HTS has claimed that “they were reducing the need for “kinetic” (violent) operations that arose from “cultural misunderstandings” on the part of U.S. forces while simultaneously providing aid and services to local communities, helping to win “hearts and minds” and thus again reduce the need for lethal operations” (Forte, 149).
Pros:
¡While HTS emphasizes the importance of local engagement and is contrasted to the aggressive military strategy, it is not actually replacing military techniques (Gilmore, 2011, p.22). Rather the war fighting is included in the wider counterinsurgency approach and concealed by a human security agenda (p. 26).¡E.g. techniques employed in Iraq: FM 3-24 discussed a three phase ‘clear, hold, build approach’. Positives mentioned before about the build phase, is what proponents of HTS focus on. The first stage, ‘clear’, however, requires a commander to “remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance in an assigned area. The force does this by is by destroying, capturing or forcing the withdrawal of insurgent combatants (US Department of the Army, 2006: 5.19). ¡Logic of this, highlighted by US Government Counterinsurgency Guide is that in order to gain the support of the population, locals needs to see the removal of insurgent leaders who had previously intimidated them (Gilmore, 27). ¡This ignores the idea that insurgents might be gaining support voluntarily. Gilmore, 27¡Representing people as ‘terrain’ is significant. (Zehfuss, 177)¡According to Zehfuss, HTS is representing the ‘human dimension’ as a knowable, objective backdrop to military operations to be manipulated in pursuit of military objectives
- ¡Exercising tact, empathy and cross cultural dialogue will provide a more people centred focus (Gilmore, 26).
- ¡FM 3-24 is a counterinsurgency handbook that highlights that American notions of rationality, appropriate behavior, level of religious devotion, and norms concerning gender are not universal therefore there is a need for military personel to avoid imposing their ideas of normalcy on a foreign culutral population (Gonzalez, 2007)
- ¡HTS claims to be able to reduce the number of civilains killed.
- ¡The research provided to the commanders will enable them to consider the possible consequences of their decisions for the local populations (Zehfuss, 2012, 177).
- ¡USA has been criticised for its failure to consult regional experts before its invasion of Iraq, so HTS appears to be progressive (Zehfuss, 175).
- ¡Reducing structural violence through reconstruction and basic development programs
- ¡E.g. helping to restore basic services – such as rubbish collection, schools, provision of clean water and electricity.
¡While HTS emphasizes the importance of local engagement and is contrasted to the aggressive military strategy, it is not actually replacing military techniques (Gilmore, 2011, p.22). Rather the war fighting is included in the wider counterinsurgency approach and concealed by a human security agenda (p. 26).¡E.g. techniques employed in Iraq: FM 3-24 discussed a three phase ‘clear, hold, build approach’. Positives mentioned before about the build phase, is what proponents of HTS focus on. The first stage, ‘clear’, however, requires a commander to “remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance in an assigned area. The force does this by is by destroying, capturing or forcing the withdrawal of insurgent combatants (US Department of the Army, 2006: 5.19). ¡Logic of this, highlighted by US Government Counterinsurgency Guide is that in order to gain the support of the population, locals needs to see the removal of insurgent leaders who had previously intimidated them (Gilmore, 27). ¡This ignores the idea that insurgents might be gaining support voluntarily. Gilmore, 27¡Representing people as ‘terrain’ is significant. (Zehfuss, 177)¡According to Zehfuss, HTS is representing the ‘human dimension’ as a knowable, objective backdrop to military operations to be manipulated in pursuit of military objectives
