campaigns to reconsolidate during the Tet Offensive. Operations at Khe Sanh demonstrated the utility of 

artillery units providing prodigious amounts of firepower in SVN in a conventional, positional battle. By one measure, American forces expended 

more than 1,800 tons of munitions per day during operations to defend the 

base at Khe Sanh.201 Westmoreland took a lesson from General Vanuxem, a 

French commander at Dien Bien Phu, that the French had neither sufficient 

artillery to support them from outside of Dien Bien Phu nor the surrounding high ground for observation. As such, he directed the MACV staff to 

study the conflict in order to draw out probable NVA tactics at Khe Sanh. 

At Khe Sanh, American forces had three 105mm batteries, one 155mm 

battery, and one 4.2-inch mortar battery. But more importantly, they also 

had sixteen 175mm guns at Camp Carroll, well within range to support 

Khe Sanh. These guns would showcase the importance of coverage and 

responsiveness, firing more than 1,500 rounds per day.202 Air strikes were 

integrated at a level that had not been seen in SVN, with an average of 45 

sorties of B-52 bombers per day from airfields in Guam. When the enemy 

massed along predictable axes of advance, the Fire Support Coordination 

Center at Khe Sanh integrated these echeloned air strikes with artillery 

fires, similar to pre-patterned fire plans from World War I.203 Illustrating 

the insurgents’ ability to scale back the operational tempo of the battle 

almost at will, the NVA and VC almost completely disappeared from the 

region when their losses became too severe and almost all artillery missions returned to the familiar tactics of counterguerrilla and supporting 

search-and-destroy missions.204

After the post-Tet reconsolidation, artillery units began to support 

pacification operations with increasing frequency. But even in support of 

pacification, artillery units were to provide indirect fires against fleeting 

targets instead of expanding the reach of security in a nonstandard role. 
88

Two operations from this phase of the war show the varying degrees of the 

successful employment of artillery units in support of pacification, Operation WASHINGTON GREEN and Operation RANDOLPH GLEN.

Operation WASHINGTON GREEN was meant to be a showcase for 

the new approach of support to pacification, and if the operation went 

well the techniques would be refined and adopted across SVN by Abrams. 

The 4th Infantry Division Artillery was in support of the 173rd Airborne 

Brigade, as the maneuver units were split off across the area of operations 

in platoon- or even squad-sized elements. Units were to defend rural hamlets and improve the qualities of territorial forces; indirect fires were to 

be strictly limited in order to minimize collateral damage.205 Artillery was 

limited to use against rockets and other enemy forces seeking to disrupt 

pacification efforts, which allowed artillery units to find a balance between 

providing fires and training classes for ARVN units.206 The Division Artillery also augmented a civil affairs detachment and directly contributed 

to the pacification support around their FSBs.207 However, ARVN artillery units were slow to respond to calls for fire and dangerously inaccurate. When the territorial forces refused to call for ARVN artillery, their 

advisers acquiesced and employed American artillery fires even though 

they knew ARVN would not improve without some repetitions. This was 

a symptom of the larger issue that doomed Operation WASHINGTON 

GREEN, that ARVN and the GVN simply could not stand on their own yet 

without significant American support.208

Operation RANDOLPH GLEN suffered much the same fate, but with 

a less focused use of artillery units in support of pacification operations. 

The 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) had key tasks to provide security 

for the population, eliminate the VC infrastructure, complete public projects, improve economic programs, and implement economic reforms.209

Although the artillery units within the Division Artillery kept as busy as 

any combat unit, they made no discernable contribution to these goals. 

Artillery Units within the division made a total of 86 battalion and battery 

air movements to establish new FSBs. Not only did this use an excessive 

amount of air transport, but also an excessive amount of infantry companies to assist in local defense of the FSBs.210 Although medium howitzers 

were already providing area coverage, light artillery remained in a direct 

support role to maneuver units. “Confirmed” fire missions accounted for 

only 79,772 of the 613,864 rounds fired; H&I and Illumination fire missions accounted for even less. A majority of fire missions were registrations, counterfire missions, and suspected targets.211 Operations comparable to RANDOLPH GLEN stretched the concepts of coverage and responsiveness to its logical limit, since the overall number of artillery units 

in SVN was drawing down at the time. Units such as the 11th Marine 

Regiment had distributed firing positions for every asset from 4.2-inch 

mortars to 175mm guns in 1970, and the larger pieces’ long range began 
89

to substitute for the decreased number of FSBs.212

As the Vietnamization effort progressed, the ability of ARVN artillery 

continued to improve incrementally. At the beginning of the American involvement in SVN, field artillery advisors assigned from MAAG to ARVN 

units generally consisted of a Major at the Corps and Division level, and a 

paired Captain and NCO at an artillery battalion. Although they attended 

a six-week common course at Fort Bragg for all advisers, there was no 

training specifically for artillery or fire-support advising.213 MAAG also 

made an effort to improve ARVN artillery officers’ professionalism, and 

the decade between FY1953 and FY1963 saw 663 Vietnamese officers 

attend courses at Fort Sill.214 Advisers had a steep hill to climb, since the 

French influence on artillery in SVN was undeniable. For years during 

the French Indochina wars, French observers would send fire commands 

back to a Vietnamese-manned gun line, mentally calculating adjustments 

for the gun. This method was crude and prone to errors, but it was also the 

fastest method available. The consequence was that ARVN units did not 

have an institutional tradition of fire direction or attention to detail regarding requirements for accurate predicted fire.215

Improving ARVN artillery was not a priority until 1969 as Vietnamization became a MACV-wide priority. Rapid redeployments of many 

American artillery units coincided with Vietnamization, so it was done 

within an environment of competing demands to train an allied force and 

provide indirect fires simultaneously.216 A prior survey of ARVN artillery 

from 1963 shows the state of emergency for ARVN artillery at the outset 

of the American buildup. This study found that ARVN artillery was spread 

so thinly that even the idle guns at their Field Artillery Training Center 

were in position and ready to fire. Other units supporting ARVN had similar issues, and one 4.2-inch mortar battalion had 13 platoons supporting a 

200km by 60km area. The benefit in this was that fire direction was naturally beginning to migrate to the platoon level, the same phenomenon seen 

by the British in Malaya and the American partners in SVN. The report 

concluded that the organization of artillery forces was stressed but valid, 

and their major weakness was integration with local village and hamlet 

defensive plans.217

At the start of artillery’s Vietnamization, I Field Force Artillery conducted a four-month study to evaluate ARVN’s artillery support.218 Through 

initial partnered operations and equipment modernization through 1970, 

ARVN artillery battalions calibrated more than 88 percent of their pieces 

by training on American techniques for survey, meteorological data, and 

registration.219 As ARVN began to shoulder more of the burden for providing artillery fires in late 1970, advisers noted the same theme seen during Operation WASHINGTON GREEN. ARVN units would still lobby 

for American air support rather than use their own marginally accurate 

artillery even if they were in position and ready to fire.220 There was no 
90

ARVN equivalent for an ARA unit, so the 4th Battalion, 77th Field Artillery (ARA) still flew in direct support of ARVN units. This had mixed 

results by contemporary American metrics; in these operations it took an 

average of 16 rockets to result in one enemy kill.221 By the Spring of 1970, 

ARVN artillery had improved to the point that they were metaphorically 

validated during the offensive into Cambodia. All ARVN artillery units 

supported from static positions during the offensive, which allowed them 

to concentrate on the basic skills of providing timely and accurate indirect 

fires. ARVN artillery began the offensive with a coordinated 390-minute 

preparatory fire plan. They fired more than 200,000 rounds, good for more 

than one-third of the total fire missions. The chief constraint during this 

operation proved to be ARVN’s own logistic support for their artillery 

units.222

ARVN artillery units proved that they could deliver indirect fires, but 

still needed much improvement before American forces departed. Special 

artillery skills, including survey, meteorological support, and ammunition 

handling, were still extremely poor, in many cases worse than their NVA 

counterparts.223 In 1971, one division commander identified this need during his outbrief, stating that ARVN artillery should remain a top priority 

due to their potential effectiveness, but “that gap must be closed . . . specifically to improve first-round accuracy.”224 Indeed, ARVN artillery had 

come a long way since being limited to only two rounds per day by Westmoreland in 1966, but there was still room for improvement.225

In 1970, the territorial force began improving in artillery integration, 

even though this was identified as a critical requirement by American advisers in 1964.226 At the time, RF battalions had a section of two 81mm 

mortars, and PF platoons had no fire support whatsoever. It was only in 

1969 that corps commanders had been instructed to ensure that fire support plans supported the territorial forces in their CTZ.227 Although advisers had devised a color-coded plan to make indirect fires easily accessible 

to minimally trained PF forces, ARVN artillery was almost completely 

unresponsive in some areas.228 This is evidenced in the records of Military 

Region Four’s records from October 1966 to March 1967, where only 13.2 

percent of contacts were reinforced by artillery.229 Translated field manuals for observed fire techniques were conspicuously absent from a list of 

manuals to assist village defense plans.230

In response to these massive shortfalls, territorial artillery teams 

of two guns stood up in 1970 to provide fire support in village defense 

plans.231 Although there were plans to field actual RF artillery units, the 

institutional focus on improving ARVN’s artillery was clear. By 1971, all 

but two of ARVN’s artillery battalions had been fielded, while the RF had 

176 artillery platoons authorized, 100 of which were activated, and only 

53 of those activated platoons were deployed in support of operations.232

It was not until late 1974 that organic artillery units were finally fielded 
91

for the RF mobile groups, with a four-howitzer 105mm battery supporting 

three infantry battalions per mobile group.233

The final piece of security forces in SVN were the Civilian Irregular 

Defense Group (CIDG) units. These elements, advised (and sometimes 

led by) American Special Forces advisers, did not have an organic firesupport capability. Due to their remote areas of operation in the central 

highlands to secure the population against VC infiltration, they were not 

always within range of an American artillery unit. One adviser recalls 

that he “never got an opportunity to call in artillery fires on the enemy. I 

dreamed about it, read about it, but never got to use it.”234 In many cases, 

advisory teams relied on their own abilities with mortars for base defense 

and the occasional availability of close air support.

Fielding and training the ARVN and RF artillery units was an arduous 

process, but a necessary one. Difficulties were exacerbated by the continual American withdrawal from SVN and the requirement for responsive fires to support operations. These necessities mostly prevented a oneto-one partnering with ARVN artillery units, but the need was satisfied 

through advisory and assistance roles. Unfortunately, Vietnamization did 

not begin earlier in the war, for if ARVN had a truly capable artillery force 

it would have been able to take responsibility for much of the general support requirements, thus freeing a large number of combat troops to serve 

the counterinsurgency effort in a more pragmatic role. It remains a point 

of conjecture if they could have contributed much, for the promise of pacification and Vietnamization may fairly be critiqued as too little, too late.

The following section analyzes the employment of artillery units within 

this counterinsurgency effort to determine the causes which led them to be 

engaged in such a manner.

Analysis

With only a cursory overview of the counterinsurgency effort in Vietnam, an initial tendency may be to disparage Westmoreland’s approach of 

attrition and lionize Abrams’ approach of pacification support. However, 

an understanding of the nuances in the earliest operational framework in 

SVN illuminates several problems with a clear or deliberate division between the two methods. Westmoreland correctly asserts that search-anddestroy operations embodied a tactic, not his strategic approach to counterinsurgency as the media and some analysts portrayed it.235 He also had 

an imperfect array of options due to strategic and political limitations; he 

could affect neither North Vietnam nor the homefront to alter this strategic framework.236 As with Briggs and Templer in Malaya, there is not so 

much of a divergence between the preferred counterinsurgency approach 

between these two generals, but more of a divergence in the organizational 

structure and political climate each contended with. On several occasions 

Westmoreland stated that he wanted to unite the pacification effort under 

MACV, but Taylor kept it as a civilian government function.237 Finally, 
92

GVN and ARVN leaders themselves attributed the success of the APC 

effort from 1969 to 1971 to the increased security that Westmoreland’s 

attrition strategy yielded.238

This is not to say that Westmoreland’s strategy of attrition warfare 

was particularly well-suited to the environment; it demonstrably was not. 

But the historical analysis should be framed as one of both adequacy and 

effectiveness, not as a search for the perfect counterinsurgency in vain. 

Initial major battles such as the Ia Drang campaign in 1965 gave MACV 

an illusion of a validated search-and-destroy concept, although there was 

not a concerted effort to capitalize on these individual successes.239 Westmoreland assumed that most isolated areas did not hold intrinsic value 

except when the enemy was massed there. This notion does not address 

the fact that with temporary search-and-destroy operations as the preferred 

method, nobody is holding the critical rural and populated areas (which 

do hold intrinsic value) either since this was before the improvement in 

territorial forces.240 Westmoreland himself alluded to this in a message to 

General Wheeler’s forces in August 1965:

In order to be effective we cannot isolate US troops from the population or deploy them solely in jungle areas where they can be bypassed and 

ignored by the VC. In the long run, we must use them in areas important 

to the VC and the [government of Vietnam]. . . . The final battle is for the 

hamlets themselves and this inevitably draws the action toward the people 

and the places where they live.241

By focusing on attrition and an elusive crossover point that could never be reached by blocking infiltration routes, Westmoreland’s forces never 

got into the hamlets of which he speaks. As Thompson critiqued this in 

1969, he observed that adding combat resources without integrating the 

offensive military plan and civil governance development plan was “doubling the effort to square the error.”242

As a counterinsurgency approach, pacification expressed solely 

through civic development would not have addressed the lurking enemy 

that sought to sweep away any gains within the villages. Arguments that 

a pacified countryside across SVN would have withstood the main force 

assaults in 1973 and 1975 are disingenuous and unconvincing.243 Although 

his approach is more synonymous with that notion, Abrams himself understood the necessity of a large conventional force by acknowledging 

the idea that “you just can’t conduct pacification in the face of an NVA 

division.”244 Both Westmoreland and Abrams considered pacification, but 

focused on operations against the main forces in order to keep them away 

from the population centers.245 This held more importance to Westmoreland’s approach, since the RFs and PFs could not protect the population 

from enemy main force units during his command.246 CORDS became effective only after the VC’s great conventional defeats of the Tet Offensive, 
93

and Komer understood that pacification had always been a priority but not 

a practice.247

The inability of the Americans and the GVN to balance this illustrates 

the genius inherent in Giap’s approach to have different forces or areas 

in different Maoist phases of insurgency. MACV could never adapt to 

this, and instead needed an overarching and synchronized (as opposed to 

a harmonized) campaign plan of one single style. On the other hand, the 

Communists were able to support both conventional and insurgent operations simultaneously, giving either one primacy depending on the environment.248 The irony in this was not lost on the CIA’s Chief of Station in 

Saigon, William Colby: “In an ironic asymmetry, the communists initiated 

a war against Diem in the late 1950s as a people’s war and the Americans 

and the Vietnamese initially responded to it as a conventional military one; 

in the end the Thieu government was fighting a successful people’s war, 

but lost to a military assault.”249

The fact that the counterinsurgency effort could not conduct these 

operations simultaneously is a symptom of a larger issue, that of a disunity in efforts. Throughout the war certain tasks or responsibilities were 

segregated by organization, such as the ARVN primacy for pacification 

prior to 1969. Two major inefficiencies of the counterinsurgency effort are 

exemplified in the lack of unified effort between the American and GVN 

institutions, and a lack of unified effort within MACV itself.

In the earlier stages of the conflict, the United States and the GVN 

lacked a unity of effort. The major issue was that regimes prior to Thieu’s 

government fundamentally did not want to address rural power grievances, they wanted to crush the Communist front.250 Cultural differences 

certainly played a role as they inevitably will, but some anecdotes from 

Vietnam border on high comedy. Virtually no American leader spoke a 

phrase of Vietnamese, so they relied on translators or other elites who 

could speak English. Since they were almost exclusively from the privileged and Catholic urban minority, and the focus of many operations was 

the Buddhist agrarian population, it is akin to learning about Iowa farmers 

from a Harvard law professor.251 In one case, McNamara wanted to shout 

“Long Live Vietnam” to a gathering of Saigonese during a visit, but instead roused them with an exhortation that “The Southern Duck Wants to 

Lie Down!”252

The APC served to strengthen the bonds between allies, and is perhaps 

the high-water mark for these relations. The post-Tet environment in 1968 

allowed the US 25th Infantry Division to conduct operations as partnered 

companies, platoons, and even squads that integrated all manners of GVN 

assets.253 However, the APC was not sustained with a follow-up institutional change that may have made these links permanent; it only accelerated resources and coercive measures until the population was secured 

from Communist subversion.254
94

The process of Vietnamization actually served to weaken those same 

bonds. Many in the GVN and ARVN resented the notion of Vietnamization

because they had fought longer, and with more casualties, and knew they 

would continue to fight alone after the American withdrawal.255 The resulting ARVN force had all of the liabilities of a conventional force which 

had to conduct a counterinsurgency, but few of the assets. As a result, the 

damage was more psychological than material when the United States cut 

off aid prior to the 1975 offensive.256

MACV displayed a moderate degree of unified effort, but it also had 

some shortcomings. Within MACV, Komer identified several contributing 

factors: military operations were not the repertoire of the other agencies 

involved, the capabilities did not exist within the armed forces, the lack 

of a unified GVN–MACV administrative structure, and an institutional 

focus on conventional operations.257 With the establishment of CORDS, 

many of these issues were addressed. By establishing control over their 

own personnel with an indifference to military and civilian distinctions, 

CORDS improved on the OCO model and effectively integrated much of 

its harmonizing function with the MACV staff.258 CORDS was criticized 

by some field commanders as just “window dressing” with discrete programs of wells and schools.259 Even if some of the local-level civic projects 

were not linked to a wider plan to improve governance, CORDS brought 

pacification efforts under a single manager and gained military support. 

This finally provided a unified and direct challenge to the hyper-organized 

VC structure at the local level.260

CORDS also helped to bring the war effort into a framework of legitimacy. By design, CORDS’ influence was limited since ultimate orders 

for pacification came from the GVN. While American leaders always supported the current regime, bureaucratic processes may have masked the 

intractable nature of social, political, and economic issues within SVN.261

This unchanging nature of these social dynamics between the government and the rural population in SVN greatly contributed to the largest shortfall in the early counterinsurgency effort: a failure to isolate the 

insurgents from their base of support. The other factor was the constantly 

cited misconception that the guerrilla forces got their support from the 

North Vietnamese regular forces via the Ho Chi Minh Trail, hence the 

priority placed on disrupting infiltrations rather than the real base areas. 

VC requirements from outside SVN were only 12 tons of supply per day 

in 1966; all else was procured locally.262 This was always a fallacy within 

MACV during Westmoreland’s command, even though Bernard Fall had 

identified it as early as 1964 in Street Without Joy: “The hard fact is, that, 

save for a few specialized anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons and cadre 

personnel not exceeding perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 a year or less, the VC 

operation inside South Viet-Nam has become self-sustaining.”263 This phenomenon was continually reported, as in a CIA report from 1966 which 
95

Westmoreland acknowledges in his own autobiography.264

An early attempt to isolate insurgents from their base was the Strategic Hamlet program, which ironically would have worked better had 

it been complemented by the later search-and-destroy operations. Those 

search-and-destroy operations would be hampered by an inability to separate the insurgent from the population. By using attrition without isolating 

them, the VC just had to survive amongst the population to win.265 In 1969, 

Thompson contended that the earlier Strategic Hamlet program would 

have failed had it been continued past 1963 since there were more than 4 

million refugees within SVN. Even if the population had been resettled in 

a massive effort by the GVN, it would have only completed the first step. 

He saw the second critical step as the implementation of population controls, which the Diem regime could not have applied without an effective 

paramilitary force in 1963.266 So, at the cost of tearing down the existing 

intelligence nets within existing communities, the Strategic Hamlet program failed to isolate the VC from their base of support.267

The CAP program represented a way to replicate this missing paramilitary capability, in an attempt to isolate the VC from their support networks 

at the village level. Even though the program showed some initial promise 

within the USMC units around Da Nang, Westmoreland had the incorrect 

impression that he would never have enough combat power to support it 

across SVN, even though a Department of Defense study showed that it 

would only take 167,000 troops to secure every hamlet in the country in 

this manner. Due to the heavy logistical and engineer requirements for the 

initial deploying force, only 80,000 of the 550,000 US troops were fighters. A better force mix focused on light infantry and fire support would 

have had a better ratio of combat soldiers, and made the CAP program a 

feasible approach.268

Eventually, the counterinsurgency effort was able to isolate the insurgent force from its base of support. However, the success of pacification from 1968 to 1971 cannot be fully understood since it coincides with 

the largest and most successful part of conventional operations in SVN.269

American troops exhibited little compunction with clearing insurgents by 

armed force; tactical success in search-and-destroy operations convinced 

MACV that it was accomplishing just that. A large part of that tactical 

success was the heavy use of American artillery units’ indirect firepower.

As with the Malayan Emergency, the requirement for tactical fires and 

the organization of the counterinsurgency force were the two factors that 

had the most influence on the employment of artillery units. As American 

artillery units were introduced in SVN, they were rapidly integrated into 

the framework and girding of search-and-destroy operations in an attempt 

to win the war via attrition. Given the awesome casualty-producing firepower of artillery units compared to light infantry forces at the time, this 

seemed like a logical role for the artillery. But if the approach to a coun-
96

terinsurgency effort is a blank canvas at the outset of a campaign, there 

are several factors that influence the brushstrokes as the work takes form. 

These factors such as the terrain, constraints, and limitations on the force, 

and the availability of other firepower assets all influenced the employment of artillery units in SVN.

The requirement for tactical fires in SVN was about as high as can be 

expected in the context of a counterinsurgency effort, given that the hybrid 

nature of warfare had a significantly conventional quality to it. Artillery 

units could not be expected to reconstitute to meet the threat of a main 

force VC or NVA unit, then instantaneously transform to a nonstandard 

security or pacification role. But a nuance of this fact is that artillery units 

rarely had to mass fires above the battery level to meet the tactical requirements of the maneuver force.270 As noted before, more fire missions were 

fired as massive amounts of unobserved H&I fires than were fired to support troops in contact. The notable exceptions were Hue and Khe Sanh, 

where the enemy was decimated by indirect fires whenever it massed.271

As a corollary, there were few chances to mass fires in the deliberate targeting of an enemy. Since the VC did not need to protect physical 

lines of communication or critical infrastructure, there was not a class of 

fixed locations to target for destruction. By definition, if a counterinsurgency force has to search for an enemy before destroying it, large preparatory fire plans do not seem logical except to secure initial movements. 

The seasoned VC and NVA knew this intuitively, and their notions were 

confirmed upon their first institutional contacts with American artillery. 

Senior Colonel Ha, a veteran of the Ia Drang campaign in 1965, reflected 

that his best method was to surprise the Americans and separate them from 

their firepower by maintaining close contact, or completely disengaging. 

He sought to win or escape before the battle became an even match.272

Quite literally, the enemy sought to never mass long enough to allow for 

deliberate targeting so that American artillery units would always be supporting hasty individual calls for fire.

There were few organizational constraints on the use of artillery firepower, but many limits due to the environment in SVN. Although collateral damage was considered, it did not limit the employment of artillery 

units. In his introduction to the use of field artillery firepower in limited 

war, historian J.B.A. Bailey notes that “[i]n a limited war, the principle of 

‘economy of force’ may still apply, but the principle of ‘minimum force’ is 

often superimposed. ‘Economy of force’ is desirable to husband resources, 

while ‘minimum force’ is desirable to control the effect of their product.” 

273 It was an especially difficult endeavor to balance these principles in 

Vietnam since the war was a mix of high- and low-intensity operations. 

Collateral damage was avoided, but accepted. MACV estimated that there 

were 165,000 civilian casualties and 2 million refugees as a result of mopup operations after the Tet Offensive in Hue, Cholon, Kontum, My Tho, 
97

and Ben Tre. Although not all of these are attributable to indirect firepower, these locales had large swathes of urban sections flattened so it is 

a reasonable assumption that artillery was a major contributing factor.274

There were initial restrictions to retake Hue due to the cultural significance 

of the citadel, but these restrictions vanished and the 1st Cavalry Division 

(Airmobile) Artillery alone fired 52,000 rounds into the city.275 The normal 

exhortations against collateral damage in a counterinsurgency may not 

have been seen during these campaigns since it was relatively well known 

that the North Vietnamese had initiated combat in these populated areas.

The American ROE reflected this attitude on collateral damage. When 

the legality of unobserved H&I fires in populated areas were challenged in 

1967, commanders declared them free-fire zones and issued warnings to 

the populations rather than expanding patrols.276 After the Tet Offensive, 

MACV published an ROE in order to decrease casualties, and delineated 

uninhabited areas, hamlets and villages, and urban areas.277 During Vietnamization, ARVN and local leaders were integrated into the process for 

clearing fires, which severely limited the use of artillery for H&I fires but 

reinforced the efforts of pacification in the rural countryside. The goal of 

responding to a call for fire within two minutes was seldom met in this 

environment. Without prejudice, MACV Lesson Learned No. 77 regarding 

fire support coordination flatly stated that “the requirement for military 

and political clearances for artillery fire on or near populated areas has an 

adverse effect on the responsiveness of artillery fire.”278

Another constraint on the employment of artillery units was the American army’s own doctrine. Doctrinal field manuals made an unnecessary 

prioritization in roles; the artillery’s primary mission in counterinsurgency 

doctrine was to support combat operations, and acting as security or village defense forces was a secondary mission.279 Fire support doctrine of 

the time only addressed artillery support in clearing the enemy, not acting 

in a nonstandard role to hold and protect key terrain, infrastructure, or population centers.280 There was a period of adjustment, since the dispersed 

and static positioning of general support artillery went against the theoretical advantages of massed battalion fires at decisive points.281 Professional 

journals were the primary means for a discourse in doctrine, and artillery 

concepts did not undergo a sufficient revision until the publication of Field 

Manual 6-20-2 Field Artillery Techniques in 1970.282

As with Malaya, the chief physical limit on artillery fires was the terrain itself. Again, a country with thick jungle canopy, impassable marsh 

areas, and mountainous terrain hindered observation and mobility. The 

jungle was so thick in some regions that adjusting initial rounds by sound 

became a common but dangerous practice.283 Beginning in 1962, artillery 

officer courses at Fort Sill included instruction in jungle firing operations.284

Early techniques in orienting observers in the thick jungle included using 

white phosphorous to mark the fall of initial rounds, which was quickly 
98

refined to mark with smoke or ground-burst illumination.285 Eventually, 

this technique would be expanded to use standard high-explosive rounds 

in mountainous regions to orient observers during Operation WASHINGTON GREEN in 1970.286 The terrain also brought an advantage to American forces, since they could bring 105mm artillery within 50 meters of 

friendly troops in the thickest jungles.287

The chief limitation due to terrain was its effect on observation. As 

with Malaya, the restricted sight distances in the jungle contributed to 

quick and indecisive contacts in many regions of SVN, often before a 

maneuver element could leverage artillery firepower. Forward observers 

with the infantry were expanded to a Lieutenant, an NCO and an enlisted 

soldier per company in an attempt to improve tactical fire support.288 The 

war also provided a testbed for field optics employed at observation posts 

with the ability to identify targets at a range of 10 kilometers during daylight. Advanced optics derived from naval ships provided a capability to 

identify targets at a range of four kilometers at night, and this new ability 

was used to great effect at places similar to Khe Sanh.289

American artillery tried to provide new sensor arrays for target location and target acquisition, but nothing was able to replace a well-trained 

soldier walking with the infantry. Dedicated target acquisition assets made 

an appearance throughout the war, to include sound-ranging sets, ground 

surveillance radar, and the marginally effective counter-mortar radar.290

Large arrays of individual ground target sensors were widely used, but 

they were not very accurate since they were air-delivered and their final 

position was only an estimate. Consequently their value in leading to little 

more than unobserved H&I fires is debatable.291 In 1970, the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) even stationed artillerymen in the cockpit with 

OH-6 pilots in an attempt to establish an aerial observer capability.292 The 

most effective method of target acquisition was the emerging capabilities 

in ground surveillance radars, but even those were limited to affective use 

in the relatively flat delta region.293 Still, no alternate means of observing fires replicated a trained forward observer with a good vantage point, 

which is why one artilleryman from the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) 

developed a system of ropes and pulleys to get himself above the jungle 

canopy while on patrol.294

The counterinsurgency effort was task-organized in such a fashion 

that there was not a large demand for additional security forces. Since early efforts were focused on search-and-destroy operations, there was not an 

intense manpower requirement to garrison these areas. In areas that were 

held for pacification, this was seen as the role for ARVN forces, then the 

territorial forces as they stood up. If artillery units were not even forced to 

secure their own FSBs, it is quite a reach to think that there was an intense 

requirement to use them in a nonstandard security role. Given the architecture of the counterinsurgency force, there was not a need strong enough to 
99

trump the utility of indirect fires to attrit the enemy’s conventional forces.

There was not a strong force pushing artillery units into those roles 

either because air assets were not a strong enough source of firepower to 

replicate artillery units in SVN. Air power during the war was efficient 

and plentiful, but more focused on operational and strategic effects. This 

efficiency was gained after years of air-ground integration in the Korean 

War. These techniques were consolidated in the Tactical Air Control Party, 

which served a battalion in the same way a forward observer served them 

for artillery fires. Additionally, the concept of Forward Air Controllers in 

OV-10 Bronco aircraft greatly enhanced the coordination and integration 

of air assets.295 Air assets were also plentiful, starting with the introduction of B-57s in 1965 and followed by more high-performance jet aircraft 

throughout the war. From 1965 to 1968, American ground forces could 

rely upon roughly 300 close air-support sorties per day. But even this capacity was stressed to its breaking point during the Tet Offensive, and 

UH-1 gunships had to fill the gaps in support.296

In spite of this efficiency and availability, most aircraft were used for 

operational and strategic bombing. The limited B-52 strikes for tactical 

support had a much greater psychological effect on the VC and NVA than 

a direct tactical effect. The enemy also developed an early warning system to these flights, attributed to Soviet trawlers gathering intelligence 

around their home air bases in Guam.297 These bombers had an incredible 

payload, but they were so inaccurate that they could not be used anywhere 

near friendly forces or populated areas.298 Converted cargo planes such as 

the AC-47, AC-119, and AC-130 gave good direct-fire close air support, 

but they were an extremely limited asset.299 At the time, doctrine resulting from the Howze Board put forward the notion that the Army should 

have responsibility for aerial fire support with their rotary-wing assets. 

This colored the use of fixed-wing close air support, and the efforts of the 

US Air Force which was institutionally dedicated to Cold War strategic 

bombing.300 Attack helicopters were plentiful, but they were used primarily as escorts for airmobile operations instead of dedicated fire support platforms.301 The two airmobile divisions’ ARA battalions were used widely 

across SVN, but they were seen by commanders as an artillery asset to the 

point that they operated on the same radio nets as firing units.302

The relative cost of converting an artillery unit to fight in a nonstandard role in SVN was negligible, since it generally did not occur. As discussed before, artillery units did not even secure their own FSBs in many 

cases. One study in 1965 concluded that if properly equipped, an artillery 

battalion tailored for counterinsurgency operations would require an additional an additional 146 soldiers: 20 additional fire direction computers, 18 

additional forward observers, and 108 infantrymen for security.303 Training 

for artillerymen was focused on tasks that were new to stateside or European-based units that had been training for a Cold War conflict on the open 
100

plains of Central Europe. Mission-specific artillery skills for operations in 

SVN required additional training, but not re-training.304 To train artillery 

officers in theater-specific intricacies, I Field Force Artillery headquarters 

established courses such as a six-day Fire Direction Officer Course. However, no courses existed to train officers on conventional artillery for the 

linear Cold War battlefield once their duties in SVN were complete.305

Conclusion

The American experience during the Vietnam War amply illustrates 

the challenge of simultaneously waging a war of conventional means and 

a counterinsurgency. One of the key contributing factors to this difficulty 

was that the enemy force coordinated both modes of warfare and retained 

the ability to scale violence as needed in most regions. As Bernard Fall’s 

quote at the beginning of the chapter alludes to, the American force countered this form of warfare with their own chosen form of warfare: attrition by means of superior mobility and firepower. As such, artillery units 

played a leading role in this approach to a counterinsurgency effort. 

Three decades after the fall of South Vietnam at the hands of a conventional invasion, American artillery units found themselves in the midst of a 

counterinsurgency effort again. In this case, a large conventional invasion 

provided the prologue instead of the epilogue to the grinding counterinsurgency. In Iraq, however, American artillery units found themselves playing a much different role with an entirely new host of challenges.
101

Notes

1. There is a virtually unlimited supply of historical records, accounts, 

critiques and analyses of Vietnam during this period. To understand the themes 

of this war, some of the most helpful sources are as follows. Bernard Fall’s 

works provide an excellent context to the war: Hell in a Very Small Place, Street 

Without Joy and The Two Vietnams. Jeffrey Race’s War Comes to Long An is an 

excellent case study in communist subversion and penetration; Mark Moyar’s 

Triumph Forsaken is an incredibly detailed historical account of the earlier years 

in the American experience; James Willbanks’ Abandoning Vietnam provides 

a great narrative for the remaining years. Sir Robert Thompson provides his 

insight in both Defeating Communist Insurgency and No Exit From Vietnam. 

General William Westmoreland’s A Soldier Reports is an invaluable account of 

his decisions as the MACV Commander; Robert Komer provides similar insight 

for CORDS in his analysis Bureaucracy at War. Andrew Krepinevich gives a 

convincing argument why Westmoreland’s approach was ill-founded in The Army 

and Vietnam; Dale Andrade’s article “Westmoreland was Right: Learning the 

Wrong Lessons From the Vietnam War” gives an excellent counterbalance to it. 

The “Indochina Monographs” series produced by the CMH in the early 1980s 

provides lengthy analysis by senior South Vietnamese subject matter experts. 

The Texas Tech University archive is another excellent resource for primary 

source material and is available online. For artillery-specific studies, General 

David Ewing Ott’s Vietnam Studies: Field Artillery is an excellent distillation of 

techniques from the war, and was written by then-recent practitioners at the war’s 

conclusion at Fort Sill.

2. Some published works that directly compare Malaya and Vietnam 

include: Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from 

Malaya and Vietnam by John A. Nagl and Conflict of Myths: The Development 

of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War by Larry E. 

Cable. Additionally, Sir Robert Thompson frequently compares the two conflicts 

in both Defeating Communist Insurgency and No Exit from Vietnam which is 

understandable, given his prominent role and vantage point in both.

3. In Malaya, a chief advantage for the British was the fact that the CTs were 

almost exclusively from a different ethnic group which was easily identifiable. 

While this held true in the central highlands in Vietnam (ethnic minorities in the 

mountain tribes are different from ethnic Vietnamese), the contested regions in 

the overwhelming majority of South Vietnam pitted ethnic Vietnamese against 

ethnic Vietnamese.

4. Vietnam I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 14 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

5. The Vietnam War is not unique in this regard, as history is rife with this 

type of conflict: The American Revolution and the Peninsular War are but two 

examples. 

6. Vietnam I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 14 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

7. Hoang Ngoc Lung, Indochina Monographs: Strategy and Tactics 

(Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 1978), 130-131.
102

8. The SVN abbreviation reflects an accurate nomenclature, that of a 

Republic of South Viet Nam. The singular word Vietnam is an Anglicized 

combination of Viet (referring to the dominant ethnic group) and Nam (referring 

to the southern position of the nation with respect to China). Although the 

terms GVN (referring to the Government of Viet Nam) and SVN may be used 

somewhat interchangeably, in this chapter GVN will denote the political state and 

government, while SVN will refer to the physical setting of the conflict. 

9. Ngo Quang Truong, Indochina Monographs: Territorial Forces 

(Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 1981), 9.

10. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 10-11.

11. Bernard Fall, The Two Vietnams. (New York: Praeger, 1967), 6.

12. William C. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports (New York: Da Capo Press, 

1976), 52.

13. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 15.

14. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 54.

15. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 58-59.

16. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 67.

17. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 68-71; Bernard Fall, Hell in a Very Small Place

(Philadelphia: Lippincot Press, 1966), 23.

18. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 78.

19. Vo Nguyen Giap, Inside the Vietminh: Vo Nguyen Giap on Guerrilla 

War (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1962), Chapter 4. Giap’s account 

of Dien Bien Phu is an excellent self-examination of the strengths and liabilities 

inherent to his style of guerrilla warfare. Although it has some tones of Marxist 

exhortation, it maintains a seemingly objective view towards the military aspects 

of the campaign. 

20. George C. Herring, America’s Longest War: The United States and 

Vietnam, 1950-1975 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 36-39.

21. Fall, Hell in a Very Small Place, 482.

22. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 318-320.

23. Bernard Fall, Street Without Joy (New York: Shocken Books, 1961), 

345.

24. Fall, Street Without Joy, 345.

25. Graham A. Cosmas, MACV: The Joint Command in the Years of 

Escalation 1962-1967 (Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 

2005), 43-45.

26. Jeffrey Race, War Comes to Long An: Revolutionary Conflict in a 

Vietnamese Province (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972), 165-

170.

27. Vo Nguyen Giap, The Military Art of People’s War, ed. Russell Stetler 

(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970), 238-239. Also refer to Lung, Indochina 
103

Monographs: Strategy and Tactics, 122.

28. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 35-36.

29. Fall, The Two Vietnams, 249. Fall sees this as a manifestation of 

Vietnamese personalism rather than an immature sense of democratic institutions. 

30. John H. Cushman, Senior Officer Debriefing Report: Major General 

John H. Cushman, Commander, Delta Regional Assistance Command, Vietnam, 

14 May 71-14 Jan 72 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1972), 4.

31. Race, War Comes to Long An, 141.

32. Race, War Comes to Long An, 142-149.

33. Lung, Indochina Monographs, 122, 124.

34. Race, War Comes to Long An, 159-161.

35. Race, War Comes to Long An, 177-178.

36. Giap, The Military Art of People’s War, 263. Although, like Mao, Giap’s 

writings also doubled as exhortations to comrades in the field, the author has been 

unable to independently confirm if Giap is Vietnamese for hubris.

37. Andrew F. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam (Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1986), 191-192. This was reflected in captured VC 

documents during Operation Cedar Falls in January 1967.

38. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 168.

39. Fall, Street Without Joy, 347. Fall’s revised edition published in 1964 

contains the following passage: “The hard fact is, that , save for a few specialized 

anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons and cadre personnel not exceeding perhaps 

3,000 to 4,000 a year or less, the VC operation inside South Viet-Nam has become 

self-sustaining.”

40. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 55-57. As the MACV Commander, 

Westmoreland’s account and postwar analysis of COSVN’s role is critical to 

understanding the formulation of American strategy. 

41. Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, 

PAVN Artillery (Rocket Units)-1967 (Saigon: United States Military Assistance 

Command-Vietnam, 1967), 1, 34. Accessed via the Texas Tech University Vietnam 

Center and Archive at www.vietnam.ttu.edu/resources/collections/ (accessed 7 

May 2011).

42. Lawrence H. Carruthers, “Characteristics and Capabilities of Enemy 

Weapons,” Artillery Trends 45 (September 1970): 11-24. 

43. Race, War Comes to Long An, 151.

44. Race, War Comes to Long An, 152.

45. Edward Lansdale, “Contradictions in Military Culture” in The Lessons 

of Vietnam, ed. W. Scott Thompson and Donaldson Frizzell (New York: Crane, 

Russak and Company, 1977), 42.

46. Robert Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency (London: Chatto 

and Windus, 1966), 121-140. Thompson devotes an entire chapter (aptly titled 
104

“Strategic Hamlets”) to the comparison and contrast of the two programs in 

Malaya and Vietnam. Thompson also discusses the failings of the Strategic 

Hamlet program in No Exit From Vietnam. (New York: Davis McKay Company, 

1969), 169-170. Ironically, the GVN developed the first strategic hamlets on its 

own, several months before Thompson arrived in Vietnam. Mark Moyar, Triumph 

Forsaken (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 156.

47. Robert Komer, Bureaucracy at War: U.S. Performance in the Vietnam 

Conflict (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986), 138; Moyar, Triumph Forsaken, 

158-159.

48. BA030, Vietnam Veteran, Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin 

Mitchell, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 24 February 2011.

49. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 138.

50. Fall, Street Without Joy, 363. While these VC battalions would have 

numerically outnumbered the force fielded by two ARVN divisions in the 

same area, it would not have the same conventional combat power in terms of 

coordinated firepower and logistics.

51. Peter Dale Scott, “Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon 

Papers,” in The Pentagon Papers Volume V, ed. Noam Chomsky and Howard 

Zinn (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972), 246-247.

52. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 57.

53. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 62-63.

54. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 56.

55. Westmoreland served under Taylor in the 82nd Airborne Division 

during the Sicily campaign in World War II. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 

67-68.

56. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 68-69. Unfortunately, Thompson 

does not include an account of this trip in No Exit From Vietnam. Westmoreland 

asserted that the only transferrable lesson from that counterinsurgency effort was 

the unity of effort embodied by the SWECs and DWECs, although no attempt 

was made to incorporate a similar system due to the relative weakness of district 

administrators within the GVN.

57. William C. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition” in The Lessons 

of Vietnam, ed. W. Scott Thompson and Donaldson Frizzell (New York: Crane, 

Russak and Company, 1977), 65; Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 153-154 

for Westmoreland’s defense of pursuing a war of attrition. Westmoreland saw 

Vietnam in terms of a dichotomy: some military units blocked VC main force 

units in a conventional sense, while other units conducted the pacification effort 

among the coastal population centers and rural areas.

58. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 96.

59. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 26. 

60. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 57-58.

61. Mark Moyar, Triumph Forsaken (New York: Cambridge University 

Press, 2006), 310-311. North Vietnamese patrol boats attacked American naval 
105

intelligence vessels, even after both Ho Chi Minh and Giap decided against 

it. While some saw this as an opportunity to address overt North Vietnamese 

aggression with a militarily free hand, the response was muffled by a wariness to 

widen the war with other Communist powers, as in Korea.

62. Moyar, Triumph Forsaken, 313.

63. Marshall was writing in an unofficial capacity, having retired in 1960 

and assumed the life of an observer and historian-at-large in Vietnam.

64. S. L. A. Marshall, “Thoughts on Vietnam” in The Lessons of Vietnam, 

ed. W. Scott Thompson and Donaldson Frizzell (New York: Crane, Russak and 

Company, 1977), 65. It is unclear how Marshall viewed this decisive victory 

taking shape, but this probably means ground incursions into North Vietnam 

itself. The North Vietnamese were surely aware of the danger of being on the 

wrong side of another Dien Bien Phu in South Vietnam.

65. In contrast, the United States’ Pacific allies contributed a significant 

amount of capable combat power, led by Australia, South Korea, Thailand and 

The Phillipines. Overall, third-country support peaked at 71,000 in 1969. Herring, 

America’s Longest War, 181.

66. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition,” 59.

67. Lansdale, “Contradictions in Military Culture,” 45.

68. BH060, Vietnam Political and Military Analyst, Interviewed by Mark 

Battjes, Ben Boardman, Robert Green, and Dustin Mitchell, Washington, DC, 

22 March 2011; Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 87-115. Westmoreland’s 

unique views on this subject illustrate the constant changes in leadership, and 

its paralyzing effect on the counterinsurgency effort. Tellingly, he titles these 

chapters “Chaos Unabated” and “Constant Crisis.”

69. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 141. Komer’s view is from an important 

vantage point since at the time he was serving as the interim National Security 

Advisor to Johnson.

70. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition,” 59. For his reflections on 

this process, Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 128-129.

71. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition,” 62-63; Westmoreland, A 

Soldier Reports, 141-143, 145.

72. Moyar, Triumph Forsaken, 412-416.

73. John A. Nagl, “Counterinsurgency in Vietnam: American Organizational 

Culture and Learning,” in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, ed. Daniel 

Marston and Carter Malkasian (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 126.

74. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 177-179.

75. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 173.

76. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 173-175.

77. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 196-197.

78. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 179.

79. Vietnam I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 
106

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 14 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

80. Thompson is quoted in Dale Andrade, “Westmoreland was Right: 

Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Vietnam War,” Small Wars and Insurgencies

19, no. 2 (June 2008): 163.

81. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 142.

82. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 142. The official title of the report was “A 

Program for the Pacification and Long-Term Development of South Vietnam.” 

The first volume (PROVN I) contained the report’s analysis, while the second 

volume (PROVN II) contained several annexes.

83. Office of The Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations-U.S. 

Department of Defense, A Program for the Pacification and Long-Term 

Development of South Vietnam, vol I (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 

1966), 1.

84. Office of The Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations-U.S. 

Department of Defense, A Program for the Pacification and Long-Term 

Development of South Vietnam, vol I, 1-2.

85. Office of The Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations-U.S. 

Department of Defense, A Program for the Pacification and Long-Term 

Development of South Vietnam, vol I, 5.

86. Office of The Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations-U.S. 

Department of Defense, A Program for the Pacification and Long-Term 

Development of South Vietnam, vol II (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 

1966), I-43.

87. Krepinveich, The Army and Vietnam, 182. In a pre-emptive warning 

against this notion of making the regime look like a puppet government, PROVN 

II stated that “[t]he Vietnamese can be talked to frankly and honestly about the 

situation in their country. Creating a facade of success destroys the credibility of 

the US support effort by casting Americans as either insincere or ignorant of local 

conditions.” Although PROVN illustrated why operations were failing to achieve 

a strategic effect in SVN, the army suppressed the report lest any resources be 

reallocated toward the support of pacification or civic action.

88. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 144.

89. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 185-186.

90. Giap, The Military Art of People’s War, 253.

91. Richard Hunt, Pacification: The American Struggle for Vietnam’s 

Hearts and Minds (Colorado: Westview Press, 1995) 82.

92. Hunt, Pacification, 83-84.

93. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 212.

94. Hunt, Pacification, 83.

95. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 205-206.

96. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 187.

97. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 188.
107

98. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 190.

99. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 187; Westmoreland, A Soldier 

Reports, 214.

100 . Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 102.

101. Hunt, Pacification, 86-87.

102. Hunt, Pacification, 88, 91.

103. Hunt, Pacification, 90.

104. Hunt, Pacification, 90. This included ratings and evaluations for the 

subordinates in both cases.

105. Hunt, Pacification, 89.

106. BA030, Vietnam Veteran, Interview.

107. Vietnam II Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 18 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

108 . Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 230-231.

109. Jesse Faugstad, “No Simple Solution,” Military Review (July-August 

2010): 34-35.

110 . Headquarters United States Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, 

RF-PF Handbook for Advisors (Saigon: United States Military Assistance 

Command-Vietnam, 1969), 6.

111. Faugstad, “No Simple Solution,” 39, 41.

112. Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, 

Command History 1968 Volume I (Saigon: United States Military Assistance 

Command-Vietnam, 1969), 376.

113. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 239-240.

114. Marshall, “Thoughts on Vietnam,” 53.

115. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 310-311. 

116. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 331.

117. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 328-330.

118. Robert H. Scales, Firepower in Limited War (Novato, CA: Presidio 

Press, 1995), 120.

119. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 338-339.

120. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 249-250.

121. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 334.

122. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 96; Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 

332.

123. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 96.

124. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition,” 69.

125. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 245.
108

126. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 247.

127. Eric Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat: The Vietnam War in Hau 

Nghia Province (Oxford, UK: Westview Press, 1991), 223.

128. Tran Dinh Tho, Indochina Monographs: Pacification (Washington, DC: 

US Army Center for Military History, 1978), 183.

129. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 224-226.

130. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 94.

131. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 237.

132. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 226.

133. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 234. 

134. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 251.

135. James Willbanks, Abandoning Vietnam (Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press, 2004), 21.

136. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 252; Bergerud, The Dynamics of 

Defeat, 241. 

137. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 50.

138. Hunt, Pacification, 269-271. Clifford approved initiatives in an 

attempt to ensure that the re-emerging advisory role was given equal weight 

as the departing commanders’ role in military personnel systems. Policies 

including General Officer letters of recommendation, family housing for stateside 

dependents, advanced civil schooling after tours, and guaranteed consideration 

for early command made the assignment an attractive assignment, especially for 

career officers who did not gain combat experience from 1965 to 1968. However, 

these incentive policies could never compete with the institutional emphasis on 

command experience.

139. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 244-245. The “tethered goat” 

tactics involves portraying a weak and defenseless unit (in this scenario, often a 

PF platoon) to bait an enemy attack, then destroying the enemy with a previously 

hidden, superior element (a combined American and ARVN force with generous 

amounts of firepower at their disposal).

140. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 249.

141. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 246, 252.

142. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 296. This was corroborated 

specifically in BH060, Interview.

143. Lewis Sorley, Vietnam Chronicles: The Abrams Tapes 1968-1972

(Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 2004), 318-320. A sampling 

of transcripts from Abrams’ meetings in December 1969 illustrates both the 

improvement in ARVN and the drastic decrease in main force infiltration into 

SVN. Sorley served as Abrams’ Chief of Staff during the war, so this record may 

be prone to a biased presentation of the material.

144 . Truong, Indochina Monographs, 40.

145. Hunt, Pacification, 273.
109

146. Graham A. Cosmas, MACV: The Joint Command in the Years of 

Withdrawal 1968-1973 (Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 

2005), 320-324.

147. Cushman, Senior Officer Debriefing Report, 9.

148. Cosmas, MACV, 345, 351. 

149. Cosmas, MACV, 385.

150. Herring, America’s Longest War, 324-325.

151. Herring, America’s Longest War, 326.

152. Hunt, Pacification, 274.

153. Vietnam II Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 18 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

A veteran of the CORDS program from the delta region assessed that the need to 

mentor RFs and PFs had passed as early as 1972 in his sector.

154. Vo Nguyen Giap and Van Tien Dung, How We Won The War (Philadelphia, 

PA: RECON Publications, 1976), 41. Giap’s views were corroborated during 

BH060, Interview, by an American political-military expert, who stated that 

“if the North Vietnamese had never come in, the south would never have fallen 

because the regional forces and the military could take care of the Vietcong. We 

had trained them to that point.”

155. Herring, America’s Longest War, 332.

156 . Willbanks, Abandoning Vietnam, 281, 284.

157. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 18-21, 40, 70.

158. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 164.

159. Boyd L. Dastrup, King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. 

Army’s Field Artillery (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1992), 

284. Additionally, the preface to Scales’ Firepower in Limited War provides an 

excellent distillation of this concept.

160. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 282.

161. Janice E. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery 

1775-2003 (Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 2007), 269; 

John J. McGrath, Fire for Effect: Field Artillery and Close Air Support in the US 

Army (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2007), 117.

162. Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 61.

163. Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 

151.

164. E. D. Smith, Counter-Insurgency Operations 1: Malaya and Borneo

(London: Ian Allan, 1985), 68.

165. Townsend A. Van Fleet, “105 in the Jungle,” Artillery Trends 26 

(October 1962): 19-26.

166. Dastrup, King of Battle, 277.
110

167. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 151.

168. Patrick J. Lindsay, “Counterguerrilla Warfare,” Artillery Trends 29 

(February 1964): 13. 

169. Dastrup, King of Battle, 280-281. These were not a purely American 

invention, as the British RA has already pioneered single-gun raids in Borneo. 

Refer to Smith, 68-69.

170. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 152; Scales, 91.

171. Ian Horwood, Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War 

(Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006), 129; Dastrup, 283.

172. US Army Artillery and Missile School, “Aerial Rocket Artillery,” 

Artillery Trends 37 (January 1967): 42.

173. David Ewing Ott, Vietnam Studies: Field Artillery, 1954-1973 

(Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1975), 75-80.

174. US Army Artillery and Missile School, “Riverine Artillery,” Artillery 

Trends 39 (January 1968): 14-24.

175. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 270; Ott, 

172.

176. McGrath, Fire for Effect, 116; Ott, Vietnam Studies, 172.

177. The Beehive round (designated the XM546) was specifically developed 

for anti-personnel defense in the direct fire mode. As a reflection of the intense 

requirements for local defense, artillery units had more Beehive rounds in their 

Unit Basic Load than any other munition except the standard High Explosive 

shell. Headquarters 25th Infantry Division Artillery, Operational Report of 25th 

Inf Div Arty for Period Ending 31 Jul 68 (Washington, DC: Department of the 

Army, 1968), 9. Accessed via the Texas Tech University Vietnam Center and 

Archive at www.vietnam.ttu.edu/resources/ collections/ (accessed 7 May 2011).

178. The Killer Junior technique was developed in-country and used 

mechanical time fuzes set to burst 30 feet high, at a range less than a kilometer. It 

was particularly useful once the enemy determined that they could avoid much of 

the Beehive fragmentation by laying prone or behind minimal cover. The Killer 

Junior technique was used for 105mm and 155mm artillery, and a Killer Senior 

technique was eventually developed for the 8-inch howitzer. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 

61.

179. Modern artillery uses the mil as its graduated unit of measure for firing 

data. There are 6,400 mils in a complete circle.

180 . Nathaniel W. Foster, “Speed Shifting the 155mm Howitzer, Towed: 

The Evolution of an Idea,” Artillery Trends 37 (January 1967): 17-22.

181. US Army Artillery and Missile School, “Lessons Learned in Vietnam: 

6400-mil Traverse for the 175mm Gun and 8-Inch Howitzer,” Artillery Trends 37 

(January 1967): 71.

182. US Army Artillery and Missile School , “Simple Solutions for 6400-

mil Charts,” Artillery Trends 37 (January 1967): 11-16.
111

183. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 42-43.

184. Headquarters 25th Infantry Division Artillery, Operational Report 

of 25th Inf Div Arty for Period Ending 31 Jul 68, 1-2. Accessed via the Texas 

Tech University Vietnam Center and Archive at www.vietnam.ttu.edu/resources/

collections/ (accessed 7 May 2011). This after-action review shows the 

reorganization and switches in command support relationships during the response 

to increased attacks on Saigon in 1968. For a comparison of the responsibilities 

inherent to divisional and area support artillery headquarters, see Ott, Vietnam 

Studies, 45-47. 

185. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 268-269.

186. Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-16, Counterguerrilla 

Operations (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1963), 89.

187. J. B. A. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower (Oxford, UK: Oxford 

Military Press, 1989), 247.

188. Dastrup, King of Battle, 285.

189. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Niagara/Cedar Falls, Period 5-26 Jan 1967 (Washington, DC: 

Department of the Army, 1968), 51.

190. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Niagara/Cedar Falls, Period 5-26 Jan 1967, 54.

191. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Niagara/Cedar Falls, Period 5-26 Jan 1967, 57.

192. Dastrup, King of Battle, 285.

193. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Junction City I (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1967), 5; 

Ott, Vietnam Studies, 116.

194. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Junction City I, 5, 34; Ott, Vietnam Studies, 116. 

195. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 117.

196. Headquarters 1st Infantry Division, After Action Report-Operation 

Junction City (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1967), 80.

197. Headquarters 1st Infantry Division, After Action Report-Operation 

Junction City, 81.

198. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Junction City I, 39.

199. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 116.

200. Headquarters 173rd Airborne Brigade, Combat After Action ReportOperation Junction City I, 39. When firing artillery for extended operations, the 

long-term management of ammunition and propellant lots is a critical task. Since 

these are made and handled differently, they will impart different variations on the 

piece’s muzzle velocity, and cause a variation in range. By resourcing units with 

a limited number of different lots, they can manage these variations with ease and 

ensure accurate predicted fires.
112

201. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 245.

202. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 337-338, 340.

203. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 243-245. This patterned 

“firepower box” technique is a common theme throughout analyses on modern 

artillery to which many historians pay homage. Diagrams showing the technique 

appear in Bailey’s Field Artillery and Firepower, 242, Scales’ Firepower in 

Limited War, 130, and Ott’s Vietnam Studies: Field Artillery, 152.

204. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 157.

205. Kevin M. Boylan, “The Red Queen’s Race: Operation Washington 

Green and Pacification in Binh Dinh Province, 1969-70,” The Journal of Military 

History 73 (October 2009): 1196.

206. Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Operational ReportLessons Learned, Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Period Ending 31 

Jan 1970 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1970), 2-3, 10.

207. Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Operational ReportLessons Learned, Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Period Ending 

31 Jan 1970 19.

208. Boylan, “The Red Queen’s Race,” 18, 32.

209. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Combat Operations 

After Action Report, Operation Randolph Glen (Washington, DC: Department of 

the Army, 1970), 6.

210. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Combat 

Operations After Action Report, Operation Randolph Glen, 23. For examples, see 

pages 11 through 12, 14, and 16 for accounts of individual unit displacements to 

FSBs.

211. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Combat Operations 

After Action Report, Operation Randolph Glen, 23, 26. The author suspects that 

classifying most fire missions as “suspected targets” was a clever way to use 

unobserved H&I fires when a unit was not supposed to use unobserved H&I fires.

212. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 152.

213. Dastrup, King of Battle, 278; Ott, 22-24.

214. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 26.

215. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 29-30.

216. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 283.

217. Headquarters US Army Section Military Assistance Advisory Group, 

Lessons Learned Number 31: Artillery Organization and Employment in Counter 

Insurgency (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1963), 2-3, 5-6. 

218. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 191.

219. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 199-200. General Ott’s monograph on the 

Vietnamization of ARVN artillery that forms part of this book was reprinted as 

a stand-alone article in Field Artillery magazine, based on the emerging effort to 

adapt Afghanistan’s Soviet-era artillery forces. David E. Ott, “Vietnamization: FA 
113

Assistance Programs,” Field Artillery (January-February 2007): 34-41.

220. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 246.

221. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Operational 

Report-Lessons Learned, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Period Ending 31 

October 1970 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1970), 49.

222. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 212-214.

223. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 247.

224. Cushman, Senior Officer Debriefing Report, 28.

225. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 186. Due to logistical shortages 

in 1966, Westmoreland briefly limited ARVN guns to two rounds a day without 

restricting US guns. To be fair, US forces were engaged in heavier fighting at the 

time.

226. Lindsay, “Counterguerrilla Warfare,” 15.

227. Headquarters Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, RF-PF 

Handbook for Advisors, 29, 31.

228. Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-73, Advisor Handbook for 

Counterinsurgency (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1965), 85-86.

229. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 99.

230. Headquarters, Military Assistance Command-Vietnam, RF-PF 

Handbook for Advisors, 32.

231. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 98.

232. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 216.

233. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 43.

234. Vietnam II Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 18 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS. 

235. Westmoreland, “A Military War of Attrition,” 64.

236. Andrade, “Westmoreland was Right,” 150.

237. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 69 and 82.

238. Tho, Indochina Monographs, 184.

239. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 168.

240. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 150-151.

241. Cosmas, MACV, 225.

242. Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 165.

243. Andrade, “Westmoreland was Right,” 147.

244. Sorley, Vietnam Chronicles, 376.

245. Andrade, “Westmoreland was Right,” 174.

246. Truong, Indochina Monographs, 137.

247. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 147.
114

248. Andrade, “Westmoreland was Right,” 146.

249. William Colby, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA (New York: Simon 

and Schuster, 1978), 286.

250. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 242.

251. Allowing, of course, for an invariable statistical incidence of Harvardeducated lawyers who were raised on a farm in Iowa.

252. Don Luce, “Tell Your Friends that We’re People,” in The Pentagon 

Papers Volume V, ed. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (Boston: Beacon Press, 

1972), 91.

253. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 225; Truong, 113.

254. Bergerud, The Dynamics of Defeat, 223-224.

255. Willbanks, Abandoning Vietnam, 41-42. 

256. Willbanks, Abandoning Vietnam, 279-280.

257. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 149-150.

258. Hunt, Pacification, 83, 90.

259. Hunt, Pacification, 278.

260. Vietnam I Panel Discussion, US Army Command and General Staff 

College Art of War Scholars Seminar, 14 January 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

261. Hunt, Pacification, 277, 279.

262. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 168.

263. Fall, Street Without Joy, 347.

264 . Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 182.

265. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 170-171.

266. Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency, 169-171.

267. BA030, Vietnam Veteran, Interview. This veteran stated that the 

Strategic Hamlet program destroyed his intelligence network and brought many 

“strangers” into the area, allowing the VC to insert their sleeper agents in the 

hamlet.

268. Krepinevich, The Army and Vietnam, 176.

269. Komer, Bureaucracy at War, 152.

270. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 151.

271. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports, 340.

272. Nagl, “Counterinsurgency in Vietnam: American Organizational 

Culture and Learning,” 126; Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 73.

273. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 235.

274. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 249.

275. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 142-143.

276. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 248.
115

277. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 173-175.

278. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 18.

279. Department of the Army, Field Manual 31-73: Advisor Handbook for 

Counterinsurgency, 84.

280. Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-16: Counterguerrilla 

Operations, 88-92.

281. McKenney, 267.

282. Andrew J. Birtle, U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency 

Operations Doctrine 1942-1976 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 

2006), 447.

283. Charles W. Jackson, “Adjust By Sound,” Artillery Trends 39 (January 

1968): 30-34.

284. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 23. This must have been a challenge for the Fort 

Sill instructors to replicate the jungle environment since Southwestern Oklahoma 

lacks moisture, foliage, and any kind of night life.

285. Dennis I. Walter, “First Round Smoke,” Artillery Trends 39 (January 

1968): 25-27; Ott, Vietnam Studies, 85.

286. Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Operational ReportLessons Learned, Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Period Ending 

31 Jan 1970, 6.

287. Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 88.

288. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 281.

289. Gudmundsson, On Artillery, 152.

290. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery, 282.

291. Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 119-120.

292. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Operational 

Report-Lessons Learned, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), Period Ending 31 

October 1970, 49.

293. Ira A. Hunt, The 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam: Unparalleled and 

Unequaled (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2010), 64-65. Major 

General Hunt (formerly Division Chief of Staff for the 9th Infantry Division) 

describes the A/N-TPS 25 and the A/N-PPS 5 radars which were leveraged to 

vector maneuver units towards points of origin for insurgent artillery fires on 

Saigon.

294. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 130.

295. McGrath, Fire for Effect, 117-118; Horwood, Interservice Rivalry and 

Airpower in the Vietnam War, 125, 127. 

296. Horwood, Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War, 

126, 130.

297. For a first-hand account of this effective effort, refer to Truong Nhu 

Tang, A Vietcong Memoir (San Diego, CA: Harcourt-Brace Jovanovich, 1985), 
116

168-170. See also: Lung, 107-108.

298. Bailey, Field Artillery and Firepower, 246.

299. McGrath, Fire for Effect, 120.

300. Horwood, Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War, 119.

301. McGrath, Fire for Effect, 121-122; Horwood, 122-123.

302. Scales, Firepower in Limited War, 106.

303. Kenneth S. Heitzke, “Field Artillery Mission, Weapon, and Organization 

for Counterguerilla Warfare” (Master’s Thesis, US Army Command and General 

Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1965), 109.

304. Lindsay, “Counterguerrilla Warfare,” 12.

305. Ott, Vietnam Studies, 133.
117

Chapter 5

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the 

Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, 

and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually, also, 

under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work 

will not be as good as, perhaps, you think it is.

— T. E. Lawrence

Similar to the American experience in Vietnam, the counterinsurgency 

effort during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not a diametrically 

opposed insurgency-counterinsurgency dynamic; it was also an amalgam 

of several forms of warfare. Insurgency, communal conflict, and terrorism 

all emerged in Iraq.1

 The history of OIF reinforces the notion that while 

war among the people has a chiefly political element, it is still warfare.2

Insurgency took the dual forms of a rebellion of disaffected groups after 

the collapse of an authoritarian government, and a rebellion against an 

intervening authority. Communal conflict took the form of sectarian and 

ethnic warfare. Terrorism took the form of activities that sought to further 

transnational extremist goals.3

 One of the greatest challenges facing the 

American-led counterinsurgency effort in Iraq was that attacking one of 

these problem sets indirectly affected the other two problem sets.

Through an adaptation of tactics and an evolution of strategy that 

pragmatically secured the Iraqi population and defeated the drivers of instability, it is fair to assert “that we and the Iraqis together pulled their 

society back from the brink of total collapse.”4

 Although OIF availed reversible gains in security and political harmony which will take years to 

assess, this notion represents the eventual effectiveness of an intense counterinsurgency in Iraq. Artillery units played an integral part in reinforcing 

the early ill-suited approaches, and directly supported the eventual success 

of pulling the population back from the precipice of societal collapse, in 

order to address security and communal conflict with enduring outcomes. 

The steady evolution of employing artillery units to provide indirect fires, 

additional forces for security missions, or a combination of the two nearly 

parallels the arc of counterinsurgent capability in Iraq in a larger sense. 

The organizational conversion cost of switching these mission profiles 

was not only the greatest factor in how they were employed, but also the 

greatest long-term effect on the units themselves.

Background

Modern Iraq covers 437,072 square kilometers, an area slightly larger 

than the state of California. It shares relatively accessible borders with 

Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey and has a seaport 

on the Persian Gulf in the extreme southeast of the country. In terms of 
118

physical geography, the land is generally a vast desert landscape periodically interrupted by fertile river valleys and rocky escarpments. The northern half of the country does have varied elevations, with hill country and 

mountains dominating the extreme northern areas.5

 Unlike Malaya and 

Vietnam, the terrain would not play a large role in the counterinsurgency 

when compared to the critical demographics of the country.

Iraq’s population of 24.6 million had several distinctions along sectarian, ethnic, and urban-rural lines. Along religious lines, the population 

was roughly 60 percent Shia, 35 percent Sunni, with traces of Christian 

and other religious communities. Ethnically, the Arab population accounted for nearly 80 percent and Kurds an additional 15 percent, and a 

few socially isolated minority communities of Turkmen, Assyrians, and 

other groups.6

 The division along sectarian and ethnic lines colored initial 

American perceptions of the population in Iraq and drove these divisions 

further. This may have been driven by the disaffected Shia exiles and nationalistic Kurds that influenced early US plans for civil redevelopment 

in Iraq. Consequently, most initial approaches to counterinsurgency were 

couched in the terms of Shia and Sunni or Arab and Kurd.7

An equally important demographic aspect of Iraqi society was the 

conflict between urban and rural populations. Iraq had many large metropolitan centers, to include the capital city of Baghdad that had more than 

5.6 million residents. Mosul in the north and Basra in the south were the 

other two major metropolitan areas, both cities with well over 1 million 

inhabitants and relatively modern infrastructure. Kurdish population centers in the north included Irbil (839,600), Kirkuk (728,800), and As Sulaymaniyah (643,200); Shia Arab cities in the south were An Najaf (563,000), 

Karbala (549,700), and An Nasiriyah (535,100). Cities in the Sunni Arab 

heartland were considerably smaller in size, with Fallujah and Ramadi 

along the Euphrates River Valley, and Balad, Samarra, Tikrit, and Bayji 

along the Tigris River Valley.8

 These urban centers were linked by interconnecting highway networks, and the desert hinterland in between the 

cities held little value to anyone aside from the irrigated river valleys. The 

traditional tribal structure held sway over most political, interpersonal, and 

familial relationships within Iraq, but the effect of the tribal system was 

greatly diluted in the larger urban areas. To a certain degree, urban Sunni 

and Shia nationalists had more in common than urban and rural Islamists 

from the same sect or ethnicity.9

After the Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I, the British occupation lent itself to a mandate from the League of Nations.10 Iraq gained 

formal independence in 1932 but many British nationals stayed on in key 

government positions, and the military maintained RAF air bases and the 

training of Iraqi army units.11 Through 1968 the country experienced an 

endless cycle of re-formed parliamentarian governments, internal political 

machination, and outright coups. The Ba’ath Party was founded in Syria 
119

in the 1940s and established an office in Iraq in 1951, initially appealing to 

the educated and working classes of both sects.12 In 1964, the regime jailed 

Saddam Hussein after an abortive coup attempt by the Ba’athists; however, he emerged to lead an even stronger Ba’ath Party in 1966. When the 

dust settled after a successful coup in 1968, the Ba’ath Party held control 

in a confederation and the ensuing regime established itself as a nominally 

Ba’athist government.13

The Iran-Iraq War began in September 1980 when Iraq declared the 

entire Shatt al-Arab region to be rightfully theirs and launched pre-emptive strikes to capture towns in the region.14 Throughout the war, which 

both governments cast as an existential struggle for survival, both sides 

invoked historical themes of Arab and Persian conflict from battles dating 

as far back as the seventh century. Hussein used the conflict as a means to 

further weaken the Shia populations within Iraq, making a clear communal division.15 The Iran-Iraq War stressed Iraq’s economy to the breaking 

point, and debt repayment constituted 50 percent of Iraq’s oil income by 

1990.16 Hussein stretched himself strategically and invaded Kuwait for the 

immediate economic gain and to intimidate other weakly-armed Persian 

Gulf Arab states for future concession. In the face of a huge international 

coalition formed to oust Iraqi ground forces from Kuwait with American 

firepower and backing from the UN, Hussein changed his focus from “advantageous withdrawal” to “survivable withdrawal” in what would come 

to be called the Gulf War.17

To Hussein’s credit, he achieved this “survivable withdrawal” as three 

critical American miscalculations enabled this strategic escape and domestic re-consolidation. First, American forces encouraged Shia and Kurdish 

minorities to stand up to the regime but did not directly support them. 

Additionally, political analysts assumed that Hussein’s fall from power 

was inevitable. Finally, the coalition military failed to destroy the core of 

his power (the 80,000-strong Republican Guard).18 In a parallel to future 

American post-combat efforts, one US Army officer who served in the 

Gulf War reflected that “everybody thought that the thing was over. I find 

that as one expression of this tendency to think that good operations fix 

the problem and that therefore there’s no need to think beyond when the 

shooting stops.”19 The coalition established no-fly zones within the northern and southern regions in Iraq in a failed effort to protect the Kurdish 

and Shia Arabs respectively. Diplomatic efforts focused on sanctions and 

efforts to isolate the Hussein regime. This piecemeal strategy reflected 

the conventional wisdom at the time that a contained Iraq was better than 

a chaotic Iraq. Hussein walked a fine line but never directly opposed the 

American military through the next decade.20

Almost immediately after the Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks against the 

United States in 2001, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz made a case for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.21 The Bush administra-
120

tion used a doctrine of pre-emption to justify a military attack on Iraq due 

to intelligence analysis casting the Hussein regime as an intersection of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and state-supported terrorism.22

The administration based their doctrine of pre-emption on Cold War theories that used an imminent and existential communist bloc as a threat model. Iraq presented an imminent yet marginally existential threat, while Al 

Qaeda presented a marginally imminent yet existential threat to America.23

This would have a lasting effect on the ensuing counterinsurgency effort 

in Iraq since the American military entered the war with limited public 

support for regime change and civil reconstruction directly related to the 

effects of war.

