Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I like to think our counterinsurgency reading list is pretty good, too, but this one, from the U.S. Army War College, is really comprehensive. (Thanks, Ross.)
He's back!
Yep! It's especially important never to read anything written before 1998, unless the author is either (a) Che Guevara or (b) David Galula.
Aside from these properly-screened exceptions, all historical events are thoroughly discussed and explained in the authorized secondary literature. Primary sources, which are often misleading and incorrect, must be consulted only by trained specialists. Our records do not show you have the required certification for this access.
Further attempts to evade this restriction will result in a mark on your file and may result in personal liability under rule 27B/6. Thank you for your interest in reality. To continue, please click the button labeled "Cancel." Also, the Computer wishes to remind you that you have diversity class at 4:30 and are expected at the anti-carbon rally at 7. Please ensure that you comply with these important commitments as we come together to create change.
irregular warfare doesn't exist in a vacuum. perhaps a reading list that leads to historical victory on the battlefield (ie.. setting the conditions for success) is in order so that our modern leaders of the military don't assume that we will always be in a "long war". like most global warming scientist.. COIN scientists are missing the forest for the trees and being willfully blind to old fashioned warfare. can you imagine if we could name our real enemies? dehumanize them (krauts and japs) (this is rooted in the Clausewitzian trinity of nationalism)? mobilize against our enemies as an industrial war.. instead of this neutered 10 division rotation? imagine if we could put 10% of the US population in the middle east to attack and kill our real enemies... call me when our nation is serious about victory.
irregular warfare doesn't exist in a vacuum. perhaps a reading list that leads to historical victory on the battlefield (ie.. setting the conditions for success) is in order so that our modern leaders of the military don't assume that we will always be in a "long war". like most global warming scientist.. COIN scientists are missing the forest for the trees and being willfully blind to old fashioned warfare. can you imagine if we could name our real enemies? dehumanize them (krauts and japs) (this is rooted in the Clausewitzian trinity of nationalism)? mobilize against our enemies as an industrial war.. instead of this neutered 10 division rotation? imagine if we could put 10% of the US population in the middle east to attack and kill our real enemies... call me when our nation is serious about victory.
Now thats a vision: 26 million yanks scourging the Middle East. Yikes.
Hope to hear some on the troop increase. And were you serious about the US going into Yemen, Abu?
I prefer reading this blog than ever commenting, as I always worry about becoming one of ‘them’. But as an aspiring officer in the British Army and someone studying History, I can’t stand by as ‘Major Scarlet’ blithely touches Clausewitz in the bathing suit area to gratify his dumbass opinions.
Clausewitz wrote that war consisted of interplay between violence-hatred, luck or chance, and politics. That is his ‘trinity’. It isn’t a goal to be achieved; the three factors are what make up the ‘physiology’ of war (kudos to Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret for picking such an apt word).
This is the ‘nature’ of war and that never changes. In this regard, your right to say COIN should be viewed through the long arc of history; and I can’t think of a ‘COINdinista’ who hasn’t done this. A recent example is ‘Chain of Command’ by Mark Moyar, who uses historical case studies to argue counterinsurgency is ‘leader-centric’ rather than ‘population-centric’. But the ‘character’ of war is how its nature manifests itself in a particular time. Inter-state industrial warfare of the 20th Century is obsolete (I say, cautiously).
Modern warfare manifests itself in four ways:
1. The globalization of threats and the paradoxical ‘localization’ of diplomacy and force. Unparalleled movement in finance, people and technology means these local or regional disputes are globalized. A fluid capital system finances them; technology and migration sustains them; hostile powers or terrorist groups direct them; a global media projects them worldwide – and the actual and propaganda effects have international repercussions. But paradoxically, the solution to these conflicts remains local.
2. This shift in geopolitics has led to a change in the character of warfare, which makes civilians the objective and so the battlefield for combatants. As Sir Rupert Smith has written, ‘the strategic objective is to capture the will of the people…and thereby win the trial of strength’.
3. The inadequacy of government and military institutions to understand this new paradigm in fighting, especially after September 11th 2001. Governments, which are at the apex of the political-military apparatus, have to not only mobilize the state and its resources fully but also reorganize them to counter globalized threats. As the solution to globalized threats is in solving local disputes, however, the government has to also shift its military from hi-tech conventional forces to emphasizing ‘boots on the ground’. But localized solutions also mean that conflicts will be lengthy because force is used for long-term aims.
