PDA

View Full Version : FM3-24 and FM90-8



skiguy
09-23-2007, 11:01 AM
I've read 3-24, I have not read 90-8 in it's entirety (if you suggest I do before I ask questions, then I will)
What's the difference between counterinsurgency and counterguerrilla? (please keep answers at a BA level. :eek:)

It appears 90-8 tells you that you must work with the civilians, but 3-24 takes it a step futher and tells you how. Is that accurate?
Are they being used together right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they compliment (can't hink of better word) each other or are there contradictions between the two doctrines?

SteveMetz
09-23-2007, 12:29 PM
I've read 3-24, I have not read 90-8 in it's entirety (if you suggest I do before I ask questions, then I will)
What's the difference between counterinsurgency and counterguerrilla? (please keep answers at a BA level. :eek:)

It appears 90-8 tells you that you must work with the civilians, but 3-24 takes it a step futher and tells you how. Is that accurate?
Are they being used together right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they compliment (can't hink of better word) each other or are there contradictions between the two doctrines?

Counterguerrilla operations are predominantly military. They may or may not be associated with counterinsurgency since guerrillas can be used in association with conventional war as well. Insurgency (at least from my perspective) is a strategy used by nonstate groups who cannot attain their objectives with a purely military strategy. They may or may not seek to seize control of the state themselves. Because they are militarily weaker than the state, they try and focus the conflict in the psychological and political realms rather than the military. Hence counterinsurgency takes place across battlespaces (military, political, psychological) were counterguerrilla operations are predominantly military.

selil
09-23-2007, 03:08 PM
Insurgency (at least from my perspective) is a strategy used by nonstate groups who cannot attain their objectives with a purely military strategy. They may or may not seek to seize control of the state themselves.


I would only add that insurgents are non-nation-state actors. They may self identify as patriot or citizen of a nation but are not acting on the behalf of a nation or state. Diplomatic legitimacy not being the same as political legitimacy.

SteveMetz
09-23-2007, 03:24 PM
I would only add that insurgents are non-nation-state actors. They may self identify as patriot or citizen of a nation but are not acting on the behalf of a nation or state. Diplomatic legitimacy not being the same as political legitimacy.

I'm not clear on the distinction between "non-nation-state actors" and the phrase "nonstate groups" which I used.

selil
09-23-2007, 05:05 PM
I'm not clear on the distinction between "non-nation-state actors" and the phrase "nonstate groups" which I used.

My thinking is that nation state, nonstate, non-nation-state, etc.. are over loaded terms. They have multiple meanings depending on context and use. In the current example an Iranian (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iran directly. The ideology of the "insurgent" might be religious. An Iraqi (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iraq directly. Once again the ideology or prime motivations aren't necessarily "state sponsored".

In the former example the "insurgent" from Iran can be fighting to "hurt" the United States. In the second example the "insurgent" can be fighting for national identity, religious, anti-imperialism, etc... There are non-state (not of any nation (Iranian insurgent), and non-nation-state (Iraqi motivated by internal strife). In either case the insurgent may not be representing a government, but one is likely foreign to the conflict.

I'll be honest I've been struggling with the concept and attempting to work this out in figuring the difference between an internal insurgent and a revolutionary. Thereby defining the difference between an insurgency and civil war. This begs the question if there is a difference what is it? Yes I know we've discussed this before but we haven't seen but a split in the opinions. Just to create even more issues I've seen the American revolution described as a guerrilla war fought partially as an insurgency.

SteveMetz
09-23-2007, 07:17 PM
My thinking is that nation state, nonstate, non-nation-state, etc.. are over loaded terms. They have multiple meanings depending on context and use. In the current example an Iranian (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iran directly. The ideology of the "insurgent" might be religious. An Iraqi (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iraq directly. Once again the ideology or prime motivations aren't necessarily "state sponsored".

In the former example the "insurgent" from Iran can be fighting to "hurt" the United States. In the second example the "insurgent" can be fighting for national identity, religious, anti-imperialism, etc... There are non-state (not of any nation (Iranian insurgent), and non-nation-state (Iraqi motivated by internal strife). In either case the insurgent may not be representing a government, but one is likely foreign to the conflict.

I'll be honest I've been struggling with the concept and attempting to work this out in figuring the difference between an internal insurgent and a revolutionary. Thereby defining the difference between an insurgency and civil war. This begs the question if there is a difference what is it? Yes I know we've discussed this before but we haven't seen but a split in the opinions. Just to create even more issues I've seen the American revolution described as a guerrilla war fought partially as an insurgency.

