Insurgoterrmilitia Ideogangs

[SteveMetz]

I don't know if this makes any sense even with the speaker notes but, for discussion or comment, this is a short presentation I'm giving Tuesday at a conference comparing criminal gangs and insurgency.

Fudge. Lost the attachment.

[Rob Thornton]

If you guys make this term mainstream, there are a bunch of us that are going to hunt you down and make you say it three times backwards:D

[selil]

Is this kind of antiestablishdestructoterrierism? You know that is defined as stopping the establshment of highly destructive terriers from eating your furniture?

[SteveMetz]

The subtitle of the presentation is "Toward a Unified Field Theory of Violent, Sub-National Groups." Still can't figure out how to post the presentation, though

[selil]

Depending on the format I can convert most things. If you have it send it to me or conact me via IM.

[William F. Owen]

The subtitle of the presentation is "Toward a Unified Field Theory of Violent, Sub-National Groups."

...and how does this help the practitioner? I am very curious how this such a characterisation will aid in their defeat, - which is why the study of such folks is important.

[Rob Thornton]

Well - on a humorous note, if we can convince them to all call themselves -Insurgoterrmilitia Ideogangs they'll have a harder time with their IO - unless they are recruiting Mary Poppins:wry:

[Beelzebubalicious]

Supercalifragotaticexplodocious!!

[SteveMetz]

...and how does this help the practitioner? I am very curious how this such a characterisation will aid in their defeat, - which is why the study of such folks is important.

The basic theme of the presentation is that we hinder ourselves by building a unitary model based on our most recent experience, and then trying to cram everything into state. For decades we treated every insurgency like it was a reflection of the Viet Cong, and now I'm afraid we're going to approach everyone like it is a variant of the AQ network. I identify ten dimensions of violent, non-state movements:

formal/complex------------informal/simple
ideological---------------------nonideological
self-serving-------------------constituency serving
homogenous-----------------heterogeneous
limited goals-----------------revolutionary goals
tightly bound------------------loosely bound
non-threatening-------------most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous-----------------dependent
linked----------------------------unlinked


You can use these to build two or three dimensional models which allow greater granularity than the one-size-fits-all approach we currently use.

The appropriate strategy against such a group depends, in part, on whether we seek to weaken it, moderate it, or crush it. Again, our current strategy (as codified in doctrine) is a one size fits all and that does not serve us well.

[Rank amateur]

The basic theme of the presentation is that we hinder ourselves by building a unitary model based on our most recent experience, and then trying to cram everything into state. For decades we treated every insurgency like it was a reflection of the Viet Cong, and now I'm afraid we're going to approach everyone like it is a variant of the AQ network. I identify ten dimensions of violent, non-state movements:

formal/complex------------informal/simple
ideological---------------------nonideological
self-serving-------------------constituency serving
homogenous-----------------heterogeneous
limited goals-----------------revolutionary goals
tightly bound------------------loosely bound
non-threatening-------------most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous-----------------dependent
linked----------------------------unlinked


You can use these to build two or three dimensional models which allow greater granularity than the one-size-fits-all approach we currently use.

The appropriate strategy against such a group depends, in part, on whether we seek to weaken it, moderate it, or crush it. Again, our current strategy (as codified in doctrine) is a one size fits all and that does not serve us well.

How about flexible...rigid? (Or some other verbiage to express that concept.) Sunni tribes were willing to negotiate. AQI wasn't. That was one of the key factors that allowed us to drive a wedge between them. UBL will never negotiate with the "infidels," but some members of the Taliban are apparently willing to discuss political compromise. The practitioner can probably make use of that difference.

[William F. Owen]

The basic theme of the presentation is that we hinder ourselves by building a unitary model based on our most recent experience, and then trying to cram everything into state. For decades we treated every insurgency like it was a reflection of the Viet Cong, and now I'm afraid we're going to approach everyone like it is a variant of the AQ network.

I would agree that a multi-facetted model will be better than a unitary one, but I'm not sure the parameters you use are those that describe an insurgency in a way that someone with a very limited academic background (eg: myself) could use. I may be wrong.

