Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Quote of the Week, Part II (Caucasus Edition)
This one comes via a Russian jihadist website:
Success in guerrilla warfare (the conduct of combat operations on territory occupied by the enemy) by the will of God largely depends on the help of the local population.
Успехи партизанской войны (ведение боевых действий на территории, оккупированной врагом), по воле Аллаха во многом зависят от помощи местного населения.
Note to the person who wrote this: blowing yourself up in the subways used by the local population is probably not the most effective way to gain their support. (Thanks, Dan.)
I have always appreciated
I have always appreciated this blog´s neutrality in all things asymetrical warfare. thumbs up :)
Hey news just in from AP -
Hey news just in from AP - its regarding the recent arrest of Militia groups. The quote got me thinking just how many insurgency groups currently operate within the borders of the USA, assisted and supported by local populations.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/extremists-spurred-by-black-president-201003...
Let's not forget that there are threats external, and threats internal.
Do the bombers consider the
Do the bombers consider the subway riders to be part of the local population? Or do they consider Chechens to be the local population? Similarly, do Palestinian suicide bombers consider Israelis to be part of the local population? Or do they consider other Palestinians to be the local population? If the bombers do not consider the people they are bombing to be part of the local population, then aren't they simply pursuing a strategy of coercion, one that probably corresponds pretty well with what Pape would and does argue (although contemporary Russia does not jibe well with his contention that the target of suicide bombers are all* democracies)?
I'm glad to see that Russian jihadists have their own "counter" FM 3-24, and that it too considers the people to be the prize.
ADTS
* At least, I looked at his 2003 APSR piece last night, and I think he makes that claim.
I think your point was
I think your point was already made by the Black Eyed Peas:
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK
ADTS
Just saw the video of the
Just saw the video of the chechen leader taking reposnsibility. He is talking to the -stans.
The term F**d seems to be banned from Cnas.. Why new nick
ADTS is correct, Chechens do
ADTS is correct, Chechens do not view the Russians as their countrymen, this was for a Caucasus audience. Russians, in the eyes of Chechens, are just a bunch of degenerates whose women are there for the taking.
Here are some
Here are some radicals.....egg bombers......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t7IHaHJamE&feature=player_embedded
There is a little hypocrisy when you're about feeding the world and only "good" thoughts. How many people would those eggs feed?
Do the bombers consider the
Do the bombers consider the subway riders to be part of the local population? Or do they consider Chechens to be the local population? Similarly, do Palestinian suicide bombers consider Israelis to be part of the local population? Or do they consider other Palestinians to be the local population? If the bombers do not consider the people they are bombing to be part of the local population, then aren't they simply pursuing a strategy of coercion
This is where Mackinlay would tell you that you're misunderstanding post-Maoist insurgency: the target of this sort of "propaganda of the deed" is the international community, the ethnic diaspora, the global media, etc etc, as well as the Russian population. This isn't an example of local insurgents working in a local population, but rather displaced terrorism as a tool of broader insurgency.
The quotation cited above is pretty clear, I think, and pretty clearly NOT referring to things like suicide bombings on Moscow trains.
Success in guerrilla warfare (the conduct of combat operations on territory occupied by the enemy) by the will of God largely depends on the help of the local population.
It's referring to Maoist insurgency, to "guerilla warfare." Combat operations on territory occupied by the enemy, not on the enemy's home territory.
Then, there's this gem to
Then, there's this gem to consider:
"President Dmitry Medvedev made a surprise visit Thursday to the violence-wracked southern province of Dagestan, telling police and security forces to use tougher, ''more cruel'' measures to fight the ''scum'' responsible for terrorist attacks."
It's almost like he's cribbing from McChrystal's speechwriter. Only...not.
Gulliver: 1) You're right -
Gulliver:
1) You're right - I didn't read closely or carefully enough.
2) I haven't read Mackinlay or much of anything on post-Maoist insurgency.
Cynic:
1) Yes, Medvedev, I would argue, would seem to come from the Kalyvas rather than FM 3-24 school of thought.
ADTS
1) Yes, Medvedev, I would
1) Yes, Medvedev, I would argue, would seem to come from the Kalyvas rather than FM 3-24 school of thought.
Whoa whoa whoa... let's be a little more rigorous in our assessments of exactly what Kalyvas shows and/or advocates, shall we? To be clear, it ain't that "cruelty" is always (or even usually) effective in COIN.
