Spr.Earl said:
So why have we set up CIMIC?
In a nutshell ...
Civilians are a part of the battlefield, no matter whether it's high intensity conflict, peacemaking, or peacekeeping. Always have been, always will be
(one school of thought is that they're increasingly a part of the modern operational environment ... I'll leave that up to the personal judgement of the readers, lest we go off on a tangent ...).
So, in order to accomplish our mission, we make sure we can deal with whatever obstacles we encounter
(whether we're talking about minefields, water obstacles, hordes of refugees blocking our MSR, guerilla insurgents aided and abetted by non-combatant villagers ... )
As an aside, when we first adopted the "continental staff system" (i.e. G1, G2, etc.) CIMIC was G5.
Thus, at one point in time, it was recognised that CIMIC was important enough to be part of "The Original Five" (hmmm ... ya don't suppose the "continentals" were particularly attuned to this, having firsthand experience with the effects upon their civilian populations during the First and Second World Wars ...?)
However, as with many symptoms of malaise with peacetime armies, lessons learned during war can sometimes become less pressing than ... things that seem more important ...
So, rather then allow military operations to become bogged down in complex civil-military environments, CIMIC has been resurrected as an "overlooked" capability (I say "overlooked", simply because here in Canada it fell by the wayside - for a while, we had an "ad hoc" approach to CIMIC - personnel selected were often those who commanders deemed incompetent to trust with "vital" appointments ... i.e. "We'll keep stupid Fatso Bloggins away from the troops by putting him in CIMIC" ... which perhaps wasn't the best approach ...)
Now, recognising that reservists sometimes have a civilian skillset not normally found in the military, our Army has given CIMIC to the Reserves in order to get "twice the bang for the buck". Also, by clearly identifying CIMIC personnel and providing them with proper training well in advance of operations, it's a more professional approach.
While I'm on my soapbox, I'll dispell one myth: CIMIC should not NORMALLY perform humantarian assistance tasks - that's the purview of the civilian organisations (e.g. CARE, MSF, Red Cross) - however, in a hostile environment where the civlians can't operate, military commanders can sometimes become obliged to conduct humantarian relief activities (for example, UNHCR ceased operations in Afghanistan at one point, when one of their workers was assassinated). However, this is a topic that should be discussed at length ... but I won't bore all of you more than I already have ... chuckle!
Finally, I'd suggest CIMIC contributes to "situational awareness" in several ways - they get out there and talk ot the civilian population, sometimes hearing things that might otherwise be overlooked ...
And, in the context of arming our own troops with all the ammunition they need to win, CIMIC can also provide information to avoid making mistakes which then blow up in our faces (e.g. under the heading of "smooth move, Ex Lax" - some dunce thought it was a bright idea to name the operation in Iraq "Crusade" ... as opposed to being wary of doing something that would only inflame, and unite the ENTIRE population against the "infidel invaders" ...)
Sum up?
CIMIC is not anything new - if anything, it's a "forgotten art" and an example of "the indirect approach" to winning wars.
"pbi" nailed it on the head in his post, and I thank him profusely for doing so:
pbi said:
Although I don't always agree with everything he has said and written, I believe MGen(retd) MacKenze is largely correct here. We should concentrate on soldiering, and do humanitarian stuff only when there is no other option. I do not quarrel with us facilitating GOs/IOs/NGOs to give humanitarian support--I quarrel with us doing it ourselves.
However, I believe very strongly that leaders in any operation need to have an excellent understanding of the political and cultural situation, and thus of the consequences of their actions. I am not sure that he himself fully understood Yugoslavia before he went there, although he probably had a pretty good idea by the time he left.
Cheers.
P.S. (this is funny - in a display of "converging attacks", pbi posted while I was typing my verbose reply ... chuckle!)