4. As a consequence of this, you have an inability by politicians and the media to grasp the terrifying new century they found themselves masters in but unqualified to be masters of. Follow the three strands above, and they lead to the full mobilization and reorganization of the state and its military resources – for a war that doesn’t affect the daily lives of its people. Thus the changed character of warfare impacts on the perception and public understanding of modern conflicts, and subsequently its treatment by politicians and the media. So you can argue that because of the strands above, or in spite of them, the elites of both continue to define wars in outdated terms. If a group is in favour of an intervention the mission is given ‘hard’ objectives and the lengthy commitment justified by arguing the barbarians are at the gates and not on distant, expanding frontiers. Alternatively, opponents talk international law and humanitarian ideas agreed to in a totally different era. Both sides use 20th Century history to give weight to their arguments.
By using antiquated examples and saying Western population need to get ‘serious’ about victory, it seems like you’re familiar with the History Channel rather than the character of modern warfare.
AHE
(This post was written in a caffeine-induced haze after an all-nighter in anticipation of a tough seminar, so apologies for its OTT quality…)
I prefer reading this blog than ever commenting, as I always worry about becoming one of ‘them’. But as an aspiring officer in the British Army and someone studying History, I can’t stand by as ‘Major Scarlet’ blithely touches Clausewitz in the bathing suit area to gratify his dumbass opinions.
Clausewitz wrote that war consisted of interplay between violence-hatred, luck or chance, and politics. That is his ‘trinity’. It isn’t a goal to be achieved; the three factors are what make up the ‘physiology’ of war (kudos to Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret for picking such an apt word).
This is the ‘nature’ of war and that never changes. In this regard, your right to say COIN should be viewed through the long arc of history; and I can’t think of a ‘COINdinista’ who hasn’t done this. A recent example is ‘Chain of Command’ by Mark Moyar, who uses historical case studies to argue counterinsurgency is ‘leader-centric’ rather than ‘population-centric’. But the ‘character’ of war is how its nature manifests itself in a particular time. Inter-state industrial warfare of the 20th Century is obsolete (I say, cautiously).
Modern warfare manifests itself in four ways:
1. The globalization of threats and the paradoxical ‘localization’ of diplomacy and force. Unparalleled movement in finance, people and technology means these local or regional disputes are globalized. A fluid capital system finances them; technology and migration sustains them; hostile powers or terrorist groups direct them; a global media projects them worldwide – and the actual and propaganda effects have international repercussions. But paradoxically, the solution to these conflicts remains local.
2. This shift in geopolitics has led to a change in the character of warfare, which makes civilians the objective and so the battlefield for combatants. As Sir Rupert Smith has written, ‘the strategic objective is to capture the will of the people…and thereby win the trial of strength’.
3. The inadequacy of government and military institutions to understand this new paradigm in fighting, especially after September 11th 2001. Governments, which are at the apex of the political-military apparatus, have to not only mobilize the state and its resources fully but also reorganize them to counter globalized threats. As the solution to globalized threats is in solving local disputes, however, the government has to also shift its military from hi-tech conventional forces to emphasizing ‘boots on the ground’. But localized solutions also mean that conflicts will be lengthy because force is used for long-term aims.
4. As a consequence of this, you have an inability by politicians and the media to grasp the terrifying new century they found themselves masters in but unqualified to be masters of. Follow the three strands above, and they lead to the full mobilization and reorganization of the state and its military resources – for a war that doesn’t affect the daily lives of its people. Thus the changed character of warfare impacts on the perception and public understanding of modern conflicts, and subsequently its treatment by politicians and the media. So you can argue that because of the strands above, or in spite of them, the elites of both continue to define wars in outdated terms. If a group is in favour of an intervention the mission is given ‘hard’ objectives and the lengthy commitment justified by arguing the barbarians are at the gates and not on distant, expanding frontiers. Alternatively, opponents talk international law and humanitarian ideas agreed to in a totally different era. Both sides use 20th Century history to give weight to their arguments.
By using antiquated examples and saying Western population need to get ‘serious’ about victory, it seems like you’re familiar with the History Channel rather than the character of modern warfare.
AHE
(This post was written in a caffeine-induced haze after an all-nighter in anticipation of a tough seminar, so apologies for its OTT quality…)
Somehow, after the President's speech tonight, I see AM looking something like this as he stares at his laptop and tries not to fire off something witty in response on this "blog"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtoJBv-YHUo
Must... not....blog....Must....not....
@AaronHughEllis I'm always skeptical of people who make the general claim that "X is a new kind of Y", but you're very persuasive. I hope more generals and politicians are at least being exposed to the ideas you're discussing.