I look at insurgencies like cars. They are all different shapes and sizes, but you can use certain things to accurately describe them, like colour, engine size, Coupe, saloon etc.

All insurgencies have weapons, a criminal element, funding, a stated aim which is different from their actual aim etc. Having said that, maybe that is what you are attempting to describe, in which case I am all ears... or eyes.

[SteveMetz]

I would agree that a multi-facetted model will be better than a unitary one, but I'm not sure the parameters you use are those that describe an insurgency in a way that someone with a very limited academic background (eg: myself) could use. I may be wrong.

I look at insurgencies like cars. They are all different shapes and sizes, but you can use certain things to accurately describe them, like colour, engine size, Coupe, saloon etc.

All insurgencies have weapons, a criminal element, funding, a stated aim which is different from their actual aim etc. Having said that, maybe that is what you are attempting to describe, in which case I am all ears... or eyes.


What I'm suggesting is that part of the problem is our conceptization of insurgency itself. We fall into this logic trap where we first ask "Is this an insurgency?" If the answer is "yes," then we must address it the way that Galula et. al. dealt with Cold War era insurgencies.

I define "insurgency" as a strategy which may be used by a wide range of organizations. That a group uses a strategy of insurgency tells me something, but not everything I need to know.

That's why I'm searching for a unified field theory of violent, non-state groups, not just a method of counterinsurgency.

[Rank amateur]

I define "insurgency" as a strategy which may be used by a wide range of organizations. That a group uses a strategy of insurgency tells me something, but not everything I need to know.

That's why I'm searching for a unified field theory of violent, non-state groups

Just a suggestion, but the word "unified" implies that you're trying to show how insurgencies are all the same. (Which may be what WFO picked up on.) Sounds to me like you're really trying "to define the parameters which identify a non state actors strengths and weaknesses" or something like that: much like in a traditional engagement you would identify the enemies troop strength, command and control etc. so you could attack the weakness link, or the center of gravity or whatever.

[selil]

The basic theme of the presentation is that we hinder ourselves by building a unitary model based on our most recent experience, and then trying to cram everything into state. For decades we treated every insurgency like it was a reflection of the Viet Cong, and now I'm afraid we're going to approach everyone like it is a variant of the AQ network. I identify ten dimensions of violent, non-state movements:

formal/complex------------informal/simple
ideological---------------------nonideological
self-serving-------------------constituency serving
homogenous-----------------heterogeneous
limited goals-----------------revolutionary goals
tightly bound------------------loosely bound
non-threatening-------------most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous-----------------dependent
linked----------------------------unlinked


You can use these to build two or three dimensional models which allow greater granularity than the one-size-fits-all approach we currently use.

The appropriate strategy against such a group depends, in part, on whether we seek to weaken it, moderate it, or crush it. Again, our current strategy (as codified in doctrine) is a one size fits all and that does not serve us well.

Are these either/or only or continuum's of selection?

This is my last semester of course work on my doctorate and one of the courses I'm taking is social conflict and law enforcement a sociology course. You all make me feel out my depth, putting a technologist in a sociology course is torture for all involved. I'm sure their will be a war crime investigation soon.

In any regards.

The readings from Tilly, Sunstien and others are leading to some interesting conclusions and lack of clarity. On the subject of insurgency and violence in society there are some interesting corollaries between labor unions, civil strife, and war like insurgency. At some point the ideology has a switch thrown and the strife jumps to insurgency (beyond AQ type threats).

All that to make one point.

I think you need some more elements like;
evolutionary......de-evolutionary (coming from within something or destroying it)
flexible......inflexible (able to adapt to new forces or not)
Violence prone.......peace prone (Is the group militant and violent by nature or are they leave me alone and let it be?)
Ruling class..... peon class (Is this a rich elite chaffing under rule or a serf and servant supported which would effect resources and COG)

Make the whole thing into a Likert 1-10 scale make a spider web graph by collapsing sections onto each other and you'd have a nice graphical representation. I don't know what it would represent but they look really cool in journal articles.