After gaining a nominal international backing from the UN and forming a coalition, the American military led a multidivisional ground offensive in March and April of 2003.24 This campaign sought to force the early 

collapse of the Ba’athist regime, but on the third day plans to vertically 

envelop the regime with Special Operations, Rangers, and Airborne forces 

were abandoned when mechanized ground forces made incredible gains 

on the drive from Kuwait to Baghdad.25 Although coalition forces took 

many measures not to be seen as occupiers, they were the only form of 

security in most areas immediately after the ground war concluded.26

The Insurgency

Within this relative void of locally recognized security, several groups 

began to emerge with deeply held grievances against the provisional authority and Iraqi central governance in general. CIA estimates warned of 

the propensity for Arab Muslims to view a foreign army as occupiers in 

January 2003. This lent credence to the effectiveness of Al Qaeda’s declaration of jihad in 1998, which cast jihad as a personal duty against nonbelievers in invaded countries.27 Although this declaration only affected an 

extreme minority of violent extremist Muslims in Iraq, the opening phase 

of terrorism and insurgency only requires this small minority. That same 

small minority of extremists held the worldview that the mujahedin defeat 

of the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan directly caused the collapse of the 

antireligious international Communist structure, and sought to achieve the 

same effect against America in Iraq.28 By November 2003, the Iraqi public 

began to compare the coalition to Israeli military forces during the second 

intifada.29

Grievances that were specific to the Sunni and Shia communities also 

emerged early in the insurgency. Sunni Arabs felt marginalized almost immediately after Hussein’s predominately Sunni regime fell, chiefly personified by a Shia-dominated Iraqi Governing Council in the provisional 

government. The old Iraqi Army and Ba’ath Party apparatus were the two 

main bastions of Sunni societal, political, and economic power, and their 

forced dissolutions exacerbated the growing sense of marginalization in 
121

the new Iraq.30 The Shia communities’ grievances were much more localized. In 2003, British forces identified that these communities faced an 

unaddressed lack of essential services, and local Shia leaders openly questioned whether supporting the provisional government was the right way 

ahead.31 Economic necessity and resource scarcity drove some violence in 

the early stages of the insurgency, but by 2007 interviews with detainees 

indicated that insurgents were using pay as additional income for comfort 

and luxury items, not necessities.32

Several insurgent groups rose from these grievances within Iraq. In 

contrast to Malaya and Vietnam, there was no unifying political structure 

or even aligned objectives. As early as June 2003, commanders on the 

ground saw the insurgency as a patchwork of many different elements. 

Colonel Peter R. Mansoor, the commander of 1st Brigade Combat Team 

(BCT), 1st Armored Division in Baghdad realized that the unit was “fighting former regime-backed paramilitary groups, Iranian-based opposition, 

organized criminals and street thugs” simultaneously.33 By this time, at 

least nine distinct semi-organized groups, both Sunni and Shia, emerged 

across Iraq.34

Within the Sunni base of support, insurgent groups relied on tacit support from tribal sheikhs and politicians, leaving no moderate element to 

which the counterinsurgency effort could appeal.35 These regional or local 

groups alternatively competed and cooperated with the power structure 

of the former regime, who saw the aftermath of the ground war as just 

another chapter in the long struggle for Ba’ath Party supremacy in the 

region.36 Initially, the former regime element had a relative strength; since 

the country was not cleared in a military sense it allowed the Special Republican Guard and the Saddam Fedayeen paramilitary to dissolve into 

Sunni and mixed-sect population centers, fighting coalition forces along 

the way.37 Early attempts to kill senior regime leaders struck precisely, but 

not when they were physically present and most leaders escaped Baghdad 

before coalition forces reached the city.38 Although politically connected 

among Sunni elites, this element would quickly atrophy due to its artificial 

means of support prior to the invasion. A CIA report in 2003 revealed that 

Hussein himself did not have a plan for a protracted guerrilla campaign; 

his sons Uday and Qusay were on the run with “meager support” instead 

of actively coordinating operations.39

Within the Shia base of support, the Badr Corps group established a 

support network based on their previous experience in irregular warfare 

against the Ba’ath Party. Shia populism in Baghdad and the southern Shia 

strongholds led to the consolidation of forces loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr in 

August 2003, the Jaysh al-Mehdi (JAM).40 In addition to the sect-specific 

insurgent groups, both Sunni and Shia tribes exerted their power through 

local security and protection for some extra-governmental activities that 

the coalition viewed as criminal activity.41
122

In addition to locally and regionally based insurgent groups, international terrorist groups saw a strategic opportunity in Iraq. Foreign fighters 

made one of their first appearances during an engagement with Special 

Operations forces during the ground war, an early sign that there was a 

small but willing pool of volunteers to infiltrate and fight Westerners in 

Iraq.42 Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) sought to expel foreign interventionist forces and establish a symbolic Islamic caliphate, but their ignorance of local 

power structures and customs among their Sunni partners hindered that 

effort almost immediately. Most Sunni locals referred to AQI’s operatives 

and soldiers as takfir, those who would use terrorism to further a violent 

extremist agenda against widely respected Koranic injunctions.43

Almost all insurgent attacks shared a common characteristic in that 

they utilized adaptive means to attack coalition forces. Insurgent groups 

usually operated in cellular networks, and generally did not openly attack 

the coalition’s combat power with similar combat power. Instead, they 

employed techniques of attack such as Improvised Explosive Devices 

(IEDs), precision small-arms fire, Rocket-Propelled Grenade (RPG) ambushes, and “shoot-and-scoot” indirect fire attacks from mortars or improvised rocket munitions. Weapons for all of these styles of attack were 

plentiful from old Iraqi Army bases which were simply deserted or bypassed by coalition forces during the ground war. Gentile, then serving as 

the Executive Officer in the 1st BCT, 4th Infantry Division, recalled that 

upon the unit’s arrival in Tikrit, they discovered thirty Iraqis openly looting weapons from an abandoned base.44 In a 2009 interview, one sheikh 

from Al Anbar who eventually supported the coalition effort casually recounted taking 80 RPGs and additional PKC machine guns from an unsecured base after meeting the coalition forces and telling them about it the 

day before.45 Insurgents posited that they could outlast a counterinsurgent 

effort by way of exhausting them with innovative attacks, and there was 

enough loose military material in Iraq to support this. 

Since most insurgent groups used the same styles of attack and evasion, it caused initial confusion among American soldiers and a made many 

groups indistinguishable by their detected actions alone. This masked the 

underlying fact that while the insurgent groups were not actively supporting each other, they had progressed from an earlier stage of mutual antagonism.46 Metaphorically, insurgent groups in Iraq during the early stages of 

the war were like card sharks working at the same table in Atlantic City: 

“we’re not playing together. But then again, we’re not playing against 

each other either. It’s like the Nature Channel. You don’t see piranhas eating each other, do you?”47 However, familiarity breeds contempt, and the 

inherent divisions among these groups would become a key point of leverage for the counterinsurgency effort later in the war.

The Counterinsurgency Effort

The initial inability to contain the insurgency began within the context 
123

of the ground war in 2003. Several important aspects of the conventional 

campaign itself set the stage for the meager institutional efforts to improve 

civil capacity and pacification. The three main factors which created an 

environment conducive to an insurgency were: the coalition’s flawed plans 

for reconstruction, the military’s lack of training and preparedness for 

counterinsurgency warfare, and the effects of a De-Ba’athification policy.

A proper critique of post-invasion planning by the Bush administration and the American military is not that it lacked a plan, but that the plan 

lacked sufficient depth.48 US House Representative Ike Skelton queried 

President Bush in a letter regarding plans for follow-on operations, asserting that it might be like a dog who chases cars finally catching one, 

and not knowing what to do with it.49 Representative Skelton’s wariness 

proved accurate, as the administration did not lack a plan as much as they 

lacked an appreciation for the robust requirements after the ground war. 

Wolfowitz is quoted as saying “I don’t see why it would take more troops 

to occupy the country than to take down the regime,” even with the benefit 

of historical data regarding the intense security requirements for the unrefined task of occupation.50 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld drew 

on his previous experience with military officers in his attempt to keep 

overall force levels low, illustrating that “if you grind away at the military 

guys long enough, they will finally say, ‘Screw it, I’ll do the best with what 

I have.’”51 From the outset, Franks’ plan focused strictly on the amount 

of combat power required for the conventional fight, in an absence of the 

need for follow-on forces.52 Operations after the ground war were supposed to include three foreign divisions, as well as assistance from allied 

paramilitaries such as the Italian Carbinieri to mentor Iraqi police forces.53

One of the loudest dissenting opinions came from the Chief of Staff of 

the Army, General Eric Shinseki, who cautioned in his farewell speech to 

“beware the twelve-division plan for the ten-division army.”54

Within the military, there was not an appreciation for these requirements either. Although some senior officers such as Shinseki identified the 

huge requirement for combat power and support units, there was not an 

institutional readiness for counterinsurgency warfare.55 Hence, when the 

first signs of the insurgency emerged, there was not an inherent ability to 

defeat it at its weakest point. One Division Artillery commander recalls 

that “our biggest problem is that we didn’t understand our responsibilities 

as an occupier; we just didn’t. Your responsibilities are everything. And 

there was this false expectation that it would just fix itself.”56 Military 

preparedness and organization for civil support operations was so low that 

a division- or corps-sized unit could not be reasonably expected to run a 

state in America, let alone a province in Iraq.57

In 2003, the American military still considered the British Army to 

be the world-class force for waging warfare amongst the people.58 British Army veterans of the campaign in Northern Ireland briefed possible 
124

insurgent tactics and appropriate responses at the small unit level, but 

American forces had already adopted nearly all of these by the summer of 

2003.59 At the BCT level, British NCOs and officers from the Operational 

Training and Advisory Group assisted in the development and training of 

framework operations within the unit’s battlespace.60 Although these early 

efforts were admirable, they could not overcome years of institutional neglect with both counterinsurgency doctrine and training in the American 

military. Due to the negative connotations from Vietnam that were associated with fighting an insurgency, operational reports in 2003 were deliberately void of the term and substituted phrases such as “former regime 

elements” to describe all insurgent activity.61

The third major factor that contributed to the coalition’s inability to 

halt the nascent insurgency was the policy of De-Ba’athification. Against 

the counsel of many Iraqis, including the secular Shia interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) issued a 

declaration that all Ba’ath Party members would be banned from holding 

senior officer positions in the army and government service jobs.62 This 

effectively dissolved the army and almost all associated security forces, 

even though a later review of officer records indicated that only 8,000 of 

the 140,000 officers were committed Ba’athists. Collapsing the army also 

resulted in a predicted mass of 300,000 to 400,000 military-aged males.63

Since Saddam Hussein’s regime virtually required Ba’ath Party membership for all middle- and upper-class government jobs, there was a corresponding deficit in civil services throughout Iraq in 2003. This directly 

contributed to an initial environment without security in 2003, and lawlessness that the American military simply could not contain.64 A British 

General Officer recalled a similar environment in Basra:

I have no excuse for not understanding Mesopotamia intimately. When I arrived in central Basra, I was amazed by the 

scale of rioting and looting. It happens every time. I’d been to 

the Balkans and Kosovo. If you read any history book, and this 

was the third time the British have been in Iraq in 90 years, we 

had no excuse.65

The counterinsurgency effort began without institutional backing 

from the larger American military or diplomatic services. In 2003, stateside defense leaders directed the authors for the next National Military 

Strategy to remove all mentions of counterinsurgency from the document 

since they expected the campaign to be over militarily by the time the document circulated.66 Throughout 2003, general officers edited operational 

assessments for terms and language before forwarding them to senior officials.67 The provisional authority in Iraq, the Office for Reconstruction 

and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), was vastly undermanned and underfunded. Contrary to their original plan, one of Rumsfeld’s senior aides 

visited Iraq and remarked to ORHA leaders that America did not owe Iraq 
125

the estimated $3 billion reconstruction effort.68 A British evaluation judged 

that ORHA was “an unbelievable mess. No leadership, no strategy, no cocoordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis.”69 With an 

absolute lack of assistance from ORHA, unit commanders had to implement governance, security, and development within the sectors they had 

seized at the conclusion of the ground war.70

The second iteration of provisional authority in Iraq was the aforementioned CPA, which was a result of the transformed and expanded 

ORHA, and headed by political appointee Paul Bremer.71 Commanders in 

the field continued to be frustrated by the lack of progress as they waited 

for a centralized process to alleviate what they saw as a burden on military 

operations. Their assessments of CPA’s effects at the street level ranged 

from “completely useless” to “ineptly organized and frequently incompetent,” leading to the widely-held assumption that CPA really stood for 

Can’t Produce Anything.72 CPA focused on transitioning the central government functions to an Iraqi body as soon as possible, and Shia religious 

leaders to include Abdul Aziz Hakim and the Ayatollah Sistani pressured 

Bremer to hold direct elections instead of forming an appointed council.73

CPA’s ineffective focus on large centralized improvements forced unit 

commanders to implement their own approaches. Major General David 

Petraeus’ 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) executed an operational 

approach of protecting the population center of Mosul, and implemented 

bottom-up governance solutions by cross-leveling the best practices of his 

battalion commanders.74 The local population feared that the al-Jabouri 

tribe would fill the power vacuum left by the Ba’athist regime and the 

recently departed peshmerga force.75 While Petraeus’ unit conducted a 

form of counterinsurgency, most other units adopted an approach of “antiinsurgency.”76 Major General Raymond Odierno’s 4th Infantry Division in 

the Salah-ad-Din Province illustrated this difference and adopted a tactic 

of large-scale clearance operations to detain suspected insurgents and their 

support networks. During the second half of 2003, their units in Tikrit experienced three times the attacks compared to forces in the rest of Iraq.77

Simplistic analyses cast this as a “kill/capture” approach only focused on 

destroying the enemy’s operating force, but Odierno’s units faced a significantly different challenge than Petraeus’ units in Mosul. In addition to 

the security and governance considerations, he had to relocate Kurds from 

Salah-ad-Din and Diyala provinces to northern enclaves, negotiate to preclude Iranian groups from interfering with reconstruction, and secure vast 

Iraqi military complexes in the Tigris River Valley.78 Additionally, this was 

the heartland of the former regime, so the policy of De-Ba’athification had 

an extremely dispositive effect on the local population. A political adviser 

who had direct contact with both commanders during this time astutely 

criticized Ricks’ narrative (as opposed to a historical account) in Fiasco, 

explaining that Ricks casts Petraeus as a savior and Odierno as a villain 
126

while counterinsurgency operations never have a clear distinction in disparate environments.79 Although some heavy-handed tactics at the local 

level contributed to an antagonistic environment, Odierno’s operational 

approach was simply a different technique to address security issues and 

the lack of effective governance.80

The lack of interunit synergy between military and CPA efforts was 

due to a lack of direction from the military headquarters, Coalition/Joint 

Task Force 7 (CJTF-7). Commanded by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, this headquarters was marred by a continuous disaccord with CPA, 

the absence of an effort to adapt operations, and the lack of a campaign 

plan.81 Published reports attributed the differing concepts among division 

commanders as a direct result of a relative vacancy at the corps level.82

Many of his contemporaries held the view that no military leader could 

have succeeded with the lack of institutional backing and resources that 

plagued Sanchez.83 His own account lays blame at the feet of the US 

Central Command (CENTCOM), contending that they had a plan for the 

critical months of reconstruction after the ground war, but it was never 

promulgated.84 All parties involved acknowledge a complete lack of coordination between Sanchez and Bremer.85

Coalition military forces operated with little information, witnessed 

by the 69 Human Intelligence (HUMINT) teams in Iraq only producing an 

average of only 30 reports per day in 2003.86 Coupled with an extremely 

limited amount of troops, this led to unsophisticated and ineffective forms 

of security.87 With this lack of security on the streets in most cities in Iraq, 

insurgent groups bought hired guns to fire at American forces for only $50 

to $100 per attack.88 The military used tactics such as massive detentions, 

H&I fires, and property destruction to combat this in the short-term, but 

they had damaging long-term effects in aggregate. By December 2003 it 

was clear that this form of security was marginally effective in securing 

American military forces, and even less effective in securing the population, evidenced by the fact that 62 percent of Iraqis cited security as their 

biggest problem. Additionally, 59 percent felt that the coalition were occupiers who would only leave Iraq by force.89

In early 2004, there were signs that the insurgent tactic of emplacing 

IEDs against patrols and convoys had a similar, if indirect effect. Major 

General Peter Chiarelli, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, observed 

that “Coalition forces are forced to interact with the Iraqi populace from 

a defensive posture, effectively driving a psychological wedge between 

people and their protectors.”90 Due to the continued paucity of actionable HUMINT, units conducted large-scale sweeps and detained massive 

amounts of military aged males in restive areas. Some units such as the 

82nd Airborne Division actively screened their detainees, only sending 

700 of 3,800 detainees to facilities in Abu Ghraib during their deployment 

between August 2003 and March 2004. These measures were mildly effec-
127

tive, and internal estimates indicated that between 80 percent to 90 percent 

of all detainees in Abu Ghraib held no intelligence value in 2004.91 As a 

reflection of these continued operations, Iraqi popular support for the CPA 

was down to 14 percent by March.92

These frustrations manifested themselves in the first two open uprisings against provisional authority in March and April, one in Fallujah and 

one in the Shia south. Sunnis in Fallujah felt particularly disenfranchised 

due to De-Ba’athification and the lack of continuity resulting from five 

different coalition units securing the area between the initial invasion and 

April 2004.93 These tensions increased dramatically after a small arms engagement between paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division and two 

large demonstrations left 13 Iraqis dead and an additional 90 wounded in 

April 2003.94 Immediately following a relief-in-place by 2nd Battalion, 

1st Marine Regiment of the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, atrocities perpetrated against a contracted convoy generated intense 

American domestic political pressure to stabilize Fallujah. Marine leaders understood the consequences of sending a large conventional force to 

clear the city of insurgents, and decided to let the situation develop before 

appearing to attack out of revenge.95 However, pressure from CJTF-7 prevailed and the Marines launched a large-scale combined arms offensive 

with inadequate provisions for civilians to flee the city. The large numbers 

of civilians present, a determined and growing enemy, and high volumes 

of firepower led to high levels of collateral damage. Combined with the 

absence of Iraqi security forces, the Arab media successfully portrayed 

this as an assault on Sunni society in Iraq, which attracted more fencesitters to fight against the Marines in Fallujah.96 After a failure to pacify the 

city with military force, the Marines presided over a unilateral cease-fire 

and transferred control of the city to the hastily formed Fallujah Brigade of 

Iraqi irregular security forces, which eventually disbanded in September.97

When it became obvious that the Fallujah Brigade had no intention of integrating Fallujah into a wider Iraqi society in line with the CPA’s goals, one 

Marine officer concluded that it was like using inmates to run the asylum.98

In the Shia strongholds of An Najaf, Kut, Karbala, and Sadr City there 

was a simultaneous yet unrelated uprising of Sadr’s populist JAM force. 

Coalition forces underestimated both the loyalty and ability of JAM. Their 

response to the closure of Sadr’s political newspaper and the detention of 

a close adviser caught many coalition forces by surprise. CJTF-7 ordered 

redeploying units to turn around in Kuwait and reinforce units in An Najaf 

and Karbala, while CPA sought a political settlement with Sadr. Although 

they would not admit it publicly, Sadr’s forces were not required to surrender or disarm.99 Unwittingly, Bremer and CPA had legitimized Sadr’s 

political efforts by endowing him with artificial credibility for standing up 

to the occupying superpower and securing an advantageous outcome.100

Although British forces were able to maintain security in the furthest 
128

southern regions, attacks doubled countrywide during the spring and summer of 2004.101 By alienating the Sunni community through the offensive 

in Fallujah and the Shia community through the confrontations with Sadr, 

the coalition was fighting a widening insurgency against both sects of the 

Arab population.102 Coalition forces also saw issues with both sects’ units 

in the fledgling Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Sunni Iraqi National Guard 

(ING) battalions did not display the same competency as ING battalions 

derived from Shia militias and peshmerga units, and often flatly refused 

to fight against insurgent factions from predominately Sunni tribes. Additionally, there was still a number of militias and paramilitary forces that 

were not integrated into the ISF.103 The predominately Shia National Police (NP) units which were first tested in Samarra took it as an opportunity 

to attack the Sunni population, a foreshadowing of events to follow in 

Baghdad years later.104

Some improvements within the counterinsurgency effort came at the 

end of 2004, beginning with the inevitable requirement to re-clear Fallujah 

with armed force. Politically, Fallujah had to be pacified prior to national 

elections which were planned for early 2005. To that end, American and 

Iraqi leaders exhausted all internal diplomatic efforts with Sunni leaders in 

the area before launching a largely conventional campaign to clear the city 

of as many as 6,000 insurgents. In contrast with the first effort in Fallujah, 

civilians were effectively evacuated and managed, and the US Department 

of State began building the municipal government.

This successful operation illustrated the effectiveness of recent changes in leadership and organizational structures. Allawi and the Interim Iraqi 

Government accepted sovereignty in June, allowing CPA to cease operations and transfer most of its functions to various echelons of military 

headquarters.105 General George Casey took over as the top military officer in Iraq as the CJTF-7 headquarters transitioned to Multi-National 

Force–Iraq (MNF-I), and assembled a staff to analyze the effectiveness of 

the effort in Iraq. While this staff did bring a focus on counterinsurgency 

practices and issued a cogent campaign plan in August, the overall effort 

in Iraq still lacked an adequate strategic framework.106 Retired Lieutenant 

Colonel Kalev Sepp developed an analysis of best practices in counterinsurgency which informed Casey’s prescriptions for the conduct of operations.107 Sepp represented Casey’s educated, hand-picked advisers. In 

further contrast to Sanchez, Casey effectively worked with his diplomatic 

counterpart, Ambassador John Negroponte.108 As a further improvement, 

Petraeus returned to Iraq to oversee the creation of ten permanent Iraqi 

Army (IA) Divisions as the commander of Multi-National Security Transition Command–Iraq (MNSTC-I).109

As with the transitions between Briggs and Templer in Malaya, or 

Westmoreland and Abrams in Vietnam, the temptation was to simply cast 

the successor as the savior of the operation. Casey’s command improved 
129

the harmony of discrete operations in Iraq through steady improvement, 

but it did not significantly improve the operational approach or strategic 

framework. However, American forces began to sense some tactical victories which would carry them through 2005, instead of an unending string 

of local setbacks during Sanchez’s command. Accordingly, Sanchez is 

viewed by many as the general who got it wrong instead of the general 

who was there at the wrong time.110

National elections provided a mixed measure of legitimacy for the 

central Government of Iraq (GoI) in January 2005.111 Within this context, 

security operations in 2005 did not show much adaptation across the counterinsurgency effort as a whole, except for two critical operations in the 

remote western reaches of Iraq. Efforts to secure the towns of Tal Afar and 

Al Qaim in order to interdict Sunni takfiri infiltration routes from Syria and 

Jordan illustrated two successful tactical approaches, methods that would 

be adapted later to secure urban sectarian populations and reconcile to coopt tribal forces. Both of these techniques would also directly affect the 

employment of artillery units since they relied more on the pragmatic use 

of dispersed ground security forces than a predilection for indirect fires. 

When Colonel H. R. McMaster and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR) arrived in Tal Afar in April, the town had been showcased by 

Sunni insurgents as their new centerpiece since losing control of Fallujah 

in November 2004. As such, they exerted de facto control over the mixed 

population.112 The 3rd ACR employed a technique to sequentially separate 

and protect the population from the insurgency, clear the city of insurgents with judicious and limited use of firepower, and build outposts in 

the town.113 To effectively separate the population from the insurgents and 

isolate the town for a high-intensity clearance, the unit shaped the edges 

of the town and allowed the population to move into prepared camps.114

One of 3rd ACR’s advantages in this operation was its ability to redefine the struggle in the eyes of the population. Prior units in Tal Afar 

did not understand that the population had turned to AQI’s false narrative 

of protecting them from other groups since there was no other alternative 

for security. As such, American forces conflated a cooperative population 

with the takfiri themselves before ceding control of Tal Afar.115 The 3rd 

ACR was able to shift the narrative from Sunni versus Shia to Iraqi versus takfiri within the population.116 The population came to see American 

forces as a relatively impartial guarantor of security, with many citizens 

moved to tears when the unit departed.117 In the short term, the battle for 

Tal Afar severely disrupted AQI’s ability to conduct unhindered operations 

in northern Iraq, and allowed the population to reject the takfir’s brand of 

violence.118 In the long term, the approach shaped how the Army eventually campaigned and fought successfully in Baghdad. 

In Al Qaim, two Marine battalions cleared the border town of Sunni 

insurgents who had fled Fallujah in November 2004. The important phase 
130

of this campaign is what immediately followed.119 The 3rd Battalion, 6th 

Marine Regiment, led by Lieutenant Colonel Dale Alford, engaged local 

Sunni tribes when they detected a rift between them and AQI forces in 

the area. Marine officers attribute this to their ability to understand the 

population in Al Qaim, due to their efforts to live amongst the people and 

conduct a census in the five local towns.120 To exploit this opportunity, the 

Marines were able to reconcile with previously antagonistic Sunni tribes 

and integrate more than 700 men into new ISF units in Al Qaim.121 The 

approach in Al Qaim influenced the Sunni tribes’ response to AQI during 

the subsequent conflict in Al Anbar Province in late 2006, as well as the 

American forces’ handling of the situation.122

Several improvements in the organization of the counterinsurgency 

effort complemented these two operations in 2005, but they were not 

enough to overcome a continuing focus on security in terms of enemy 

insurgents. Positive developments included a counterinsurgency center 

at Taji (the “Taji COIN Center”) to immerse all incoming commanders 

in the successful tactics in use, tailored collective training for units prior 

to deployment, and specialized training for ISF advisory teams (called 

MiTTs).123 Additionally, the Department of State replicated the Provincial 

Reconstruction Team (PRT) concept from the counterinsurgency effort in 

Afghanistan, with initial PRT members establishing contacts for future 

teams to be manned in 2006.124 However, these advances could not make 

up for the continued effects of civilian casualties, property damage, and 

mass detentions in many areas. Overly centralized command structures 

and the continued ineffectiveness of new IA units exacerbated these flawed 

tactics.125 As a reflection of many Iraqis’ frustrations, an Oxford Research 

International poll showed that nearly 75 percent of Iraqis yearned for a 

return to self-determination under a strong central leader.126

The inadequacies of the counterinsurgency effort in 2005 led to increased domestic pressure against an open-ended military commitment. 

Units coalesced on progressively larger Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) 

while force protection concerns took on an increased primacy. President 

Bush outlined his plan to strategically disengage from Iraq, telling Americans that “[w]e will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.”127 Within Iraq, Casey expressed this operationally as an effort to 

stand down coalition forces while the ISF stood up, but for many units 

without capable partners this left a conceptual void.128 A senior officer on 

Casey’s staff recommended against expressing the act of transition as a 

separate line of effort in the campaign, contending that it should pervade 

all other efforts. After consideration, Casey decided that it would represent 

its own line of effort to emphasize the importance of transitioning to the 

ISF. This turned out to be a confusing artificial division for subordinate 

commanders and MiTTs.129 Casey’s dilemma was similar to the one fac-
131

ing Westmoreland in Vietnam; was the American counterinsurgency effort 

at a crossroads?130 Some commanders sought exemptions to keep forces 

distributed in population centers or with ISF partners, since they cynically 

noted that they were “always six months from leaving Iraq.”131

As the American-led coalition focused on the dual tasks of training the 

ISF and preparing areas for transition to full Iraqi control, the communal 

violence between Sunni and Shia elements threatened to pull the entire 

country into unabated chaos. A GoI referendum that allowed for limited 

federalism polarized many Sunnis and Shias over the future of Iraqi society and the division of natural resources. In February 2006, AQI bombed 

the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a holy site for Shia which irreversibly set 

sectarian warfare in motion in areas of mixed communities, chiefly Baghdad. The bombing achieved its intended effect, with JAM and the Badr 

Corps almost immediately beginning to cleanse mixed neighborhoods in 

Baghdad with lethal force.132 Responding to JAM checkpoints and houseto-house clearing in the Jihad neighborhood of Baghdad, a Sunni member of parliament declared that “[t]his is a new step. A red line has been 

crossed. People have been killed in the streets; now they are killed inside 

their homes.”133

Coalition assessments clearly showed that JAM had infiltrated nearly 

every facet of the ISF in Baghdad, meaning that supposedly legitimate 

forces were enabling or even carrying out much of the communal violence against Sunnis.134 The Shias also used civic means of supposedly 

legitimate governance to disenfranchise the Sunnis. The Shia-controlled 

Ministry of Finance refused to open banks in Ameriyah, while 95 percent 

of banks in Shia neighborhoods were open. This meant that a Sunni had to 

travel through JAM checkpoints to get to a bank with the likelihood of a 

shake-down or even execution, or keep his money at home and run the risk 

of a shake-down at the hands of local AQI elements.135

This prompted a Sunni response in the form of AQI’s vehicle-borne 

IED (VBIED) attacks against massed civilian targets in Sadr City.136

Both sides settled into a steady dynamic cycle of AQI launching daytime VBIED attacks against Shia mosques and markets, with a response 

of JAM attacks at night against Sunni enclaves. Extremists targeted the 

opposite population, instead of attacking the opposite extremist group’s 

means to inflict further atrocities.137 Shia forces moved steadily across the 

northern neighborhoods of Baghdad in an attempt to exhaust the rapidly 

diminishing Sunni population with a mix of violence and controlled access 

to key commodities.138

At the time, the two pillars of the American strategic approach to 

counterinsurgency were a democratized GoI and a transfer to Iraqi security leadership; both were completely ineffective in addressing communal 

violence.139 In an attempt to establish security within Baghdad through 

overt military presence, units partnered for Operations TOGETHER FOR-
132

WARD I and II. The plan called for partnered operations to clear extremist groups from the worst areas of the city, and the IA units to hold those 

areas. However, most IA units failed to show up, and the few that did were 

generally ineffective.140 Iraqi police in Baghdad were almost completely 

ineffective since an estimated 70 percent of the force was affiliated with a 

militia group and involved in the violence.141 By the completion of Operation TOGETHER FORWARD II, attacks actually increased by 22 percent 

and the coalition spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, admitted 

that the operation failed to meet its objectives.142 Not only had Operations 

TOGETHER FORWARD I and II failed to curtail sectarian violence, they

deprived other areas of critically required assets. One field-grade officer 

recalled that Multi-National Division–Baghdad (MND-B) was completely 

consumed in commanding and controlling so many units, and it gave the 

outlying BCTs nearly complete autonomy but few resources.143

Against the backdrop of this bleak environment in Baghdad, one promising development started in late 2006 in the Ramadi area. In what would 

come to be colloquially known as the Al Anbar Awakening or simply the 

Awakening, several Sunni tribes rejected the AQI narrative and actively 

stood up to the takfir narrative. They reconciled with American forces and 

ISF in the area, and eventually integrated into the security structure in order to protect the local population. 

By late 2005, AQI had already began to wear out its welcome with 

local Sunni tribes by riding roughshod over tribal rights and customs, to 

include the takeover of lucrative smuggling routes from the west.144 One of 

the first tribes to actively oppose AQI, the Albu Issa, took its cue from the 

earlier operations against AQI in Al Qaim.145 Coincidentally, the new unit 

in Ramadi (the 1st BCT, 1st Armored Division led by Colonel Sean MacFarland) took an inventive operational approach to the perceived lack of a 

coherent method from earlier units.146 Contrasting the efforts to disengage 

and transfer control in other areas, MacFarland visualized a plan to isolate 

insurgents and deny them sanctuary, build the ISF, clear and build combat outposts among the population, and engage local leaders to determine 

which ones had the most respect among the tribes.147

As tribal elements provided manpower for Iraqi police stations, they 

could position the first 100 in a substation of their own preferred location.148 With this ability to generate combat power through the existing 

framework of the ISF, they eventually became the main effort and the focus changed from clearing AQI from Ramadi to sealing them off inside the 

city for easy defeat.149 Overall, the successful integration of tribal forces 

into security framework operations in Ramadi proved that Iraqis could 

target extremist groups, remain armed, and not necessarily descend into 

chaos.150

The operations in Ramadi also illustrate that many American units 

were beginning to adapt to the requirements of counterinsurgency opera-
133

tions. Units at the battalion level and below were generally internalizing 

lessons and making astute ad hoc arrangements, but no unifying themes 

or practices abounded across Iraq.151 Many small-unit leaders began to 

self-educate, and the overall trend was improvement through bottom-up 

refinements.152 Units began to fight the IED threat holistically, nurture and 

integrate HUMINT systems, and establish outlying patrol bases when they 

could avoid the demands from higher echelons to consolidate on larger 

FOBs.153 Petraeus made an effort to establish the missing linkage of unifying themes through an improved counterinsurgency doctrine, manifested 

in a large conference at Fort Leavenworth to discuss a rewriting of existing 

Army doctrine.154

As American forces made progress in 2006, the ISF remained a problematic institution. The IA showed the most improvement, due in part to 

their relative longevity and growing base of experience.155 The NP units 

were significantly more of a hindrance to the counterinsurgency effort, 

instead of the critical paramilitary force that should have been providing 

security within the urban areas of Iraq. In most cases, they were equally as 

destabilizing as the insurgents themselves since they engaged in the sectarian violence against Sunnis in Baghdad from a position of theoretical 

legitimacy.156 The Iraqi Police had an uneven quality from city to city, but 

in general they were vastly undermanned, underequipped, and able to do 

little besides maintain marginal control at traffic circles and checkpoints.157

Against the evidence of the ISF’s inability to provide effective security without significant coalition assistance and advice, the strategic focus 

on Casey’s staff was still disengagement via transition throughout 2006.158

Although the security situation seemed to be getting progressively worse 

by the week, CENTCOM continued to cancel BCT deployments or hold 

them in Kuwait for further disposition. According to a strategic plans officer at the time, the CENTCOM planning assumption was that the US 

military was in a lockstep march to reduce from twenty BCTs to ten BCTs 

by the end of 2006.159 Indeed, the situation was getting worse by the week, 

as sectarian killings in Baghdad alone reached 125 per night.160

The violence of 2006 forced a review of the national strategy regarding the continuing counterinsurgency effort in Iraq. A congressionally 

mandated Iraq Study Group released its findings in December, which 

recommended a continued disengagement from Iraq. To achieve this, the 

group’s report advocated two simultaneous approaches to achieve a satisfactory strategic outcome and a complete withdrawal of the American 

military.161 This prompted the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) think 

tank to develop an alternate option for counterinsurgency in Iraq, focusing 

on securing the population within Baghdad which would provide breathing room for GoI to develop. The Executive Summary for the plan began 

with the assertion that “[v]ictory is still an option in Iraq.”162 Simultaneously, Odierno returned to Iraq as the commander of Multi-National 
134

Corps-Iraq (MNC-I), the operational military headquarters directly subordinate to Casey. Odierno reversed the military aspects of the strategy to 

extricate coalition forces from urban areas and into large FOBs, in clear 

opposition to Casey’s plan.163 Although American forces steadily adapted 

to achieve a very real tactical capability in counterinsurgency by 2007, 

these revised strategic objectives and operational plans would be what 

came to be known colloquially as The Surge.

President Bush enacted the AEI plan and announced the strategy on 

10 January 2007, against the advice of Generals Abizaid, Casey, and the 

JCS, who all viewed coalition military presence as the primary driver for 

instability in Iraq.164 At the same time, President Bush replaced Casey with 

Petraeus to implement the new strategy at MNF-I. While Petraeus’ educated staff and leadership undoubtedly influenced the successful transfer 

of lessons learned from successful operations in Mosul, Tal Afar, Al Qaim, 

and Ramadi, strategic planners at the time credit Odierno’s operational 

concept as expressed in the Baghdad Security Plan as the key improvement.165 Odierno’s inbrief to Petraeus in February presented the key tasks 

of securing the Iraqi people in Baghdad and interdicting the accelerants 

of sectarian violence in the Baghdad belts, with the neutralization of the 

actual extremist networks supplementing these two tasks.166

The effects of unrelenting sectarian violence in Baghdad made it difficult to measure the actual effectiveness of additional combat power, a 

refined operational approach, and an improved strategic framework. By 

the time additional BCTs arrived in Baghdad, ethnic cleansing was largely 

accomplished in formerly mixed neighborhoods so violence was about to 

trend down naturally. As one intelligence officer remarked, “[n]ow that the 

Sunnis are gone, murders have dropped off . . . one way to put it is they ran 

out of people to kill.”167 A civilian adviser to MNF-I and MNC-I took this 

analysis a step further, asserting that the Shia had already “won” the civil 

war and Sunnis were left to wonder what place they had at all in a new 

Iraq.168 Within this context, remaining Sunnis in Baghdad relied more than 

ever on AQI and other takfiri elements for security in their enclaves.169 Sectarian cleansing in Sunni neighborhoods continued as the initial American 

BCT entered northwest Baghdad; a Shia IA battalion forcibly evacuated 

approximately 50,000 Sunnis from the Hurriyah neighborhood alone.170

The Baghdad security plan, Operation Fard al-Qanun, provided a new 

articulation of the clear–hold–build methodology. This plan also framed 

operations in a context that truly integrated the ISF leaders at all echelons. 