I've never understood trying to decide if something is an insurgency or a civil war. Apples and oranges. Insurgency is a strategy. It is sometimes used in a civil war. Some insurgencies take place within a civil war. Not all civil wars entail insurgency. I also don't think it makes sense to define something as "a" guerrilla war. Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method. That's like describing something as an armored assault war. The American Revolution, like the Vietnam War, had conventional theaters of operation and insurgent theaters of operations.

skiguy
09-23-2007, 07:24 PM
Insurgency is a strategy.

Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method.

Thank you, Steve. That answers it (my original question) better now.

selil
09-23-2007, 09:56 PM
I've never understood trying to decide if something is an insurgency or a civil war. Apples and oranges. Insurgency is a strategy. It is sometimes used in a civil war. Some insurgencies take place within a civil war. Not all civil wars entail insurgency. I also don't think it makes sense to define something as "a" guerrilla war. Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method. That's like describing something as an armored assault war. The American Revolution, like the Vietnam War, had conventional theaters of operation and insurgent theaters of operations.


So that being said can we say that guerrilla warfare, and insurgency are strictly the province of land warfare? Second point, was the French resistance during WW2 an insurgency or something else? Does this look like it explains the relationships?

http://www.selil.com/images/WarfareVenn.jpg

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 11:27 AM
So that being said can we say that guerrilla warfare, and insurgency are strictly the province of land warfare? Second point, was the French resistance during WW2 an insurgency or something else? Does this look like it explains the relationships?

http://www.selil.com/images/WarfareVenn.jpg

I wouldn't say "strictly" land warfare, although predominantly so. Many insurgents have some naval element, e.g. arms trafficking for the Viet Cong and FMLN, and water borne raids in the Niger Delta. I can't think of any with an air component, but it's not out of the question. Plus, there is the tricky question of the informational battlespace. That is a major one for insurgents but is not, strictly speaking, land warfare.

I would not consider the French resistance insurgency. Certainly it was guerrilla war. But I don't think the resistance ever though it could attain its strategic objectives on its own (although when I visited the French military museum in Paris, I learned how the the French resistance decisively defeated the Germans while a few Brits, Canadians, and Americans sort of lingered in the background).

Van
09-24-2007, 01:58 PM
Didn't the Greeks conduct maritime guerrilla ops in the Mediterranean during WW II? And waterborne operations have been part of unconventional warfare and direct action doctrine since WW II.

Note also that one of Castro's and Guevaro's instructors (Alberto Bayo) was a pilot and recommended the use of aircraft by guerrillas. Not clear where it falls in the Venn diagram, but the drug traffickers/guerrillas in S. America have some airframes, don't they?

I think it is useful to consider the commonalities and differences between insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and civil war/revolution, but the land warfare bubble is distracting and confusing. Now to talk about these forms of small wars, we should probably agree on definitions first, but that might exceed the thread's load capacity. I agree with Steve that "guerrilla" is methodology, and "Insurgency" or "revolution" is a strategic aim. "Civil war" is a description, and one of questionable utility when you consider that very few, if any "civil wars" were purely internal to a nation, without some other power aiding and abetting one or both sides. The term creates a bias to avoid considering influences and interests outside the borders of the nation with the problem.

BRUZ_LEE
09-24-2007, 03:05 PM
In my opinion the difference between GUERRILLA and INSURGENCY is very easy, when you just look at the words and their meaning:
GUERRILLA (in Spanish) means literally SMALL WAR, so it is purely military business and describes the hit-and-run tactics of small groups of fighters in comparison to the traditional warfare, where you have big armies confronting each other on an open battlefield.
INSURGENCY simply means that somebody tries to topple a ruling authority/government by any means possible. There is no limitation to the military fight (which is just a part of the whole insurgency). Special forms of insurgency would be a revolution or a coup.

The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

BTW I found the Title of the older interim Field Manual "Counterinsurgency Operations" more appropriate than the new FM3-24 "Counterinsurgency" because the title suggests that the military part is the whole business.

BRUZ

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 03:11 PM
In my opinion the difference between GUERRILLA and INSURGENCY is very easy, when you just look at the words and their meaning:
GUERRILLA (in Spanish) means literally SMALL WAR, so it is purely military business and describes the hit-and-run tactics of small groups of fighters in comparison to the traditional warfare, where you have big armies confronting each other on an open battlefield.
INSURGENCY simply means that somebody tries to topple a ruling authority/government by any means possible. There is no limitation to the military fight (which is just a part of the whole insurgency). Special forms of insurgency would be a revolution or a coup.