[SteveMetz]

Just a suggestion, but the word "unified" implies that you're trying to show how insurgencies are all the same. (Which may be what WFO picked up on.) Sounds to me like you're really trying "to define the parameters which identify a non state actors strengths and weaknesses" or something like that: much like in a traditional engagement you would identify the enemies troop strength, command and control etc. so you could attack the weakness link, or the center of gravity or whatever.

A unified field theory doesn't posit that all forces are the same. It just allows them to be written in terms of a single field.

Being able to identify strengths and weaknesses may be one result of a unified field theory should one emerge. It is not necessarily the sole or primary objective in developing one.

[SteveMetz]

Are these either/or only or continuum's of selection?

This is my last semester of course work on my doctorate and one of the courses I'm taking is social conflict and law enforcement a sociology course. You all make me feel out my depth, putting a technologist in a sociology course is torture for all involved. I'm sure their will be a war crime investigation soon.

In any regards.

The readings from Tilly, Sunstien and others are leading to some interesting conclusions and lack of clarity. On the subject of insurgency and violence in society there are some interesting corollaries between labor unions, civil strife, and war like insurgency. At some point the ideology has a switch thrown and the strife jumps to insurgency (beyond AQ type threats).

All that to make one point.

I think you need some more elements like;
evolutionary......de-evolutionary (coming from within something or destroying it)
flexible......inflexible (able to adapt to new forces or not)
Violence prone.......peace prone (Is the group militant and violent by nature or are they leave me alone and let it be?)
Ruling class..... peon class (Is this a rich elite chaffing under rule or a serf and servant supported which would effect resources and COG)

Make the whole thing into a Likert 1-10 scale make a spider web graph by collapsing sections onto each other and you'd have a nice graphical representation. I don't know what it would represent but they look really cool in journal articles.

Continuua. I'm not sure on the flexibility. I thought the ideological continuum captured that. I had a violence continuum.

[Rank amateur]

I understand your point about unified, but using the term in it's academic is confusing to some of laymen. Of course, if you're writing for people who are much smarter than me, you have nothing to worry about.



Continuua. I'm not sure on the flexibility. I thought the ideological continuum captured that.

Take a hypothetical group who believe that God doesn't want "infidels" to live in Area X. Some might be willing to negotiate with the "infidels" others might insist that ethnic cleasning is the only option, but they share the same religious ideology.

Or take Reagan Democrats. Ideologically they're Democrats, but they are very different from people who'd never vote for a Republican no matter what.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I think you may be making a couple of logical errors here when you limit your field to "unified field theory of violent, non-state groups,". First, why are you excluding states? At it's core, I *think* (could be wrong ;)) that you are really looking at developing a theory of group violence, so you should be including both "states" and data/examples from the founding of states. I think that you have internalized the "treason never prospers and here's the reason; for if it does, then none dare call it treason" meme. You can't develop a unified theory for non-state groups without looking at state formation and internal state change.

The second point comes from not having the presentation :D. Can you shoot me a copy? Anyway, a unified theory requires fairly strict boundary conditions in a dynamic form - something like Lewin's Field Theory (otherwise you're back at a static taxonomy). I think you are getting towards that with you characteristics, but I have to wonder what sort of equations you are setting up, especially in the group internal processes.

Marc

[Rank amateur]

unified theory requires fairly strict boundary conditions in a dynamic form - something like Lewin's Field Theory (otherwise you're back at a static taxonomy).

Guess I was wrong. Smart people have issues with it too.;)

[marct]

Guess I was wrong. Smart people have issues with it too.;)

LOLOL - academics ALWAYS have "issues":D:D:D.

[J Wolfsberger]

From a system point of view, you're defining the dimensions that describe the insurgency "space." The missing element that jumps out at me is temporality - they evolve over time. Would it make sense to change them around a little bit to:

informal/simple ------------ formal/complex
nonideological --------------------- ideological
constituency serving ------------------- self-serving
heterogeneous ----------------- homogenous
limited goals ----------------- revolutionary goals
loosely bound ------------------ tightly bound
non-threatening ------------- most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous ----------------- dependent
unlinked ---------------------------- linked

which seems to me to progress from early stage to later stage.