Successful operations featured a combination of partnered Joint Security 

Stations (JSSs), the compartmentalization of sectarian populations, and 

the integration of irregular security forces. Across Baghdad, American 

forces deployed among the population to establish 32 JSSs in more locations than originally envisioned.171 JSSs represented the tactical efforts of 

The Surge, enabling partnered operations among the population with a 
135

decreased reliance on standoff for force protection and other risk-averse 

measures. This required a shift in soldier’s attitudes, since they departed 

from the relative comfort and security of the large FOBs.172 As Sepp explained in his analysis of operations in Tal Afar:

If you really want to reduce your casualties, go back to Fort 

Riley; it’s absurd to think that you can protect the population 

from armed insurgents without putting your men’s lives at risk. 

[Gathering troops at enormous bases] is old Army thinking—

centralization of resources, of people, of control. Counterinsurgency requires decentralization.173

JSSs endowed small unit leaders with a truly partnered ISF force 

and the ability to share intelligence and analysis capabilities. Company 

commanders learned that the ISF’s informal HUMINT networks generally outperformed American HUMINT teams for local atmospherics and 

background information, and often the ISF commander’s cell phone was 

the lynchpin to successful partnered operations.174 Additional clarity on 

the roles of MiTT elements allowed them to function as advisers to the 

ISF commanders and staffs, with tactical units allowed to train and operate directly with the ISF unit itself.175 The chief limits on these partnered 

operations were the immature ISF logistics system and the misaligned 

boundaries between ISF and American forces. Although company-level 

commanders sought to bolster their ISF counterparts’ initiative while responding to crises, some of MND-B’s artificial boundaries precluded this 

until they were re-aligned.176

JSSs allowed commanders to penetrate the population in order to understand the environment and establish security against extremism and 

continued communal violence. Since the Baghdad population was exhausted by continual violence, they were willing to support whomever 

appeared strong enough to win and offer them impartial security. When 

American forces moved out from distant FOBs, it projected this strength 

to defeat extremists at the local level.177 Astute company-level commanders also aligned local governance with the security inherent in JSSs, creating the ability to leverage combined efforts of the ISF, the local economy, 

government officials, and tribal leaders.178

Another successful feature of the Baghdad security plan was the compartmentalization of sectarian communities. Through the means of concrete barrier walls and checkpoints, partnered forces sought to control the 

environment and keep the accelerants of sectarian violence separate from 

the population, rather than control the population itself. One battalion 

commander illustrated the disruptive effect of this effort:

Baghdad has a big highway network and the insurgents exploited that and were able to move much more quickly than we 

were, virtually undetected. By putting up the barriers we took 
136

away the advantage of mobility and their ability to move undetected because they had to move through checkpoints. Even if 

it was a shoddy checkpoint run by IA, the fact that it was there 

was enough of a deterrent.179

This effect was evident almost immediately, as AQI continually attempted to establish holes in the barrier walls while security forces maintained them.180 Some American forces implemented adaptive approaches 

to compartmentalization, such as installing swing-arm gates that removed 

the stigma of continuous concrete barriers but were still effective in denying access to VBIEDs and massed insurgent movements.181 Since Baghdad 

neighborhoods were relatively homogeneous by the time additional forces 

arrived, the population could be compartmentalized along approximate 

sectarian fault lines, something that would not have been possible earlier.182

A third aspect of the improved counterinsurgency approach was a sustained effort to recruit, co-opt and integrate local security forces into the 

framework of population security.183 A battalion commander, who served 

as an operations officer at the time, noted that it was like a wave of Sunni 

moderation emanating from Al Anbar that local commanders could exploit.184 Petraeus’ contributions to this effort were the recognition of its importance and utility, and nationalizing the program to portray the Awakening as a turning point in the war.185 Efforts to establish local security forces 

was a mix of seeking reconcilable forces and supporting capable forces 

as they self-identified, and a spike in the price of black market AK-47 

rifles showed evidence that local groups were rushing to arm themselves 

as potential candidates in some areas.186 Working with these irregular local 

security forces was a challenge which required intrepid commanders who 

could visualize and integrate these forces to complement ISF operations, 

as illustrated in the following description:

Indigenous forces have a lot of latitude that we don’t have, 

they were not inhibited by ROE the way we were. Its rough justice . . . it’s the messy and dark side of working with indigenous 

guys. You have to understand it and be willing to accept that. If 

you can live with that, and I can, then you’re fine. If you’re trying to change their culture and their way of war to be our way 

of war then you’ll be there a hell of a long time.187

The effect of these forces was almost completely positive, in contrast 

to some early concerns that arming militia forces outside of the reach of 

GoI would send Iraq into further chaos or that American leaders were simply bribing insurgents not to attack them.188 This was due in large part 

to the small unit commanders’ adaptation to view them as partners, not 

employees or former insurgents.189 In a parallel to the expanded activity 

with ISF units, partnership bred an exchange of ideas and HUMINT that 

allowed coalition forces to improve their targeted attacks on violent ex-
137

tremist cells. Paradoxically, a focus on securing the population through an 

indirect approach yielded an expanded capability to directly attack the enemy.190 The effect within the local population was generally outstanding, 

since the irregular forces’ wages usually remained in the local economy 

and the neighborhood could take pride in defending itself.191 In one BCT 

commander’s area in Baghdad alone, they went from finding an average of 

500 executed bodies per month to a pacified environment in which locals 

brought American soldiers food on holidays.192

The glaring negative effect was that most of these forces were Sunni 

since the Shia community enjoyed better protection from the JAM-infiltrated ISF in Baghdad. As such, they would not truly reconcile with the 

Shia-dominated GoI and demanded eventual integration through ISF or 

public sector jobs which simply did not exist. As one civilian adviser to 

MNC-I noted, “20 percent were supposed to go to security. But then, for 

the government, why would it give jobs to bad Sunni boys before good 

Shia boys? How would it then manage its constituents?”193 The GoI bought 

into reconciliation for most Shia groups, but viewed Sunni groups as irreconcilable.194

As discussed above, actual effects of the improved counterinsurgency 

efforts in Baghdad of 2007 are difficult to isolate due to the exhausted nature of the population when it began. Additionally, coalition forces gained 

security block by block in Baghdad, where a soldier could walk the streets 

without body armor in one neighborhood less than a quarter mile from 

intense urban combat in another.195 Some violence also migrated into the 

Baghdad belts and further to the Salah-ad-Din, Diyala, and At Tamin provinces.196 The captured diary of the regional AQI commander in late 2007 

showed that reconciliation in Salah-ad-Din robbed Jaysh al-Islami and 

AQI of combat power. He lamented that “there were over 600 fighters in 

our sector before the tribes changed course” but he only had twenty reliable fighters remaining after coalition forces adapted to integrate irregular 

tribal security in the area.197 Al Anbar continued to reap the benefits of 

pacification from late 2006, and by the summertime American forces were 

able to stage a symbolic fitness run along a previously deadly stretch of 

highway that had claimed two soldiers in an IED attack just six months 

earlier.198 Due to the increases in counterinsurgency proficiency and newly 

reconciled tribal forces, Sunni areas just outside of the belts such as Ramadi, Hit, Tikrit and Fallujah saw civilian death rates drop precipitously.199

Insurgent tactics within Baghdad adapted to the new environment, 

and attacks against American forces were almost exclusively ExplosivelyFormed Projectile IEDs (EFPs) and precision small arms fire attacks.200

While some units remained committed to dismounted patrols, most used 

increased amounts of protection and standoff to mitigate these risks. This 

served to further isolate American soldiers from the population while on 

patrol, and only marginally increased survivability.201 The domestic me-
138

dia’s perception of a rise in casualties during The Surge is most likely a 

result of increased direct contact with insurgent forces in a predominately 

urban environment.202 However, there is some validity to the notion that 

many extremist elements felt the urgency to “use it or lose it” with respect 

to weapons caches and combat power in Baghdad.203

The effect on JAM extremists was catastrophic, as Sadr prudently 

chose to use the new environment to streamline his militia and political 

organization. As JAM lost its sense of coherence and discipline, Sadr emplaced a cease-fire and attempted to integrate into national political efforts 

on his terms. To address the rogue elements of JAM, known as the Special 

Groups, he formed the Golden Battalion. Petraeus met with moderate Shia 

leaders to exploit this schism as a route to increased security.204 In Kilcullen’s assessment, Sadr and his closest allies made an attempt to eliminate 

JAM’s violent elements “[b]ecause we treated them as the authority.”205

Within the American military, the effects of this successful counterinsurgency approach took root at both institutional and small unit levels. 

Institutionally, the considerable yet reversible security gains in Baghdad 

granted Petraeus the political capital to develop a strategy to assist the GoI 

in consolidating these gains. With the rediscovered cachet of counterinsurgency, he and his supporters had increased influence within the Pentagon 

to make this happen.206 In recognition of the effectiveness of incoming 

units’ education at the Taji COIN Center, British forces sent elements of 

their next incoming brigade there in February 2008.207 The largest institutional effect on the military was a resulting examination of the counterinsurgency doctrine encapsulated in Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency. Many practitioners in Iraq held the view that the new manual simply 

distilled practices and concepts that were already in action when it was 

published in 2006. This notion prompted the Taji COIN Center to tell at 

least one BCT that they did not need to worry about an impact of the new 

text since they were already adapting, and all the manual did was codify 

the adaptation.208 The success of the new counterinsurgency approach also 

prompted an institutional discussion on the merits of a population-centric 

approach compared to an enemy-centric approach to modern counterinsurgency warfare. Although many leaders felt that having an “intellectual 

knife fight over [the proper model] is healthy” to flesh out the nuances 

in counterinsurgency, they identified that an approach must be pragmatic 

and suited to the specific environment.209 Additionally, the doctrine did not 

acknowledge that sometimes a counterinsurgent force will have to fight 

rogue elements of the host nation government which stretch the limits of 

legitimacy.210 Other officers simply felt that the discussion engendered a 

false dichotomy.211

At the small unit level, the most significant effect was the increased 

reliance on junior leaders to operate in a decentralized role. Military commanders internalized the lesson that empowering junior officers allowed 
139

a unit to account for a greater level of detail in counterinsurgency operations.212 Commanders also lauded the effectiveness of embedded PRTs if 

they were properly resourced and secured.213

As operations in Baghdad and the belt areas leveled off in late 2007, 

the focus turned to consolidating operational gains and enhancing the effectiveness of the GoI. To this end, reconciliation of tribal elements and 

rehabilitation of former insurgents gained importance. By focusing on reintegrating former insurgents instead of simply releasing them, coalition 

forces supported existing power structures in Iraqi society. Some units 

were able to release detainees to tribal leaders who would take responsibility for them, allowing the individual to retain his honor.214 The inevitable 

transfer of authority to the GoI for detainee operations forced the coalition 

to make a clear distinction which insurgents could never be reconciled 

and which ones could be rehabilitated.215 The combination of a command 

climate conducive to empowered junior leaders and a necessity for reconciliation meant that company-level commanders could usually manage the 

complex relationships to co-opt existing groups and leaders within their 

areas of operation. One commander described using his knowledge of a 

mayor’s nefarious dealings as leverage to indirectly control his area of 

operations since this the mayor had a strong influence on the levels of 

violence. This commander felt that his method was better than having 150 

soldiers, and more effective than any bomb he could drop.216 In an adjacent 

area, another commander successfully used his understanding of the local 

power structures to co-opt an insurgent leader and hand him limited responsibility for security along a critical stretch of highway that criminally 

corrupt IPs had all but abandoned.217 That two company-level commanders would be permitted to liaise with insurgents or their direct enablers 

would be nearly unthinkable to most units just a year prior.

In 2008, it became apparent to outside observers that the British counterinsurgency effort in Basra was not experiencing the same gains. British 

armored units had already cleared Basra once during the restive summer 

of 2004 amidst the general Sadrist uprising, and their application of tough 

but judicious force was supported by most Iraqis in the region.218 MNF-I 

had always left Basra to British land forces, and commanders in MND-SE 

enjoyed a considerable latitude which, in retrospect, some senior British 

officers deemed too great.219 The lack of a viable ISF presence in Basra 

greatly hindered operations since the British did not advise their partnered 

units’ staffs and commanders with the MiTT model, and the IA Division 

responsible for Basra was the lowest priority for resources within the Iraqi 

Ministry of Defence.220 British forces had a low level of confidence in the 

prospect of an American-led coalition succeeding in 2007, and the UK 

began to look for an exit from Basra that did not look like a defeat.221 This 

method had historic precedents, since British forces withdrew from Palestine in 1947 and Aden in 1967 under political pressure rather than confront 
140

insurgent violence directly.222

In late 2007 JAM militias increased their hold on Basra and inflicted 

casualties against the British force, which increased domestic political 

pressure for a withdrawal.223 The British did not have sufficient combat 

power, nor political will, to clear Basra in a refined manner similar to Tal 

Afar in 2005, or even in a heavily conventional campaign such as Fallujah 

in 2004.224 Ahmed al-Fartusi, a detained JAM leader, claimed that he could 

negotiate a deal with JAM leadership in Basra to end attacks against the 

British if they released JAM detainees and withdrew from the city onto 

their large FOB outside the urban area. This was pursued in what is now 

known as The Accommodation, sold with the tagline of “it’s Palermo, not 

Beirut” in an attempt to cast the violence in Basra as a criminal matter 

instead of an insurgent matter.225 All other British intelligence-gathering 

platforms were sent to Afghanistan, and given the lack of advisers with 

ISF units it meant that the MND-SE headquarters “had lost the situational 

awareness on which the policy of overwatch had been predicated.”226

Rocket and mortar attacks resumed against British forces equal to the 

conditions before The Accommodation.227 Due to the political sensitivities 

to reopening a violent conflict, counterbattery fires at these targets was 

extremely constrained: “to fire back on the [indirect fire] we had to get 

authority from the Prime Minister. Signed off from the Prime Minister, 

with a collateral damage report going back. So, it was quite a big thing 

for us to fire back.”228 With what he perceived as minimal British support 

forthcoming, Mohan flew to Baghdad to brief Odierno, Petraeus, and Maliki on a deliberate counterinsurgency plan to re-take Basra. After Odierno 

told him that there were not enough military resources available and the 

offensive would have to be sequenced later in the year, Maliki engaged in 

brinksmanship and ordered the mission to proceed immediately knowing 

that Petraeus would support him. Maliki understood that by making it a 

test of GoI resolve, Petraeus could not allow it to fail due to lack of American support.229

The resulting surge of resources and ISF units with American MiTT 

elements made the difference in heavy fighting to recapture the city.230

American mentors to the highest ISF echelons monitored the deployment 

of plainclothes Iraqi soldiers in Basra to warn the population, coordinate with them, and try to gain support for Operation CHARGE OF THE 

KNIGHTS. Without overt measures for population relocation in Iraq’s 

second largest city they expected a catastrophe, but it didn’t happen.231

Iraqi members of parliament and Iranian Quds Force operatives brokered 

a cease-fire in Basra, which abruptly ended partnered ISF and British combat operations well short of the estimated month-long duration.232 Operation CHARGE OF THE KNIGHTS reaped a huge psychological effect for 

Maliki and the GoI, showing that they were effective and a loyal ISF was 

in charge of the city. Additionally, the security gains in Basra allowed the 
141

British military to change their approach with ISF mentors and establish 

an effective counterinsurgency framework, meaning Basra did not end in 

a British defeat.233

There were several institutional factors that contributed to the crisis in 

Basra. Primarily, there was not a strong level of introspection and analysis 

fostered by leaders in MND-SE. This stands in contrast to leaders such as 

McMaster, Alford, and MacFarland who fostered pragmatic approaches 

to amorphous challenges in Tal Afar, Al Qaim and Ramadi respectively.234

The British Army also operated in a very limited area in the southeastern 

region of Iraq with a relatively small force, so it did not have as much contemporary institutional experience building up during OIF as the American military.235 One of the largest issues was the operational and strategic 

disconnect with the MNC-I headquarters; however, this was a symptom 

to a larger issue. An American planner in Baghdad judged that the British 

Army acted as if Petraeus and Odierno had never come to Iraq and continued to follow Casey’s approach of disengagement and transition.236 There 

were also challenges in how the British national command element nested 

within a theater coalition headquarters. The new British Ministry of Defence command structure for overseas operations was also relatively new, 

and did not have significant organizational experience balancing political 

and military considerations in operations larger than the Balkans and Sierra Leone.237 Regardless of political constraints, the British contingent in 

Basra did not account for the changing security environment in 2007 and 

2008.238

The ability to dynamically re-task critical assets (both Iraqi and MNFI) illustrated the improved situation across Iraq in 2008. The security situation and a stabilizing GoI gave Maliki the confidence to address Shia violence in Basra and Sadr City in March. The Sadr City violence also slowed 

talk of transition during a CENTCOM review of the strategy, and gave the 

counterinsurgency effort a slower and sustainable pace. As leaders began 

talks of transition and a new Status of Forces Agreement between the GoI 

and American governments, Maliki would often joke to Petraeus that it 

seemed the Americans wanted to stay in Iraq more than the Iraqis did.239

In September, Odierno was promoted to replace Petraeus as the MNF-I 

commander, providing crucial continuity to the counterinsurgency effort. 

One of the largest issues facing commanders at the end of 2008 was the 

effort to integrate the irregular local security groups that were so critical to 

security gains during the previous two years. The program became known 

as the Sons of Iraq (SOI) in a coordinated effort to integrate the most 

capable fighters into the ISF or public sector jobs. By this time, most ISF 

units were accustomed to the SOI presence at checkpoints and willingly 

integrated them into security framework operations at the local level. SOI 

groups were effective in securing limited local areas through checkpoints 

and an intimate knowledge of the neighborhood population and power 
142

structure. Continuing into 2009, some unit commanders struggled through 

a generally inefficient program to integrate individuals, but saw instances 

of success when specific SOI members were fully trained Iraqi policemen 

or soldiers in their area.240 Difficulties were generally due to inefficient 

pay systems, the aforementioned lack of jobs available in the Iraqi public 

sector, and the fact that some groups cooperated with American forces 

instead of the GoI.241 One civilian adviser saw this effort as proof that 

the underlying sectarian divide still remained as strong as ever, since real 

reconciliation would involve admitting to former acts of insurgency and 

terrorism. This arrangement was more akin to a series of cease-fires rather 

than true reconciliation and integration of Sunni and Shia militias.242

By late 2008, the increased operations and a refined approach in Baghdad was seen as a success by most observers in Iraq. This provided the 

dual opportunities to rehabilitate Baghdad and transition responsibilities 

to ISF partners. Odierno’s director of strategic operations, Major General 

Guy Swan, assessed that “with the security gains, there is a window of 

opportunity . . . only they can do it. We have set the conditions for them. 

They have an opportunity to pursue their own destiny.”243

Rehabilitating Baghdad and the belt areas after years of communal 

violence and militarized security was an effort that the population supported. One battalion commander recalled citizens bringing concertina wire to 

one of his JSSs north of Baghdad, and that they were genuinely happy to 

see the vestiges of a combat environment removed from their neighborhoods.244 Commanders used their discretionary funds to focus on projects 

that would create a local perception of a return to normalcy and stimulate 

the economy.245 Requirements for intelligence at the small-unit level in 

Baghdad were no longer focused on local thugs, but on local leaders with 

influence in economic and social programs. One battalion commander 

southeast of Baghdad concluded that his most important information was 

what he could use to inform embedded PRT operations, and JAM’s influence was almost irrelevant by that point.246 Partnered offensive efforts to 

target AQI and JAM Special Groups leaders and their networks became 

almost a nighttime caveat to daytime civil support operations in the minds 

of many company-level commanders.247

Transitioning security responsibilities to the ISF in these areas became another focus, with the Federal Police (formerly the National Police) 

divisions assuming responsibility in Baghdad in July of 2009. American 

forces in urban areas concentrated efforts on a responsible withdrawal 

to hand over JSSs and combat outposts to direct ISF control, while they 

would continue to advise operations and secure the 23 PRTs operating 

throughout Iraq.248 After the formal security agreement took effect on 30 

June 2009, tactical units did not strictly follow the blanket policy of American combat forces’ withdrawal from urban areas, which led to several 

confusing corollaries about what constituted a combat patrol and a general 
143

disconnect between headquarters at different levels.249 As an unintended 

benefit, this enabled ISF growth at higher echelons more than almost any 

other initiative in the counterinsurgency effort, since MiTTs and partnered 

commanders could truly only advise operations instead of lead them.250

By the end of 2009, reported civilian deaths were below pre-invasion 

levels.251 As BCTs redeployed they were replaced by Advise and Assist 

Brigades (AABs) to maintain a focus on improving the quality of ISF units 

instead of continued operations against the remnants of JAM and AQI. 

Eventually, enough BCTs redeployed without replacement that one AAB 

had responsibility for all operations in Baghdad.252 Both Iraqi and American leaders planned for a conditions-based withdrawal from Iraq to avoid 

mistakes of previous counterinsurgency campaigns.253 Iraqi leaders felt 

that continued mentorship to develop the GoI’s capacity for governance 

was needed and that “[t]he withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq should 

mark an evolution in the U.S.-Iraqi relationship, not Washington’s disengagement.”254 To this end, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates declared 

that OIF would transition to Operation NEW DAWN (OND) beginning in 

September 2010.255 Concurrently, MNF-I transformed to US Forces–Iraq 

which “advises, trains, assists, and equips Iraqi Security Forces, enabling 

them to provide for internal security while building a foundation capability to defend against external threats.”256

OIF provides a case study in success through tactical and operational adaptability, with several potential long-term effects. In a return to 

Baghdad in December 2010, a former BCT commander saw incredible 

improvement at the street level. Only some of the concrete barrier walls 

remained, violence was low, and the bustling population was building new 

markets.257 This scene was an unlikely image in early 2007, when Petraeus 

arrived to see the bombed-out “ghost towns” of former Sunni enclaves 

in Baghdad.258 However, tactical and operational successes must be tempered with enduring strategic issues. The US (especially the Bush administration) was plagued by the lack of a comprehensive WMD network or 

evidence that AQ was intimately involved with Hussein’s regime. AQ’s 

actions in fighting and damaging American prestige served to improve its 

narrative among radical Islamists. A civilian adviser to MNF-I summarized this mixed result:

What it has done to our reputation . . . the day after 9/11 

you had support across the world. People in Gaza, people in 

Iran demonstrating and raising money for America. And you 

look at how we went about responding; how we went about trying to make ourselves safer, how many more grievances we’ve 

created along the way. We killed tens of thousands of people, 

we’ve got more enemies today than we’ve ever had before. It’s 

a bit like “Team America.” It’s funny but it’s so realistic. And 

now we understand how to do COIN, but we’re not going to be 
144

allowed out again.259

The Employment of Artillery Units

The employment of artillery units within the counterinsurgency effort 

began during the consolidation after the ground war, which is notable because American forces leveraged the lowest ratio of artillery to maneuver 

forces since the Spanish-American War.260 Artillerymen’s contributions in 

the war took many forms to include the delivery of indirect fires, security 

as converted maneuver forces, advisory and training of ISF units, and a 

host of other missions inherent to a counterinsurgency effort.

In some areas, artillery units began the counterinsurgency campaigns 

of OIF much in the same way they spent most of the counterinsurgency 

campaign in Vietnam: delivering H&I fires within an ineffective framework of operations. Odierno’s 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit used H&I 

fires against suspected enemy locations in what he referred to as proactive 

counterfire to mitigate enemy rocket and mortar threats against the everexpanding FOB locations.261 Farther south in the division’s area of operations in Baqubah, units fired more than 200 rounds of artillery and heavy 

mortars in July 2003 alone. While this number pales in comparison to the 

amount of munitions used in Vietnam and even Malaya, it is indicative of 

the continued employment of artillery units in the indirect fire role during 

the incipient stages of the insurgency.262 However, commanders began a 

steady habit of employing artillery units in other roles as the indirect fires 

infrastructure matured in OIF.263

Vast improvements in artillery range and accuracy impacted the ability 

to deliver indirect fires in a counterinsurgency; concurrent improvements 

in observer equipment greatly minimized both observer location and target location errors from the days of using orienting rounds in Vietnam. 

Within this environment, the new precision Guided MLRS (GMLRS) 

munition became a weapon of choice for many fire supporters and their 

commanders after its introduction in Iraq in 2005. Due to its precision, 

range, and relatively lower collateral damage, the GMLRS enabled coverage and responsiveness similar to the use of distributed FSBs in Vietnam 

but without the intense resource cost. This also restored the conceptual 

dynamic of mixed general support and direct support artilleries available 

to a commander for specific operations, with the option to re-task direct 

support artillery in a nonstandard role. Since the volume of indirect fires 

was so low compared to Vietnam, the practice of only using artillery as 

an emergency measure for troops in contact and selected missions made 

the indirect fires architecture similar to Malaya. However, the extended 

range of GMLRS munitions (70 kilometers) and 155mm howitzer systems 

meant that artillery units did not have to break into smaller troops as the 

RA did in Malaya, and they could co-locate on large FOBs instead of requiring infantry and helicopter support for FSBs in Vietnam.264

As the indirect fires infrastructure matured in OIF, it led some leaders 
145

to question the need for artillery fires at all. Major General James Mattis 

decided that his 1st Marine Division would not bring any artillery or tanks 

when they replaced the 82nd Airborne Division in Fallujah in 2004. He 

explained his approach to insurgents this way: “I didn’t bring artillery. But 

I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you f--- with me, I’ll kill 

you all.”265 This approach seems to conflate the lethal potential of an artillery unit’s indirect fires with collateral damage, and does little to mitigate 

risk against a severe increase in the scale of attacks. After experiencing 

the indirect fire threat to locations around Fallujah first-hand, Swannack 

was able to prevail on him to change: “[a]fter seeing how we got mortared 

and rocketed in the evenings, they decided to bring it.”266 That proved to 

be a pivotal decision for Mattis, since Marine artillerymen fired more than 

4,000 artillery rounds and additional 10,000 mortar rounds during the second attempt to clear Fallujah in 2004.267

After Fallujah, many commanders and local leaders sought to conduct 

operations with minimal collateral damage. Inevitably, this was rooted in 

a mix of perception and reality but the effect was a decreased use of artillery indirect fires in general. A former mayor of a prominent Iraqi city with 

military experience illustrated this wariness as coalition forces prepared to 

clear his city of insurgents in 2005:

I refuse any fighter jets to participate in the operation. And 

I refuse any artillery to participate. If the fighter jets participate, 

the first bomb that drops, I will resign. Because that is what 

happened in Fallujah and was a source of a lot of problems. 

They said, “How can we support our troops then?” I said Saddam Hussein in Basra had no air support when he cleared it out. 

Why don’t you just rely on helicopters and mortars?268

This decreased use did not completely preclude the use of artillery 

fires, and several refined techniques emerged to capitalize on the benefits 

of artillery for counterfire and observed H&I fires.

The use of artillery units’ indirect fires in Ramadi in 2005 show a 

refined integration of fires and effects with the commander’s vision. The 

BCT’s artillery battalion fired thousands of fire missions for terrain denial and illumination, and the BCT commander lauded these missions as a 

“Ph.D.-level counterfire” method which deprived the enemy of the ability 

to adjust fire on coalition FOBs.269 The key to this effort was not so much 

the refined techniques, but that the commander understood the psychological effects of using artillery in the outskirts of Ramadi and adjusted 

it accordingly.270 Other commanders also understood the use of artillery 

fires to interdict or disrupt insurgent activity as an effect to enable larger 

operations.271 As with Malaya and Vietnam, commanders rediscovered the 

ability to use indirect fires to flush insurgents into advantageous terrain: 

“chasing artillery with artillery will get you nowhere. And we practiced 

the terrain denial piece to force them into areas where we could engage 
146

them. That was the key.”272 Still, some units used ineffective and unrefined 

techniques of employing artillery firepower to deny terrain and disrupt enemy actions. One battalion commander saw this firsthand, as he critiqued 

the BCT’s use of artillery in his area:

Then they were shooting terrain denial fires. They would 

shoot based on this information, so they would just shoot in 

these fields. And we were just churning up these fields. The AQ 

were going around saying that the Americans were scared like 

women. The other line was that we were there but we are invisible and magical and just can’t be hurt. So the question is: what 

are we accomplishing here?273

By the time MNC-I arrayed the additional BCTs in Baghdad in 2007, 

that large urban area was almost completely devoid of indirect fires coverage. One BCT commander was told flatly that he could not use his own 

direct support artillery battalion to provide fires initially, and in his estimation “people had forgotten that we could use control measures to do this 

safely.”274 Eventually the requirements for fires in Baghdad trumped the 

institutional notion that collateral damage was unavoidable and unacceptable. BCTs were able to leverage their own assets primarily for counterfire 

missions, and one BCT developed a mature enough set of fire support coordination measures to utilize a Free Fire Area for both artillery and attack 

aviation in the insurgent-controlled palm grove areas.275 As the counterfire 

effort in Baghdad matured, fire supporters at higher echelons began to integrate and influence operations. This attempt to integrate and streamline 

target acquisition and the clearance of fires led to many perceptions of 

micromanagement at lower levels. Although one counterfire effort in 2007 

reduced rocket attacks from a peak of 20 per day at one location in eastern 

Baghdad, the commander expressed his frustration at not being able to 

control his own 120mm mortars that provided the counterfire.276

The ensuing permissive environment for indirect fires and years of 

institutional learning combined to produce the most refined employment 

of artillery units in OIF. In the Baghdad belt areas in 2007 to 2008, commanders used a small element of the artillery battalion to provide indirect 

fires while the rest of it conducted the same security mission set as other 

infantry units, albeit on a smaller scale.277 Using artillery units in a split 

fashion was nothing new, as Odierno’s artillery battalions in Salah-ad-Din 

all simultaneously provided fires and secured an area as a maneuver task 

force in 2003.278 One BCT southeast of Baghdad used a small detachment 

of “a couple of pieces” available to deny selected terrain and fire on targets of opportunity, using split sections to increase coverage and responsiveness across their area.279 Another BCT to the southwest of Baghdad 

maintained a four-gun firing element at one of their FOBs, using it for an 

active counterfire campaign of both lethal fires and illumination to disrupt 

enemy operations.280 The next unit in that area of operations kept a bat-
147

tery at that location, and attached both an infantry company and a mechanized company team to act as a maneuver task force for security.281 These 

situations called for adaptive leaders and flexible command relationships. 

In one case, a battery commander reported to one maneuver commander 

for issues in his area of operations as a maneuver task force, his original 

commander from the artillery battalion for issues with the platoon providing the BCT’s indirect fires, and an additional support structure from 

another BCT to support his logistics.282 Additionally, artillery units with 

mixed roles in the Baghdad belts were able to dynamically task organize 

for specific circumstances in their area. One battery commander took the 

minimum amount of personnel out of his regular patrol cycle so they could 

establish firing capability, which effectively disrupted IED attacks along a 

critical stretch of highway for two weeks.283

The employment of artillery units in Basra was on a similar arc to that 

of coalition forces in the rest of the country. After the initial ground invasion, British forces sent their guns home and gunners spent the next two 

years patrolling to augment infantry units due to the relatively small size 

of the British contingent compared to other coalition forces.284 Artillery 

units were continually employed in security roles and to train ISF soldiers 

until indirect fires attacks against the operating base in Basra required the 

establishment of a counterfire capability. Some British officers viewed this 

shift as a cognitive disconnect, echoing the notion at the time that the British presence itself was engendering violence instead of the large JAM influence in the city. One British artillery officer commented that “[w]e were 

trying to hand over the four provinces, but we were trying strike operations against the IDF teams. We’d all withdrawn to the COB, we were the 

problem. If the COB hadn’t been there, there’d have been no attacks.”285

This led to a situation which greatly constrained the use of artillery 

fires to protect the force. Since any violence after The Accommodation 

during the withdrawal of British troops from Basra city had large political 

implications, authority for counterfire missions was held at the highest 

level possible, the national command authority.286 Although there was a 

large requirement for counterfire in the rural areas of MND-SE, the howitzers remained near Basra where they were relatively hamstrung by these 

political limits. When Operation CHARGE OF THE KNIGHTS began, 

British forces regained the same conditions-based counterfire capabilities 

that American forces learned to use in Baghdad in 2007. Fire supporters 

and targeteers proactively estimated collateral damage concerns and developed an overlay of Basra. Commanders were able to leverage air assets 

that MNF-I sent to support Operation CHARGE OF THE KNIGHTS in 

areas that required more precise targeting.287

By the security transition in 2009, coalition forces’ employment of 

artillery fires consisted of small-scale support to ISF units, particularly 

Federal Police units in urban areas. ISF units were able to leverage mor-
148

tar fires from AABs, but only for deliberate missions.288 Fires battalions 

within the AABs provided another battalion-level headquarters to partner 

with ISF.289 General support artillery units at the enduring FOBs outside of 

urban areas were generally the only source for indirect fires. They found 

use as a means of demonstrating that ISF still had the backing of American 

firepower.290

Throughout OIF, commanders employed artillery units in a nonstandard role of security, often operating as a maneuver task force with its own 

area of operations. Following the ground invasion, some artillery units 

were immediately pressed into service in security roles since there was 

about a nine-month lull until artillery fires were widely used again.291 As 

the war continued and commanders increasingly sought to enhance security in their area, artillery units were a logical choice due to their identity 

as a combat arms element. Some units came to rely on them as a maneuver 

force to the point that they only conducted minimal traditional artillery 

training between deployments to OIF.292 One battalion commander noted 

that artillery units are an appealing option since they already have the 

basic qualities of a maneuver task force such as small arms proficiency, 

combat vehicles, and secure communications.293 Critically, artillery units 

contain trained combat arms officers with the ability to integrate effects, 

with an exposure to the fundamentals of fire and maneuver through their 

experiences as fire support officers. Battery commanders serving in the 

maneuver role combined these qualities to a great effect in many areas.294

However, manning and equipping these forces was a key issue since an 

artillery unit is much smaller than an infantry counterpart, with a comparatively lean staff and support element. 

During the counterinsurgency effort, artillery units serving in a maneuver role learned to harness their core competencies positively. One 

BCT commander remarked that he viewed artillerymen as particularly 

good at counterinsurgency because they are usually tasked as a supporting role to the main effort in conventional operations. As such, they have 

no hesitation or reluctance when supporting an ISF or local leader instead 

of seeking to act as the main effort in that area.295 Another battalion commander, who successfully converted his artillery battalion to conduct a 

nonstandard security mission, noted that artillery units have a unique approach to counterinsurgency operations:

I think that artillery units are successful in COIN because 

they don’t carry any baggage from having conducted operations at one end of the spectrum and are then asked to transition 

to a COIN mindset. We don’t have a specific mindset to begin 

with. It is much easier to teach a unit how to take on a new role 

because there are no bad habits to un-learn. In that sense we 

were blessed.296
149

Many commanders also tasked artillery units with the complicated 

mission of training ISF units and advising combat operations before the 

MiTT model was adopted across Iraq. MNSTC-I deliberately delayed 

raising and training IA artillery capabilities. This became apparent in 2007 

when Petraeus sought to accelerate national programs to give ISF indirect fires capabilities, but MNSTC-I did not have an artillery liaison unit 

to even plan this contingency.297 Without Iraqi artillerymen to train, artillery units were able to teach marksmanship, basic soldiering skills, and 

small unit tactics to the ISF by virtue of their combat arms training. 1st 

BCT, 1st Armored Brigade used their artillery battalion to operate an ISF 

training center as part of the effort to pacify Ramadi, which was key due 

to the massive influx of new policeman from the tribes.298 In this model, 

policemen would train at distant centers in Baghdad or Jordan to learn 

core competencies, then polish their combat skills at Camp Phoenix in 

Ramadi since the commanders there recognized that in a counterinsurgency “police needed to be able to fight like infantry squads due to the 

kinetic nature of the fight.”299 The key component of that arrangement was 

that artillerymen were used to train a skill set that they were familiar with 

themselves. On occasion, artillery units would be employed in a stopgap 

training support mission, as in the case of one battalion that was detailed 

to train policemen on their actual policing tasks:

If our solution to policing is to re-designate or dual-purpose artillery units to do that, then we are not holding ourselves 

accountable. We are coming up with a Band-Aid solution to 

something that is far more complex. In my 30 years as an artilleryman, there wasn’t a lot that would have helped me develop 

police in a culture that I was fundamentally ignorant of.300

This quote reveals an important consideration in the employment of 

artillery units in nonstandard missions. If specialized troops for a unique 

or unforecasted mission in counterinsurgency do not exist, the army must 

make a parallel effort to resource this while an ad hoc organization or remissioned unit maintains steady improvement.