Aaron.. you are spewing Martin van Creveld generational war nonsense. there is no such animal as "modern" warfare. it's warfare. you rattled off a bunch of changes that have occurred in modern times and then offered no solution as to how to leverage this in a successful way towards a goal.. and then belittled a very valid point that our leaders aren't taking victory seriously. am i supposed to take you seriously? i think not. you are exhibit A of what is wrong with the decisions being made. btw.. you misrepresented my view of Clausewitz. in fact you took my point completely out of context.
I think your entire post can be summed up as a COIN believer reacting very poorly to someone that dares speak out against it. That's ok. I've had these discussions when I was in Iraq, in the Command and General Staff School at Leavenworth, at Red Team University (University of Foreign Military and Culture Studies), and in many of the online professional forums inside our US Army learning networks. the reaction is almost always the same. how dare you not be a "root causer". Heresy. If you think that actually naming your enemies and killing them is a bad idea.. you probably need to go back and re-read Clausewitz.. I also suggest you thoroughly read Machiavelli. If you want to understand my point about Clausewitz.. try reading Xenophon's "Anabasis".
otherwise, if you choose to respond again.. have a point.
Aaron,
Congratulations! In fact, you are already one of them. (It will certainly not be bad for your career.) In addition to Major Scarlet's suggestions, I recommend C.E. Callwell, Roger Trinquier, and Caesar. That is, unless you would prefer to remain one of them. (Which would certainly be better for your career.)
Um, Caesar? It strikes me that in a governing culture in which every little Etonian had to read Caesar before he could play the Wall Game, or whatever, no one could possibly have thought of anything quite so dumb as PC-COIN. If you can read Caesar without understanding the true Zen of PI-COIN, your optic nerve is simply not connected to your forebrain. Nonetheless, examples of the PC-COIN mentality are indeed found in the Roman period - albeit at a somewhat later date...
Lol, the roman argument! Humanism equals weakness! The only way to a mans heart and mind is with an axe!
May I offer http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_m... as an antidote? Also, TOm RIcks points out that the kill ratio in Afghan has gone from 6:1 to 1:1 in one year. Quite harsh numbers...
Fnord.. just so we are all on the same sheet of music.. COIN is a subset of warfare but it isn't grand strategy. it's a method of controlling situations AFTER you have achieved your objectives.
as i've stated.. the PC movement is a direct attack on the clausewitzian trinity. removing the ability of a society to judge another race, religion.. etc as an enemy retards your society and empowers an enemy that sees you as the "great satan", japs, or krauts. i've trained with countries of many nations. the europeans are fond of the word "simplistic" however they can't handle a tiny situation like yugoslavia. the africans are very anti-american but when i asked them "what would you do if your country had our power and responsibility?" the silence was almost always followed by "well, i wouldn't do what you do". sure. perspective is a bitch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Walt beside.. if you are going to account on Berkley graduates for your world view.. don't be surprised when people point at you and laugh.
Major Scarlet,
Are your views not a bit in line with Gian Gentile? At least with regards to COIN not working. Would you say you agree with Mr. Gentile on a number of issues relating to COIN? If so, then please keep reading...
You said: "if you are going to account on Berkley graduates for your world view.. don't be surprised when people point at you and laugh."
Wasn't Gian Gentile a Berkeley ROTC graduate?
Note: My previous comment was not designed in any way to rag on Mr. Gentile, who I respect quite a bit. It was designed to point out how stupid of a comment Major Scarlet made.
Deus Ex..
Gian is a statistical outlier and not a typical UC Berkley Grad. There is a world of difference between ROTC participants and regular Berkley students. However, point taken that there can be shining lights from that school.
Let me be clear.. i believe in COIN. it has a purpose. however.. it is not the be all to end all. IMO, there is an inverted relationship between properly planned and executed grand strategy and COIN. if you do the former right.. like WWII, there is a smaller need for COIN. Example, one of the COIN fundamentals is to not allow the enemy to have an "unassailable base of operations". So what have our leaders allowed since WWII for our enemies? Unassailable bases of operations in Laos, Cambodia, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.. the list goes on. This ties in to my earlier comment about industrial war... something the Lieutenant seems to be ignorant of... we simply don't have a proper number of forces to fight the fight we need to. COIN is a stop gap measure for cowardly leaders afraid to increase troop strength, afraid to say harsh words against a different culture or religion, and to tap in to the national will (part of the trinity). President Wilson was elected as a peace president but he cunningly motivated the national will to enter WWI.