[Ron Humphrey]

Considering that most of the arguments have been made already I just have one question.

I have seen this premise of deciding whether or not something " is " an insurgency.

In truth does this really matter so much as whether it is something which can or should be addressed in context with its circumstances.

Many a times are there movements for or against of varying degrees; should they always be addressed or are there occasions where regardless they will work themselves out under current conditions.

[selil]

Considering that most of the arguments have been made already I just have one question.

I have seen this premise of deciding whether or not something " is " an insurgency.

In truth does this really matter so much as whether it is something which can or should be addressed in context with its circumstances.

Many a times are there movements for or against of varying degrees; should they always be addressed or are there occasions where regardless they will work themselves out under current conditions.

From what I've been reading this month it is becoming imperative that we decide what an insurgency is and how to describe. I've read about the wobblies as a workers insurgency, about the AFL-CIO as a workers insurgency too (totally different methods same space). I'm now reading about a variety of anarchistic groups that are considered insurgencies. The only holistic element spanning the groups so far is they disagreed with the ruling class within their time (not even violence is consistent).

[Ken White]

"From what I've been reading this month it is becoming imperative that we decide what an insurgency is and how to describe.,.."

Seems like there are myriad definitions out there, none are really wrong and most resist categorization.

[selil]

Seems like there are myriad definitions out there, none are really wrong and most resist categorization.

Quite simply because law is applied to terms and punishments are determined by the terms applied to particular crimes. An insurgent can both be a terrorist and quite different yet the terms in some cases are used as synonyms. Further when such lack of discretion occurs law has a tendency to not be meticulous in determining the applicability of punishment based on terms. An American union organizer should not be classified as an insurgent and deemed fair game for military action, nor should an Iraqi union organizer be labeled an insurgent because their actions are not aligned with United States interests.

I think that insurgent as a synonym for terrorist is the largest issue.A good definition of either would be good for informing national debate.

[Ken White]

Terrorism, OTOH is (nowadays) and this seems pretty clear to me; LINK (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/toc.html).

The two are not synonymous in my mind and do not appear to be to Merriam Webster; LINK (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Insurgent), LINK (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror).

Nor can I see how either Union organizer would get that insurgent label. Discounting my opinion, it seems the only way to get the determination you want is have someone pass a law and Congress's record in that sphere isn't too hot, so I think that's case of 'be careful what you wish for.'

I'm never sure what National debate means. Do we all argue a position on the web? Write letters to the Editor? Not being snide or snarky, honest -- I truly do not understand what's meant by the phrase in a nation this large, this diverse and this contentious which has a representative government. How is this national debate conducted and by whom?

[selil]

I'm never sure what National debate means. Do we all argue a position on the web? Write letters to the Editor? Not being snide or snarky, honest -- I truly do not understand what's meant by the phrase in a nation this large, this diverse and this contentious which has a representative government. How is this national debate conducted and by whom?

Let me succinctly explain where I'm coming from 32 books 16 weeks on sociology dealing with everything from the wobblies to woodstock, from criminal incarceration to the meaning of violence.

Any mental diarrhea should be expunged by fire hose as I attempt to place my brain on cruise. Integrating new knowledge never hurt this much. I blame MarcT and the evil that my professors represent. Two communists and a right wing whacko... Well they're nice people at least..

[Ken White]

as it should be rather than as it is. :(

That, BTW, is not a slam, just a sad note that I share the goal but reluctantly accept that it is highly unlikely to be achieved. Most of our national debates many years ago were noted for the amount of corn and rye whiskey present in all venues and the number of knives and pistols that got waved about. We're a little more civilized now -- but not a whole lot... :wry:

Oh -- and they are nice people, Marc for sure and the others probably!

[Geoff]

So when did guerilla warfare change to insurgency - or is it still something different, if so what are the differences?