Commanders only embraced this concept marginally in OIF, and 

many artillery units found themselves in unforecasted, yet enduring, mission sets which required emergency training and adaptive leadership.301

Artillery units performed diverse tasks such as civil affairs and reconstruction support, convoy security, processing Captured Enemy Ammunition 

(CEA), and company-level intelligence support. In 2003, much of the initial focus on reconstruction efforts meant that the undermanned civil affairs operations required support. 1st Armored Division used their general 

support MLRS battalion to control the security and reconstruction efforts 

at Baghdad International Airport.302 Some BCTs assigned their fire support 

elements to assist civil affairs unit’s local-level efforts in an arrangement 

often referred to as “Team Village.”303
150

Other artillery units conducted operations to locate, process, and backhaul CEA. Due to an artillery unit’s built-in capacity to haul ammunition and knowledge of considerations for transport and storage, they are 

particularly well suited for this mission set. In 2003 this was extremely 

important since the old Iraqi army left huge depots of large-caliber ammunition which could be easily exploited by insurgents to produce IEDs.304

Since units were finding everything from World War II-era ammunition to 

French Roland missiles, one Division Artillery commander whose units 

were processing CEA said it was more like “demilitarizing” a society rather than reconstruction support.305 A nonstandard mission of convoy security was similar to the easy transition to CEA operations, since it built on a 

core competency of artillery units. Since artillery units secure themselves 

during most mounted movements on a conventional battlefield, it was not 

a stretch to use them to secure another element such as a long-distance 

logistics convoy or a construction project site visit. Improvements in logistics units’ ability to secure themselves removed much of the burden for 

this, and was reduced further in the use of contractors to secure elements 

of the Department of State and the Corps of Engineers. However, the need 

was so great in Baghdad in October 2007 that one artillery battalion was 

re-tasked to secure embassy personnel at the temporary cost of indirect 

fire support to an entire BCT.306 Although artillery units were not specifically tasked to man company-level intelligence support teams, many commanders used their assigned fire support personnel to establish this cell. 

By 2007 this was widely accepted as a best practice, due in part to a fire 

supporter’s familiarity with targeting procedures and combat operations 

with the maneuver force.307

Analysis

In broad terms, the counterinsurgency effort in OIF suffered from a 

disconnection between the markers of success at various levels of the conflict. Counterinsurgency is a junior commander’s war, meaning that the 

effort to defeat an insurgency can only be decided among the population at 

the local level. There is no strategic silver bullet, no institutional knockout 

punch. However, a cogent operational approach to pursue the strategic 

objective must be present to make these victories on the street count toward a steady cumulative effect. Chiarelli captured this in a 2005 writing, 

reflecting that “[t]he broad collection of small, decisive victories along all 

lines of operations, supporting each other in a delicate balance of perception and purpose, would move the campaign toward positive results.”308

The disunity of efforts between MNF-I and the GoI, and within MNF-I in 

OIF were a symptom of this phenomena, not necessarily a cause.

The lack of a unified effort between the coalition and the GoI was 

evident early in the counterinsurgency effort, almost as soon as the central 

government took shape. Operations such as the efforts to clear Fallujah in 

2004 were important signals of the coalition’s resolve, but they also dis-
151

rupted political reforms since they provided Sunni insurgent groups with 

a convenient excuse for political retrenchment.309 Early efforts to partner 

with elements of the GoI were focused almost entirely on security sector reform; only with rare exceptions did American units partner with the 

other critical links of Iraqi governance and civil stability such as resource 

distribution networks.310 Many early efforts to harmonize the counterinsurgency effort between MNF-I and the GoI failed because much of the joint 

campaign plan for rebuilding Iraq was classified, relied on third-country 

contractors, and did not involve Iraqi leaders in the planning process.311

Security efforts suffered similar issues, and senior ISF commanders’ fundamentally different read on problem sets were under-informed or ignored 

until Odierno provided significant clarity to operations in 2007.312 This 

was solidified by the psychological effect of The Surge, which displayed 

sufficient resolve to support the GoI.313

MNF-I’s counterinsurgency effort also suffered from the lack of an 

internal unified effort between military and diplomatic elements, between 

conventional and special operations units, and within the effort to develop 

the ISF. The most significant of these was the disarray between military 

and diplomatic elements, since the crucial task of rebuilding the institutions of governance in Iraq institutionally fell between them. From the 

outset of the counterinsurgency effort, Garner admitted that ORHA could 

not integrate these functions without complete security for his civilian elements. This led to a huge unforecasted bill for military security.314 Tensions 

between the military continued as ORHA transformed to the CPA, to the 

point that Bremer was told by military officers that he’d “stepped out of 

his lane” when he questioned their ability to find effective means to combat the enemy.315 During this organizational divide, military Civil Affairs 

units had a limited effect, and in many areas the integration of these efforts 

was only a priority when the local commander saw it as such. The heavy 

use of security contractors by CPA and the Department of State clearly 

exacerbated issues. Many unit commanders derided the conduct of these 

contractors since they were strictly focused on securing their principal, 

and as such they had no stake in avoiding collateral damage or respecting the local community. But critically, most Iraqis did not understand 

this context and viewed these contractors as agents of the local American 

military unit.316

Steady improvement in coordination began when the PRT concept 

transferred from Afghanistan in late 2005. When the Department of State 

began to fully resource these teams and they embedded with specific units 

in their area of operations, it served to unify the effort down to the BCTlevel in many areas. Embedded PRT leaders often had a seat at the table 

with their BCT commander counterparts, and were able to integrate their 

core competencies into staff processes.317 While the PRT model had success in physical reconstruction efforts locally, some advisers serving in 
152

headquarters at higher echelons did not see the same effect on efforts to 

rebuild viable nationwide government institutions.318

The military component of the counterinsurgency effort also experienced internal discord among many conventional and special operations 

units. Interestingly, this is perhaps the closest an American-led coalition 

has ever come to Trinquier’s quadrillage model of counterinsurgent task 

organization, with conventional units (both coalition and ISF) serving as 

the grid troops, Special Forces teams as interval units, and special operations elements functioning as intervention units to focus on insurgent 

leadership. However, there is not ample evidence that this was ever a 

deliberate framework of operations, and as a result there was tension in 

some areas that conventional unit leaders saw as their own when special 

operations forces operated outside of their control or influence.319 Special 

Forces leaders experienced similar tension, and resented the fact that some 

conventional leaders thought that they were only focused on targeting the 

enemy.320 Quite precociously, one Special Forces commander posited that 

the key was managing the varied personalities in OIF: “relationships between commanders are more important that command relationships.”321

The lack of a unified effort to develop and advise ISF units also created issues at the local level. At a certain point in a counterinsurgency, 

there may be a threshold point where the organization of combat units is 

revised to support an advisory mission set instead of a security mission 

set. Partnering units is a generally effective means of improving security 

forces since commanders at all levels can empathize and develop rapport 

over time. In OIF, a MiTT was a valuable addition to mentor and advise at 

a higher command echelon, and also provided a communication channel 

to MNSTC-I’s national-level effort of raising and equipping ISF elements. 

However, some coalition commanders cited the danger of advisory teams 

grading their own ISF unit’s progress.322 The AAB concept sought to blend 

the best qualities of these elements under one cohesive tactical command, 

and in large part it received favorable reviews for that task. By taking advantage of the inherent efficiencies of existing leadership and robust staffs 

within a BCT, the AAB model was effective. But MNSTC-I could have 

pushed to introduce it in regions outside of Baghdad much earlier.323

If a unity of effort describes the harmonization of the counterinsurgency laterally across many functions, the concept of “nesting” describes 

the harmonization of efforts vertically to ensure that successive echelons 

support a higher objective. To this end, several control measures that were 

traditionally used on a linear conventional battlefield were cognitively 

modified by adaptive leaders to fit the demands of a volatile and amorphous environment in Iraq. Issues with traditional unit boundaries based in 

geographic terms caused many unnecessary issues, especially in the Baghdad belts where some units would have to nest their concepts and purpose 

with the MND-B commander but report to another unfamiliar division-
153

level commander.324 Efforts to synchronize effects between the BCT and 

battalion levels were generally easier to accomplish since far more units in 

this linkage had an organic relationship from home-station training. One 

BCT operations officer described this as giving battalions minor “course 

corrections” to ensure their well-informed efforts at a local level were 

tied to the BCT commander’s vision and objectives.325 This synchronization helps this effort, but it entails more than just assigning subordinate 

commanders an area of operations.326 Field grade officers can form the 

supporting cast in a counterinsurgency, and manage support functions to 

include intelligence, command and control, communications, and logistics to support a commander’s understanding and decision-making.327 The 

Taji COIN Center provided another measure of harmonizing operations, 

since all incoming units in 2007 and after studied commanders’ intents at 

multiple levels of the counterinsurgency effort. One commander said that 

since he understood these intents, he could adapt methods to a changing 

environment in order to obtain that endstate within his area.328

Throughout OIF, the counterinsurgency effort struggled to defeat 

insurgent groups within a framework of legitimacy. This will always be 

difficult for an intervening country, which was the case in OIF as soon 

as the GoI was granted sovereignty in June 2004. The counterinsurgency 

effort had to overcome additional difficulties since many groups such as 

Kurds and Sunni Arabs did not necessarily view a Shia-dominated GoI as 

a legitimate power over them. For MNF-I, this created an environment 

of balancing cooperation with anti-GoI elements for short-term security 

gains with efforts to create a social linkage via reconciliation between disaffected groups in the long term. Besides political legitimacy, which was 

found in partnership and eventual subordination to an effective GoI, there 

was also an enduring issue of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After 

the first year, coalition forces had difficulty countering the narrative that 

they were foreign occupiers. They could only focus attention on the fact 

that an occupation does not entail efforts to improve the population’s lot 

in life, and draw attention to those successful coalition actions which accomplished this end. 

In attempts to isolate insurgents from their base of support, the counterinsurgency effort adapted to the environment in OIF and in effect isolated the base of support from the insurgent. Across most areas in Iraq early 

in the war, large sequential cordon-and-search operations took the place of 

large sequential search-and-destroy missions from Vietnam. These tactics 

were similar in the way that they generally failed to hold or build key 

areas and population centers, consequently failing to separate insurgents 

and their base of support. In general, since insurgents did not mass except 

immediately prior to an attack, they did not have consolidated resource 

requirements. Because a small cell within a network only required a few 

caches and a few bed-down locations in a large urban area, massive sweeps 
154

without extremely detailed intelligence did not disrupt them. 

Compartmentalizing populations with permanent cordons and operating within those cordons proved effective in achieving the ultimate effect 

of separating insurgents from the one resource they inherently lacked: targets. In the Baghdad of 2006, both AQI and JAM did not necessarily seek 

to defeat ISF nodes, although their neutralization and an ensuing lack of 

security was advantageous.329 What both groups truly required from the 

population was Shia mosques and markets for VBIEDs or Sunni neighborhoods for intimidation and killings. Truly isolating insurgents from their 

base of support came from security gains once trusted local political powers and local irregular security forces could assert control within an area. 

Population security is really the distillation of this technique to its basic 

element.330

Operations to clear insurgents with armed force are closely related 

to this technique. Operations in Baghdad in 2007 highlight that clearing 

insurgents with armed force does not stop at killing the enemy; it must 

rescue the population.331 In OIF, the counterinsurgency effort showed the 

misguided use of this principle in the early years of the war since killing 

the enemy took precedence over the follow-on task of securing the population, and sometimes completely obviated it. Colonel Craig Collier, a former battalion commander, asserted that “our experience in Iraq verified 

that lethal operations remain the decisive element of combat power.”332

This assertion reveals some faulty underlying assumptions which led to 

the simplistic effort to clear insurgents solely with lethal combat power. 

While lethal operations have a definite place in a counterinsurgency, combat power is not decisive in and of itself in that form of warfare. Insurgents 

will only remain cleared if the population sees it as a distributive outcome, 

one with a permanently viable solution. Collier continued, claiming that 

“[w]e seem reluctant to admit that killing the enemy worked.”333 Killing 

the enemy always works in the short term. Although there could be many 

second-order effects in a hypothetical situation, killing the enemy generally makes for one less insurgent if he is killed judiciously. But simply 

killing the enemy is not enough, and as successful programs in Iraq demonstrated, it is much better to co-opt an enemy because a dead enemy 

cannot give you additional security, HUMINT, or spend his wages locally. 

This notion should not dissuade well-informed, pragmatic, and episodic 

efforts to clear insurgent bases with armed force. As the second operation to clear Fallujah illustrated, the act itself clearly signals resolve in the 

counterinsurgency effort, and can make insurgent elements wonder if they 

can really outlast it.334

Within the context of these challenges, The Surge (and OIF to a larger extent) was not a revolutionary approach or a watershed moment of 

institutional enlightenment for the counterinsurgency effort. Instead, it 

was the confluence of several important factors that restored synchroni-
155

zation, continuity, and a unity of effort. Crucial additional forces arrived 

when two adaptive tactics were implemented in Baghdad and the belts: a 

method to co-opt tribal local power structures and integrate them into the 

security framework as in Al Qaim and Ramadi; and a method to secure 

the population during selective strikes at insurgent groups as in Tal Afar. 

These tactics were not derived from a theoretical framework, they were 

the outgrowth of four hard-fought years of iterative experience in counterinsurgency warfare by American and British forces. Odierno’s operational 

approach and Petraeus’ theater-level strategic framework enabled the restoration of a unified counterinsurgency effort, but it would not have succeeded without these refined tactics and sufficient troops, resources, and 

political backing from the institutional military.

A complete analysis to describe the factors that influenced the employment of artillery units during OIF are confounded by an important 

variable. OIF was concurrent with the Army’s shift to the modular BCT 

model, in which artillery battalions transferred from the Division Artillery to specific BCTs.335 As a result of this transformation, artillery units 

maintained their branch-specific proficiency and standardization through 

informal relationships and division-level initiatives, but struggled to replicate the functions of senior artillery mentorship and external evaluations.336 What distinguished this process was not so much the ruminations 

of an Old Guard of senior artillery officers, but organizational resistance 

to change within the junior officer population.337 Some legacy brigades 

completed the transformation to BCTs as late as 2006. This introduced 

additional organizational friction and uncertainty over the nature of command relationships and options to employ artillery units. Quite simply, 

BCT commanders did not have much experience commanding them.338

The requirements for tactical fires were a factor in the employment 

of artillery units, but a very localized one. Insurgents rarely massed to 

provide lucrative targets, except in pre-planned complex attacks. Indirect 

fires were used on these rare occasions, but not generally in sustained operations except for the large-scale clearances in Fallujah or Diyala. Opportunities to support troops in contact were relatively rare, since insurgents 

conducted ambush attacks and sought to disengage immediately. A typical 

engagement lasted under a minute.339 As with Malaya, most insurgents 

sought to avoid contact before and after an ambush to negate their disadvantage in numbers and firepower. Deliberate targeting did not provide 

much of a stimulus for indirect fires beyond the aforementioned H&I fires 

to deny terrain. In many cases, focused raids to kill or capture insurgents 

replaced the intelligence-based fire mission. Planning for raids took on 

much of the same character as targeting for a fire mission with functions 

for corroborating target intelligence, target selection standards, and attack 

guidance. Since HUMINT was at such a premium in OIF, selective strikes 

against insurgent locations would not have been sustainable since intel-
156

ligence gleaned from sensitive site exploitation in one raid could enable 

many more operations. 

The effect of organizational constraints and physical limitations in 

OIF had a greater effect on the employment of artillery units. Constraints 

reflected the effort to avoid collateral damage, which some officers viewed 

as creating more insurgents.340 It was a fine line, which Captain Jim Kiersey, a company commander in 2007, summarized by saying that “[s]

hooting the right guy teaches the enemy and population that evil has consequences; the corollary is that a poor shot – one that hits an innocent person or leads to collateral damage – is worse than not shooting at all.”341 To 

minimize collateral damage, units implemented the practice of Collateral 

Damage Estimation (CDE) to inform these decisions. Although it was an 

additional step which some considered an annoyance, it was effective and 

rarely led to a denied mission request.342 Not all commanders understood 

this distinction, leading one British officer to contend that “I’m not quite 

sure if the maneuver units understand the low CDE you get with GMLRS 

or other low-yield weapons. It’s an imperception among us that if you use 

artillery in COIN, then something is going wrong.”343 As a result, many 

measures were delegated to tactical commanders to alleviate the restrictive 

or unresponsive nature of CDE validation.344

The physical limits in Iraq were practically negligible when compared 

to Malaya and Vietnam, but there were some factors which influenced 

the employment of artillery units. The terrain itself offered few limitations, and the issue of accounting for meteorological conditions at remote 

locations was mitigated by a technique from operations in Afghanistan 

to convert readily available Air Force data.345 While the urban terrain in 

many areas of operation limited the direct observation of targets, many 

units were able to utilize a vast array of air and ground sensors to track 

targets. Since Global Positioning Satellite data was available to all patrols 

and many of them had advanced optics, target location error was greatly 

reduced from previous counterinsurgencies.

The counterinsurgency effort was task-organized in such a manner 

that there was a large demand for additional security forces, and this was 

one of the primary factors influencing the employment of artillery units. 

In the words of one commander, in a counterinsurgency “you never have 

enough forces.”346 Until significant numbers of ISF units were reliable 

enough to take responsibility in some areas, the counterinsurgency effort 

was stretched so thin that some planners viewed almost everywhere outside of Baghdad as an “economy of force effort” until 2008.347

Although there was a relatively dependable amount of air support for 

emergency situations, it was never a strong enough force to push artillery units exclusively into nonstandard security roles. Commanders were 

confident in Close Air Support, but only for crisis situations with troops 
157

in contact against an insurgent element.348 Attack aviation assets were also 

dependable in OIF, and in some cases were used for counterfire missions 

when the use of artillery fires had been denied by a higher headquarters.349

Helicopter assets provided an excellent mix of additional surveillance, reconnaissance, and firepower for a ground commander but they were limited by force protection concerns around urban areas and loiter time away 

from refuel points at the larger FOBs. Some commanders saw an overreliance on air assets to be an unnecessary risk when artillery units were 

available.350 Air assets were never able to fully replicate the dependability 

of artillery fires, and when one BCT secured a new area of operations the 

commander employed part of his artillery unit for indirect fires because 

“[w]e were going somewhere nobody had been, so you’d better be able to 

take care of yourself.”351

The repeated cost of converting artillery units between indirect fires 

and nonstandard security forces was not only a major factor in their employment during OIF, but also a long-term issue for the artillery branch 

of the American military. The combined requirements of artillery units in 

OIF and combat operations in Afghanistan created some artillery leaders 

with the experience of firing thousands of fire missions in counterinsurgency combat, some artillery leaders with more experience as a maneuver 

commander than their infantry branch counterparts, and a majority of artillery leaders with a mix of both experiences. There is a sense that these 

repeated conversions in and out of indirect fire roles created a branch that 

is the metaphorical jack-of-all-trades but master of none. In many cases, 

the critical unit-level lessons learned have not been collected, let alone 

exploited. This created a large deficit in the institutional base of knowledge within the artillery community, a deficit that will take many years to 

reduce.

Three veteran BCT commanders recognized this trend in 2008 and 

wrote a five-page white paper titled The King and I: The Impending Crisis 

in the Field Artillery’s Ability to Provide Fire Support to Maneuver Commanders which stated that they had “watched the deterioration of the Field 

Artillery branch with growing alarm.”352 Their well-sourced opinion paper 

recognized the cumulative effect of nonstandard artillery unit employment 

and the loss of senior artillery mentors in the new modular BCT construct. 

Their evidence stemmed mostly from substandard performances of artillery units in their traditional role at the combat training centers.353 The 

influences of training and educating leaders, training units, and converting 

their internal structures for nonstandard roles contributed greatly to this 

state, and continued to be a factor in their employment in OIF. 

The first challenge in converting an artillery unit to a maneuver force 

or another nonstandard security role lies within the unit’s leaders. Due to 

the artillery’s intense requirements for technical and tactical competency, 

some commanders felt that their artillery units’ leaders suffered from a 
158

“checklist mentality” initially, when they needed to adapt to different contingencies in counterinsurgency.354 Between focused training and exposure to missions among the population as fire support officers, artillery 

units were able to prepare their leaders to maintain an adequate result for 

the initial 90 days of a deployment and adapt from there.355 The following quotes illustrate two commanders’ reflections on the method, and the 

importance of training artillery leaders for the complex and lethal counterinsurgency environment of OIF:

We were turning artillery platoons into infantry platoons, 

artillery sections into infantry squads, so it is a little bit of a 

round peg into a square hole. But, where we could, we kept the 

NCOs and officers in place so that there wasn’t the added stress 

of having to learn a new organization.356

You have to bring the right leaders in. You have to look for 

ways; it all goes back to leadership and you have to know your 

organization, the psychology of combat, and then apply your 

understanding of the organization to that environment.357

The effort to convert artillery leaders for nonstandard roles in the counterinsurgency effort was largely successful.358 However, the effect of repeated out-of-role deployments took a toll on many artillery leaders. Some 

officers reported that their artillery counterparts were actually much more 

comfortable training as maneuver forces after their deployment, since it 

was what they knew and understood.359 One BCT commander realized 

that his company-level fire supporters knew more about using money as a 

weapon system than artillery as a weapon system since they were leading 

company intelligence support teams instead of de-conflicting airspace and 

echeloning fires.360 The effect on junior NCOs was also evident, as some 

were reaching the point of centralized selection boards without ever working a fire mission on the gun line.361 One artillery battalion commander 

was faced with the challenge of retraining his unit after it operated for 

nearly five years as a maneuver task force. He recognized that the first step 

in regaining capable leaders was competency (gained through technical 

certifications), and then with confidence (gained through repeated training 

and evaluations).362 A battery commander with a similar situation recalled 

that “it reinvented the wheel for guys who had been away from firing operations for four to five years. It was a focus of individual section skills, 

section certifications, and a platoon EXEVAL with the Fires Brigade.”363

Training artillery units in their new roles was another challenge. This 

was exacerbated by the difficulty in replicating a complex counterinsurgency environment in Iraq, since combat training centers could only replicate certain facets.364 A key to adequately preparing platoons and batteries 

for their next mission was predictability. Units that knew their mission 

for the next deployment could develop detailed training plans and begin 
159

to harness their internal lessons from previous operations. Even one AAB 

that decided to keep a platoon trained for indirect fires was able to make 

that decision with enough lead time to allow the platoon time to conduct 

all live firing tables prior to their mission rehearsal exercises.365 With predictability, one benefit of converting an artillery unit to a provisional security element was that they were purposely tailored for a specific mission 

profile, based on a unique area of operations and its peculiarities.366

When training artillery units to convert back to delivering indirect 

fires, proactive units were able to integrate artillery training during continuous operations in Iraq. Not only did this maintain a minimum level 

of preparedness in case the tactical situation called for a return to firing 

artillery, it also significantly shortened the time it took to re-train and certify upon redeployment. Periodic training on the most basic skills such 

as maintenance checks on idle howitzers mitigated the decay of those 

skills.367 Units were even able to reestablish firing capability during deployments without sacrificing the volume of patrols in their area.368 Upon 

returning home, units struggled to regain firing capabilities if most of the 

junior leaders changed units or immediately left for professional schooling 

that was delayed for the long deployments. Losing the experienced battery 

commanders and platoon leaders left a void for planning and resourcing 

training plans, and losing experienced NCOs left a void of resident technical knowledge and certifications.369 Units were forced to use all available 

artillery experts, to include external observers and mobile training teams. 

One battalion relied on its commander to certify firing units prior to their 

deployment to Afghanistan in a firing role:

At the end of the day, we’d leave them and we’d actually 

head up to the OP to watch, hope and pray that it made it in 

the impact area. It was great because it instilled confidence in 

them, the coaching piece was huge. I can say I was able to take 

18 years of artillery stuff and impart it onto LTs and E-6s. I was 

confident that they’d be able to provide fires and not have a firing incident.370

The third effort to convert artillery units for nonstandard roles was the 

structural conversion of staffs and equipment distributions. This was an 

important nuance in the employment of artillery units, since headquarters 

at higher levels could confuse a unit’s relative combat power based on the 

echelon of their representative icon. Without significant augmentation, a 

battalion icon for an artillery-based maneuver task force was not equal to 

an infantry task force with the same mission set.371 A key area for augmentation was on staffs, specifically the intelligence section. Most artillery 

units did not have a robust intelligence section since artillery intelligence 

traditionally does not use HUMINT as an input. This was a particularly 

glaring weakness in a counterinsurgency campaign where quality HUMINT is one of the most precious commodities.372 Similar to the ability 
160

of quality leaders to adapt to a different mission, quality staffs were also 

able to adapt with just a few key augmentees. One artillery battalion commander in OIF remarked that:

I think because we had a well-trained artillery battalion 

staff and we were proficient at the targeting process, we were 

able to adapt our staff functions to be able to run battalion operations in a COIN environment without a heck of a lot of additional effort.373

Successful leaders also matched existing core competencies with required capabilities, such as a fire direction center’s ability to process and 

analyze data lending itself to a battery intelligence support team.374 Since 

artillery units required augmentation, they maintained most of their own 

equipment and personnel. This meant that they had relatively fewer challenges to structurally convert back to delivering indirect fires. The only 

hindrance was the lengthy reset of howitzer equipment after a deployment, 

but many commanders were able to temporarily transfer equipment to enable training since “there’s no substitute for going out and firing to regain 

gunnery skills.”375

The effort to maintain indirect fires proficiency throughout OIF became a concern for some senior leaders to include Petraeus, who recognized that the artillery branch’s commitment to high standards of responsiveness and accuracy made the enterprise demanding even before the 

stresses of OIF.376 One of the shortcomings in this endeavor was the failure 

to promulgate lessons learned from OIF, or at least avail them through 

accessibility.377 Without robust networks to promulgate the lessons of all 

roles in counterinsurgency, leaders relied on periodic professional journals 

and cross-leveled experiences as individuals changed units immediately 

after redeployment.

Conclusion

In the introduction to his narrative of operations in Baghdad during 

2007, Kilcullen summarizes the incredible challenge to the counterinsurgency effort as follows:

If we were to draw historical analogies, we might say that 

operations in Iraq are like trying to defeat the Viet Cong (insurgency), while simultaneously rebuilding Germany (nationbuilding following war and dictatorship), keeping peace in the 

Balkans (communal and sectarian conflict), and defeating the 

IRA (domestic terrorism). These all have to be done at the same 

time, in the same place, and changes in one part of the problem 

significantly affect others.378

Although the coalition forces formally transferred security and governance responsibilities to a viable host nation apparatus, it is erroneous 
161

to characterize OIF simply as a successful counterinsurgency. A more inclusive characterization is that OIF was a war in which an adaptive and 

resolute effort by both Iraqis and coalition forces achieved a successful 

endstate.

The role of artillery units in this war illuminates two key points regarding the prosecution of a counterinsurgency effort. The success of artillery 

units serving as maneuver task forces shows that counterinsurgency is not 

an endeavor of pure combat might, where only trained infantry or cavalry 

elements can execute an enemy-focused operation. Counterinsurgency requires a highly nuanced approach to violence which the artillery branch 

can balance, despite its traditional penchant for overwhelming firepower 

and large explosions. The concurrent success of artillery units serving as 

reliable providers of indirect firepower shows that in counterinsurgency, 

violent force is still a capability that must be used to balance a successful 

approach.
162

Notes

1. This chapter’s epigraph is from T. E. Lawrence, “The 27 Articles of 

T.E. Lawrence,” The Arab Bulletin (20 August 1917), Section 15. Recommended 

secondary sources for further study in OIF include (in rough chronological order 

of their themes): Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor’s Cobra II, Thomas Ricks’ 

Fiasco and The Gamble, and David Kilcullen’s chapter “The Twenty-First Day,” 

in The Accidental Guerrilla. For a concise overview and analysis of the entire war, 

refer to Carter Malkasian’s “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 

in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare. For studies regarding the successes and 

failures to innovate and adapt during OIF, see Daniel Marston’s “Adaptation in 

the Field: The British Army’s Difficult Campaign in Iraq,” in Security Challenges

(Autumn 2010), and James Russell’s Innovation, Transformation, and War: 

Counterinsurgency Operations in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces, Iraq, 2005-2007.

For the foreseeable future, there will be a lack of credible, unclassified documents 

from the insurgents’ point of view, consequently Ahmed Hashim’s Insurgency and 

Counterinsurgency in Iraq is the most thorough resource for understanding the 

roots of the insurgency, and specific insurgent groups.

2. Brian Burton and John Nagl, “Learning as We Go: the US Army Adapts 

to COIN in Iraq, July 2004-December 2006,” Small Wars and Insurgencies 19, 

No. 3 (September 2008): 323.

3. David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla (Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press, 2009), 148-151.

4. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 117.

5. 1st Infantry Division, Soldier’s Handbook to Iraq (Wurzburg, GE: 1st 

Infantry Division, 2004), v. The 1st Infantry Division issued this handbook to 

soldiers before deployments to OIF in 2004, and it is representative of handbooks 

developed by most US Army divisions or brigades in the earlier years of the 

war. While these handbooks are thick with background facts of Iraq and useful 

everyday phrases, they are relatively thin on contemporary analysis of culture in 

Iraq.

6. 1st Infantry Division, v. All demographic data reflects estimates of Iraqi 

society in 2003. Unless otherwise noted the term Sunni will refer specifically to 

Arabs in this chapter, even though most Kurds and foreign fighters were Sunni as 

well.

7. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview by Richard Johnson and 

Aaron Kaufman, Boston, MA, 11 March 2011. This notion must be tempered by 

the fact that, due in large part to Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, both the Kurds 

and Shia Arabs did not understand how American soldiers of different ethnic 

backgrounds could fight together for a common goal. Although these groups did 

not completely advocate communal violence at first, they did not necessarily 

understand cooperation. See also: Michael R. Gordon and Bernard Trainor, Cobra 

II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Pantheon 

Books, 2006), 441.

8. 1st Infantry Division, v. These ancient urban centers affected the very 

formation of the country. Modern Iraq was formed from the area common to the 
163

Ottoman Empire’s provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, which were based 

on the three major cities and a surrounding Governate rather than distinct areas 

of tribal, ethnic, or sectarian populations. Charles Tripp, A History of Iraq (New 

York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 8-9.

9. BF020 Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

10. James Aylmer Haldane, The Insurrection in Mesopotamia (London: The 

Imperial War Museum, 2005), 39. As the General Officer Commanding, Haldane’s 

account of operations in early Iraq illustrates the difficulty of military action 

among the tribal structure. As the British were still deliberating whether a system 

of direct or indirect rule would be the most effective system in Mesopotamia, a 

revolt began almost immediately in 1920. As British authority was restored, the 

administration recruited for government offices and the fledgling army officer 

corps almost exclusively from the Sunni Arabs, even though they comprised less 

than 20 percent of the population at the time. Tripp, 30-31.

11. Charles Tripp, A History of Iraq (New York: Cambridge University 

Press, 2005), 77.

12. Tripp, A History of Iraq, 143. Although the Ba’ath Party became a 

vehicle for Sunni elites to consolidate power, it was actually founded by a Shia in 

An Najaf.

13. Tripp, A History of Iraq, 190-193. Throughout the 1970s, this regime 

consolidated its domestic power and grew to a relative position of strength in 

the Middle East by leveraging its vast oil resources against the volatile world 

economy.

14. Tripp, A History of Iraq, 233, 238-239. The Shatt al-Arab is the large 

waterway formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, providing 

Iraq with its only seaports and maritime access. These attacks were in direct 

violation of a 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq, which clarified the southern 

and western shores for Iraq and the northern and eastern shores for Iran. This 

marked the first instance of Hussein’s unprovoked attacks which would be cited as 

a political pretext for pre-emptive invasion in 2003. A large and successful Iranian 

counterattack in 1982 led to a long war of attrition through 1988. French assistance 

to develop an air force and American naval presence in the Gulf persuaded Iran to 

settle for peace, and the United Nations (UN) monitored the eventual cease-fire.

15. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror (New 

York: Random House, 2003), xxiii.

16. Tripp, A History of Iraq, 251.

17. Tripp, A History of Iraq, 252-254. Although he used a dubious historical 

claim to the annexation of Kuwait, this was simply a narrative for the international 

community’s consumption.

18. Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco (London: Penguin Press, 2007), 5-6.

19. BF010, Former Army Officer, Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron 

Kaufman, Boston, MA, 11 March 2011.

20. Ricks, Fiasco, 13-15. This is illustrated by the fact that the US Air Force 

did not lose a single aircraft in 12 years of enforcing the no-fly zones.
164

21. Ricks, Fiasco, 32-33. CENTCOM began to draft war plans as early 

as November 2001, and the CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, 

briefed President George W. Bush in December 2001. For Franks’ account of this 

meeting with the President, see Tommy Franks, American Soldier (New York: 

Regan Books, 2004), 346-356.

22. Ricks, Fiasco, 49. This led Vice President Dick Cheney to publicly assert 

“there is no doubt” that Iraq had WMDs during the run-up to war. For additional 

analysis on the doctrine of pre-emptive military actions, see: Andrew Bacevich, 

The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (Oxford, 

UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), 147.

23. BF010, Former Army Officer, Interview. Additionally, critics asserted 

that the administration had conflated the WMD and Al Qaeda threat as a single, 

undifferentiated threat, and that this policy “obscure[d] critical differences among 

rogue states, among terrorist organizations, and between rogue states and terrorist 

groups.” Jeffrey Record, Bounding the Global War on Terrorism (Carlisle, PA: 

Strategic Studies Institute, 2003), v, 16. 

24. The following paragraph is merely a summary of “The Ground War,” 

to provide context for later analysis on its short-term effects in the initial 

counterinsurgency efforts. One of the best sources for further research into this 

conventional campaign is Gordon and Trainor’s Cobra II: The Inside Story of the 

Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. 

25. BC040, Battalion Commander, Interview by Benjamin Boardman and 

Richard Johnson, Fort Bragg, NC, 2 March 2011. This plan included an airhead 

and lodgment at Saddam International Airport on the outskirts of Baghdad, which 

was cancelled to enable the opening of a second front to the north by an airborne 

operation of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

26. Chief among these measures was the prohibition from flying flags or 

displaying any other overt signs of foreign power within direct view of the Iraqi 

population.

27. For an excellent analysis of jihad within the Islamic law of warfare, 

see: Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins Press, 1955), 51-136.

28. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, xxiv-xxvi, xxxii, 63, 166.

29. Ahmed S. Hashim, “The Insurgency in Iraq,” Small Wars and 

Insurgencies 14, no. 3 (August 2003): 3.

30. Carter Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 

2010,” in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, ed. Daniel Marston and Carter 

Malkasian (Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010), 288.

31. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of 

the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006), 580.

32. Thomas E. Ricks, The Gamble (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), 195.

33. Peter R. Mansoor, Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s 

War in Iraq (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 256. Due to their 

preponderance of forces in the counterinsurgency effort, all military organizations 
165

and units in this chapter are US Army forces unless otherwise noted.

34. Hashim, “The Insurgency in Iraq,” 5-6.

35. Carter Malkasian, “The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in 

Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005,” Small Wars and 

Insurgencies 17, no 3 (September 2006): 371.

36. Malkasian, “The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in 

Counterinsurgency,” 380.

37. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 358-359.

38. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 434-435, 456.

39. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 505.

40. Hashim, “The Insurgency in Iraq,” 16.

41. Hashim, “The Insurgency in Iraq,” 7-8.

42. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 445.

43. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, xviii-xix. This analysis is 

corroborated by the author’s experience in the overwhelmingly Sunni region of 

Salah-ad-Din from 2006 to 2007, where most considered AQI to be a foreign force 

and irreverent of both tribal considerations and widely-held Islamic beliefs. The 

term takfiri was the common parlance to describe AQI as well as their affiliated 

groups.

44. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 447.

45. Timothy S. McWilliams, Al-Anbar Awakening: U.S. Marines and 

Counterinsurgency in Iraq, 2004-2009 (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University 

Press, 2009), 86.

46. Hashim, “The Insurgency in Iraq,” 9.

47. Matt Damon, Rounders, Directed by John Dahl, Santa Monica, CA: 

Miramax Films, 1998.

48. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 466-467. This is evidenced in the 

inherently flawed effort for reorganizing Iraqi security forces, since it relied on a 

period of six months to analyze, weigh recommendations, and refine a separate 

plan. These six months simply did not exist. Gordon and Trainor attribute this 

analysis to Robert Perito, a civilian expert on peacekeeping operations at the 

United States Institute for Peace as he advised the Defense Policy Board. 

49. Ricks, Fiasco, 59-60.

50. Ricks, Fiasco, 121.

51. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 461. This quote was provided in the 

account of the Secretary of the Army Thomas White, in his description of 

Rumsfeld’s efforts.

52. Tommy Franks, American Soldier (New York: Regan Books, 2004), 

332-334.

53. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 457, 461. Even though Arab countries 

withheld their contingents due to domestic political sensitivities, Rumsfeld 
166

cancelled the planned deployments for two divisions of follow-on forces. Of these 

two divisions, the 1st Armored Division and the 1st Cavalry Division, only the 1st 

Armored Division would be turned back around to deploy in April 2003.

54. Ricks, Fiasco, 157.

55. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 461, 502.

56. AA510, Former DivArty Commander, Interview by Travis Moliere and 

Jesse Stewart, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 4 November 2010. Emphasis added.

57. BF020 Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

58. Daniel Marston, “Adaptation in the Field: The British Army’s Difficult 

Campaign in Iraq,” Security Challenges 6, No. 1 (Autumn 2010): 71. This notion 

was corroborated repeatedly in interviews, pointedly with a British General 

Officer during a previous interview. AA1012, British General Officer, Interview 

by Mike Dinesman, Ken Gleiman, Brian McCarthy, and Jesse Stewart, United 

Kingdom, 22 September 2010.

59. Author’s experience in receiving training from British NCOs in Baghdad, 

2003. The training was an excellent overview of lessons learned for patrolling 

techniques, but the scope was extremely limited. 

60. Mansoor, Baghdad at Sunrise, 34, 357.

61. BD010, Field Grade Officer, Interview by Benjamin Boardman and 

Dustin Mitchell, Fort Knox, KY, 14 March 2011.

62. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 586-590. The appendix contains the CPA 

order.

63. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 564. This appendix contains the ORHA 

briefing slide concerning post-invasion considerations.

64. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

65. AA1013, British General Officer, Interview by Karsten Haake, Matt 

Marbella, Travis Molliere, and Carrie Przelski, United Kingdom, 23 September 

2010.

66. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, Interview by Mark Battjes, Robert Green, 

Aaron Kaufman, and Dustin Mitchell, Washington, DC, 22 March 2011. A field 

grade officer on this panel was directly involved in the writing of that strategy.

67. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel.

68. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 463-464.

69. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 574. This appendix is a copy of the 

original cable to London, titled “Iraq: What’s Going Wrong.”

70. BG040, Brigade Commander, Interview by Nathan Springer and Thomas 

Walton, Fort Stewart, GA, 15 March 2011.

71. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 475. In an attempt to replace what the 

administration saw as ORHA’s bias from having too many “arabists” on the staff, 

Bremer took leadership of the CPA despite never serving in a post in the Middle 

East before.

72. Ricks, Fiasco, 204-205; 209-210. 
167

73. L. Paul Bremer, My Year In Iraq (New York: Simon and Schuster, 

2006), 213.

74. BG040, Brigade Commander, Interview. The respondent was a battalion 

commander at the time with direct knowledge of this approach. Malkasian, 

“Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 289.

75. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 452-453. The al-Jabouri tribe was one 

of the largest Sunni tribes in the Middle East, and had a reputation of criminal 

activity and nefarious dealings amongst other Sunni tribes. The peshmerga were 

the paramilitary force of the ethnic Kurdish community, widely regarded as the 

most capable (and the only controlled) indigenous fighting force in the aftermath 

of the ground war and De-Ba’athification.

76. Ricks, Fiasco, 229.

77. Ricks, Fiasco, 234.

78. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, Nathan 

Springer, and Thomas Walton, Washington, DC, 21 March 2011.

79. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview. 

80. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview.

81. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 304, 306. Although an 

uncirculated campaign plan was in draft form, there was no plan to provide 

guidance and continuity in operations until Casey took command in 2004.

82. George Packer, “The Lesson of Tal Afar,” The New Yorker 82, no. 8 

(10 April, 2006), www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/10/ 060410fa_fact2 

(accessed 13 May 2011). The quote, attributed to Colonel Thomas X. Hammes 

(who worked as a military officer in CPA from 2003-2004) is as follows: “Why 

is the 82nd hard-ass and the 101st so different?” Hammes asked. “Because 

Swannack sees it differently than Petraeus. But that’s Sanchez’s job. That’s why 

you have a corps commander.”

83. Ricks, Fiasco, 173.

84. Ricardo Sanchez, Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story (New York: 

Harpercollins, 2008), 444-446.

85. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 304; Ricks, Fiasco, 173.

86. Ricks, Fiasco, 193.

87. Mansoor, Baghdad at Sunrise, 35, 228. Mansoor’s BCT in East Baghdad 

operated with a lower force to population ratio (1:600) than the British in Northern 

Ireland (1:50) or even the NYPD (1:209). Additionally, he refers to HUMINT as 

“the coin of the realm in counterinsurgency” and cites it as his chief obstacle to 

success in 2003 and 2004. 

88. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 492.

89. Ricks, Fiasco, 213.

90. Ricks, Fiasco, 221.

91. Ricks, Fiasco, 261, 280.
168

92. Ricks, Fiasco, 326. 

93. Bing West, No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah 

(New York: Bantam Dell, 2005), 56; Ricks, Fiasco, 142.

94. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 289.

95. West, No True Glory, 49-62; Malkasian, “The Role of Perceptions and 

Political reform in Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005,” 

373; Ricks, Fiasco, 332-333. Lieutenant General James T. Conway, commander 

of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, describes the decision in Ricks’ account: 

“We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah: that we ought 

to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking without 

revenge.” The author’s conversations with many small unit leaders in the 82nd 

Airborne Division in 2004 provide an alternate analysis; that the Marines had 

little tactical momentum at first since they failed to absorb the paratroopers’ 

understanding of the complex local situation, exhibited relatively poor tactical 

discipline at first, and characterized the violence in Fallujah as insurgent activity 

rather than criminal activity with anecdotal foreign fighter presence. Additionally, 

many leaders at the company level and below left with the impression that the 

Marines had settled on a soft, indirect approach before assessing the situation 

in-country. In any case, this episode demonstrates the vulnerabilities and lack of 

continuity during repeated unit rotations in OIF.

96. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 291. 

While the Marines had planned on a partnered offensive with the 2nd Battalion of 

the New Iraqi Army, the unit deserted en masse before entering the battle. Only 

70 Iraqis accompanied more than 2,000 Marines on the operation.

97. Anthony Cordesman, Iraqi Security Forces: A Strategy For Success 

(Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006), 357.

98. Ricks, Fiasco, 343.

99. Ricks, Fiasco, 337, 358.

100. Mansoor, Baghdad at Sunrise, 353.

101. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 292.

102. Ricks, Fiasco, 362. Ricks’ analysis cites the view of Major General 

Charles Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in 2003-2004 in 

OIF.

103. Cordesman, Iraqi Security Forces, 87-91.

104. B010, Field Grade Officer, Interview.

105. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 294; 

Ricks, Fiasco, 390.

106. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 304-306. 

107. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 306. These best practices were 

eventually refined and published in Military Review in 2005. Refer to Kalev Sepp, 

“Best Practices in Counterinsurgency,” Military Review (May-June 2005): 10.

108. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 307; Ricks, Fiasco, 392.

109. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 294. 
169

In oral histories, most OIF veterans will refer to MNSTC-I by the nickname “MinSticky” due to the unwieldy acronym’s lack of vowels.

110. Ricks, Fiasco, 392. Ricks quotes Andrew Bacevich in this analysis of 

Sanchez’s likely legacy as “the Westmoreland of Iraq.”

111. Malkasian, “The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in 

Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005,” 375. The Sunni 

community largely boycotted the national elections to the point that only 2 

percent to 5 percent of the population in Al Anbar Province voted. Since Kurd 

and Shia groups organized political structures in opposition to the Ba’ath Party 

(both in secret and in exile), they were able to mobilize support relatively quickly 

in contrast to the Sunni minority which never truly organized in a political sense. 

As a result, many Sunni areas considered themselves outside of the effective 

governance of the GoI, and tribal relationships maintained their influence.

112. Jay B. Baker, “Tal Afar 2005: Laying the Counterinsurgency 

Groundwork,” Army (June 2009): 63-64. This account of the counterinsurgency 

effort in Tal Afar was written by the regimental surgeon, and is highly regarded by 

several other tactical leaders of that operation.

113. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 

298.

114. Packer, “The Lesson of Tal Afar.” Since much of the population had 

escaped and firepower was deliberately limited, collateral damage was nowhere 

near the scale seen in Fallujah in 2004. In addition to easing the transition with 

civic authorities, this enabled critical infrastructure projects to begin much sooner. 

One field grade officer with 3rd ACR commented that “[y]ou can come in, cordon 

off a city, and level it, à la Fallujah. Or you can come in, get to know the city, 

the culture, establish relationships with the people, and then you can go in and 

eliminate individuals instead of whole city blocks.” Also, refer to Ricks, Fiasco, 

422-423.

115. BH070, Iraqi Mayor, Interview by Mark Battjes and Robert Green, 

Washington, DC, 25 March 2011. This mayor had direct knowledge of the 

operations in Tal Afar.

116. Packer, “The Lesson of Tal Afar.” This is reflected in a quote by one of 

the ACR’s Squadron Commanders: “We tried to switch the argument from Sunni 

versus Shia, which was what the terrorists were trying to make the argument, to 

Iraqi versus takfirin.”

117. BH070, Iraqi Mayor, Interview.

118. Baker, “Tal Afar 2005: Laying the Counterinsurgency Groundwork,” 

67. Unfortunately, when units from 1st Armored Division replaced 3rd ACR in 

2006 they returned to a heavy reliance on mass detentions; attack levels rose once 

again. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 309.

119. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 

298.

120. BH040, Afghanistan Veterans Panel, Interview by Richard Johnson, 

Aaron Kaufman, Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, Washington, DC, 24 
170

March 2011. A respondent on this panel had direct knowledge of operations in Al 

Qaim.

121. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 298-

299.

122. James A. Russell, Innovation, Transformation, and War: 

Counterinsurgency Operations in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces, Iraq, 2005-2007

(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), 74-76. Russell’s conclusions in 

this case study were largely echoed during interview with BH040, Afghanistan 

Veterans Panel.

123. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 299. 

The term “MiTT” represents a Military Training Team, a blanket term to describe 

advisory teams with IA units at any echelon. 

124. AA810, Battalion Commander, Interview by Ken Gleiman, Matt 

Marbella, Brian McCarthy, and Travis Molliere, Washington, DC, 13 September 

2010.

125. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 

300.

126. Ricks, Fiasco, 438.

127. Ricks, The Gamble, 14. Ricks cites President Bush’s speech at 

Annapolis, MD.

128. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson and 

Thomas Walton, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 22 February 2011.

129. BI020, Battle Group Commander, Interview by Aaron Kaufman and 

Thomas Walton, United Kingdom, 31 March 2011.

130. BI020, Battle Group Commander, Interview. One incongruence 

with this comparison is that SVN had a huge, popularly elected government and 

state-aligned local security forces after the Tet Offensive, and Iraq lacked both an 

effective central government and security forces. But in overall theater strategic 

terms, the comparison is apt.

131. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,, Interview.

132. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 301.

133. Ricks, The Gamble, 45.

134. Ricks, The Gamble, 173. Kilcullen, who would serve as a 

counterinsurgency adviser to Petraeus in Baghdad, relates that: “we did a 

counterintelligence assessment of an Iraqi army battalion in central Baghdad and 

found that every senior commander and staff were either JAM, doing criminal 

activity with JAM, or intimidated by JAM.”

135. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 126.

136. Ricks, The Gamble, 45.

137. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 141-143. Kilcullen provides an 

in-depth analysis of this cycle of violence, and the efforts to interrupt it.

138. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview.
171

139. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 301.

140. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 302. 

Only 1,000 of the planned 4,000 Iraqi soldiers arrived in Baghdad.

141. Burton and Nagl, “Learning as We Go,” 316.

142. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 302.

143. BC030, Battalion Commander; Interview by Benjamin Boardman and 

Richard Johnson, Fort Bragg, NC, 1 March 2011; Burton and Nagl, “Learning as 

We Go,” 317.

144. Sean MacFarland and Neil Smith, “Anbar Awakens: The Tipping 

Point,” Military Review (March-April 2008): 42; Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency 

in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 303. AQI viewed Ramadi as the future capital 

of its caliphate in Iraq and enjoyed relative freedom of movement in the area, 

making it almost exclusively denied terrain in the eyes of coalition forces.

145. McWilliams, Al-Anbar Awakening, 91.

146. BA020, Battalion Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes and 

Benjamin Boardman, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 23 February 2011. The respondent 

asserted that “there wasn’t a strategy in Ramadi. What Colonel MacFarland really 

brought was a strategy. The Marines certainly didn’t have a strategy. The Marines 

in my mind, if Ramadi was the center of the government and the division HQ 

moved from Ramadi to Fallujah, what message did this send?”

147. MacFarland and Smith, “Anbar Awakens,” 43. One factor that enabled 

this was the leeway given to an Army unit serving under a Marine headquarters, 

corroborated in interview with BA010, Brigade Commander (the respondent has 

direct knowledge of these operations in Ramadi).

148. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview. The unit had to refer to these 

as “substations” since a rigid plan from Baghdad had already templated locations 

for Iraqi Police stations in Ramadi without consulting the local leaders. 

149. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview; MacFarland and Smith, 

“Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point,” 43, 45. To strengthen the effect of 

integrating existing tribal forces into effective local security, additional militias 

and bodyguards for sheikhs were deputized as Provincial Auxiliary Iraqi Police. 

This had the added benefit of trickling money into the local economy through 

these fighters’ wages

150. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.

151. Burton and Nagl “Learning as We Go,”, 313.

152. Marston, “Adaptation in the Field,” 75.

153. AA810, Battalion Commander, Interview; Burton and Nagl, “Learning 

as We Go,” 310.

154. Ricks, The Gamble, 24; Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 119. In a 

reflection of the traditional Army expression that “doctrine is too important to be 

left to the doctrine writers,” Petraeus assembled an international cast of academics 
172

and practitioners to develop a presentation of ideas instead of a standardized, 

prescriptive field manual.

155. BA090, Brigade Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes and Benjamin 

Boardman, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 24 February 2011.

156. BA090, Brigade Commander, Interview.

157. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview; BA090, Brigade Commander, 

Interview.

158. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 214.

159. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,, Interview.

160. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 126.

161. The Baker-Hamilton Commission, Iraq Study Group Report: Gravel 

Edition (Washington, DC: Filiquarian Publishing, 2006), 9, 55, 71, 72-76. To 

achieve this, the group’s report advocated two simultaneous approaches to achieve 

a satisfactory strategic outcome and a complete withdrawal of the American 

military. The “external approach” consisted of using regional powers such as 

Syria and Iran in a diplomatic effort to encourage insurgents and disaffected 

groups to reconcile with the GoI. The “internal approach” made ISF assistance 

the primary mission of American forces, to facilitate a hasty withdrawal. Progress 

would enable a conditions-based withdrawal, as measured by milestones for the 

GoI in the areas of national reconciliation, security, and governance.

162 Frederick W. Kagan, Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq

(Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2006), 1. After vetting the 

concepts and operational feasibility of the plan with McMaster and some of his 

veterans of the Tal Afar campaign, it was refined by a council of colonels. AEI 

presented the concept to several congressmen, then President Bush reviewed that 

proposal.

163. Ricks, The Gamble, 95-97. Refer to Appendix B in The Gamble for 

the presentation to Odierno regarding Casey’s operational approach to transition 

forces back from the cities into large FOBs, called the Transition Bridging 

Strategy dated December 2006. 

164. David Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era: Transforming the US 

Military for Modern Wars (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009), 

120-122. Since this redoubled effort and accelerated deployment of forces lacked 

domestic support, the US Congress tied many benchmarks to the authorization 

bill; the counterinsurgency effort would be tied directly to Prime Minister Nouri 

al-Maliki and the GoI’s limited control.

165. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, Interview. By virtue of his position, 

the respondent had direct access to the decision process at MNF-I. Also, see 

Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 304-305.

166. Ricks, The Gamble, 356. Refer to Appendix C in The Gamble for 

Odierno’s inbrief to Petraeus dated 8 February 2007. The Baghdad belts 

were the urban centers, connecting river valleys, and infrastructure networks 

surrounding the metropolitan capital.

167. Ricks, The Gamble, 200-201. This quote is attributed to Captain Jay 
173

Wink, an S-2 in southwest Baghdad at the time.

168. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

169. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 126-127.

170. Interview with BH020, Field Grade Officer, corroborated interview with 

BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, in which a respondent added that the reintroduction 

of these 10,000 families became a focal point for higher headquarters in later 

stages of the campaign.

171. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 135. The number of JSSs that forces 

established is different in almost every account, since some units considered 

every patrol base a JSS, while others classified US-only bases or joint locations at 

the platoon level and below as Combat Outposts. For example, Malkasian reports 

in “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010” that 50 JSSs were 

emplaced in Baghdad.

172. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron 

Kaufman, Boston, MA, 14 March 2011. In accordance with the commander’s 

guidance from both Odierno and Petraeus, units across Iraq began to emplace JSSs 

at key locations in their areas of operation. Some of these were abandoned within 

the last year by previous units as part of Casey’s Transition Bridging Strategy.

173. Packer, “The Lesson of Tal Afar.”

174. BA070, Battery Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson and Thomas 

Walton, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 24 February 2011. This commander operated in a 

JSS far afield of his parent headquarters, and stated that “in the counterinsurgency 

fight, you should be relying more and more on locals; it was all about CPT Asir’s 

phone ringing.”

175. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.

176. BF030, Battery Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron 

Kaufman, Boston, MA, 12 March 2011.

177. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.

178. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview.

179. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview by Benjamin Boardman and 

Richard Johnson, Fort Bragg, NC, 2 March 2011. The respondent was a battalion 

commander in Baghdad during this time.

180. Ricks, The Gamble, 174. Ricks quotes Lieutenant Colonel Dale Kuehl, a 

battalion commander in northwest Baghdad at the time.

181. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview. Additionally, the respondent 

in interview with BA090 related a story of hiring local art students to paint the 

concrete walls, addressing a local grievance with local talent.

182. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.
174

183. These local security forces were broadly referred to as “Concerned Local 

Citizens” forces in Baghdad and “Tribal Reconciliation Forces” in other areas; 

when higher commands and the GoI attempted to institutionalize the program it 

became known as the “Sons of Iraq.”

184. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview. The respondent’s unit operated 

in the Baghdad belts during this “wave of moderation.”

185. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview.

186. BA070, Battery Commander, Battery Commander, Battery Commander, 

Interview.

187. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview.

188. Ricks, The Gamble, 209. Ricks casts Gentile as one of these dissenters, 

quoting him as calling the effort “cash for cooperation.”

189. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 165.

190. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

191. BA070, Battery Commander, Interview.

192. BA090, Brigade Commander, Interview.

193. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

194. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,, Interview.

195. BF030, Battery Commander, Interview. 

196. Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 124.

197. Ricks, The Gamble, 210

198. BA020, Battalion Commander, Interview.

199. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 173.

200. Ricks, The Gamble, 172. Ricks’ account cites the experiences of C/1-26 

IN in the Adamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad.

201. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 137.

202. Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 123.

203. Ricks, The Gamble, 190. Ricks quotes Major General Joseph Fil, the 

commander of MND-B during that time.

204. Ricks, The Gamble, 177; Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 

129. In The Gamble, Ricks presents this as an unconfirmed rumor that Petraeus 

“flatly denied.” Ucko’s two cited sources are Newsweek articles which rely on 

interviews with Petraeus and Sadr officials in Baghdad: Babak Dehghanpisheh, 

“The Great Moqtada Makeover,” Newsweek (19 January 2008), www.newsweek.

com/2008/01/19/the-great-moqtada-makeover.html (accessed 8 June 2011); Rod 

Norland, “A Radical Cleric Gets Religion,” Newsweek (10 November 2007), 

www.newsweek.com/2007/11/10/a-radical-cleric-gets-religion.html (accessed 8 

June 2011). Norland’s articles states that “[t]he general’s spokesman, Col. Steven 

Boylan, qualified that assertion, explaining that while Petraeus has not met with 

Sadr, ‘the command has indeed had direct engagements with some of his people 
175

within the [Sadr] organization ... to assist with reconciliation efforts.’ Boylan also 

says the military ‘applauded’ Sadr’s ceasefire.”

205. Ricks, The Gamble, 177. Kilcullen’s use of the term “we” seems to give 

further weight to Ucko’s assertion of Petraeus’ discussion with the Sadrists, since 

Kilcullen was his counterinsurgency adviser. 

206. Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 130-131.

207. Marston, “Adaptation in the Field,” 76. The fact that the British did not 

participate at the Taji COIN Center until 2008 is ironic because its structure was 

based on the British Army’s Far East Land Forces Training Centre described in 

Chapter Three.

208. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview.

209. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview.

210. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview.

211. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview.

212. BA010, Brigade Commander. Interview.

213. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

214. AA509, Division Commander, Interview by Ken Gleiman and Karsten 

Haake, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 25 August 2010.

215. BI020, Battle Group Commander, Interview. The respondent estimated 

that a third could be released immediately in 2007, a third could use shortterm rehabilitation, and the remaining third would have to be held for further 

determination. In all, he felt that as little as 2,000 detainees could never be 

reconciled to the GoI, a seemingly manageable number. 

216. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview.

217. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview by Richard Johnson, United 

Kingdom, 1 April 2011.

218. J. K. Wither, “Basra’s Not Belfast,” Small Wars and Insurgencies 20, 

no. 3 and 4 (September-December 2009): 622.

219. BI020, Battle Group Commander, Interview. BI110, Battalion 

Commander, Interview, indicated that this was due to the character of the region; 

southeastern Iraq was always a different environment than Baghdad and other 

cities of mixed populations due to the completely Shia Arab demographics of the 

area. Without concerns of communal violence, it was somewhat of an economy 

of effort when viewed against the entire scope of OIF. BI100, Senior Army 

Officer, Interview by Mark Battjes, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, and Dustin 

Mitchell, United Kingdom, 4 April 2011.

220. BI100, Senior Army Officer,, Interview.

221. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 306.

222. Wither, “Basra’s Not Belfast,” 615. During interview with BI010, the 

respondent (a senior British Army officer) summarized this in the terms of OIF 

within the context of international considerations: “The difficulty is that British 

politicians simply didn’t want to be in Basra. It was a bad place, a bad war, and 
176

we had Afghanistan to focus on. That was the good war. How things changed.” 

BI010, Senior British Officer, Interview by Mark Battjes, Benjamin Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, and Nathan 

Springer, United Kingdom, 29 March 2011.

223. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 306.

224. Wither, “Basra’s Not Belfast,” 622.

225. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 306-

307. BI010, Senior British Officer, provided a very similar analysis. BH030, Iraq 

Veterans Panel, related that the local IA commander, General Mohan, brokered 

the deal which was supposed to end with the British withdrawing from the city, 

no indirect fire attacks on the British FOB as they overwatched events, and a 

pacified Basra with effective local governance. When British forces left the city 

in September, they lost more than 100 HUMINT sources to assassination or 

intimidation

226. BI100, Senior Army Officer,, Interview. The total lack of British 

ISTAR assets after being re-allocated to Afghanistan was also cited as a critical 

shortcoming during BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel.

227. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 307. 

JAM’s resumption of rocket attacks were also mentioned in BI010, Senior British 

Officer, Interview; and BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,, Interview.

228. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview by Richard Johnson, United 

Kingdom, 1 April 2011.

229. BI010, Senior British Officer, Interview. 

230. BI100, Senior Army Officer,, Interview. This senior British Army officer 

attributed the successful operation to the MNC-I tactical forward headquarters’ 

ability to coordinate the requisite ISF, bandwidth, intelligence, and fire support.

231. BC010, Field Grade Officer, , Interview.

232. BI100, Senior Army Officer,, Interview.

233. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 308.

234. Marston, “Adaptation in the Field,” 75; Russell, 203.

235. BI110, Battalion Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes, Richard 

Johnson, and Dustin Mitchell, United Kingdom, 8 April 2011.

236. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,, Interview.

237. BI110, Interview. The respondent referred to the Permanent Joint 

Headquarters (PJHQ) in Northwood, UK.

238. Marston, “Adaptation in the Field,” 81. Most Americans with direct 

experience in Basra felt that British soldiers and tactical leaders did an outstanding 

job, but were hamstrung by these artificial strategic and political considerations; 

Interview BH030 mentioned this directly.

239. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel,,Interview. The respondent related this story 

and attributed the successful negotiations to Mansoor’s early involvement in the 

process while he served as Petraeus’ executive officer. Charles Levinson, “An 

Architect of U.S. Strategy Waits to Pop Cork,” Wall Street Journal (27 August 
177

10), online.wsj.com/article/ SB1000142405274870412560457544917125367744

4.html (accessed 20 May 2011).

240. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview.

241. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 161.

242. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

243. Ricks, The Gamble, 295.

244. BE080, Battalion Commander, Interview by Robert Green and Aaron 

Kaufman, Fort Irwin, CA, 7 March 2011.

245. AA810, Battalion Commander, Interview.

246. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, Interview. At the time, the respondent 

served as a battalion commander.

247. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview.

248. Malkasian, “Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2010,” 

309. Efforts to turn over locations in Baghdad were hampered by political deals, 

competition, and corruption within the ISF, leading many locations to remain 

under American control well after forces were supposedly out of the cities. The 

largest JSS in Eastern Baghdad at the time of the security transition did not transfer 

authority to the 1st Federal Police Division until November.

249. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview.

250. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

251. Michael Christie, “Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop to Lowest Level of War,” 

Reuters (30 November, 2009), www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/30/us-iraq-tollidUSTRESAT3ZE20091130 (accessed 20 May 2011).

252. BG020, Brigade Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas 

Walton, Fort Stewart, GA, 14 March 2011. The AAB was a BCT that was 

supplemented with 48 field grade officers to give the unit an ability to resource 24 

Transition Teams.

253. AA1009, Retired General Officer, Interview by Ken Gleiman, Brian 

McCarthy, Travis Molliere, and Carrie Przelski, United Kingdom, 4 October 

2010. The respondent cites Aden as an example when he states that “[w]e really 

made a mistake in Aden by telling people when we were going to leave. It became 

clear that we were going to lose because we told everyone.” 

254. Emma Sky, “Iraq, From Surge to Sovereignty,” Foreign Affairs (MarchApril 2011), www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67481/emma-sky/iraq-from-surgeto-sovereignty (accessed 20 May 2011). Sky served as a political advisor to 

Odierno in Baghdad.

255. Robert M. Gates, Request to Change the Name of Operation IRAQI 

FREEDOM to Operation NEW DAWN (2010).

256. United States Forces Iraq, “Operation New Dawn/United States Forces 

Iraq,” www.usf-iraq.com/new-face-of-iraq/operation-new-dawn (accessed 19 

May 2011).

257. BA090, Brigade Commander, Interview.
178

258. Ricks, The Gamble, 129.

259. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview. Team America: World 

Police was a satirical movie released in 2004 which lampooned an elite team of 

marionette operatives that travelled the world creating more collateral damage 

than success. Upon release it immediately caught on with many soldiers in Iraq 

(partially due to the directors’ previous work with the South Park television 

series), and units with a reputation for ridiculous collateral damage or complete 

ignorance to local customs were often times derided with the nickname “Team 

America.”

260. Robert Scales, “Artillery’s Failings in the Iraq War,” Armed Forces 

Journal (November 2003): 44. Scales’ article may be misleading within the 

context of this chapter; his analysis that the artillery branch must improve range 

and accuracy was written in the immediate reflections of the ground war, and 

only addresses the use of artillery on a conventional, albeit nonlinear, battlefield. 

For primary accounts illustrating the use of artillery during the ground war, see 

Thomas G. Torrance and Noel T. Nicolle, “Observations From Iraq: The 3rd Div 

Arty in OIF,” Field Artillery (July-August 2003): 30-35; Patrick J. Sweeney and 

Jason C. Montgomery, “Iraq: 101st Division LNO in the V Corp FECC,” Field 

Artillery (July-August 2003): 40-44.

261. Patricia Slayden Hollis, “Division Operations Across the 

Spectrum – Combat to SOSO in Iraq: Interview with Major General 

Raymond T. Odierno, CG of 4th ID in OIF,” Field Artillery (MarchJune 2004): 10. Odierno described proactive counterfire as follows:

“[t]he TUAV saw the mortarmen, and before the enemy could shoot the mortars, 

3-16 FA destroyed them. Now that’s proactive.”

262. Ricks, Fiasco, 234. Ricks cites the Field Artillery interview noted above 

with Odierno’s idea of proactive counterfire, but erroneously conflates that with 

his description of H&I fires and leaves out Odierno’s actual description. Ricks 

continues with the unreferenced claim that Odierno’s “assertion is at odds with the 

great body of successful counterinsurgency practice, which holds that firepower 

should be as restrained as possible, which is difficult to do with the long-range, 

indirect fire of artillery.” It is important to note that Odierno was a career field 

artilleryman before becoming a General Officer, and intimately understood the 

tactical and technical considerations for employing artillery.

263. A reflection of this is the case of 2-3 FA from the 1st Armored Division. 

Deployed from 2003 to 2004, the battalion’s Survey Platoon was featured on the 

cover of Time magazine to represent the American soldier as the 2003 Person 

of the Year. It was a fitting selection, since their adaptive methods of patrol 

operations in Adamiyah represented the effort of the artillery branch (and of 

the army as a whole) at the time to find its role in the counterinsurgency effort. 

Romesh Ratnesar and Michael Weisskopf, “Person of The Year 2003: Portrait Of 

A Platoon,” Time (29 December 2003); Mansoor, 216-218.

264. BA020, Battalion Commander, Interview described the advantages of 

GMLRS within an urban environment; BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview 

also described their use in an urban environment. In the author’s separate 

conversation with a former MLRS Battery Commander during OIF, he confirmed 

that all rockets fired were GMLRS, beginning in late 2005.
179

265. Ricks, Fiasco, 314.

266. Ricks, Fiasco, 319.

267. Ricks, Fiasco, 402. Accounts from the battle indicate that they could 

have used even more artillery. Since most fighting was generally at a range of 

200 meters, other sources of HE such as man-portable rockets, grenades and light 

mortars were more responsive in the urban terrain and still sufficient.

268. BH070, Iraqi Mayor, Interview. Significantly, artillery fires were 

eventually used in this operation, but on a very limited basis.

269. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview. Ramadi was formerly a large 

artillery training center for the old Iraqi Army, so there was a large number of 

well-trained mortar and rocket teams in the area. To combat this, counterfire 

drills were refined to return fires within 60 seconds. For additional background 

information on the employment of integrated counterfire operations, see J. O. 

Evans, Counterfire Requirements in an Insurgency (Quantico,VA: United States 

Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 2006).

270. MacFarland and Smith, “Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point,” 50.

271. BA040, Brigade Commander, Interview describes using artillery fires to 

continually suppress an area, and integrating direct fires from tanks to complement 

terrain denial in some areas. These operations were integrated with his own ability 

to engage local leaders regarding that site, and by integrating combat operations 

and interpersonal relationships he was able to affect change. Refer to BA040, 

Brigade Commander, Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin Mitchell, 23 

February, 2011, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

272. BE060, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas 

Walton, Fort Irwin, CA, 9 March 2011.

273. BA020, Battalion Commander, Interview.

274. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview. This BCT was eventually able 

to stand up a firing element of 155mm M109A6s to provide fires for their area of 

operations, which eventually expanded to cover most of the Westside of Baghdad.

275. BA090, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Benjamin 

Boardman, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 24 February 2011.

276. BB010, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan 

Springer, Fort Bliss, TX, 2 March 2011.

277. What follows is a description of several anecdotal accounts from five 

commanders operating in that area. What is striking is the similarity that developed 

in relative isolation from one another, in areas of common threat, terrain, and 

urban-rural demographics. Due to the limits of research, these instances are 

evidence of a trend in the evolution of artillery units’ use in OIF, not a revolution. 

278. Hollis, “Division Operations Across the Spectrum – Combat to SOSO in 

Iraq,” 11. Odierno described his division’s operations as such: “Every one of my 

artillery battalions owned its own battlespace. My FA battalions were just like my 

maneuver battalions. And every one had Bradleys and tanks working for them. 

That’s the kind of flexibility we need as we look to the future.” For an in-depth 

example of one battalion’s split operations early in OIF, see Richard M. Cabrey 
180

and Douglas M. Thomas, “1-5 FA in OIF II: Maintaining FA Competencies While 

Deployed,” Field Artillery (January-February 2007): 15-19.

279. BA040, Brigade Commander, Interview.

280. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

281. BG100, Brigade Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan 

Springer, Fort Stewart, GA, 16 March 2011.

282. BA070, Battery Commander, Interview.

283. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview.

284. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview.

285. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview.

286. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview.

287. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview.

288. BE040, Transition Team Leader, Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas 

Walton, Fort Irwin, CA, 9 March 2011.

289. BG020, Brigade Commander, Interview.

290. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview. The respondent related an 

anecdote of one unit’s use of an Excalibur mission to destroy a suspected IED 

trigger location, with local leaders gathered to demonstrate that the ISF still had 

American artillery backing.

291. AA610, Platoon Leader and FDO, Interview by Travis Molliere and 

Carrie Przelski, Fort Bragg, NC, 18 August 2010.

292. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

293. BA060, Battalion Commander, Interview by Robert Green and Nathan 

Springer, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 23 February, 2011. The respondent served as a 

battalion commander in OIF.

294. For instance, both examples of adroit “company-level commanders” coopting local insurgent actors in the preceding section were field artillery officers 

commanding converted maneuver force batteries.

295. BG100, Brigade Commander, Interview.

296. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview.

297. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, Interview. The respondent described this 

initiative due to his staff duties at the time, and judged that “We really didn’t do 

[the Iraqis] any favors” in delaying their artillery training.

298. MacFarland and Smith, “Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point,” 45.

299. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview. While not the commander of 

the artillery unit that ran this training center, the respondent had direct knowledge 

of it by virtue of his position at the time.

300. BA060, Battalion Commander, Interview.

301. The following section does not intend to explore every instance of 

artillery units serving in a nonstandard role during OIF; that would require an 
181

entire volume of work. What follows is a brief discussion on some of the most 

common uses of artillery units during the counterinsurgency effort.

302. Lynne Garcia, Interview with Colonel Frank Hull (Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: Combat Studies Institute, 2005), 5. Hull was the DivArty Commander for 1st 

Armored Division during their deployment to OIF in May 2003.

303. BG040, Brigade Commander, Interview. The respondent provides an 

example of the “Team Village” concept.