The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

BTW I found the Title of the older interim Field Manual "Counterinsurgency Operations" more appropriate than the new FM3-24 "Counterinsurgency" because the title suggests that the military part is the whole business.

BRUZ

I disagree somewhat with your definition of insurgency. First, some insurgent movements try and topple the government. Others do not and are content to simply carve out "space" which they can dominate. In fact, I believe this latter type is becoming the most common one.

Second, I disagree with your point that revolutions and coups are types of insurgency. I argue in my 2004 monograph (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB586.pdf) that insurgency, as a strategy, is always defined by its protractedness. No group that has the power to gain its objectives through quick means like a coup will undertake insurgency.

I also believe that revolution is a different thing all together. Something is revolutionary because of the extent of its goals. Something is an insurgent movement because of the strategy it has adopted. Some insurgencies are revolutionary; some are not. Some revolutionary movements use a strategy of insurgency; some do not.

selil
09-24-2007, 03:12 PM
I wouldn't say "strictly" land warfare, although predominantly so. Many insurgents have some naval element, e.g. arms trafficking for the Viet Cong and FMLN, and water borne raids in the Niger Delta. I can't think of any with an air component, but it's not out of the question. Plus, there is the tricky question of the informational battlespace. That is a major one for insurgents but is not, strictly speaking, land warfare.


Here is the original and as you can tell I'm still working it up. I'm trying to determine the relative merits and different aspects of the information battle space. Cyber Warfare, Cyber Terrorism, perhaps simply Cyber Conflict. It's a work in progress. One the greatest struggles I've been having while digging through the literature are the different levels and types of conflict and their relationship to each other. Like insurgent versus guerrilla regardless of dictionaries the concepts are used in a variety of ways.

http://www.selil.com/images/warfareDraft.jpg

BRUZ_LEE
09-24-2007, 03:34 PM
I disagree somewhat with your definition of insurgency.


O.K. In just one sentence it is not possible to grasp everything. If somebody just wants to get control of a single province of a country, and not the whole country, than we have the "toppling of the government/ruling authority" also partially and of course it's an insurgency.

Attention: many on this forum think that what is going on in IRAQ today is purely an insurgency. WRONG WRONG WRONG

That is why we see a lot of fuss going on about "counter-insurgency" and the doctrine/definition etc. and that's why the "Counter-Insurgency" doctrine of Gen. Petraeus (of course he didn't come up with it, it's 45 years old. ... Trinquier, Galula, Kitson ....) will NOT work smoothely in IRAQ.

BRUZ

Rob Thornton
09-24-2007, 03:38 PM
From Bruz,


The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

I don't know Bruz - that makes the assumption that military generals are "all powerful". This is why the Inter-Agency debate is so hot right now - and also why AMB Crocker was right beside GEN Petraeus in testimony. Right down to who train HN police vs. HN soldiers has its own friction along with who mans the PRTs etc. Could we place more importance and perhaps work the coordination and synchronization better - yes - I think we have GOs like LTG Chiarelli, GEN Mattis, and GEN Petraeus who have provided us a pretty good model of using their authorities to do so (and yes there are probably some GOs who could have done more by comparison), however to realize the full potential of employing all the elements of power toward SSTRO objectives is beyond the title authorities military leadership are confined to.

Best Regards, Rob

BRUZ_LEE
09-24-2007, 06:09 PM
Could we place more importance and perhaps work the coordination and synchronization better - yes - I think we have GOs like LTG Chiarelli, GEN Mattis, and GEN Petraeus who have provided us a pretty good model of using their authorities to do so ...

It is dead wrong to show up with these type of military protectorats (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) in the first place, no matter what the quality of the generals...

If you don't have a recognized gvnmt in place it was always a bad idea to impose one from the outside, because it's exactly this perception of LEGITIMACY that makes up the Center of Gravity against the cause the insurgents will sell. And if you look at the set-up in IRAQ (it's not hard for jihadists to sell that as an US occupation to the people) you will be able to see very quickly that this ain't gonna work.

I personally think that a kind of dictatorship/monarchy wasn't so bad a type of government for IRAQ. "Democracy" surely isn't working down there...(nor will it work in Afghanistan)
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Steve Blair
09-24-2007, 06:15 PM
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Because they usually screw them up and end up on the front page of the Washington Post....