War has fundamental laws that have dated back thousands of years. Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Musashi, Machiavelli, and Jomini address the classical cognitive reasons behind human's desire for war. Nothing has changed inside the human brain. The technology behind today's transnational organizations is immaterial. Historically, there have always been technological advances and transnational actors. That's war. Anyone that thinks war has changed should be viewed with suspicion.
that being said.. who are our enemies? is it "terror" as george bush named it? "terror" doesn't have an address. the saudi princes and financiers do. the mullahs in iran do. bashar in syria does. why are people that are clearly our enemy still alive? Simple, because we aren't serious about victory.
Xenophon said "should any man try to confuse us with clever talk or with vague ideas of appeasement, we will declare him too stupid and cowardly to be on our side and we will drive him away". He understood that the Persians were his enemy and that without naming them so.. he was not going to make it back to Athens alive.
Philip Bobbit might say that the nation-state is dead.
And that strategy, etc, must now flow from the new paradigm, to wit: the market-state.
Does Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Guevera, Galula, Creveld, Callwell, Trinquier, Ceasar and/or Gentile still work -- if the paradigm has, indeed, changed?
oh.. you want to make it personal.. mkay.. how about this.. this guy wants to quote from a Berkley grad that is also a Harvard professor. you want to play cute and not recognize the difference. if context doesn't matter to you then don't try to take the high ground and call someone stupid. it only makes you look stupid.
M. Scarlet: "removing the ability of a society to judge another race, religion.. etc as an enemy retards your society"
Some of us would say refines" instead of "retards"". If youre fcking bloody stupid and you just want a go at the folks opposing you, then I agree with your assessment. But in the grand scale of thingsa, a hippy approach combined with a firm hand wins you lots more cred among muslims in general. They have this honour codex, a lot of them.....
And since the fact is that a lot of our forces are deeply embedded, I think thats a relevant point.
Major Scarlet will tediously argue anything. He insists on having the last word every time. Use your time wisely.
Fnord.. you are historically ignorant and probably a graduate of the comprachico schools that inhabit the western world. the hippies that created the global warming lie? the hippies that call themselves progressive but promote regressive policies? the hippies that want to sing kumbaya with an enemy that will slit their throats. i'm sorry. but that is something i call "pathological idealism". typically, liberal internationalist are infected with it. strategic realist ignore them and for good reason. go worship at the alter of chamberlain.. i prefer churchill.
As Gentile has noted, "counterinsurgency is embeded in Empire," and, thus, we must also fill our bookshelves with readings relating to the context in which counterinsurgency takes place, such as: "the history of the British Empire in the latter half of the 19th Century."
Visitor,
Is that you fabby? LOL. loser.
MS: "Fnord.. you are historically ignorant and probably a graduate of the comprachico schools "
How much time have you spent among muslims? You seeeem unable to shift your perspective, sir. And thats a basic skill, sir.
I rest my case.
Dr Dre: http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en-GB&q=snoop&sourceid=navclien...
@Major Scarlet at 8:10pm
No.
I read this site and others to learn something new. The links are the value for me.
Fnord,
You did follow that last Roman Empire link of mine, didn't you? In case you didn't, here it is again. Not a long read.
But here, I'll excerpt some of the greatest hits. Fnordius Prudentius, from Against Symmachus 2:
Shall I tell you, Roman, what cause it was that so exalted your labours, what it was that nursed your glory to such a height of fame that it has put rein and bridle on the world? God, wishing to bring into partnership peoples of different speech and realms of discordant manners, determined that all the civilised world should be harnessed to one ruling power and bear gentle bonds in harmony under the yoke, so that love of their religion should hold men’s hearts in union; for no bond is made that is worthy of Christ unless unity of spirit leagues together the nations it associates. Only concord knows God; it alone worships the beneficent Father aright in peace. The untroubled harmony of human union wins his favour for the world; by division it drives Him away, with cruel warfare it makes Him wroth; it satisfies Him with the offering of peace and holds Him fast with quietness and brotherly love.
Sound familiar? Here's some more Fnordius Prudentius:
Let those who din into my ears once more the story of past disasters and ancient sorrows observe that in your time I suffer such things no longer. No barbarian foe shatters my bars with his spear, nor with strange arms and dress and hair goes roving through my captured city, carrying off my young men to bondage across the Alps.