Gulliver: 1) I was, to a
Gulliver:
1) I was, to a large degree, trying to make a comment that could be construed as humorous and/or snarky. That said, two points:
2) Kalyvas is, to put it mildly, a sophisticated writer; "Logic" is a huge tome; he's also written papers based on, derived from, or related to "Logic;" and hence there are a lot of ways to interpret Kalyvas, just as there are a lot of ways to interpret Marx or the Bible (okay, I may be overreaching, but you get the idea).
3) As I related on this blog to Colonel Gentile, I had the privilege of meeting, and listening to, Professor Kalyvas. What stuck out in my mind was that someone asked him (early 2007) what advice he would give General Petraeus. Kalyvas said he explicitly chooses not to answer such questions, because his answer would be something like, "Instill fear."
4) Summary: In making what was largely intended to be a humorous comment (1), I may have misinterpreted or oversimplified a complex text and/or corpus of work (2), but based on personal experience I may not have misinterpreted what the author *really* *does* mean to convey (3).
ADTS
3) As I related on this blog
3) As I related on this blog to Colonel Gentile, I had the privilege of meeting, and listening to, Professor Kalyvas. What stuck out in my mind was that someone asked him (early 2007) what advice he would give General Petraeus. Kalyvas said he explicitly chooses not to answer such questions, because his answer would be something like, "Instill fear."
4) Summary: In making what was largely intended to be a humorous comment (1), I may have misinterpreted or oversimplified a complex text and/or corpus of work (2), but based on personal experience I may not have misinterpreted what the author *really* *does* mean to convey (3).
For me, this is sort of a matter of interpretation (or spin, if you will). Kalyvas may say that his advice would be something to the effect of "instill fear," and I would suggest that this fear is the correlation of the much-talked-about "protection of the population." To instill fear and to allay fear are often two sides of the same coin (seriously, I am NOT trying to be punny here. I hate COIN puns).
It's curious that Kalyvas would even suggest that he might offer that suggestion, plain as it seems (from Logic) that he completely understands the (often self-imposed) constraints placed on a state and an Army like the U.S.
Ugh. "Correlation," above,
Ugh. "Correlation," above, should obviously read "corrolary."
Gulliver: 1) Please take
Gulliver:
1) Please take pity on me, because I don't have my copy of the Bible (by which I mean "Logic") with me, and haven't read it for some time.
2) I have little doubt that Kalyvas understands the constraints placed on a state and an Army like the US. This was an off-the-cuff response to an arguably oddball question.
3) One could interpret Kalyvas's comment as not conforming to the hypothetical, i.e., if there were no constraints on the US and its Army (self-imposed or otherwise), here's what I would advise.
4) I think regarding your first paragraph, the guiding concepts are control, collaboration, and information. As long as one has control over population - and that may mean they fear you, or they trust you to protect them from others whatever (or despite) their actions - then they will collaborate. And if the population collaborates, (1) one has information with which to identify and act upon insurgents; (2) the information provides greater efficacy with which to create control, causing a positive feedback loop.
ADTS
ADTS -- Got you. We're on
ADTS -- Got you. We're on the same page here.
Gulliver: I think we are to
Gulliver:
I think we are to a large extent; I think we might not be to some extent. I think the question is whether Kalyvas considers the FM 3-24 route, or "the Medvedev route," to be the quicker way to gain control. It probably would behoove me/us to go back to Kalvyas's Perspectives on Politics review of FM 3-24.
ADTS
I guess I meant "we're on
I guess I meant "we're on the same page here" as "I understand you," and not "we have the same conclusion." But I'm not very good at English, apparently.
Gulliver: Some textual
Gulliver:
Some textual interpretation of the PoP review article.
Perhaps most telling for the "Instill fear" case: On Page 351 of that review, in the first full paragraph on the right-hand column, see "In contrast...Chechen insurgency)."
See also the reference to a "benevolent occupation" on page 352.
Text at note 7 supports what you wrote about understanding the constraints in a US COIN effort.
The suggestion to place emphasis on "greed" as opposed to "grievance" civil wars suggests, I would argue, a more Medvedvian approach.
ADTS
I opine that to receive the
I opine that to receive the home loans from banks you ought to have a good reason. Nevertheless, once I've got a short term loan, just because I wanted to buy a car.
I agree with your point,
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.1980 Buick Century AC Compressor
Add your comment