And do you have something of substance to contribute? COIN is MUCH older than 45 years...and most of the doctrine you mentioned earlier was re-discovered or modified by the officers in question. And I don't think "many on this forum think what's going on in IRAQ is an insurgency." There is an insurgency of sorts, but there is also a great deal of other "stuff" going on; to include organized banditry, terrorism, tribal conflicts, social conflicts, and general mayhem.

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 06:17 PM
Here is the original and as you can tell I'm still working it up. I'm trying to determine the relative merits and different aspects of the information battle space. Cyber Warfare, Cyber Terrorism, perhaps simply Cyber Conflict. It's a work in progress. One the greatest struggles I've been having while digging through the literature are the different levels and types of conflict and their relationship to each other. Like insurgent versus guerrilla regardless of dictionaries the concepts are used in a variety of ways.

http://www.selil.com/images/warfareDraft.jpg

I think I just had an acid flashback.

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 06:21 PM
It is dead wrong to show up with these type of military protectorats (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) in the first place, no matter what the quality of the generals...

If you don't have a recognized gvnmt in place it was always a bad idea to impose one from the outside, because it's exactly this perception of LEGITIMACY that makes up the Center of Gravity against the cause the insurgents will sell. And if you look at the set-up in IRAQ (it's not hard for jihadists to sell that as an US occupation to the people) you will be able to see very quickly that this ain't gonna work.

I personally think that a kind of dictatorship/monarchy wasn't so bad a type of government for IRAQ. "Democracy" surely isn't working down there...(nor will it work in Afghanistan)
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Actually, there were multiple attempts to engineer a coup in Iraq throughout the 1990s. See Ken Pollack's The Threatening Storm.

Tom Odom
09-24-2007, 06:21 PM
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Because it is against the law and has been for three decades or so, despite what the conspiracy theoriists say about what I was dong in Africa..

As for having a legitimate (as in recognized by the people as being legitimate) government place as the key to inurgency, that falls into the frog with wings category. Insurgencies typically start when the government is seen as illegitimate.

If your point is we should approach government changes with extreme caution and careful thought, no argument there.

Best

Tom

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 07:07 PM
Because it is against the law and has been for three decades or so, despite what the conspiracy theoriists say about what I was dong in Africa..

But, grasshopper, better to be lied about than ignored.

It's like the first time I saw myself cited in a scholarly book and found out I was used as the best example of an American academic who was a "dupe of Mozambican information." I still ran around like Navin R. Johnson yelling, "I AM somebody!!"

Tom Odom
09-24-2007, 07:17 PM
:wry:

True enough...Ambassador Krueger's book on Brurundi (http://www.amazon.com/Bloodshed-Hope-Burundi-Genocide-University/dp/0292714866/ref=sr_1_1/105-4263532-8897249?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190661337&sr=1-1)with a chapter about me and the RPA is now out--from University of Texas Press as a counter to TAMU Press who published my memoirs.

Does the Heritage Foundation know you have a FRELIMO membership number?

What's it worth to ya if I don't tell 'em? :D

Tom

SteveMetz
09-24-2007, 07:25 PM
:wry:

True enough...Ambassador Krueger's book on Brurundi (http://www.amazon.com/Bloodshed-Hope-Burundi-Genocide-University/dp/0292714866/ref=sr_1_1/105-4263532-8897249?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190661337&sr=1-1)with a chapter about me and the RPA is now out--from University of Texas Press as a counter to TAMU Press who published my memoirs.

Does the Heritage Foundation know you have a FRELIMO membership number?

What's it worth to ya if I don't tell 'em? :D

Tom

First time I ever testified in the Senate was on Helms' plan to fund Renamo. Needless to say, was agin it, which didn't earn me any Jesse points.

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Because it is against the law ...

Can you please give me the reference for the legitimacy of the OIF campaign?

Maybe: US self defense against the oh so many IRAQI WMDs we found down there?

Best wishes,
BRUZ

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 05:21 PM
Tom is making reference to public law, which specifically outlawed assassination and some other covert forms of regime change. And I'm still waiting to see some substance in these posts. Snappy drive-bys only get so much mileage...

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 05:26 PM
And do you have something of substance to contribute?

Yes, I have.

Many here on this forum (especially those who worship Mr Kilcullen) try to bend classical Insurgency/Counterinsurgency doctrine into something that fits exactly into the present IRAQI situation ("struggle for control over a contested political space between a state or a group of states or occupying powers [obviously Mr Kilcullen means something like the US military protectorate in IRAQ :)], and one or more popularly based, non-state challengers") but while doing so they don't see : IT'S NOT AN INSURGENCY DOWN IN IRAQ!!!!