Stardate: 403 AD. Yet more scientific evidence for the miraculous powers of Christian counterinsurgency!
do not feed the trolls
Fnord,
You obviously missed my listing of my schools and experience.. feel free to go back and read the comments.
amazingly.. i'm being attacked for my opinion without a single ounce of anything i would considered intellectual debate. what i've seen so far is a complete silence on anything i've said that is right, misquoting or misinterpreting, or ad-hom attacks from "visitor" (who obviously has a history with me) and Ex. i'm not learning anything from the debate except a complete denial of the COIN folks, the Creveld types, and the ignorant people like Fnord. Seriously.
can anyone rebut my points without strawmen or ad hom?
The reason for the emphasis on COIN today, and the reason for its current popularity, is that this approach (COIN), along with other methods (for example: humanitarian assistance; whole-of-government approach) will, hopefully, allow us to do "Empire" (transform other societies to meet our needs) in a more softer, gentler and more subtle way.
This (the need for a more subtle, more humane approach to doing Empire) is the reason why the other, more straightforward, harsher "old school" methods of doing "Empire" (such as those that were used in the latter half of the 19th Century) are not being favorably considered today.
Menicus,
what a wonderful link.. i hope Ex reads it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89324/
here is a collection of links that outline the failure of our leaders to speak of victory. since when is seriousness about victory a bad thing?
@Fnord,
Hippy + firm hand yields very positive results....
Maybe in Scandinavia, Fnord. Don't try that shit when they are in situ unless you are prepared to kill to back it up. Be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Not very Hippy.
Re: The "Speech"..
Well, nice speech. Let's hope he means it. Any Bush haters notice leaders change, interests and hence policies don't? Think we could grow up now, in time for the next Repub POTUS in 2013?
That may require some real effort on your part, since it may well be the Moose Hunting MILF.
From what I’ve read, ‘Major Scarlet’ has been presented with intelligent arguments but he dismisses them as wishy-washy ‘PC’ crap and essentially advocates wholesale mass killing. It’s okay, though, as here’s a list of ancient military theorists who did it. Oh, and Churchill rocks!
Although your arguments rest on history, namedropping past figures and making dumbass analogies isn’t demonstrating knowledge of history. It’s basically mental masturbation, using a specious reading of the past to gratify existing prejudices.
There is the nature of war, which is its fundamentals, and its character, which is its historical expression. Accepting the distinction isn’t ‘political correctness gone mad!’ War manifests itself differently today than it did in the mid-20th Century, as how it manifested then was different to the time of Caesar and Pompey. If you understand history, this is plain and uncontroversial. But what is unclear is the belief that by aping wars from a past era we will win current ones. We won’t win in Afghanistan by carpet-bombing cities and fighting tank battles with the Taliban, as the manoeuvres of the Polish cavalry had no impact against the German panzer divisions. ‘De-humanizing’ our enemies won’t lead to success; they weren’t even the basis of success in the Second World War. The Allies weren’t winning until 1942/3, and it wasn’t because we suddenly started calling the Germans ‘krauts’. If you think it was, then would you go back to school, please?
It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction in the ‘war-fighting’ of ‘Major Scarlet’. You say regardless of technology, war never changes. Xenophon knew his enemy and his address; we know the addresses of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, so let’s go stick it to them. If we invade these countries, what then? When we kill some shady Saudi bankers or a bunch of decrepit ayatollahs, what then? Of course, if we do it ‘right’, then there is no ‘what then?’ because the country will have learnt its lesson and we can go home. But the underlying assumption is that overwhelming American military technology means that these wars will be quick and victory certain. The war in Iraq shows that this argument is false, because the fundamentals of war never change. It is the interplay between violence and hatred, luck and chance, and politics. The storm of violence and hatred, chance and politics we’ll summon by ‘de-humanizing’ the populations of the Middle East will be terrible. Short of nuking the area, then to paraphrase General McMaster: American technological superiority ain’t count for shit.
Clausewitz wrote the most important task for any commander is to understand the conflict you’re engaged in – how it is and not how it ought to be (echoing Machiavelli in ‘The Prince’ there…) ‘Major Scarlet’ understands neither the ‘War on Terror’ nor the wars of the past he tries to ape. You say politicians and the public don't take victory seriously; you don't talk about war seriously.
I don’t need to namedrop endlessly to back up my arguments, but I can provide a substantial reading list to help you grasp things a litter better…
We won’t win in Afghanistan by carpet-bombing cities and fighting tank battles with the Taliban, as the manoeuvres of the Polish cavalry had no impact against the German panzer divisions. ‘De-humanizing’ our enemies won’t lead to success; they weren’t even the basis of success in the Second World War. The Allies weren’t winning until 1942/3, and it wasn’t because we suddenly started calling the Germans ‘krauts’. If you think it was, then would you go back to school, please?