[Ken White]

according to some. :D

According to others, the difference is more than semantic as a guerilla can operate with or against a government or an occupier (The French Resistance in WW II) -- some call them irregular forces to introduce more semanticism or romanticism -- whereas an insurgent operates only against the government in the nation of interest (The OAS in France and Algeria during the Algerian Insurrection) generally with the object of regime change. Were that not so, he or she would not be insurging. ;)

Insurgents and guerillas can use terrorism as a tactic in which case they become insurgents and guerillas who use terrorism as a tactic and may logically be called terrorists by some though they still remain insurgents and guerillas for all practical and (I am not a Lawyer) I suspect legal purposes. :(

Terrorists, OTOH use terror (i.e the threat of physical harm or the actual performance of acts that cause such harm) to coerce a group or nation (can be either) to do or not do certain things. Terrorists may or may not be insurgents or guerillas. If they are NOT sanctioned by a nation state, they are also likely to be called criminals as well. Unless Reuter's is reporting it -- then they become freedom fighters or something.

[Geoff]

Thanks Ken,

My problem is that we seem to be assigning lots of labels to theses people - Freedom Fighters, Insurgent, Terrorist, Resistance etc. They are bandied around by the press - as you said quite nicely.

I think that the press applies the flashy labels to hit our buttons and convey the prevailing view - do the Iranians really view Hamas as evil? This only serves to muddy the waters as we try to place opposing forces into neat little boxes rather, rather than tackling the key issues:

1. What is thei motivation?
2. Where is their support?
3. How are they supplied?
4. How do they recruit?

Once we start to address ourselves to these issues, progress should occur - at the end of the day if it growls and has claws; I don't debate it it is a bear or a squirrel - I make sure that I am safe

[Ken White]

They excel at muddying the water; not intentionally just through ignorance in too many cases.

Re: your points; I'd add to 'em a bit:

1. What is their motivation and can we counter it, if so how?
2. Where is their support and can we institute a divorce?
3. How are they supplied and can we interdict?
4. How do they recruit and what alternatives can we offer?

...and submit that, generally, two of the four will be accomplished with only slight difficulty and the other two will be elusive.

The thing that'll keep us alert is that which two will be accomplished will vary from war to war and likely will vary within a given war over time. If we can crack the two easy items (whichever they may be) and get a good handle on any third item -- then the bad guys (catch all term, NY Times approved) will be operating at only about 25% capacity and are more likely to let us get to a position where a satisfactory outcome can be obtained -- there is no victory in a counterinsurgency in the normal sense.

One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...

Timurlane had it easy... :D

[Geoff]

Ken , I like the additions, maybe we armchair generals can get a job fixing the world after all.

One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...

(sorry not quite figured the quote system yet)

Is this not a fault of the military for not setting the expectation? Of course the politicians manage the message, but don't we need a few brave members of the brass to dissent - and show that wars are not easy and that a terrorist war is a long haul project - not in and out on a Saturday night?

[William F. Owen]

So when did guerilla warfare change to insurgency - or is it still something different, if so what are the differences?

Excellent point! I am far happier using the term Guerilla. It is abstract enough to be highly accurate and useful!

I see no purpose in defining them other than to differentiate them from armed forces who are legally answerable to a national command authority. = they have an internationally recognised legal standing.

Insurgents are, after all, criminals. Criminals have subsets based on the offence, eg- rapists and burglars. Criminal gangs are defined by what they do. EG - Drug Cartel, or Car Thieves.

I see no problem with have guerillas and then having subsets. Narco-guerillas, Bandits, Pirates, Religious fanatics etc.

...on the other hand, I am in a minority on this board, in that I see no useful purpose in studying insurgency as a discrete and separate form of conflict.

[selil]

To make matters worse I was just reading about insurgent ideas (sic).... I hate sociology it's so messy. Give me technology any day.

As to pirates and brigands can we agree one operates via the water and the other via land and that narc suggest drugs? Giving us terrains to work from?

Differentiation for the purpose of lawful combatant is how the original argument (and military tribunals) began. As Ken White eloquently pointed out The French Resistance would have been an "insurgency" and likely not afforded legal standing as combatants, and any advisory staff considered spies.

As to whether insurgency is a discrete form of conflict Mr. Owen from something I read last night that seemed to ring true "Informed dissent is the strongest motivator of excellence" - Cass Sunstein.