My advice: stick to classical COIN doctrine and focus on the Afghanistan theatre (I DON'T say: send more troops there!!!) where it applies and get out of IRAQ after a handover to the UN.
Because one of the big problems in IRAQ is simply the huge US military footprint.
Violence will NOT stop after a US withdrawal, but it will definitely calm down with no US targets roaming the streets.

BRUZ

selil
09-25-2007, 05:32 PM
....and get out of IRAQ after a handover to the UN.
Because one of the big problems in IRAQ is simply the huge US military footprint.


And who or whom is the UN? What nation? What country is going to provide a 150K soldiers? Who at the UN is going to pay for that force? If you think it is a boondoggle now wait until w court martial soldiers who refuse to serve under foreign commanders.

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 05:34 PM
Tom is making reference to public law, which specifically outlawed assassination and some other covert forms of regime change. ...

So please can YOU provide me with the legitimate basis for the OIF campaign then?

Remember: German Officers were hanged after WWII because of conducting an AGGRESSIVE ATTACKING WAR against the Soviet Union (BTW at that time a dictatorship very similar like that of Saddam Hussein) ...

BRUZ

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 05:40 PM
Violence will NOT stop after a US withdrawal, but it will definitely calm down with no US targets roaming the streets.

BRUZ

Do you have any real evidence for this assertion? Since much of the conflict seems to be devolving to tribal and religious levels, why would a major US withdrawal make a difference in those conflict areas? And as selil asked, how do you expect the UN to handle something like Iraq when they can barely handle Africa and other regions? Whose classical COIN doctrine do you suggest people stick to? France's? Rome's? Britain's?

And in case you weren't aware of it, typing in ALL CAPS is considered shouting. You can easily make your point without it.

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 05:45 PM
Do you have any real evidence for this assertion? Since much of the conflict seems to be devolving to tribal and religious levels, why would a major US withdrawal make a difference in those conflict areas?

Because the (huge) US military presence in the Middle East is a power hub for the recruitment of new jihadists.

bruz

Tom Odom
09-25-2007, 05:45 PM
So please can YOU provide me with the legitimate basis for the OIF campaign then?

Remember: German Officers were hanged after WWII because of conducting an AGGRESSIVE ATTACKING WAR against the Soviet Union (BTW at that time a dictatorship very similar like that of Saddam Hussein) ...

BRUZ



Bruz,

As Steve said, I was referring to US legal code when it comes to regime change.

As for what you describe as a legal basis for invading Iraq, inside the US the decision of the President to do so covers that nicely, especially when supported by Congressional approval to use force.

Now I am shifting gears and putting on a moderator hat. The use of all CAPS is shouting and no one here needs it. If you wish to make your points, try offering complete thoughts and avoiding useless parallels.

Tom

skiguy
09-25-2007, 05:48 PM
So please can YOU provide me with the legitimate basis for the OIF campaign then?

Remember: German Officers were hanged after WWII because of conducting an AGGRESSIVE ATTACKING WAR against the Soviet Union (BTW at that time a dictatorship very similar like that of Saddam Hussein) ...

BRUZ


Are you suggesting the invasion was illegal?

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 05:59 PM
Are you suggesting the invasion was illegal?

I am just asking for the legitimacy of it, because somebody answered me that a "coup" instead would have been illegal.
So far nobody showed up with a convincing answer to my question other than the US president ordered the mission; therefore I don't wonder why the Iranian President can make a point in stating that the US does what it wants but denies others to do the same.

BRUZ

skiguy
09-25-2007, 06:17 PM
I am just asking for the legitimacy of it, because somebody answered me that a "coup" instead would have been illegal.
So far nobody showed up with a convincing answer to my question other than the US president ordered the mission; therefore I don't wonder why the Iranian President can make a point in stating that the US does what it wants but denies others to do the same.

BRUZ

Who are we a threat to? What country have we threatened?

See the difference?

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 06:37 PM
If you wish to make your points, try offering complete thoughts and avoiding useless parallels.
Tom

Feel free to call my parallels useless without further statements, but don't be surprised if I don't find that very convincing.

BRUZ

BRUZ_LEE
09-25-2007, 06:42 PM
Who are we a threat to? What country have we threatened?

See the difference?

Why are there so many people fighting against the US?
Obviously they feel somehow threatened?!

Tom Odom
09-25-2007, 06:56 PM
I am just asking for the legitimacy of it, because somebody answered me that a "coup" instead would have been illegal.
So far nobody showed up with a convincing answer to my question other than the US president ordered the mission; therefore I don't wonder why the Iranian President can make a point in stating that the US does what it wants but denies others to do the same.

