BARRACKS AND STRATEGY
By Lt. Gen. Jaime S. de los Santos, AFP (Ret)
To enhance external defense capabilities, structural and institutional reforms are imperative. The military's mindset, which has been shaped by years of counterinsurgency operations, needs to evolve into a more enlightened version of the warrior spirit. This transformation requires challenging the prevailing status quo.
The primary focus of counterinsurgency operations is to win the hearts and minds of the people. It assumes that the root causes of insurgency are primarily social-political, often related to addressing poverty. This may explain why we have one of the longest-running insurgency problems in Asia. The military was assigned a mission that was incongruous with its mindset, training, fighting assets, and even its organizational structure. It was burdened with functions that should have been within the realm of civilian government functions. While the AFP does perform dual roles—security and development functions, the developmental aspect merely complements its security function. This disjointed approach emasculated the warrior mindset.
The AFP's parameters for measuring success in counterinsurgency operations were primarily based on body counts, firearms recovered, and the neutralization of barangays influenced or controlled by the CPP-NPA. These criteria, reminiscent of the US Army's approach in Vietnam, proved untenable when applied to unconventional warfare. Ironically, the United States lost the Vietnam War despite its far superior war-fighting machinery. The campaign failed to address the mission of winning the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, we have repeated these same mistakes as our doctrines have been largely influenced by the United States. Our approach to counterinsurgency is not something to be proud of.
It is from this mindset that shifting from an internal security focus to an external defense mission becomes a challenge in changing the status quo. For a considerable period, the AFP has been comfortable with the existing state of affairs. Maintaining the status quo preserves stability, while change can be disruptive and potentially harmful. However, disrupting the status quo also invites innovation and the development of new solutions.
This mindset is the most significant obstacle to adapting to a new order and change what is. There is a great need to reshape this mindset that has become deeply entrenched within the institutional infrastructure of the AFP. Fifty years of protracted insurgency have molded the soldiers' mindset, limiting their perspective and consideration of non-military factors. Consequently, the military culture that has evolved under these circumstances has dictated the decision-making processes and leadership styles of its officers and personnel. Challenging the status quo necessitates leaders who possess a broader range of capabilities.
To be successful in external defense and shift the focus away from internal defense means to change the AFP’s approach, because external defense operates under different parameters. Ongoing geopolitical changes and technological advancements have necessitated a new approach to warfare. The rapid pace of technological development renders many existing military infrastructures obsolete and irrelevant. Keeping up with this obsolescence and making necessary adjustments becomes increasingly challenging. Establishing external defense capabilities requires a new generation of military leaders who can navigate technological changes, analyze, and interpret complex problems, and, above all, possess a mindset that can adapt to the changes brought about by technology.
External defense encompasses more complex issues and longer-term objectives. Preparing for potential future conflicts that may never materialize serves as the underlying premise for external defense. It is crucial that the experience gained from years of counterinsurgency operations contributes minimally to the AFP's transition to external defense. Moreover, the complexities are further amplified by our relationships with allied partners such as the United States.
In their article, "Mindset for Managers," Paul Dainty and Moreen Anderson argue that a managerial mindset should encompass both breadth and focus. A focused mindset thrives when there is a clear direction, while breadth a broad outlook that is flexible and maintains a positive mental attitude. External defense requires a focused yet flexible mindset with a positive mental attitude. It is an initiative that should be pursued when the prevailing status quo is challenged. The proactive attitude of political leadership, as demonstrated by the commitment to modernization and the strengthening of alliances with the United States and other friendly nations, serves as a clear vision that can inspire the new generation of leaders to develop an enlightened military warrior spirit—one that is focused and guided by a clear vision. Significant efforts lie ahead, particularly in the areas of training and doctrine development. Future warfare will rely more on intellect than sheer strength. Consequently, the recruitment of military personnel will need to consider candidates with higher intelligence quotient and an aptitude for advanced training in computer technology. At higher levels of command, commanders must possess diplomatic acumen and expertise in international relations.
In essence, the distinction can be summarized as such: External defense requires a strategic mindset, whereas counterinsurgency operations predominantly prioritize tactical aspects.
(Lt. Gen. Jaime S. de los Santos served with distinction as a military professional, 42nd Commanding Gen. Philippine Army, 1st Force Commander, UN Multi-National Peacekeeping Force in East Timor, former member, UP Board of Regents and Professorial Lecturer II (part-time), UP-Diliman.)