304. AA510, Fomer DivArty Commander, Interview. The respondent 

describes using an attached artillery unit in this manner.

305. Garcia, Interview with Colonel Frank Hull, 4, 8.

306. BD020, Commander, Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, Fort Knox, KY, 14 March 2011. Of note, this requirement was so large 

that the artillery battalion required additional augmentation from infantrymen and 

cavalry troopers.

307. BB030, Brigade Commander, Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan 

Springer, Fort Bliss, TX, 3 March 2011. The strain of this requirement was also 

discussed in interview BC030, Battalion Commander, as well as the evident relief 

as the stateside combat training centers de-emphasized this mission in 2011 when 

their focus returned to full spectrum operations.

308. Peter Chiarelli and Patrick Michaelis, “The Requirements for FullSpectrum Operations,” Military Review 85, no. 4 (July-August 2005): 16.

309. Malkasian,“The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in 

Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005,” 387.

310. AA509, Division Commander, Interview.

311. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.

312. BC010, Field Grade Officer, Interview by Robert Green and Aaron 

Kaufman, Fort Bragg, NC, 1 March 2011.

313. Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 125; Malkasian, “The Role of 

Perceptions and Political reform in Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 

2004-2005,” 381.

314. Gordon and Trainor, Cobra II, 469.

315. Bremer, My Year In Iraq, 220.

316. Ricks, Fiasco, 371. Ricks quotes Hammes as follows: “[t]he contractor 

was hired to protect the principal. He had no stake in pacifying the country. 

Therefore, they often ran Iraqis off the roads, reconned by fire, and generally 

treated locals as expendable.” For a discussion on the overall usage of armed 

contractors in OIF, refer to Sarah K. Cotton et al., Hired Guns: Views About Armed 

Contractors in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010), 63-

66. 

317. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview corroborated by the author’s 

experience securing PRT ground movements during OIF 06-08 and serving on a 

BCT staff with an embedded PRT during OIF 08-09.

318. BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, Interview.
182

319. This notion was expressed in multiple interviews, with a very nuanced 

and mature understanding in AA810, Battalion Commander, Interview; AA509, 

Division Commander, Interview; and BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I, 

Interview. The most commonly cited issues were the special operations forces’ 

lack of concern for both collateral damage and damage to the existing relationships 

in the area of operations.

320. AA402, Special Forces Group Commander, Interview by Brian McCarthy 

and Jesse Stewart, Fort Lewis, WA, 31 August 2010. This commander’s irritation 

of hearing these repeated accusations was evident: “It chaps my ass to no f---ing 

end when we go downrange in Iraq or Afghanistan and some conventional guy 

says ‘all SF guys want to do is kick down doors.’ ”

321. AA402, Special Forces Group Commander, Interview.

322. BI020, Battle Group Commander, Interview.

323. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.

324. BA040, Brigade Commander, Interview.

325. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

326. BA040, Brigade Commander, Interview.

327. Chiarelli and Michaelis, “The Requirements for Full-Spectrum 

Operations,” 16.

328. BA070, Battery Commander, Interview.

329. This is especially true for JAM and the Iraqi Police, since there was a 

large overlap of membership in those two groups.

330. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview.

331. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 145.

332. Craig Collier, “Now That We’re Leaving Iraq, What Did We Learn?” 

Military Review (September-October 2010): 88-89. 

333. Collier, “Now That We’re Leaving Iraq, What Did We Learn?”, 89.

334. Malkasian,“The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in 

Counterinsurgency: The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005,” 381-382.

335. The military’s need for organic fires in all forms of warfare is best 

captured in Robert F. Barry, “Why Organic Fires?” Field Artillery (March-June 

2004): 13-18.

336. John Brock, “We Cannot Take Your Call for Fire Right Now: Does the 

Global War on Terror Signal the Demise of the Field Artillery?” (Monograph, 

School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2006), 60-61. This 

SAMS monograph concludes that the artillery was neither a “dying branch” nor in 

danger of losing relevance due to issues such as army transformation, the decreased 

emphasis on high-intensity conventional capabilities and the cancellation of the 

Crusader howitzer program. 

337. Kenneth Cosgriff and Richard Johnson, “Organizational Resistance to 
183

Change in the Airborne Field Artillery” (Master’s thesis, Webster University, 

2006), 45-48. The primary sources of this resistance to change were the uncertainty 

of the future role and command relationships for fire supporters, and the absence 

of a definitive and enduring set of artillery senior leadership to act as the “change 

agent.”

338. Concurrently, most Field Artillery Brigades began the conversion to 

Fires Brigades, which added several enablers and support units to the existing 

brigade-level structure for general support fires.

339. BD070, Field Grade Officer, Interview by Benjamin Boardman and 

Dustin Mitchell, 16 March 2011, Fort Knox, KY.

340. Ricks, Fiasco, 316. Ricks quotes a battalion commander in his assessment 

of operations in Fallujah in 2003 regarding collateral damage.

341. Ricks, The Gamble, 168.

342. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

343. BI280, Commander’s Panel, Interview.

344. BA010, Brigade Commander, Interview. The respondent stated that it 

was actually easier for him to authorize dropping a 500-lb JDAM than to drop a 

leaflet.

345. Joshua D. Mitchell, “Afghanistan: Firing Artillery Accurately with Air 

Force Met Support,” Field Artillery (January-February 2003): 38.

346. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview.

347. BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel, Interview.

348. BE060, Brigade Commander, Interview.

349. BB010, Battalion Commander, Interview.

350. BA060, Battalion Commander, Interview.

351. BA040, Brigade Commander, Interview.

352. Sean MacFarland, Michael Shields, and Jeffrey Snow, The King and I: 

The Impending Crisis in the Field Artillery’s Ability to Provide Fire Support to 

Maneuver Commanders, 1. This unpublished white paper immediately made the 

rounds of most artillery units. Tellingly, few intellectually curious artillery officers 

disagreed with the actual issues or recommendations as they were presented in the 

paper.

353. MacFarland, Shields, and Snow, The King and I, 2.

354. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS. The importance of freeing artillery leaders from this mindset was also stressed 

by a battery commander in BI290, Battery Commander, , Interview: “It can be 

pared down even further to ‘what is the role of leadership?’ No matter the task or 

mission at hand, you need good leaders. As far as COIN goes, the importance of 

leadership is to understand the environment you’re working in.”

355. In BF040, Battery Commander, Interview, the respondent cited his 

previous experience as a Battalion Fire Support Officer as his key to success in 

OIF.
184

356. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview.

357. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview.

358. Of the 39 oral history interviews with commanders in which the role 

of artillery units in OIF was discussed at length, not a single one indicated that 

artillery leaders were found lacking in this demanding environment. Although this 

is not a definitive measure, it is indicative of a trend. 

359. BD070, Field Grade Officer, Interview.

360. BB030, Brigade Commander, Interview.

361. AA610, Platoon Leader and FDO, Interview.

362. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

363. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview. An EXEVAL is an External 

Evaluation, in this case a 48-72 hour test of proficiency on leader certifications 

and unit-level collective tasks.

364. Panel discussion during US Army Command and General Staff College 

Art of War Scholars Seminar, Iraq Session, 3 February 2011, Fort Leavenworth, 

KS.

365. AA610, Platoon Leader and FDO, Interview.

366. BC060, Battalion Commander, Interview by Ben Boardman and 

Richard Johnson, Fort Bragg, NC, 3 March 2011.

367. BF040, Battery Commander, Interview; Cabrey and Thomas, 17.

368. BI290, Battery Commander, Interview. This battery commander 

described the effort to regain firing capabilities in OIF through a short train-up 

between combat patrols, in only four weeks: “Overall, it was a success. Did 

we train to an ARTEP standard or train to the level where they could certify? 

Absolutely not. But there wasn’t enough time . . . that was the first time the unit 

fired in over two years.”

369. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview.

370. BC040, Battalion Commander, Interview.

371. BH020, Field Grade Officer, Interview. This commander referred to the 

practice of augmenting artillery and armor units as “more alchemy than math.” 

372. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

373. BC050, Battalion Commander, Interview. 

374. BC030, Battalion Commander, Interview.

375. BF030, Battery Commander, Interview.

376. BA060, Battalion Commander, Interview. The respondent attributed 

this to a conversation he had with Petraeus prompted by The King and I white 

paper, in which he asserted that the artillery’s newfound competencies in areas 

such as decentralized operations, leader training, and the ability to coordinate and 

synchronize more assets than ever before will enable the branch to regain its core 

competency of delivering indirect fires to pre-OIF standards.

377. This is based on the author’s attempts to review lessons learned from 
185

two Army repositories. The FA Lessons Learned site (www.us.army.mil/suite/

kc/5480861) lacked any topical or unit after action reviews prior to 2009, 

although “FA Nonstandard missions” is the fourth priority for collection. The site 

is a good resource for MOS-specific tasks which will enable artillery retraining 

in the future, but there is little to no information regarding artillery units in 

counterinsurgency. The Center for Army Lessons Learned site (call2.army.mil/

default.aspx) was a similar disappointment, with no usable content in the top 50 

search results of “artillery + counterinsurgency,” other than five articles from 

FA Journal and Military Review, plus one account from a chaplain’s assistant 

in an artillery battalion in OIF. Counterintuitively, the author later found links 

to a limited number of CALL products within the “Pubs” section on the Fires 

Knowledge Network. Both sites were accessed on 13 May 2011. Lessons learned 

that are available on classified networks are beyond the purview of this study, but 

are only readily accessible to those leaders already in theater.

378. Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, 152.

187

Chapter 6

Conclusions

The artillery community is on the horns of a dilemma: 

where does it fit, where does it make its biggest contribution? 

We have to be careful. In Afghanistan in 2011, we are not worried about the Taliban massing a battalion-six on us with some 

type of weapon system; our next adversary may. We can’t leave 

the artillery at home. It is part of the combined arms fight.

― Former Battalion Commander in OIF

Interviewed 23 February 2011

This study began by presenting artillery as the counterinsurgent’s biggest stick within the metaphor of a counterinsurgency effort that leverages 

both attractive “carrots” and coercive “sticks.” This metaphor does not 

judge the inherent effectiveness of artillery’s use, or imply that there are 

universal principles which govern its successful employment. It simply 

highlights the fact that successful counterinsurgencies are historically a 

pragmatic mix of these two approaches within a politically distributive 

outcome.

It is possible to isolate specific qualities in a given counterinsurgency 

effort, but only with a nuanced understanding of the campaign and its environment. Specific qualities for this study are comparable after the differences in the campaigns and environments of the Malayan Emergency, the 

American experience in Vietnam, and OIF are considered. Each counterinsurgency has its own unique characteristics, as does every artillery unit engaged in the effort. As such, overly prescriptive practices that are distilled 

from selected historical instances or hypothetical models hold a limited 

value. They are only needed in the absence of leaders who can understand 

their environment, identify a feasible solution, and adapt to its demands. 

Accordingly, this study used historical case studies with varying elements in an attempt to isolate the broadly descriptive fundamentals which 

foster a sound employment of artillery units. But not even the deepest understanding of these fundamentals will ensure success in counterinsurgent 

warfare; even a merely adequate understanding of the population and their 

grievances will go much further to that end. The following factors and 

fundamentals should provide tactical leaders with a deeper understanding 

and a starting point in the employment of artillery units during a counterinsurgency, but not a solution. The absence of a definitive solution should 

not imply that there is no way to improve and prepare an army for future 

wars among the population; there is. This improvement and preparation 

lies within the leadership of both the unified counterinsurgency effort and 

the tactical leaders who will command soldiers on the ground.
188

The Factors of Employing Artillery Units

in Counterinsurgency

Each of the four factors influencing the employment of artillery units 

may be relatively strong or weak in different counterinsurgency environments. In some cases, one factor may not exhibit a discernible influence 

due to the comparatively strong weight of the other three factors. Counterinsurgencies in Malaya, Vietnam, and Iraq adequately illustrated the factors of employing them: the requirement for indirect fires, constraints and 

limitations on indirect fires, the counterinsurgency effort’s organization, 

and the conversion cost in adapting to nonstandard roles.

Requirements for Indirect Fires

The counterinsurgency effort’s requirements for indirect fires is the 

primary factor which affects the employment of artillery units, but it is 

only one factor.1

 The OIF case study shows this through the use of split 

units during operations in the Baghdad belts area. American BCTs required indirect fires, but only to the extent that a single firing element had 

to be established in many cases. This gave those BCTs an additional headquarters and the combat power they needed to secure the population. The 

Malayan Emergency also exhibits this effect. Since RA batteries could effectively disperse to support sequential operations, only a limited number 

of them had to deploy. The Vietnam case study illustrates the strongest 

effect of this factor to the point that it precluded the use of artillery units 

in any other capacity. Coverage and responsiveness were definitely great 

capabilities to mitigate risk in the face of an enemy that could periodically 

mass forces. But MACV carried these qualities to an irrational end, seeking to cover every important area in SVN with responsive fires. With more 

artillery battalions than infantry battalions in a time of political limits on 

additional troop levels, the counterinsurgency effort suffered due to an 

inadequate force composition which reflected the ill-framed approach.2

Constraints and Limitations on Indirect Fires

The constraints and limitations on indirect fires within the counterinsurgency effort is the second factor to affect the employment of artillery 

units.3

 Different environments, demographics, and arrays of forces lead 

to different limitations, but constraints are generally comparable. Among 

these constraints, the issue of collateral damage in a counterinsurgency 

takes on a great institutional importance since it is specifically constrained 

to avoid tactically deleterious second- and third-order effects. However, 

physical limitations often exert the greatest force on a counterinsurgency 

effort, since they cannot always be overcome due to the immutable nature 

of some limits. Malaya was one such instance of this phenomenon. The 

physical limitations on observation and effective lethal fires in some of 

the thickest jungle in the world was simply too much to overcome with a 

technological or organizational approach. Since the effects of single-round 
189

fire missions for H&I and flushing fires had almost the same effect as a 

battery of massed fires, it allowed artillery units to disperse in extremely 

small detachments. Although Vietnam had a similar effect due to the limits of terrain, the main expression of this factor is seen in the emerging 

constraints of collateral damage concerns. In Vietnam, this was due to the 

extremely high volume of fires combined with the use of unobserved fires. 

In OIF, collateral damage was a similarly strong factor, but it was due to 

insurgents’ presence in heavily developed or urbanized areas rather than a 

comparatively intense rate of indirect fire.

Counterinsurgent Force Organization

The organization of the counterinsurgency effort’s military force also 

has a strong effect on the employment of artillery units. This factor manifests itself in the “pull” into nonstandard roles when there are insufficient 

maneuver forces to secure a population or area, and a “push” into those 

roles if other sources of indirect fires are effective and sufficient.4

 In OIF 

and the Malayan Emergency, this factor was considerably strong. In OIF, 

the “pull” for direct support artillery units to engage in security and other 

nonstandard mission profiles was sufficient to employ them in this manner 

more than any other counterinsurgency in modern history.5

 The “push” 

factor was just strong enough to enable this. Conversely, the same strong 

forces were at hand in Malaya which prompted the 26th RA to conduct 

nonstandard security missions before The Emergency was even declared, 

then this intense demand decreased due to the requisite amount of infantry 

units arriving in Malaya and improved local security forces. Only then 

did RA field batteries return to providing indirect fires, since there was 

virtually no “push” force from air assets.6

 Vietnam shows how this force 

can be relatively weak even in such a large military effort, since the operational approach of sequential large-scale search-and-destroy tactics did 

not require additional security forces; pacification was deemed as a job for 

ARVN for most of the war.

Artillery Unit Conversion Cost

The fourth factor which influences the employment of artillery units is 

the relative cost of converting them from delivering indirect fires to another counterinsurgent role.7

 This factor does not always exhibit a major influence since it only appears if they actually operate in a nonstandard role. 

Nonetheless, it is a major consideration with potential long-term effects, 

and therefore worthy of inclusion with the other three factors. In OIF, both 

the short-term effect in Iraq and the long-term implications of this cost 

were evident. In Malaya and Vietnam these costs were present, but very 

manageable. Artillery units only converted to the extent of enabling indirect fires with theater-specific requirements for dispersion and coverage, 

requirements for which they were not initially prepared to satisfy. 
190

The Fundamentals of Employing Artillery Units

in Counterinsurgency

The preceding analyses of artillery units in three counterinsurgencies 

indicate that there are several recurring best practices or deficiencies in the 

effort. As with the factors which affect their employment, these trends are 

broadly descriptive themes and not prescriptive principles. These factors 

represent the environment in which commanders must decide to employ 

artillery units, while the fundamentals represent the criteria and requisites 

to implement that decision. Those fundamentals are best described in five 

distinct actions:

1. Invest in artillery units’ tactical leadership.

2. Exploit lessons learned.

3. Support the operational approach and strategic framework.

4. Maintain a pragmatic fire support capability.

5. Minimize collateral damage.

These are not solely applicable to counterinsurgent warfare; they also 

support the broader imperatives of artillery integration in combined arms 

maneuver and wide area security to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative 

in all unified land operations. Additionally, they are not simply actions 

to be taken during a counterinsurgency; they do not require a change in 

mindset as operations begin. The following actions must pervade training 

and preparations prior to a counterinsurgency operation in order to be truly 

effective.

Invest in Artillery Units’ Tactical Leadership

Decentralized operations and the imperatives of a harmonized effort 

in the counterinsurgency environment demand junior leaders who can 

analyze a situation, gain critical understanding, and execute a feasible solution. The challenge is even higher in the artillery, since leaders must 

combine these abstract cognitive qualities with the tactical and technical 

competence to deliver and integrate accurate predicted fires. Tactical leadership provided artillery units in Malaya and Vietnam with the ability to 

operate from distributed locations. In Malaya, leaders were able to overcome the tyranny of distance between units and establish firing capabilities in elements as small as two guns. Leaders in Vietnam were able to 

develop new techniques to enable firing operations from the FSBs and 

innovative methods to defend them. But the effect of leaders in artillery 

units may have its greatest illustration in OIF. Leaders were not only able 

to maintain firing capabilities when needed, but also provided the backbone of the organization as they switched roles. Effective tactical leaders 

provide this inherent flexibility.
191

Exploit Lessons Learned

Artillery units must be able to exploit the lessons learned from previous units in counterinsurgencies. This ability is critical since they may be 

employed in a role it has no organizational experience with, or at least in 

an environment which seems very foreign and restrictive when compared 

to a linear battlefield. At a minimum, familiarity with lessons learned in 

combat provide artillery units with an improved appreciation of the demands in counterinsurgency warfare. This is a glaring deficiency with both 

OIF and the Malayan Emergency.8

 As discussed in Chapter Five, there is 

still a paucity of lessons exploited in any mode of artillery unit employment. At the very least, they should be accessible. The Malayan Emergency provides a good example of what can happen when lessons learned are 

institutionally compartmentalized. The lessons were exploited within the 

Far East theater through an institutional and iterative process, but were not 

shared with the wider British Army. As a result, few British officers (even 

gunners) are even aware that the guns were used extensively in places such 

as Malaya and Dhofar as a part of the counterinsurgency effort.9

Support the Operational Approach and Strategic Framework

The employment of artillery units must be a derivative of the operational approach to counterinsurgency. In counterinsurgencies, discrete actions may have unintended strategic effects, so their employment must 

also be sensitive to the overall strategic context. The implication of this 

fundamental is that an ill-suited operational approach may very well use 

them in a role which deepens its negative effects. In that case the entire 

operational approach must be revised, not just a component of it such as 

the artillery. This was the case in the early stages of both Malaya and 

Vietnam, when artillery units supported large-scale search-and-destroy 

missions. When the operational approach in Malaya changed to isolating 

the CTs from their base of support in the Min Yuen at the village level, 

the role of the artillery also changed and contributed to the success of 

that structured approach. Vietnam exemplifies another facet of this fundamental. Although employing artillery units as pacification-focused task 

forces may have worked well to address the root of the popular grievances 

and rural security in SVN, American infantry was so decentralized that 

they were not postured to succeed against VC main forces and NVA units 

without the coverage and responsiveness of artillery’s indirect fires. OIF 

provides yet another example, since a gradual change to the operational 

approach of securing the population required a change in the general employment of direct support artillery units, either by split operations or a 

complete conversion to a nonstandard security role.

Maintain a Pragmatic Fire Support Capability

Artillery units must support a flexible fire support network that works 

within the counterinsurgency environment with a level of firepower com-
192

mensurate to meet the insurgent threat. This does not necessarily mean that 

they have to be a part of this network, if their core competencies of timeliness, accuracy, and reliability are ensured by a professional artillerymen’s 

ability to integrate other sources of firepower. This will generally manifest 

itself as a mix of both direct support and general support fires, as well as a 

mix of land-based and aerial firepower. This fundamental is closely linked 

to the factor of counterinsurgent force organization, since a sufficient fire 

support capability will allow some artillery units to be employed for other 

means. This may also require extremely adaptive techniques to support 

maneuver forces with firepower in a counterinsurgency, lending further 

credence to the notion that “relationships between commanders are more 

important than command relationships.”10

The Malayan Emergency exhibits a unique application of this fundamental. Although decentralized batteries could not cover all operations 

with supporting fires, this was not necessarily required. Mortars were sufficient for most small patrols, so artillery units were used to sequentially 

support prioritized missions. In Vietnam, an incredible amount of firing elements were required to establish a sufficient fire support network against 

an enemy that periodically massed to conduct large-scale conventional 

attacks from a position of relative advantage.

Minimize Collateral Damage

The requirement to limit collateral damage in a counterinsurgency is 

not a new concept, nor is it specific to indirect firepower. However, it is 

a fundamental of employing artillery units since a population’s cultural, 

social, and economic sensitivities to collateral damage must be determined 

before employing them to provide massive amounts of indirect fires. This 

is not to say that artillery fires inherently cause collateral damage. Indirect 

fires are only one part of a holistic effort in counterinsurgency to minimize 

collateral damage, but artillery units must take the lead in its reduction. 

Within the counterinsurgency environment, PGMs are the means to that 

end, but not an end in and of themselves. Counterinsurgents must concurrently mitigate target location error, insufficient coordination measures, 

and uninformed decision-making when electing to use any form of firepower among the population.

This fundamental is easily identifiable in most case studies, since the 

second- and third-order effects of collateral damage are usually noteworthy. In Vietnam, collateral damage was avoided but generally acknowledged as an acceptable cost to the American military, as evidenced in the 

high rate of unobserved H&I fires. In Malaya, the anecdote of the “Yellow Pin” in Chapter Three illustrates one commander’s attempt to isolate 

target location errors and improve coordination with aerial assets since he 

sought to leverage its firepower, but was not willing to risk unpredictable 

strikes. OIF shows a mature implementation of this fundamental, as Amer-
193

ican forces adapted to mitigate collateral damage through CDE methods 

and precision munitions to include GMLRS and Excalibur.

Conclusion: The Effect of Educated Leaders

in Counterinsurgency

Leaders impact all five fundamentals for employing artillery units 

within a counterinsurgency effort. Leaders’ contribution to the first two 

fundamentals is that they can imbue a unit with experience, vision, and 

flexibility. To ensure that they are supporting a sound operational approach, leaders use their understanding of commander’s intent and empathetic feedback from their environment. The relationships between leaders 

and their ability to adapt organizational models has the greatest impact on 

establishing a pragmatic fire support system. Finally, artillery leaders’ attention to detail and interpersonal abilities as fire supporters are a key to 

improving the precision of fires and limiting collateral damage. 

With the recognition that effective tactical leadership is an avenue to 

improve the artillery’s capabilities in these fundamental areas, it should 

be the priority of resources.11 Training artillery units to deliver timely and 

accurate indirect fires is an integral part of this effort and not a parallel 

track, since junior leadership is intimately involved in the art and science 

of fire support, fire direction, and firing unit operations. But there is another element to waging war in a counterinsurgency that demands further 

education for leaders, not just positivistic training at centralized professional courses. Due to technological and societal pressures, operational 

and strategic contexts did not simply change on the margins in the twentieth century, they changed fundamentally.12 While the nature of war itself is 

unchanging, the conduct of warfare changes as a result of these influences. 

Since any form of warfare is likely to be fought among modern populations in this increasingly complex environment, modern warfare demands 

more than just a marginal change to the institutional approach for leader 

education. It requires a fundamental change. 

However, most modern armies seek to improve their junior leaders 

with discrete efforts such as foreign language training to increase cultural 

empathy, or individual classes which expose leaders to the aspects of civil 

governance.13 Even the baseline models for leader training are lacking, as 

illustrated in a 2010 study which found that only a third of the US Army’s 

Captain’s Career Courses achieved academic excellence.14 A fundamental 

shift in leader development from training to education is in order, one 

that rewards efforts to improve critical thinking abilities and cognitive 

development through a variety of academic endeavors or broadening experiences. Education “allows one to gain better understanding of experiences and training,” so parallel efforts must be made to increase a leader’s 

experience base if they have not ventured from the friendly confines of 

their home station or an air-conditioned headquarters in Iraq.15 Leaders in 
194

counterinsurgencies cannot metaphorically “think outside of the box” any 

more than they can kill insurgents by telekinesis. Exhortations to this effect deny the limits of leaders as humans. But an educated tactical leader 

with a broad base of both education and experience has a “larger box” in 

which to find his solutions, and will be able to harness more approaches 

to a problem due to an increased capacity for problem-solving. Instead of 

trying to educate well-trained leaders with constrained resources, an army 

should attempt to train well-educated leaders with constrained resources.

Without educated leaders, there is a diminished capacity for creative 

solutions. If leaders are only trained in distinct tasks, then an army will 

need prescriptive principles for complex environments like counterinsurgencies, which this study attempts to avoid. These five descriptive fundamentals should serve as guideposts to prepare artillery units for operations in counterinsurgency operations, but in no way should they obviate 

technical and tactical training. Delivering indirect fires has always been a 

technically and tactically demanding endeavor, and it will remain that way 

for the foreseeable future. Artillery leaders must understand the sciences 

of manual gunnery and terminal effects. As with an effort to educate leaders, exercising and developing artillery units along the lines of these five 

fundamentals will benefit high-intensity conventional capabilities as well 

as counterinsurgency capabilities. 

A temptation is to contend that OIF illustrates a situation where artillery units must be prepared to conduct a variety of missions in counterinsurgencies, and at the very least they must adapt to unforecasted requirements for delivering indirect fires. But the impact is much more profound; 

the entire history of artillery units in counterinsurgencies bears this out, 

with OIF serving as just the most recent and vivid example. As General 

Raymond Odierno noted during a 2004 interview with Field Artillery, “artillery has to be a versatile asset. The Army can no longer afford to have 

artillerymen just do artillery missions. So Redlegs also must be able to set 

up flash checkpoints, patrol, conduct cordon and search operations, etc.”16

Accordingly, the Army must maintain the big stick of artillery as a flexible 

option for their next unforecasted and amorphous conflict. 
195

Notes

1. Chapter Two discussed the requirement for indirect fires in depth. It 

arises from the dispersion of insurgents and the frequency of contact between 

them and security forces.

2. Janice E. McKenney, The Organizational History of Field Artillery 

1775–2003. (Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 2007), 269; 

John J. McGrath, Fire for Effect: Field Artillery and Close Air Support in the US 

Army (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2007), 117. The 

overall force consisted of 61 artillery battalions and only 59 infantry battalions.

3. In accordance with the discussion in Chapter Two, constraints are the 

restrictions that a higher echelon places on a lower echelon, whether political or 

military; limitations are physical restrictions on the application of indirect fires.

4. Chapter Two’s description of this factor discusses the “pushing” and 

“pulling” forces in depth.

5. While no statistical breakdown of counterinsurgent force composition 

exists to support this without further research, this is the author’s qualitative 

assessment considering the following counterinsurgency campaigns: American 

forces in The Phillipines, British forces in Ireland, British forces in the Malayan 

Emergency, French forces in Algeria, American and GVN forces in Vietnam, 

British and Omani forces in Dhofar, Rhodesian forces in the Rhodesian Bush 

Wars, British forces in Northern Ireland, Coalition forces in Iraq (OIF), and 

Coalition forces in Afghanistan (OEF). 

6. Chapter Three discusses that the “push” force from improved mortars 

was arguably more important than air assets’ contributions.

7. Chapter Two discusses this factor, and the fact that the cost is expressed 

in many terms such as time, physical resources, and the opportunity cost of 

degrading indirect fires capabilities over the long-term.

8. The presentation for the 2011 Fires Seminar “State of Fires” briefing 

cites combat leader debriefings as an input to doctrinal reform, not as a source in 

and of itself. US Army Fires Center of Excellence, 2011 Fire Seminar: State of 

Fires (Symposium at Cameron University, Lawton, OK, 17 May 2011), slide 12.

9. This is based on the author’s discussions with British Army officers in 

the UK, March and April 2011.

10. AA402, Special Forces Group Commander, Interview by Brian 

McCarthy and Jesse Stewart, Fort Lewis, WA, 31 August 2010.

11. The 2011 Fires Seminar “State of Fires” briefing concludes that solving 

the current gaps in capabilities is “not just about material.” Although leader 

education is not specifically addressed, this notion is a step in the right direction 

for resource allocations to improve artillery capabilities. US Army Fires Center of 

Excellence, 2011 Fire Seminar: State of Fires (Symposium at Cameron University, 

Lawton, OK, 17 May 2011), slide 14.

12. Author Fathali Moghaddam provides a compelling illustration of this 

shift in The New Global Insecurity. He traces the fundamental shift in insecurity 

in the world to the force of fragmented globalization, which he studies through 
196

the components of resource insecurity and religious insecurity. Fathali M. 

Moghaddam, The New Global Insecurity (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security 

International, 2010), 19-20. 

13. Based on the author’s experience with the American army, interviews 

with British army officers in their institutions of higher learning in 2011, and 

individual discussions on the subject with Australian, Canadian, and French 

officers in 2010 and 2011. 

14. William M. Raymond, Keith R. Beurskens, and Steven M. Carmichael, 

“The Criticality of Captains’ Education, Now and in the Future,” Military Review 

(November-December 2010): 51.

15. This quote is taken from William M. Raymond et al., “The Criticality 

of Captains’ Education, Now and in the Future,” Military Review (NovemberDecember 2010): 56. As a point of fact, the author enjoys his air conditioning on 

deployments to the Middle East. But to address the matter directly; in any large war 

effort there will be some officers who simply do not have the same opportunities 

as their peers to experience conventional or counterinsurgent warfare since there 

is a valid requirement to man headquarters echelons, institutional army posts, 

and contingency forces. Unfortunately, there is no provision for the secondment 

of officers, which directly assists an allied security force while simultaneously 

providing an officer with invaluable experience.

16. Patricia Slayden Hollis, “Division Operations Across the SpectrumCombat to SOSO in Iraq: Interview with Major General Raymond T. Odierno, 

CG of 4th ID in OIF,” Field Artillery (March-June 2004): 11.
197

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Interviews

Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Scholars Program 

2011. Scholars Program Counterinsurgency Research Study 

2011. Research Study, Fort Leavenworth, KS: Ike Skelton Chair 

in Counterinsurgency, 2011. This study included interviews of 

counterinsurgency practitioners and policy professionals from the 

United States and United Kingdom. Each interview was executed as 

an oral history interview and adhered to Army policies of informed 

consent in compliance with federal law. Finally, each interview was 

coordinated through the Ike Skelton Chair in Counterinsurgency, CGSC 

Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Boston, Massachusetts

BF010, Former Army Officer. Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron 

Kaufman, 11 March 2011.

BF020, Civilian Adviser to MNF-I. Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron 

Kaufman, 11 March 2011.

BF030, Battery Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron Kaufman, 

12 March 2011.

BF040, Battery Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson and Aaron Kaufman, 

14 March 2011.

Fort Bliss, Texas

BB010, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan Springer, 

2 March 2011.

BB020, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan Springer, 

2 March 2011.

BB030, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan Springer, 3 

March 2011.

Fort Bragg, North Carolina

AA610, Platoon Leader and FDO. Interview by Travis Molliere and Carrie 

Przelski, 18 August 2010

BC010, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 1 

March 2011.

BC020, Brigade Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 2 

March 2011.

BC030, Battalion Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 1 March 2011.

BC040, Battalion Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 2 March 2011.

BC050, Battalion Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 2 March 2011.

BC060, Battalion Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 3 March 2011.
198

Fort Irwin, California

BE010, Transition Team Leader. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

7 March 2011.

BE020, Transition Team Member. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas 

Walton, 7 March 2011.

BE030, Company Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

8 March 2011.

BE040, Transition Team Leader. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

9 March 2011.

BE050, Battery Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 8 

March 2011.

BE060, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 9 

March 2011.

BE070, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 9 

March 2011.

BE080, Battalion Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 

7 March 2011.

BE090, Battalion Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Aaron Kaufman, 

7 March 2011.

Fort Knox, Kentucky

BD010, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 14 March 2011.

BD020, Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin Mitchell, 14 

March 2011.

BD030, Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin Mitchell, 14 

March 2011.

BD040, Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin Mitchell, 15 

March 2011.

BD050, Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin Mitchell, 15 

March 2011.

BD060, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 16 March 2011.

BD070, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 16 March 2011.

BD080, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 17 March 2011.

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

AA509, Division Commander. Interview by Ken Gleiman and Karsten Haake, 

25 August 2010.

AA510, Former DivArty Commander. Interview by Travis Molliere and Jesse 

Stewart, 4 November 2010.

BA010, Brigade Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson and Thomas 

Walton, 22 February 2011.

BA020, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Benjamin 

Boardman, 23 February 2011.

BA030, Vietnam Veteran. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin Mitchell, 24 

February 2011.

BA040, Brigade Commander. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin 
199

Mitchell, 23 February, 2011.

BA050, Battalion Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Nathan Springer, 

23 February, 2011.

BA060, Battalion Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Nathan Springer, 

23 February, 2011.

BA070, Battery Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson and Thomas 

Walton, 24 February 2011.

BA080, Counterinsurgency Adviser. Interview by Richard Johnson and Nathan 

Springer, 9 March 2011.

BA090, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Benjamin 

Boardman, 24 February 2011.

Afghanistan Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and OEF 

Veterans, 4 February 2011.

Algeria Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 11 January 2011.

Counterinsurgency I Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 30 

November 2010.

Counterinsurgency II Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 3 

December 2010.

Dhofar Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and Dhofar 

Campaign Veteran, 21 January 2011.

Iraq Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and OIF Veterans, 3 

February 2011.

Ireland Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 17 December 2010.

Malaya I Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 4 January 2011.

Malaya II Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 7 January 2011.

Northern Ireland Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and 

Operation Banner Veteran, 28 January 2011.

Philippines Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group, 6 December 

2010.

Rhodesia Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and Rhodesian 

Bush War Veteran, 25 January 2011.

Vietnam I Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and Vietnam War 

Veteran, 14 January 2011.

Vietnam II Panel Discussion, CGSC Art of War Scholars Group and Vietnam 

War Veteran, 18 January 2011.

Fort Lewis, WA

AA402, Special Forces Group Commander. Interview by Brian McCarthy and 

Jesse Stewart, 31 August 2010. Fort Lewis, WA.

Fort Stewart, Georgia

BG020, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

14 March 2011.

BG030, Troop Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes, Nathan Springer, and 

Thomas Walton, 14 March 2011.

BG040, Brigade Commander. Interview by Nathan Springer and Thomas 

Walton, 15 March 2011.

BG050, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes, 15 March 2011.

BG060, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes, 15 March 2011.
200

BG070, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Nathan Springer and Thomas Walton, 

15 March 2011.

BG080, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

16 March 2011.

BG090, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan Springer, 

16 March 2011.

BG100, Brigade Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes and Nathan Springer, 

16 March 2011.

United Kingdom

AA1009, Retired General Officer. Interview by Ken Gleiman, Brian McCarthy, 

Travis Molliere, and Carrie Przelski, 4 October 2010. United Kingdom.

AA1012, British General Officer. Interview by Mike Dinesman, Ken Gleiman, 

Brian McCarthy, Jesse Stewart, 22 September 2010. United Kingdom

AA1013, British General Officer. Interview by Karsten Haake, Matt Marbella, 

Travis Molliere, and Carrie Przelski, 23 September 2010. United 

Kingdom

BI010, Senior British Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes, Benjamin Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, and 

Nathan Springer, 29 March 2011.