BRUZ

A coup as you stated was to be "arranged by the CIA". I took that as arranging the demise of a state leader through direct or indirect means. There are lawsa against that with definite legal triggers which get the Congress and the executive arm involved under very close legal scrutiny. Assassination is illegal as is support to any group planning an assassination.

An decision to invade is different in process and end state. Again in the case of iraq the Congress and the Executive Branches were involved.




Feel free to call my parallels useless without further statements, but don't be surprised if I don't find that very convincing.

As for the above, I am not going to exchange posts like this with you. PM sent.

Tom

SteveMetz
09-25-2007, 07:45 PM
A coup as you stated was to be "arranged by the CIA". I took that as arranging the demise of a state leader through direct or indirect means. There are lawsa against that with definite legal triggers which get the Congress and the executive arm involved under very close legal scrutiny. Assassination is illegal as is support to any group planning an assassination.

An decision to invade is different in process and end state. Again in the case of iraq the Congress and the Executive Branches were involved.





As for the above, I am not going to exchange posts like this with you. PM sent.

Tom

He is on the mark about one thing--there are some bizarre contradictions in American policy and law. Regime change by coup or assassination is generally proscribed (with some exceptions); regime change by conventional invasion OK. It's legal during armed operations to bomb an enemy fuel dump and cause massive ecological damage, but would be illegal to use biological agents which would turn the fuel to gel and render it ineffective without causing a massive fire. It's legal to shoot enemies with bullets, but not to tear gas them.

Steve Blair
09-25-2007, 07:46 PM
He is on the mark about one thing--there are some bizarre contradictions in American policy and law. Regime change by coup or assassination is generally proscribed (with some exceptions); regime change by conventional invasion OK. It's legal during armed operations to bomb an enemy fuel dump and cause massive ecological damage, but would be illegal to use biological agents which would turn the fuel to gel and render it ineffective without causing a massive fire. It's legal to shoot enemies with bullets, but not to tear gas them.

I think that covers just about everyone when it comes to contradictions in international law, LOAC, and so on. It's all almost other-worldly sometimes.

BRUZ_LEE
09-27-2007, 12:38 PM
...why would a major US withdrawal make a difference in those conflict areas?

I just came across this to stress my point:

It's taken from the narrative by Shelby Foote on the US Civil War (Volume I, Page 65):
When a poor Virginian Private was taken prisoner by some Unionist soldiers he was asked, why he was fighting, as he obviously was not rich, owned no cotton farm, had no slaves and had really no need for upholding slavery.
He simply replied: "I am fighting, because you are down here."

So maybe if one would ask some jihadists in the Middle East today why they are fighting against the US troops there, they may simply reply: "We are fighting, because you are over here."

bruz

SteveMetz
09-27-2007, 01:09 PM
I just came across this to stress my point:

It's taken from the narrative by Shelby Foote on the US Civil War (Volume I, Page 65):
When a poor Virginian Private was taken prisoner by some Unionist soldiers he was asked, why he was fighting, as he obviously was not rich, owned no cotton farm, had no slaves and had really no need for upholding slavery.
He simply replied: "I am fighting, because you are down here."

So maybe if one would ask some jihadists in the Middle East today why they are fighting against the US troops there, they may simply reply: "We are fighting, because you are over here."

bruz

That's a useful analogy. Since U.S. military occupation failed to turn Virginia into a stable democracy, why do we think it can work in Iraq?

Steve Blair
09-27-2007, 01:35 PM
I just came across this to stress my point:

It's taken from the narrative by Shelby Foote on the US Civil War (Volume I, Page 65):
When a poor Virginian Private was taken prisoner by some Unionist soldiers he was asked, why he was fighting, as he obviously was not rich, owned no cotton farm, had no slaves and had really no need for upholding slavery.
He simply replied: "I am fighting, because you are down here."

So maybe if one would ask some jihadists in the Middle East today why they are fighting against the US troops there, they may simply reply: "We are fighting, because you are over here."

bruz

But with this wonderful analogy you fail to consider that Virginia was not involved in a shooting war with, say, Lancaster County at the same time.