You know, Aaron, normally I do my manful best to refute material of this kind. But I'm just going to have to resign from this conversation. I really, genuinely, am not sure whether I'm arguing with an academic or a schizophrenic. Wherever it is you're coming from, it is so distant from my reality that no actual communication is conceivable. Good luck with that.
Suffice to say that some of us are less concerned with the size of our reading lists, than with their quality. After all, both academics and schizophrenics can turn out quite a volume of prose! For an accurate American primary-source history of World War II and the early Cold War which correctly presents the broad political context of the time, I recommend General Wedemeyer's memoir, Wedemeyer Reports!. General Wedemeyer's bullets do not go around corners, but he is a straight shooter.
Moldbug, on the internet, they call that "getting PWN3D." So good luck with that.
Aaron.. that is twice you have put words in my mouth. i've never advocated "wholesale killing".. never. stop being a twit and learn how to read.
amazingly.. this is twice that you claim to disagree with me yet unknowingly produce information in your rebuttals that support what i'm talking about. Would Clausewitz ever go in to battle with out a clearly defined enemy? You mentioned that clausewitz said you have to understand the war you are in.. we both agree.. yet you seem to somehow mentally disconnect. would clausewitz recommend ignoring sound tactics and strategy? i think not.. and yet our leaders continue to allow our enemy to have unassailable bases of operations in which to rearm and refit. i never said we had to invade any country. again.. you put words in my mouth. you are quite an arrogant and immature person as to assume you know what i'm thinking. perhaps instead of creating strawmen (very few times in my life have i seen anyone go to the length you did to construct a strawman, attack it, and do a victory dance all the while being as wrong as one can possibly be.. you should be ashamed).. you should ask for clarification of my points or recommendations.. that's what adults do. however, since you aren't doing that.. i'm left with the impression that you aren't at all concerned about a discussion of the facts but your own false and childish assumptions.
so aaron.. as i concluded before... if you want to have a chat on substance.. i'm game.. if you want to create strawmen and foam at the mouth about how a US Army Major, a graduate of the Command and General staff school, with 23 years experience, and having just returned from being a police trainer in Iraq doesn't understand warfighting.. well.. good luck with that. Besides, it is somewhat arrogant for a Brit to lecture anyone about warfighting and COIN after the mess you guys made in Basra.
Menicus,
good lord. no one thing wins a war and i never said it would. it is part of an effective system of warfare and part of the trinity. Nationalism is about survival of the nation. when nations lose a sense of their identity, they tend to crumble from within. Napoleon tapped in to this and used it to bring about his version of industrial warfare. See.. it isn't just one thing as you so obtusely pointed out.
you claim to be against PC COIN.. you brought that phrase up not me. so what is the difference between overly-humanizing people like the PC movement does and dehumanizing? why would you rail against PC but suddenly find being racist objectionable? is the middle ground between the two better and if so why? Information campaigns against other nations are a time honored part of warfare. it doesn't win a war and i never claimed it would.
based on your comment.. it isn't me that needs to go back to school.
as it stands, i've had 2 or 3 interlocutors who can't help but make strawmen out of my statements or wholly make stuff up that i never said. it would be nice to have a debate on the merits of one's points instead of having to defend against something i never said. however, i understand that i'm the heretic. i'm attacking your tactic that you are emotionally invested in and that is hard from you do deal with and understand.
Major,
I think you may have misinterpreted the first paragraph of my previous post as my own writing! It is Aaron's - I meant to put it in quotes. The rest is a response to him, not you. I've agreed with more or less everything you've said here.
Anyway, apropos of nothing, I found a wonderful link you can display to liberals every time they start flapping their lips about peace, love, and human kindness. Life Magazine, August 16, 1943.
I have no joke - I just like saying "United Nations' bomber fleets." Also, note the presence of Salzburg on the map. Take that, Mozart! And just further south - Venice! If Socony-Vacuum can just get the octane up to 140 or so, we might be able to get some of those "block-busting loads" on the Piazza San Marco. Which would really show those crafty Eyeties. They'll think again about voting for Il Duce!
Bear in mind: historically, in this period, the hard-line progressive New Dealers, eg at OWI, are those political actors most likely to be found with rhetorical blood dripping from their propaganda fangs. The conclusion is inescapable. They believe in nothing. They play hawk or dove as the wind turns - they are neither - the Devil alone is in them.