[marct]

Actually, a lot of the definitional problem comes out of basic worldviews. Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart ;).

Terrorist: One who practices the tactic of "terrorism"; a tactic designed to induce fear and terror in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.

Guerrilla warfare: a "Grand Tactic/Strategy" that relies on a "strike and fade" or "raiding" mode of combat.

Insurgent: one who rebels against the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.

Criminal: one who breaks the laws of the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.

Legal Government: a social group that has managed to impose control over a larger group and to regularize and routinize that control in such a manner that other such entities recognize it as the "legal government" of the larger group.

In this set of definitions, there is overlap, but not too much.

Marc

[selil]

Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart ;).

Terrorist: One who practices the tactic of "terrorism"; a tactic designed to induce fear and terror in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.



Ahhh.... golly I won't pull them apart but I might suggest this.

Terrorist: One who practices a tactic designed to induce unreasoning fear in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.

I don't disagree with the original intent, but just trying to remove the self referential element in the definition.

I'm sure I'm missing some larger meaning of the first definition (like through carnage or asynchronous destruction). Having read the nine-or-twenty definitions used by the government this one seems so tidy.

[marct]

I could live with that one, but I think that the fear is actually reasoning fear, at least when done properly (e.g. Machiavelli and the Prince).

Marc

[selil]

I could live with that one, but I think that the fear is actually reasoning fear, at least when done properly (e.g. Machiavelli and the Prince).

Marc

Oooh good point. "You have reason to fear that which you know will come true..." or something like that?

[Ken White]

Said Geoff:


"Is this not a fault of the military for not setting the expectation? Of course the politicians manage the message, but don't we need a few brave members of the brass to dissent - and show that wars are not easy and that a terrorist war is a long haul project - not in and out on a Saturday night?

Absolutely. Our civilian masters are not to be expected to know the details of force commitment so the Armed forces have to apprise them of things to say -- or not to say. Unfortunately, in the run-up to this one, none of the Military folks had any knowledge or experience of what would happen post attack so they didn't fully warn the civilians. Plus the Generals themselves foolishly used words like 'victory' and 'defeat.' One would hope they'll be smarter next time. However, indication lead me to believe...

Wilf spake:


"nsurgents are, after all, criminals. Criminals have subsets based on the offence, eg- rapists and burglars. Criminal gangs are defined by what they do. EG - Drug Cartel, or Car Thieves."

Yeah, but then, if they're OUR insurgents or we agree with and support them???

Marc:


"Actually, a lot of the definitional problem comes out of basic worldviews. Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart ."

True that. And Sam would never do such a thing... ;)

Selil said:


As to pirates and brigands can we agree one operates via the water and the other via land and that narc suggest drugs?"

"But, but -- the Marines are amphibious" he said... :D

[William F. Owen]

Wilf spake:


Yeah, but then, if they're OUR insurgents or we agree with and support them???


Then they become good criminals not bad criminals. Actually I don't see any grown up western democracy supporting any insurgency these days. Sure there was the Bay of Pigs, the Contras and the Mujahaddin, but would there be in a post 9/11 world? Are they acting against a democracy or a dictatorship?

...and if you think about it, this question falls outside the realm of military thought. This is one for diplomats, not soldiers, or military theorists.

[Ron Humphrey]

Then they become good criminals not bad criminals. Actually I don't see any grown up western democracy supporting any insurgency these days. Sure there was the Bay of Pigs, the Contras and the Mujahaddin, but would there be in a post 9/11 world? Are they acting against a democracy or a dictatorship?

...and if you think about it, this question falls outside the realm of military thought. This is one for diplomats, not soldiers, or military theorists.

throughout the globe where if pressure from the US and others doesn't affect change in governance enough, there may very well be groups of individuals who's methods we may disagree with but whose purpose we would actually be in a position of supporting. Thats why defining it seems to me to be such a never ending pursuit.

Kinda like Stochastic math; great stuff with purpose but what the heck is it? :eek:

[Ken White]

...and if you think about it, this question falls outside the realm of military thought. This is one for diplomats, not soldiers, or military theorists.