Perhaps a better parallel, if we're going for dysfunctional parallels, would be Missouri and Kansas. It's obvious that Unionist occupation failed horribly in both states, so we should pull our troops out immediately. Or pull all police out of downtown LA or Philly, since it has to be the presence of those bulls in blue that outrages all the gangs into violence. I'm sure if they leave, the gangs will turn in their guns and settle right back down to choreographed West Side Story dance-rumbles.....:wry:

Tom Odom
09-27-2007, 01:35 PM
That's a useful analogy. Since U.S. military occupation failed to turn Virginia into a stable democracy,

Don't you mean aggression? :D

Tom

Steve Blair
09-27-2007, 02:03 PM
Don't you mean aggression? :D

Tom

Bah. They're all damned Easterners anyhow.....:D

BRUZ_LEE
09-27-2007, 02:56 PM
But with this wonderful analogy you fail to consider ...

Obviously anybody who doesn't follow this forum's Group-Think opinions fails miserably...

Taken from: "Heads We Win. The Cognitive Side of Counterinsurgency (COIN)" by David C. Gompert. RAND COIN Study Paper 1:
The jihad is able to perpetuate itself by relying on perceived Western injustice and aggression to turn disgruntled Muslims into radical Islamists and then using the story of the West’s assault on Islam to recruit radicalized individuals to violence and martyrdom. Understanding this cognitive process is the first step toward breaking it. Preventing Muslims from being radicalized, preventing radicals from choosing violence, and protecting society from violent radicals are different problems requiring different cognitive strategies.
Keeping Muslims from becoming radicals or radicals from becoming terrorists cannot be achieved through a U.S.-led propaganda assault on Islamic fundamentalism any more than it can by reliance on force.
[...] In COIN, force might weaken an insurgency, strengthen it, or both.
[...] the governing authority and its COIN can fail if the loss of the legitimacy of force puts it on the same level as the insurgents.
-End of quote-

I still ask the question about the legitimacy (not for the US soldier; I am aware that the president ordered it after cheating the congress on WMD in Iraq) of the whole OIF campaign in the perception of the Iraqi people

bruz

Ski
09-27-2007, 02:58 PM
Bruz's last comment reminds of me of a Boyd story he liked to tell.

"You need to be the villager, instead of the one attacking the village, to really understand what's going on."

Steve Blair
09-27-2007, 03:05 PM
Obviously anybody who doesn't follow this forum's Group-Think opinions fails miserably...

bruz

Perhaps you would fare better if you had actual opinions as opposed to drive-bys. Perhaps you should start by introducing yourself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441).

Do a search of the forums. You'll discover that most of this stuff has been discussed before...and you may also discover that factional violence does exist in Iraq, and in many ways it's as big a problem (if not bigger, depending on the region) as the jihadi movements you like to discuss. The removal of US troops isn't going to end the factional violence. And ignoring it won't make it go away.

Your analogies are still flawed...and hauling random quotes from other sources isn't going to change that.

skiguy
09-27-2007, 03:47 PM
To "hijack" this thread back to it's original topic *ahem*:wry:

I have one question. This may be due to my lack of understanding btween tactical and strategical.

Are counterguerrilla operations/tactics used within the COIN strategy?

Tom Odom
09-27-2007, 03:56 PM
To "hijack" this thread back to it's original topic *ahem*:wry:

I have one question. This may be due to my lack of understanding btween tactical and strategical.

Are counterguerrilla operations/tactics used within the COIN strategy?


I guess I see very little difference in kinetic operations targeting insurgents and those targeting guerrillas. Where it would get fuzzy would be on the non-kinetic side but again one could and probably should try non-kinetic against guerrillas.

I believe what was said earlier in a counter guerrilla fight it's focus is the guerrillas whereas in COIN the tensions between insurgent-centric and population-centric play out (as they do on here).

best

Tom

PS

Keep hijacking.

marct
09-27-2007, 04:40 PM
Hi Bruz,


I post this here for everybody to read and make up his own opinion after I received 2 Personal Messages from the "moderators" here where I am accused of being "insulting to others".

Given the reactions some of your posts have created, whether you intended them or not, you should realize that they may be seen as insulting by some members. Since the reactions are observable, this is not an accusation of intent but, rather, a notification of effect.


The term "moderator" is referring to the Latin term "moderatus". This is definitely the contrary to what Mr. "Steve Blair" is.
He is the one who does the personal insults and the drive-bys and he is in my opinion a shame for this otherwise good site.

From Merriam-Webster online (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moderator)

1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group


Please note that the terms "arbitrate" and "preside" appear in these definitions. A large part of the role of a moderator is to teach and train participants in an ongoing discussion by setting the basic parameters of that discussion and the generally acceptable forms in which that discussion takes place. At the SWC, we call this the boards ROE (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php?faq=small_wars_council_faq#faq_conduct).