Gulliver, I worry that you've been reading my blog! If you have your own, just let me know - I'll schedule a booty call.
To understand you better, I’d be grateful if you answered these simple fundamentals:
• Who is our ‘enemy’?
• How do we ‘dehumanize’ them?
• How do you ‘mobilize’ again them?
• As warfare doesn’t exist in a vacuum, how do we ‘stick it’ to shady Saudi bankers and decrepit ayatollahs in Iran?
If I have created strawmen, it’s because I haven’t been able to understand what it is you’ve been arguing. By allegedly putting words in your mouth, others and I have simply tried to infer the logical end of your points given they seem to finish half-way through. I would respect your knowledge and experience if it were used to underpin and sustain your view. As it is, I haven’t seen any informed, articulate arguments that show an in-depth understanding of history; only a specious reading of the past to justify what seem fixed prejudices.
And on a separate point, I wholly agree Britain fucked-up in Basra. It was because our government failed to grasp the changed character of warfare, as well as population-centric counterinsurgency. My time has been taken up with writing a paper on how the Conservative Party will handle the war in Afghanistan if they win the general election next summer, but I worry the current Labour government will fuck that conflict up like they Iraq.
Mencius..
sorry.. i guess i did mistake it. it happens.
Aaron..
Since you admittedly don't understand warfare.. perhaps you should'n't be try to debate it. of course in the sequence you posted my comments it supports your strawman.. but again.. it takes my point out of context. each question is a seperate issue.. not a logical flow towards a conclusion as your false assumption supposes. it is a cute trick trying to cover your previous response saying "From what I’ve read, ‘Major Scarlet’ has been presented with intelligent arguments but he dismisses them as wishy-washy ‘PC’ crap and essentially advocates wholesale mass killing." this is your strawman. do you need any more evidence? you are assuming my intentions.. putting words in my mouth.. and being a charlatan by trying to cover your methods. i never advocated "wholsale mass killing". your words.. not mine.
there are many ways to make your enemies obey you. the worst and most drastic of which is full scale war. influence.. isn't always about brute force. it is about getting your enemies to fall in line. however.. you have to set an example for your enemies to respect you. as the US has demonstrated since Vietnam.. and the Brits demonstrated in Basra.. we aren't serious about making people respect the awesome power we control.. we almost apologize for it.
i'm done responding to your neutered male comments about warfare. you are a fool.
Aaron..
btw.. you obviously didn't bother googling "red team university" aka the "university of foreign military and culture studies". i told you that i graduated from this school (honor grad). i'm a trained devils advocate. i'm going to challenge your assumptions and opinions. i'm testing you and you are failing. don't try to be sophist with me. it won't work.
You cannot attack me by saying I haven’t asked you to make clear your beliefs and then, when I do, attack me as ‘admittedly knowing nothing about warfare’. This reinforces my point earlier that you dismiss substantive counterarguments with ad hominem responses. I want a definition of who our enemies are. Above, you mentioned Saudi financiers, Bashar al-Assad and ‘the mullahs in Iran’. Okay then, how do we ‘mobilize’ again them? Explain what you mean by this, as well as ‘dehumanization’. I want to understand what you are talking about when you use these terms, as without providing specific definitions, their logical conclusions as policy are large-scale wars and wholesale killing.
Instead of giving definition to your own terms, you try an alternative tack on making your enemies ‘obey you’. ‘You have to set an example for your enemies to respect you.’ Okay then, explain what this actually means. I want to know how it will be operationalized into policy and as a military action. Please provide apt historical analogies and contrast those with how both the US and Britain failed to copy these example in Vietnam and Iraq respectively. As your whole argument is based on viewing things through the long arc of history, the onus is on you to furnish us with valid historical examples.