I've not only thought about it, I've been able to live it. During that life, it came to my attention as a soldier, not a theorist, that I went a lot of places and did a lot of things that were militarily unsound and strategically inane, even borderline stupid and not at all in the realm of soldiers but that the politicians and diplomats wanted a presence or something done so soldiers went. And did what the civilians wanted to be done...

Democracies are messy that way.
Then they become good criminals not bad criminals. Actually I don't see any grown up western democracy supporting any insurgency these days. Sure there was the Bay of Pigs, the Contras and the Mujahaddin, but would there be in a post 9/11 world? Are they acting against a democracy or a dictatorship?

To quote Sir Sean Connery, "Never say never..." ;)

Democracies are messy that way. :D

I think Ron has it right. :wry:

[William F. Owen]

I've not only thought about it, I've been able to live it. During that life, it came to my attention as a soldier, not a theorist, that I went a lot of places and did a lot of things that were militarily unsound and strategically inane, even borderline stupid and not at all in the realm of soldiers but that the politicians and diplomats wanted a presence or something done so soldiers went. And did what the civilians wanted to be done...


Cannot disagree. My whole foundation of military theory started with the premise that everything I had learnt as a soldier was unsound and nonsensical. Now, 5-7 years later, I have reduce it to about 25% of what I leant was unsound or nonsensical.

[Ken White]

as I'm sure you've discovered, some of that which was earlier considered by me to be nonsense actually had a sound and logical basis but just hadn't been modified to cope with societal and technological differences. All that was required was minor tweaking.

Discovered also that if you can point out truly nonsensical thing to the right person (and that is critical, the wrong one will do nothing) things can get changed.

Years ago, US Army track vehicle mechanics were trained at Forts Knox (on tanks) and Sill (on self propelled guns) as well as Aberdeen Proving Ground (on APCs). Problem was that they all ended up with the same MOS (job code) and one could be in a Mech Infantry Battalion and have a slew of SP Artillery mechanics who couldn't spell APC. Years of complaint up the chain were to no avail -- until De Puy, then the TRADOC CG was briefed on it in a Motor Pool in Korea. Got fixed in a matter of weeks and all Track mechanics went to Knox to learn all the systems.

The moral of that story is the chain of command is important -- but sometimes (often? ;) ) you have to short circuit it to get things done. Carefully, of course -- but unhesitatingly...

[walrus]

Steve:

I think I can see which way this is going to pan out........

Please bear with me...


Scene, a street in Bahdad, Ahmad the garbage man has been stopped and surrounded by an American patrol.

Patrol Leader (Through interpreter): Now Mr. Ahmad, on a scale of One to Five, with five being I completely agree and One being completely disagree, would you say your involvement in Jihad is formal and complex?

Ahmad: I ain't got no involvement in jihad, the empty 155 shells in the truck are on there way to the scrap metal dealer, I picked them up yesterday, they were doorstops at Sadaams old place.

Patrol Leader: So thats a One? Strongly disagree? So that makes question Two, informal links to Jihad a Five?

Ahmad: Look I just said I don't do Jihad!

Patrol Leader: The logic of my procedure here is laid out in black and white, "If the answer to question one is one, then the answer to question Two is Five", Here, read it yourself.

Ahmad: Look I can't read English and I don't do jihad, you want the 155 shells?

Patrol Leader: Now Ahmad, concentrate, on a scale of One to Five, how would you rate your attention to your religion?

Ahmad: Look I have a bad back that stops me praying a lot at the Mosque, put me down as a Two and a Half.

Patrol Leader: That will have to be rounded up to a three according to the procedure. Now Ahmad, Why are you doing this work? Are you doing this work out of friendship, or for Allah? On a scale of One to Five, how would you rate your motivation for this work?

Ahmad: Are you kidding? Before the war I was an architect specialising in palaces, but now all I can get is this crummy job, make that a One.

Patrol Leader: Now Ahmad, are all garbage workers like you? How would you rate the homogeniety of your fellow workers?

