Today, the Combined Arms Center’s Inter Agency Symposium is taking place. The purpose of the gathering is admirable and ambitious:
It has become apparent that success in Twenty-first Century Warfare requires a “whole of government” or unified approach. The nation must utilize all elements of National Power to ensure victory in this era of persistent conflict. Over the next two days, members from across our government will meet to discuss these issues. It promises to be an insightful and spirited debate which will create a clearer picture for the way ahead as we conduct complex stability and support operations.
The symposium is being liveblogged and yesterday they solicited questions through the internet for the panel to answer. Able to see an opportunity when presented to me on a silver platter, I submitted the following question:
Following the notion of a “whole of government” approach, what role does the provision of health services play in ensuring victory in future conflicts?
Very kindly, panelist Dr. Stephen Redd, Naval Officer and Director of Pandemic Influenza Surveillance Unit, responded:
Providing healthcare is very important in all operations including stability operations. By caring for the health of the populance, a government shows it is responsive to the basic needs of its people. In addition, the provision of healthcare gives people confidence in their government. Most stability operations take place in states that are weak or failing. One definition of a failing state is its inability to provide for the needs of its people. Hence, by providing healthcare, a state begins to strengthen and demonstrate its ability to reverse some of the trends that led it to become a weak or failed state in the first place.
Dr. Redd’s response is excellent and demonstrates a firm understanding of the dynamics between health services and political stability. I agree whole heartedly. To win hearts and minds, governments must prove themselves as legitimate institutions. The provision of health services is a key opportunity to gain that legitimacy in a value-added, cost-effective manner. Hopefully, through more discussions like the CAC’s IA symposium, health services will take a more prominent role in future stability operations.
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending a talk given by Colonel Peter Mansoor. Col. Mansoor is a member of Petreus’ inner circle and has been influential in the development of the US Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine. Mansoor is also an architect of the surge strategy in Iraq and recently published Baghdad at Sunrise: A Brigade Commander’s War in Iraq, an analysis of counterinsurgency in Iraq from a mid-level officer.
During the questions and answer section I asked the Colonel what was the role of providing health and social services in modern counterinsurgency doctrine. He took the (very reasonable) position that the primary concern of civilian populations is security. That is, without security, nothing else matters. However, once a certain level of security has been established, the population looks for the provision of services (including health services). In this ’second stage’, of counterinsurgency the provision of health services plays a major role in winning hearts and minds. Mansoor’s position is that Iraq was just barely in this second stage.
I agree with Mansoor, but believe the effect is more nuanced. The two stages (security and services) are not firmly separated. Rather, as the population gradually feels less security needs, people begin to look for the provision of services.