Perhaps unusually for someone English, I don’t care where you were educated. I think how the education manifests itself in the opinions it holds and the weight of facts sustaining them is more important. By my standard, you’re failing too.
please prove to me.. besides in your dream like imagination.. where you have ever ask me about any of my positions? do you not understand that people can read your comments here and see that you have done nothing but attack me with adhoms and strawmen? you are a bizzare person. of course you don't care about education.. that is the refuge of scoundrels and it proves to me that you are a moron and unworthy of debate.
i'm surprised you actually asked an intellectual question about how to make strategy effective.. although your phrasing was odd which confirms to me that you know little about strategy. enemies respect success and victory. if you knew anything about the history of victory and success... enemies are more reluctant to challenge you.. peers are more willing to bond with you. do you know why charles degual pulled out of NATO? he rightly concluded that JFK and Americans were weak because we gave up nuclear power in greece because of the cuban missile crisis. the russians could get their navy out of their ports to stop our blockade. instead of brandishing our obvious power.. we apologized for it and traded our nukes and strategic capabilities for our guilt. wait.. i got it.. you are going to say that history doesn't matter.. education doesn't mater.. nothing matters except your silly uneducated and ignorant opinions.
you brits let a man in a lion cloth ride you out of india. if hitler or stalin had confronted Gandhi.. he would be buried in an unmarked grave. don't read in to that. i'm not a fan of either. i'm just stating reality, something that you are detached from.
i'm amazed that many people here are fearful of what victory is and why you should start your war planning with victory. i guess it is normal to come to a page dedicated to COIN and be confronted with massive groupthink.
Not sure how a "Selected" bibliography can be "comprehensive". It's not meant to be, and isn't - by design.
?
But I think we missed our 9/12 chance.
(a 9/12 and Twelver movement I can really get behind).
AHE - since you keep bringing up the princely financiers and basically ask what to do about them: here it is. Kill them and their heirs and burn their houses down. We pay well for "Special" Operations Forces. Use them.
A stratergery for ye: 1) Identify the enemy as Takfiri.
2) Kill above financiers as above wherever ye shall find them.
3) Either detain indefinitely, deport, or otherwise "dispose of" ...ahem.. the 20,000 persons in the US and the 2,000 persons in the UK under surveillance for terrorism ties. This operation should NOT be conducted under the auspices of Civilian Law, but by the military with Law Enforcement assistance. Processing of prisoners done by Intel and Military, to include any tribunals. At least in the US. The UK wants to keep giving away Britain, that's your business. The military and Intel handle wars. Don't dirty the Police and the Courts with what is essentially having your way - in this case survival - by premeditated force and killing.
**OR**
4) If you don't like prop 3, here's an alternative.
Release the watch lists to the public. Since you can't/won't protect us, at least let us know who we need to fear. There's ample precedent for this, you can already pull the names and addresses, often faces of sex offenders off the web, as well as violent offenders in General. Face it, since even the ACLU is no longer going to involve themselves in at least the trials of the soon to be Famous Five headed to NYC -it's true -(their pulling out, they say they're job is done. Also allows the c*nts to walk away from the heat for their traitorous dirty work. Cowards and Traitors). Law Enforcement can no longer protect us at home. Quite the contrary, however they have to massage the Laws to keep them incarcerated will set precedents that destroy the entire American and Constitutional social contract as regards the rights of the accused. Hell, it practically will reverse Magna Carta. The NYC "5" decision also renders moot the point of "Overseas Contingency Operations". WTF for? So you can give them a show trial in NYC and retirement in the Caribbean?
So...in the finest traditions of America, especially when confronted with tribal warfare troubles on our, OUR Continent...let the people defend themselves.
5) Destroy through punitive means any state or region (to include parts of states) offering aid, comfort, support to our enemies. It's been stated as the Bush Doctrine. Now enforce it.
6) Lastly - in areas held by the enemy through terror, force, and intimidation and not by willing support - use COIN to offer them succor and security. It's also really great I.O, at least domestically.
7) Then after security is established - physical and educational, medical infrastructure aid and assistance is rendered. I would recommend you start at the local level and build, rather than top down. Top down keeps the money at the top, and it doesn't trickle down to the bottom.
hmm.. my apologizes for taking this thread off topic. here is my contribution to a COIN reading list. it isn't COIN specific but i think any COIN education is enhanced by a broader knowledge of theory, history, and culture..
http://www.amazon.com/33-Strategies-War-Robert-Greene/dp/0670034576
The 33 Strategies of War give a great historical background about what works and what doesn't when planning strategy.
http://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene/dp/0140280197/ref=ntt_...
The 48 Laws of Power will give you a great education in to how leaders have used, abused, and achieved power.
Robert Greene does a great job of selecting historical does and don't from a large cross section of cultures so you won't be just reading about dead white Europeans.
Here is another book I recommend. Mark Moyar's remarkable book, "Forsaken Triumph,"
review here... http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/02/vietnam-a-war-not-los...
for those of you that were critical of my opinions.. you'll see that Moyar reinforces what I'm talking about. Limited war is a farce.
Add your comment