BI020, Battle Group Commander. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Thomas 

Walton, 31 March 2011.

BI030, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Robert Green and Thomas Walton, 29 

March 2011.

BI040, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes and Dustin Mitchell, 1 

April 2011.

BI050, Dhofar Veterans Panel. Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 28 March 2011.

BI060, Dhofar Veterans Panel. Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 2 April 2011.

BI070, Retired General Officer. Interview by Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben 

Boardman, Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin 

Mitchell, Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 30 March 2011.

BI080, Retired General Officer. Interview by Ben Boardman, Robert Green, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 3 April 2011.

BI090, Retired General Officer. Interview by Ben Boardman, Robert Green, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 4 April 2011.

BI100, Senior Army Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes, Richard Johnson, Aaron 

Kaufman, and Dustin Mitchell, 4 April 2011.

BI110, Battalion Commander. Interview by Mark Battjes, Richard Johnson, and 

Dustin Mitchell, 8 April 2011.

BI120, Retired Army Officer. Interview by Ben Boardman, Robert Green, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 8 April 2011.

BI130, Platoon Commander. Interview by Ben Boardman and Richard Johnson, 

5 April 2011.

BI140, Afghan Army Adviser. Interview by Ben Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 5 April 2011.
201

BI150, Company Sergeant Major. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 5 April 2011.

BI160, Company 2nd In Command. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 5 April 2011.

BI170, Afghan Army Adviser. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 5 April 2011.

BI190, Senior Non-Commissioned Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes and 

Thomas Walton, 5 April 2011.

BI200, Platoon Commander. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin Mitchell, 

7 April 2011.

BI210, Company 2nd In Command. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas 

Walton, 7 April 2011.

BI220, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Aaron Kaufman and Dustin Mitchell, 7 

April 2011.

BI230, Company Commander. Interview by Robert Green and Nathan Springer, 

7 April 2011.

BI240, Company Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 7 April 2011.

BI250, Battalion Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Richard 

Johnson, 7 April 2011.

BI260, Non-Commissioned Officer. Interview by Robert Green and Nathan 

Springer, 7 April 2011.

BI270, Company Grade Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes and Thomas Walton, 

7 April 2011.

BI280, Commander’s Panel. Interview by Richard Johnson, 1 April 2011.

BI290, Battery Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson, 1 April 2011.

BI300, Company Commander. Interview by Richard Johnson, 2 April 2011.

BI310, Company Commander. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Nathan 

Springer, 31 March 2011.

BI320, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Benjamin Boardman and Dustin 

Mitchell, 29 March 2011.

BI330, Dhofar Veteran. Interview by Robert Green, 28 March 2011.

Washington, DC

AA810, Battalion Commander. Interview by Ken Gleiman, Matt Marbella, Brian 

McCarthy, and Travis Molliere, 13 September 2010. Washington, DC.

BH010, Senior Policy Official. Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, 

Robert Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, 

Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 21 March 2011.

BH020, Field Grade Officer. Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben Boardman, Robert 

Green, Richard Johnson, Aaron Kaufman, Dustin Mitchell, Nathan 

Springer, and Thomas Walton, 21 March 2011.

BH030, Iraq Veterans Panel. Interview by Mark Battjes, Robert Green, Aaron 

Kaufman, and Dustin Mitchell, 22 March 2011.

BH040, Afghanistan Veterans Panel. Interview by Richard Johnson, Aaron 

Kaufman, Nathan Springer, and Thomas Walton, 24 March 2011.

BH050, Historian. Interview by Mark Battjes, Robert Green, Richard Johnson, 

Aaron Kaufman, and Dustin Mitchell, 22 March 2011.

BH060, Vietnam Political and Military Analyst. Interview by Mark Battjes, Ben 
202

Boardman, Robert Green, and Dustin Mitchell, 22 March 2011.

BH070, Iraqi Mayor. Interview by Mark Battjes and Robert Green, 25 March 

2011.

Other Oral Histories

Garcia, Lynne. Interview with Colonel Frank Hull. Fort Leavenworth, KS: 

Combat Studies Institute, 2005.

Hollis, Patricia Slayden. “Division Operations Across the Spectrum - Combat to 

SOSO in Iraq: Interview with Major General Raymond T. Odierno, CG 

of 4th ID in OIF.” Field Artillery (March-June 2004): 10-14.

Official Reports and Memoranda

1st Infantry Division. After Action Report-Operation Junction City. 1967.

4th Infantry Division Artillery. Operational Report - Lessons Learned, 

Headquarters 4th Infantry Division Artillery, Period Ending 31 Jan 

1970. 1970.

25th Infantry Division Artillery. Operational Report of 25th Inf Div Arty for 

Period Ending 31 Jul 68.1968.

101st Airborne Division (Airmobile). Combat Operations After Action Report, 

Operation Randolph Glen. 1970.

———. Operational Report-Lessons Learned, 101st Airborne Division 

(Airmobile), Period Ending 31 October 1970. 1970.

173rd Airborne Brigade. Combat After Action Report-Operation Niagara / 

Cedar Falls, Period 5-26 Jan 1967. 1967.

———. Combat After Action Report-Operation Junction City I. 1967.

Baker-Hamilton Commission. Iraq Study Group Report: Gravel Edition. 

Washington, DC: Filiquarian Publishing, 2006.

Cushman, John H. Senior Officer Debriefing Report: Major General John H. 

Cushman, Commander, Delta Regional Assistance Command, Vietnam, 

14 May 71-14 Jan 72. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1972.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Military Operations - U.S. Department of Defense. 

A Program for the Pacification and Long-Term Development of South 

Vietnam, 2 vol. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 1966.

District Office of Kuala Lipis. Lipis DWEC Operation No. 2: Operation Apollo.

1954.

Forster, J. M. A Comparative Study of the Emergencies in Kenya and Malaya.

Operational Research Unit Far East, 1957.

Gates, Robert M. Request to Change the Name of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM 

to Operation NEW DAWN. 2010.

Hoang Ngoc Lung. Indochina Monographs: Strategy and Tactics. Washington, 

DC: US Army Center for Military History, 1978.

Hosmer, Stephen T., and Sibylle O. Crane. “Counterinsurgency, A Symposium 

16-20 April 1962.” RAND Corporation Reports, Washington, DC, 

1962.

Kagan, Frederick W. Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. Washington, 

DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2006.

MacFarland, Sean, Michael Shields, and Jeffrey Snow. The King and I: The 

Impending Crisis in the Field Artillery’s Ability to Provide Fire Support 

to Maneuver Commanders. Unpublished.
203

McWilliams, Timothy S. Al-Anbar Awakening: U.S. Marines and 

Counterinsurgency in Iraq, 2004-2009. Quantico, VA: Marine Corps 

University Press, 2009.

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, United States, Command History 1968 

Volume I. Saigon: 1969.

———. Lessons Learned Number 31: Artillery Organization and Employment 

in Counter Insurgency. Saigon: 1963.

Ngo Quang Truong. Indochina Monographs: Territorial Forces. Washington, 

DC: Center of Military History, 1981.

State Secretariat of Central Perak. Central Perak SWEC Operation Order No. 

1-57: Operation ‘Ginger.’ 1957.

State Secretariat of Pahang. Pahang SWEC Operation No. 2: Operation Apollo.

1954.

Sunderland, Riley. Army Operations in Malaya, 1947-1960 . Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 1964.

———. Organizing Counterinsurgency in Malaya, 1947-1960. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND, 1964.

———. Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People: Malaya 1948-1960. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, 1964. 

Tran Dinh Tho. Indochina Monographs: Pacification. Washington, DC: Center 

for Military History, 1980.

Personal Accounts

Baker, Jay B. “Tal Afar 2005: Laying the Counterinsurgency Framework.” Army

(June 2009): 61-67.

Bidwell, R. G. S. “Gunner Tasks in Southeast Asia.” Royal Journal of Artillery 

91, no.2 (September 1964): 85-96. 

Beeton, C. “Locating in Borneo.” Royal Journal of Artillery 96, no. 1 (March 

1969): 14-18.

Bremer, L. Paul. My Year in Iraq. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.

Chiarelli, Peter, and Patrick Michaelis. “The Requirements for Full-Spectrum 

Operations.” Military Review (July-August 2005): 4-17.

Clutterbuck, Richard L. The Long, Long War. New York: Praeger, 1966.

Colby, William. Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA. New York: Simon and 

Schuster, 1978.

Collier, Craig. “Now that we’re leaving Iraq, what did we learn.” Military 

Review (September-October 2010): 88-93.

Corum, James. Training Indigenous Forces in Counterinsurgency: A Tale of Two 

Insurgencies. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2006.

Daniel, T. W. “Man Hunting in Malaya.” The Royal Journal of Artillery 77, no. 3 

(July 1950): 257-260.

Ferry, J. P. “Full Employment.” Royal Journal of Artillery 92, no 1. (March 

1965): 21-29. 

Franks, Tommy. American Soldier. New York: Regan Books, 2004.

Giap, Vo Nguyen. How We Won The War. Philadelphia, PA: RECON 

Publications, 1976.

———.Inside the Vietminh: Vo Nguyen Giap on Guerrilla War. Quantico, VA: 

Marine Corps Association, 1962.

———. The Military Art of People’s War, edited by Russell Stetler. New York: 
204

Monthly Review Press, 1970.

Guevara, Ernesto “Che.” Guerrilla Warfare, edited by Brian Loveman and 

Thomas M. Davies. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1985.

Haldane, James Aylmer. The Insurrection in Mesopotamia. London: The 

Imperial War Museum, 2005.

Hennicker, M. C. A. Red Shadow Over Malaya. London: William Blackwood 

and Sons, 1955.

Hunt, Ira A. The 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam: Unparalleled and Unequaled. 

Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2010.

Jeapes, Tony. SAS Secret War: Operation Storm in the Middle East. London: 

Greenhill Books, 2005.

Komer, Robert. Bureaucracy at War: U.S. Performance in the Vietnam Conflict. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986.

Lamb, James Daniel. “25th Field Regiment in Malaya.” www.britainssmallwars.com/ malaya/malaya-25field%20reg/25_fieldregt.html 

(accessed 6 June 2011).

Lansdale, Edward. “Contradictions in Military Culture.” In The Lessons of 

Vietnam, edited by W. Scott Thompson and Donaldson Frizzel, 40-46. 

New York: Crane, Russak and Company, 1977.

Lindsay, Patrick J. “Counterguerrilla Warfare.” Artillery Trends 29 (February 

1964): 11-24.

Mansoor, Peter R. Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Miers, Richard. Shoot To Kill. London: Faber and Faber, 1959.

Mitchell, Joshua D. “Afghanistan: Firing Artillery Accurately with Air Force 

Met Support.” Field Artillery (January-February 2003): 38-41.

Rowe, G.C.K. “Presentation of a Silver Centre-piece to the Federation 

Artillery.” The Royal Journal of Artillery 87, no. 3 (Summer 1960): 

128-129.

Sanchez, Ricardo. Wiser in Battle. New York: HarperCollins, 2008.

Sky, Emma. “Iraq, From Surge to Sovereignty.” Foreign Affairs (March-April 

2011). www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67481/emma-sky/iraq-fromsurge-to-sovereignty (accessed 20 May 2011).

Sorley, Lewis. Vietnam Chronicles: The Abrams Tapes 1968-1972. Lubbock, 

TX: Texas Tech University Press, 2004.

Smith, Neil, and Sean MacFarland. “Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point.” 

Military Review (March-April 2008): 41-53.

Sweeney, Patrick J., and Jason C. Montgomery. “Iraq: 101st Division LNO in 

the V Corp FECC.” Field Artillery (July-August 2003): 40-44.

Torrance, Thomas G., and Noel T. Nicolle. “Observations From Iraq: The 3rd 

Div Arty in OIF.” Field Artillery (July-August 2003): 30-35.

Truong Nhu Tang, A Vietcong Memoir. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 

Publishers, 1985.

The Virgin Soldiers. “British and Commonwealth Units That Served in the 

Malayan Emergency.” www.britains-smallwars.com/malaya/reg.html 

(accessed 6 June 2011) .

Westmoreland, William C. “A Military War of Attrition.” In The Lessons of 

Vietnam, edited by W. Scott Thompson and Donaldson Frizzel, 57-71. 

New York: Crane, Russak and Company, 1977.
205

———. A Soldier Reports. New York: Da Capo Press, 1976.

Wilford, D. J. “Some Aspects of Anti-Terrorist Operations: Malaya.” Fort Bragg, 

NC, 7th Special Forces Group Operational Assessment, 1963.

Doctrinal References

1st Infantry Division. Soldier’s Handbook to Iraq. Wurzburg, GE: 1st Infantry 

Division, 2004.

FARELF Training Center, The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya. 

Saint Petersburg, FL: Hailer, originally published internally in Malaya 

in 1958.

Federation of Malaya. Handbook to Malaya and the Insurgency. Singapore: 

Regional Information Office for the United Kingdom in South East 

Asia, 1953.

Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, United States. Handbook for Military 

Support of Pacification. Saigon: 1968. 

———. PAVN Artillery (Rocket Units)-1967. Saigon: 1967.

———. RF–PF Handbook for Advisors. Saigon: 1969.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-4,

U.S. Army Functional Concept For Fires 2016-2028. Washington, DC: 

Department of the Army, 2010.

U.S. Department of the Army. Field Manual 1-02, Operational Terms and 

Graphics. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2004.

———. Field Manual 3-0, Operations. Washington, DC: Department of the 

Army, 2008.

———. Field Manual 3-09.21, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for the Field 

Artillery Battalion. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2001.

———. Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency. Washington, DC: Department 

of the Army, 2006.

———. Field Manual 3-24.2, Tactics in Counterinsurgency. Washington, DC: 

Department of the Army, 2009.

———. Field Manual 31-16, Counterguerrilla Operations. Washington, DC: 

Department of the Army, 1963.

———. Field Manual 31-73, Adviser Handbook for Counterinsurgency. 

Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1965.

———. Field Manual 6-20-10, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for the 

Targeting Process. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1996.

Secondary Sources

Afsar, Shahid, and Chris Samples. “The Taliban: An Organizational Analysis.” 

Military Review (May-June 2008): 58-73.

Andrade, Dale. “Westmoreland Was Right: Learning the Wrong Lessons from 

the Vietnam War.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 19, no. 2 (June 2008): 

145-181. 

Bacevich, Andrew. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced 

by War. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bailey, J. B. A. Field Artillery and Firepower. Oxford, UK: Oxford Military 

Press, 1989.

Barber, Noel. The War of the Running Dogs: How Malaya Defeated the 

Communist Guerrillas 1948-1960. London: Cassell, 1971.
206

Barry, Robert F. “Why Organic Fires?” Field Artillery (March-June 2004): 13-

18.

Beckett, Ian. “The British Counter-insurgency Campaign in Dhofar, 1965-1975.” 

In Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston 

and Carter Malkasian, 175-190. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Beckerman, Linda P. The Non-Linear Dynamics of War. Science Applications 

International Corporation, 1999.

Bergerud, Eric. The Dynamics of Defeat: The Vietnam War in Hau Nghia 

Province. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc., 1991.

Birtle, Andrew J. U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations 

Doctrine 1860-1941. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 

United States Army, 2003.

———. U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine 

1942-1976. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, United States 

Army, 2006.

Boris, Christopher. “Low Angle Fires for MOUT.” FA Journal (NovemberDecember 2001): 42-45.

Boylan, Kevin M. “The Red Queen’s Race: Operation Washington Green 

and Pacification in Binh Dinh Province, 1969-1970.” The Journal of 

Military History 73 (October 2009): 1195-1230.

Brock, John. “We Cannot Take Your Call for Fire Right Now: Does the Global 

War on Terror Signal the Demise of the Field Artillery?” Monograph, 

School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2006.

Burton, Brian, and John Nagl. “Learning As We Go: The US Army Adapts 

to COIN in Iraq, July 2004-December 2006.” Small Wars and 

Insurgencies 19, no. 3 (September 2008): 303-327.

Cable, Larry E. Conflict of Myths: The Development of American 

Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War. New York: New 

York University Press, 1986.

Carland, John M. U.S. Army in Vietnam: Combat Operations, Stemming the 

Tide, May 1965 to October1966. Washington, DC: US Army Center of 

Military History, 2000.

Carruthers, Lawrence H. “Characteristics and Capabilities of Enemy Weapons.” 

Artillery Trends 45 (September 1970): 11 - 24.

Christie, Michael. “Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop to Lowest Level of War.” 

Reuters, 30 November, 2009. www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/30/usiraq-toll-idUSTRE5AT3ZE20091130 (accessed 20 May 2011).

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War, edited and translated by Michael Howard and 

Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Coates, John. Suppressing Insurgency. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992.

Comber, Leon. Malaya’s Secret Police 1945-1960: The Role of the Special 

Branch in the Malayan Emergency. Melbourne, AU: Monash 

University Press, 2009.

Cordesman, Anthony. Iraqi Security Forces: A Strategy for Success. Westport, 

CT: Praeger Security International, 2006.

Cosgriff, Kenneth, and Richard Johnson, Organizational Resistance to Change 

in the Airborne Field Artillery. Master’s thesis, Webster University, 

2006.

Cosmas, Graham A. U.S. Army in Vietnam: MACV, The Joint Command in the 
207

Years of Escalation 1962 to 1967. Washington, DC: US Army Center of 

Military History, 2006.

———. U.S. Army in Vietnam: MACV: The Joint Command in the Years of 

Withdrawal 1968-1973. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military 

History, 2005.

Cotton, Sarah K., Ulrich Petersohn, Molly Dunigan, Q Burkhart, Megan ZanderCotugno, Edward O’Connell, and Michael Webber. Hired Guns: Views 

About Armed Contractors in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND, 2010.

Dehghanpisheh, Babak. “The Great Moqtada Makeover.” Newsweek, 19 January 

2008. www.newsweek.com/2008/01/19/the-great-moqtada-makeover.

html (accessed 8 June 2011)

Dahl, John. Rounders. Santa Monica, CA: Miramax Films, 1998.

Dastrup, Boyd L. King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army’s Field 

Artillery. Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1992.

Demarest, Geoff. “Let’s Take the French Experience in Algeria Out of U.S. 

Counterinsurgency Doctrine.” Military Review (July-August 2010): 

19-23.

Dixon, Paul. “Hearts and minds? British counterinsurgency strategy in Northern 

Ireland.” Journal of Strategic Studies 32, no. 3 (June 2009): 445-474.

Everett, Patrovik G. “The Role of Field Artillery in Counterinsurgency.” 

Master’s Thesis, Command and General Staff College, Fort 

Leavenworth, KS, 2005.

Fall, Bernard. Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. 

Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1966.

———. Street Without Joy. New York: Shocken Books, 1961.

———. The Two Viet-Nams, A Political and Military Analysis. New York: 

Praeger, 1967.

Faugstad, Jesse. “No Simple Solution.” Military Review (July-August 2010): 

32-42.

Foster, Nathaniel w. “Speed Shifting the 155mm Howitzer, Towed: The 

Evolution of an Idea.” Artillery Trends 37 (January 1967): 17-22.

Galula, David. Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. Saint 

Petersburg, FL: Glenwood Press, 1964.

———. Pacification in Algeria, 1956-1958. Santa Monica, CA: Rand 

Corporation, 2006.

Gentile, Gian. “A Strategy of Tactics: Population Centric COIN and the Army.” 

Parameters (Autumn 2009): 5-17.

Gompert, David C., and John Gordon IV. War by Other Means. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

Gordon, Michael R., and Bernard E. Trainor. Cobra II. New York: Pantheon 

Books, 2006.

Gould, Steven J. Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. 

New York: Harmony Books, 1996.

Gregorian, Raffi. “Jungle Bashing in Malaya.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 5, 

no. 3 (Winter 1994): 338-359.

Green, T. N. The Guerilla: Selections from the Marine Corps Gazzette. New 

York: Praeger, 2005.

Gudmundsson, Bruce I. On Artillery. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993.
208

Hack, Karl. “The Malayan Emergency as Counter-Insurgency Paradigm.” 

Journal of Strategic Studies 32, no. 3 (2009): 383-414.

Hahlweg, Werner. “Clausewitz and Guerrilla Warfare.” In Clausewitz and 

Modern Strategy, edited by Michael Handel. London: Frank Cass, 

1986, 127-133. 

Hart, Peter. The I.R.A. at War 1916-1923. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 

2003.

Hashim, Ahmed S. “The Insurgency in Iraq.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 14, 

no. 3 (August 2003): 3-28.

Heggoy, Alf. Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Algeria. Bloomington, IN: 

Indiana University Press, 1972.

Heitzke, Kenneth S. “Field Artillery Mission, Weapon, and Organization for 

Counterguerilla Warfare.” Master’s Thesis, US Army Command and 

General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1965.

Herring, George. America’s Longest War. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Hoffer, Edward E. “Field Artillery Fire Support for Counterinsurgency 

Operations: Combat Power or Counterproductive?” Master’s Thesis, 

US Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 

1987.

Hoffman, Bruce. Lessons for Contemporary Counterinsurgencies: The 

Rhodesian Experience. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992.

Hoffman, Frank. “Neo-Classical Counter-insurgency?” Parameters (Summer 

2007): 71-87.

Hopkinson, Michael. The Irish War of Independence. Montreal: McGill - 

Queen’s University Press, 2002.

Horne, Alistair. “The French Army and the Algerian War 1954-62.” In Regular 

Armies and Insurgency, edited by Ronald Haycock. London: Croom 

Helm, 1979, 69-83.

Horwood, Ian. Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War. Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2006.

Howard, Michael. Clausewitz. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Hunt, Richard. Pacification: The American Struggle for Vietnam’s Hearts and 

Minds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

Iron, Richard. “Britain’s Longest War: Northern Ireland 1967-2007.” In 

Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston and 

Carter Malkasian, 157-174. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Jackson, Charles W. “Adjust By Sound.” Artillery Trends 39 (January 1968): 

30-34.

Jackson, Joseph A. “Howitzers on the High Ground.” Monograph, School of 

Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2009.

Jeudwine, Hugh. “A Record of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1920-1, and the 

Part Played by the Army in Dealing with it (Intelligence).” British 

Intelligence in Ireland: The Final Reports, edited by Peter Hart. Cork: 

Cork University Press, 2002, 17-60.

Joes, Anthony James. “Counterinsurgency in the Philippines, 1898-1954.” In 

Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston and 

Carter Malkasian, 39-56. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Johnson, Thomas, and Chris M. Maston. “No Sign until the Burst of Fire: 

Understanding the Pakistan-Afghanistan Frontier.” International 
209

Security 32, no. 4 (Spring 2008): 41-77.

Jomini, Baron Antoine-Henri de. Summary of The Art of War, or A New 

Analytical Compend. Translated by Winship, O. F. and E. E. McLean. 

New York: Putnam, 1854.

Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins Press, 1955. 

Kilcullen, David. The Accidental Guerrilla : Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of 

a Big One. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

———. Counterinsurgency. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Kitson, Frank. Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency, Peacekeeping.

London: Faber and Faber, 1971.

———. Bunch of Five. London: Faber and Faber, 1977.

———. Warfare as a Whole. London: Faber and Faber, 1987.

Komer, Robert. The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect: Organization of a 

Successful Counterinsurgency Effort. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1972.

Krepinevich, Andrew F. Jr. The Army and Vietnam. Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Kriger, Norma. Zimbabwe’s Guerrilla War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 1993.

Ladwig, Walter. “Supporting Allies in COIN: Britain and the Dhofar Rebellion.” 

Small Wars and Insurgencies 19, no. 1 (March 2008): 62-88.

Lawrence, T. E. “The 27 Articles of T. E. Lawrence.” The Arab 

Bulletin (20 August 1917). www.usma.edu/dmi/IWmsgs/

The27ArticlesofT.E.Lawrence.pdf (accessed 8 June 2011).

Levinson, Charles. “An Architect of U.S. Strategy Waits to Pop Cork.” 

Wall Street Journal, 27 August 10. online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704125 604575449171253677444.html (accessed 

20 May 2011).

Lewis, Bernard. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. New York: 

Random House, 2003.

Linn, Brian. The Philippine War, 1899-1902. Lawrence, KS: University of 

Kansas Press, 2000.

Luce, Don. “Tell Your Friends that We’re People.” In The Pentagon Papers 

Volume V, edited by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, 91-100. 

Boston: Beacon Press, 1972.

MacKinlay, John. The Insurgent Archipelago: From Mao to Bin Laden. New 

York: Columbia University Press, 2009. 

MacKinlay, John, and Allison Al-Baddawy. Rethinking Counterinsurgency. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

Malkasian, Carter. “Counterinsurgency in Iraq.” In Counterinsurgency in 

Modern Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 287-

310. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

———. “The Role of Perceptions and Political reform in Counterinsurgency: 

The Case of Western Iraq, 2004-2005.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 

17, no. 3 (September 2006): 367-394.

Mansfield, Don. “The Irish Republican Army and Northern Ireland.” In 

Insurgency in the Modern World, edited by O’Neill, Bard, 44-85. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980.

Mao Tse-Tung. On Guerrilla Warfare. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. 
210

Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1961.

———. The Selected Military Writings of Mao Tse-Tung. Peking: Foreign 

Language Press, 1972.

Markel, Wade. “Draining the Swamp: The British Strategy of Population 

Control.” Parameters (Spring 2006): 35-48.

Marshall, S. L. A. “Thoughts on Vietnam.” In The Lessons of Vietnam, edited by 

Thompson, W. Scott and Donaldson Frizzel, 46-55. New York: Crane, 

Russak and Company, 1977.

Marston, Daniel. “Adaptation in the Field: The British Army’s Difficult 

Campaign in Iraq.” Security Challenges 6, no. 1 (Autumn 2010): 71-

84.

———. “The Indian Army, Partition, and the Punjab Boundary Force, 1945-

1947.” War in History 16, no.4 (2009): 469-505.

———. “Lost and Found in the Jungle.” In Big Wars and Small Wars, edited by 

Strachan, Hew, 96-114. London: Routledge, 2006.

———. “Realizing the Extent of Our Errors and Forging the Road Ahead: 

Afghanistan 2001-2010.” In Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, 

edited by Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 251-286. Oxford: 

Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Marston, Daniel, and Carter Malkasian, eds. Counterinsurgency in Modern 

Warfare. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2008.

McCoy, Alfred. Policing America’s Empire. Madison, WI: University of 

Wisconsin Press, 2009.

McCuen, John J. The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War. Harrisburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books, 1966.

McGrath, John J. Fire for Effect: Field Artillery and Close Air Support in the US 

Army. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2007.

McKenney, Janice E. The Organizational History of Field Artillery 1775-2003. 

Washington, DC: US Army Center for Military History, 2007.

Millen, Raymond. “Time for a Strategic and Intellectual Pause in Afghanistan.” 

Parameters (Summer 2010): 33-45.

Metz, Steven. “New Challenges and Old Concepts: Understanding the 21st 

Century Insurgency.” Parameters (Winter 2007-2008): 20-32.

Moghaddam, Fathali M. The New Global Insecurity. Santa Barbara, CA: 

Praeger Security International, 2010.

Moyar, Mark. A Question of Command. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 

2009.

———. “Development in Afghanistan’s Counterinsurgency.” Small Wars 

Journal. www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2011/03/development-inafghanistans-co/ (accessed 21 March 2011)

———. Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Nagl, John. “Counterinsurgency in Vietnam: American Organizational Culture 

and Learning.” In Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, edited by 

Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 119-136. Oxford, UK: Osprey, 

2008. 

———. Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons From 

Malaya and Vietnam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Nagl, John, and Paul L. Yingling. “The FA in the Long War: A New Mission in 
211

COIN.” FA Journal (July-August 2006): 33-36.

Najim Abed Al-Jabouri, and Sterling Jensen. “The Iraqi and AQI Roles in the 

Sunni Awakening.” Prism 2, no. 1 (2010): 3-18.

Norland, Rod. “A Radical Cleric Gets Religion.” Newsweek, 10 November 2007. 

www.newsweek.com/2007/11/10/a-radical-cleric-gets-religion.html 

(accessed 8 June 2011).

Omrani, Bijan. “The Durand Line: History and Problems of the Afghan-Pakistan 

Border.” Asian Affairs 40, no. 2 (2009): 177-195.

O’Neill, Bard. “Revolutionary War in Oman.” In Insurgency in the Modern 

World, edited by O’Neill, Bard, 213-234. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 

1980.

O’Neill, Mark. Confronting the Hydra. Sydney, AU: Lowy Institute, 2009.

Ott, David Ewing. Vietnam Studies: Field Artillery, 1954-1973. Washington, 

DC: Department of the Army, 1975.

———. “Vietnamization: FA Assistance Programs.” Field Artillery (JanuaryFebruary 2007): 34-41.

Packer, George. “The Lesson of Tal Afar.” The New Yorker 82, issue 8 (10 

April, 2006). www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/10/060410fa_fact2 

(accessed 13 May 2011).

Paget, Julian. Counter-insurgency Operations: Techniques of Guerrilla Warfare. 

New York: Walker and Company, 1967.

Paret, Peter, and John Shy. “Guerrilla Warfare and U.S. Military Policy: A 

Study.” In The Guerrilla and How to Fight Him: Selections from the 

Marine Corps Gazette, edited by T. N. Green. New York: Praeger, 

1962.

Paret, Peter. “Clausewitz,” In Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by Peter Paret, 

186-213. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

———. French Revolutionary Warfare from Indochina to Algeria: The Analysis 

of a Political and Military Doctrine. New York: Praeger, 1964.

———. Makers of Modern Strategy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 

1986.

Parker, Geoffrey. “The Western Way of War.” In The Cambridge History of 

Warfare, edited by Geoffrey Parker, 1-11. New York: Cambridge 

University Press, 2005.

Porch, Douglas. Douglas Porch, “Bugeaud, Gallieni, Lyatuey: The Development 

of French Colonial Warfare.” In Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by 

Peter Paret, 376-407. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

———. “French Imperial Warfare 1945-62.” In Counterinsurgency in Modern 

Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 79-100. 

Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2008.

Porter, Patrick. Military Orientalism: Eastern War Through Western Eyes. New 

York: Columbia University Press, 2009.

Price, D. L. Oman: Insurgency and Development. London: Institute for the 

Study of Conflict, 1975.

Pye, Lucian W. Guerrilla Communism in Malaya. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 1956.

Race, Jeffrey. War Comes to Long An. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press, 1972.

Ramsey, Robert. Savage Wars of Peace: Case Studies of Pacification in the 
212

Philippines, 1900-1902. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies 

Institute, 2007.

Ratnesar, Romesh, and Michael Weisskopf. “Person of The Year 2003: Portrait 

Of A Platoon.” Time, 29 December 2003.

Raymond, William M., Keith R. Beurskens, and Steven M. Carmichael. “The 

Criticality of Captains’ Education, Now and in the Future.” Military 

Review (November-December 2010): 51-57.

Record, Jeffrey. Bounding the Global War on Terrorism. Carlisle, PA: Strategic 

Studies Institute, 2003.

Reiner, Rob. This is Spin̈al Tap. Wilmington, NC: DiLaurentis/Embassy 

Pictures, 1984.

Ricks, Thomas E. Fiasco. New York: The Penguin Press, 2006.

———. The Gamble. New York: The Penguin Press, 2009.

Rubin, Barnett, and Ahmed Rashid. “The Great Game to the Great Bargain.” 

Foreign Affairs 87, no. 6 (November-December 2008): 30-44.

Russell, James A. Innovation, Transformation, and War: Counterinsurgency 

Operations in Anbar and Ninewah, Iraq, 2005-2007. Stanford, CA: 

Stanford Security Studies, 2011.

Scales, Robert H. “Artillery’s Failings in the Iraq War.” Armed Forces Journal 

(November 2003): 44-48.

———. Firepower in Limited War. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1995.

Scott, Peter Dale. “Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers.”

In The Pentagon Papers Volume V, edited by Noam Chomsky and 

Howard Zinn, 211-247. Boston: Beacon Press, 1972.

Selth, Andrew. “Ireland and insurgency: the lessons of history.” Small Wars & 

Insurgencies 2, no. 2 (1991): 299-322.

Semple, Michael, and Fotini Christia. “How to Flip the Taliban.” Foreign Affairs

(July-August 2009).

Sepp, Kalev. “Best Practices in Counterinsurgency.” Military Review (May-June 

2005): 8-12.

Shy, John. “Jomini.” In Makers of Modern Strategy, edited by Peter Paret, 143-

185. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Shy, John, and Thomas Collier. “Revolutionary war.” In Makers of Modern 

Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited 

by Peter Paret, 815-862. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 

1986.

Smith, E. D. Counter-Insurgency Operations 1: Malaya and Borneo. London: 

Ian Allan, 1985.

Stubbs, Richard. “From Search and Destroy to Hearts and Minds: The Evolution 

of British Strategy in Malaya 1948-60.” In Counterinsurgency in 

Modern Warfare, edited by Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 101-

118. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Sun Tzu. Manual for War. Translated by T. W. Kuo. Chicago: ATLI Press, 1989.

Thompson, Robert. Defeating Communist Insurgency. London: Chatto and 

Windus, 1967.

———. No Exit From Vietnam. New York: David McKay Company, 1969.

Thompson, W. Scott, and Donaldson Frizzell. The Lessons of Vietnam. New 

York: Crane, Russak and Company, 1977.

Thornton, Rod. “Getting It Wrong: The Crucial Mistakes Made in the Early 
213

Stages of the British Army’s Deployment to Northern Ireland.” Journal 

of Strategic Studies 30, no. 1 (February 2007): 73-107.

Townshend, Charles. “The IRA and the Development of Guerrilla Warfare.” 

English Historical Review 94 (April 1979): 318-345.

Trinquier, Roger. Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency.

Westport, CT: Praeger, 1964.

Tripodi, Christian. “Good for One But Not the Other; The Sandeman System 

of Pacification as Applied to Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier, 

1877-1947.” The Journal of Military History 73, no. 3 (July 2009): 

767-802.

Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Tucker, Michael S., and Jason P. Conroy. “Maintaining the Combat Edge.” 

Military Review 91, no. 3 (May - June 2011): 8-15.

US Army Artillery and Missile School. “Aerial Rocket Artillery.” Artillery 

Trends 37 (January 1967): 41-44.

———. “Lessons Learned in Vietnam: 6400-mil Traverse for the 175mm Gun 

and 8-Inch Howitzer.” Artillery Trends 37 (January 1967): 17-22.

———. “Riverine Artillery.” Artillery Trends 39 (January 1968): 14-24.

US Army Fires Center of Excellence. 2011 Fire Seminar: State of Fires.

Symposium at Lawton, OK: Cameron University, 17 May 2011.

Ucko, David. The New Counterinsurgency Era: Transforming the US Military 

for Modern Wars. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 

2009.

Van Fleet, Townsend A. “105 in the Jungle.” Artillery Trends 26 (October 1962): 

19-26

Walter, Dennis I. “First Round Smoke.” Artillery Trends 39 (January 1968): 25-

27.

West, Bing. No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah. New 

York: Bantam Books, 2005.

Willbanks, James. Abandoning Vietnam. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 

Press, 2004.

Wither, J. K. “Basra’s Not Belfast.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 20, no. 3 and 4 

(September-December 2009): 622.

Wood, J. R. T. “Countering the Chimurenga: The Rhodesian Counterinsurgency 

Campaign.” In Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, edited by 

Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian, 191-208. Oxford, UK: Osprey 

Publishing, 2008.

Yates, Larry. Field Artillery in Military Operations Other Than War: An 

Overview of the US Experience. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat 

Studies Institute Press, 2005.

Zabecki, David T. Steel Wind: Colonel Georg Bruchmuller and the Birth of 

Modern Artillery. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.


Combat Studies Institute Press

US Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 

Visit our website at: 

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/index.asp

Art of War Papers
The Biggest Stick

The Employment of Artillery Units in Counterinsurgency

Johnson

AoW