Dispersion of Troops: Is the Army too Risk Adverse?

The Atlantic has been running some great pieces lately. The most recent discusses the continued problems in Afghanistan and the dispersion of troops - or lack thereof - throughout the country. To summarize the problem:

Large numbers of U.S. and NATO troops are now heavily concentrated in Kabul, Kandahar, and other major cities. Thousands of U.S. personnel are stationed at Bagram Air Force Base, for instance, which is complete with Burger King, Dairy Queen, and a shopping center, but is hundreds of miles from the heart of the insurgency. Meanwhile, the military’s contact with villagers in remote areas where the Taliban operate is rare, typically brief, and almost always limited to daylight hours.

The article goes on to recommend that the U.S. and NATO build compounds throughout the problematic districts of the country and emplace small numbers of troops there. The tactic of dispersing forces through out the host country allows Soldiers to get to know the culture better so that they can work within - not against - it, gain better intel from interactions with the people, and most importantly, provide security for the people. As the article points out, the people are not predisposed towards the Taliban, but they will not assist America at the risk of having a family member killed or losing their livelihood. This is 101 level COIN tactics and it begs the question, when any historical or theoretical work on COIN would list dispersing the troops to live among the population as a key part to fighting an insurgency, why has the U.S. not adopted this approach?

There are probably many reasonable answers to this question. Dispersion would be logistically difficult, there are a troops from a variety of different countries and they all do not agree on the appropriate steps to take in this situation, the list goes on. But I would argue that the most important contributing factor to the reticence for a widespread dispersion of troops is that the Army has become too risk adverse and is unwilling to take the risks that may be necessary for success in an insurgency.

I was not in the Army in the 1990's so I have little experience with the pre-9/11 Army (for that matter, I have little experience with the post-9/11 Army) but from what I have read and been told, the Army became highly risk adverse in the 1990's, especially after the Somalia debacle. Combined with the success of the first Gulf War, in which few lives were lost, and the Powell Doctrine which sought to continue in that mold, the Army began to increasingly deny it's ability to face risky situations.

For example, look at the historical measures of success in combat: During World Wars I and II, one of the most important measures of success was defined in land gained. With this goal as the backdrop, Soldiers and their leaders went into combat with the knowledge that some, even many of them, depending on the campaign, would not return. There were a variety of measures of success in Vietnam, and the criticism thereof could be another post, but one thing remains the same, there existed the knowledge that Soldiers would be killed. But how do many of today's leaders, especially at the company level and below define mission success? For many, it is returning from deployment without any WIA or KIA. A valid goal, no doubt, but will that goal produce success in an insurgency?

Upon this (oversimplified) background, the Army finds itself facing an insurgency. There are many paradoxes in fighting an insurgency, one of them being that you must face great short term risks in order to pursue long terms gains. Living in a super-FOB with an McDonald's within walking distance will prevent American Soldiers from getting killed. But at what cost? In the long term, will the risk adverse mindset result in a net loss if the situation in Afghanistan steadily grows worse, if combat operations are required for years? Ultimately, it may be better to accept the short terms risks, and better disperse troops throughout Afghanistan, than to continue in a half-hearted - but safer - solution that will only leave the Army facing the same problems for the foreseeable future.