Given the relative length on time on this board and the number of posts (BL: January 2007, 26 posts; Steve Blair: October 2005, 1232 posts) I will leave it, as you say, "for everybody to read and make up his own opinion" on who has a better grasp of the dynamics of this board.

Marc

SteveMetz
09-27-2007, 05:18 PM
Hi Bruz,



Given the reactions some of your posts have created, whether you intended them or not, you should realize that they may be seen as insulting by some members. Since the reactions are observable, this is not an accusation of intent but, rather, a notification of effect.



From Merriam-Webster online (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/moderator)


Please note that the terms "arbitrate" and "preside" appear in these definitions. A large part of the role of a moderator is to teach and train participants in an ongoing discussion by setting the basic parameters of that discussion and the generally acceptable forms in which that discussion takes place. At the SWC, we call this the boards ROE (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php?faq=small_wars_council_faq#faq_conduct).

Given the relative length on time on this board and the number of posts (BL: January 2007, 26 posts; Steve Blair: October 2005, 1232 posts) I will leave it, as you say, "for everybody to read and make up his own opinion" on who has a better grasp of the dynamics of this board.

Marc

I'm reminded of a time when my daughters were young and they told me I was "outvoted" on a family issue. I had to remind them that our family was not a democracy, but a theocracy.

marct
09-27-2007, 05:35 PM
I'm reminded of a time when my daughters were young and they told me I was "outvoted" on a family issue. I had to remind them that our family was not a democracy, but a theocracy.

<sound of mumbling voice: "I am NOT going to comment", "I am NOT going to comment", "I am NOT going to comment",...>

I remember the first time I got involved with an online community back in 1986 (yeah, I'm showin' my age :cool:). The main forum I was involved with was on Amateur Theology (AmTheo on PODSNET), and had so many different viewpoints in it that the potential for flames was insanely high. What struck me most was that while most of the posters completely disagreed with the other posters, there was an almost unanimous agreement on how to talk about things.

Shifting back to the insurgent-guerrilla discussion,


I guess I see very little difference in kinetic operations targeting insurgents and those targeting guerrillas. Where it would get fuzzy would be on the non-kinetic side but again one could and probably should try non-kinetic against guerrillas.

I believe what was said earlier in a counter guerrilla fight it's focus is the guerrillas whereas in COIN the tensions between insurgent-centric and population-centric play out (as they do on here).

Tom, I think you are right about the focus on the "counter" part (counter-guerrilla and COIN), but I have to wonder about it from the other side. It strikes me that, at the operational level for he guerrillas / insurgents (I'll admit to preferring the term "Grand Tactical" but that's from doing too much gaming in the Napoleonic era), don't the differences disappear?

Marc

Tom Odom
09-27-2007, 06:09 PM
Tom, I think you are right about the focus on the "counter" part (counter-guerrilla and COIN), but I have to wonder about it from the other side. It strikes me that, at the operational level for he guerrillas / insurgents (I'll admit to preferring the term "Grand Tactical" but that's from doing too much gaming in the Napoleonic era), don't the differences disappear?

Marc,

I am with you on that one, especially in the modern (post-WWII) sense. Guerrilla operations ala WWII were against German occupation and one really gets into counting angels on the head of a pin when you try and distinguish the difference guerrillas and insurgents. The best I can do is distinguish on the basis of who is actually tied to the local population. I guess if I had to point to a post-WWII "guerrilla" it would have to be Che Guevera and he failed everywhere he went. A second could be Holden Roberto whom we stupidly sponsored on his attempt to take Angola--since he was Uncle Mo's cousin and had the vaunted Farce Armees Zairiose backing.

Best

Tom

BRUZ_LEE
10-02-2007, 04:05 PM
one really gets into counting angels on the head of a pin when you try and distinguish the difference guerrillas and insurgents.


I still see a clear difference (as posted above): a guerrilla is always a fighter while an insurgent is a more overall term which can be a fighter or not (he may be a pure politician, a bomb-maker, a journalist who writes articles on the Internet, a webmaster, a photographer/cameraman, a computer expert, ...)
So in my opinion you're talking about a guerrilla and an insurgent fighter.

Che Guevera ...he failed everywhere he went.


He obviously didn't fail in Cuba.
He failed later on in Africa and South America because he focussed on Guerrilla TTPs (in his book he also mainly writes about pure tactical stuff) while he failed to notice the absence of a political situation that favours an insurgency.

BRUZ