Ahmad: Homo-what? Oh I understand, yes we are all members of the union but we do have different backgrounds, make that a Four.

Patrol leader: And Ahmad, do you think you are goal driven or not, please, on a scale of One to Five...

Ahmad: Are you kidding? My goal is to get the heck out of here and work as an architect for Donald Trump in New York. Make that a Five!

Patrol Leader: And are you tightly or loosely bound to this goal?

Ahmad: Go ask my wife! She is always nagging me to get her out of here, make that a Five!

Patrol Leader: Now Ahmad, think carefully, have you ever threatened anyone?

Ahmad; Me? Who is there for a garbage worker to threaten? Thats a One.

Patrol Leader: Have you ever been violent Ahmad?

Ahmad: I beat the crap out of a cousin once when I was twelve. He stole my football.

Patrol Leader: I'll just consult the matrix here, just a second,,,, Wow! That comes in as a Four!

Patrol Leader: Now Ahmad, do you work on your own?

Ahmad: Yep, most of the time, no one else wants this stinking job.

Patrol Leader: Thats a Five. Almost finished now, and Ahmad, are you linked with any organisations?

Ahmad: Sure! I'm a member of the Baghdad garbage workers union, local #27. The Sadr city lions club and the Baghdad football club.


Patrol Leader: Three affiliations, thats also a four according to the tables. Now bear with me for a minute Ahmad while I total up the points on this form and calculate your T-Score...

Ahmad: Thank God thats over, I need to get these to the depot and then go shopping for my wife's birthday.

Patrol Leader; Mr. Ahmad, I'm sorry to have to inform you that your T-Score is 88.5 which means that there is a high probability you are a senior Al Qaeeda leader! Guys! Cuff him and take him in!



informal/simple ------------ formal/complex
nonideological --------------------- ideological
constituency serving ------------------- self-serving
heterogeneous ----------------- homogenous
limited goals ----------------- revolutionary goals
loosely bound ------------------ tightly bound
non-threatening ------------- most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous ----------------- dependent
unlinked ---------------------------- linked

I'm not sure the analysis of terrorist groups neatly fits into Western concepts and categories, although I applaud your effort at trying. I also believe that there is evidence that the group dynamic is constantly changing as well. I personally think the anthropological approach offers a better understanding and more useful insights.

Just as an exercise, how would you classify the Kosovars?

[SteveMetz]

Just as an exercise, how would you classify the Kosovars?


I'm not enough of an expert to place them on the ten dimensions.

[William F. Owen]

Walrus. I AM LAUGHING MY ASS OFF. I have copied your post widely!

[marct]

Walrus. I AM LAUGHING MY ASS OFF. I have copied your post widely!

I think I'm going to assign it as mandatory reading for my students :D.

[J Wolfsberger]

I think I'm going to assign it as mandatory reading for my students :D.

Marc,

I think this is what some of your "colleagues" actually believe the HTTs are doing. :eek:

[marct]

Marc,

I think this is what some of your "colleagues" actually believe the HTTs are doing. :eek:

Not at all! I'm shocked and appalled that you would think an Anthropologist would come up with this :eek:.

Here's the Anthro version - from the extreme Post-Modernist Syndrome side. Bear in mind that none of the real people on the HTT's would ever spout such sierra...

**********

Scene, a street in Baghdad, Ahmad the garbage man has been stopped and surrounded by an American patrol.

Patrol Leader (Through interpreter): Now Mr. Ahmad, can you tell us how you, as an enlightened individual, feel about the immediate after effects of elitist, Imperialist American aggression?

Ahmad: Hunh? Uh, you guys are US troops aren't you? I ain't got no involvement in jihad let me tell you! The empty 155 shells in the truck are on there way to the scrap metal dealer, I picked them up yesterday, they were doorstops at Sadaams old place.

Patrol Leader: So that means that you are feeling as if the naked grab for economic power by US multinational corporations has led to a decrease in your personal libety?

Ahmad: (looking totally confused) Umm, well, sort of. I used toi be a palace architecht but, like I just said, I don't do Jihad!

Patrol Leader: Mr. Ahmad, you shouldn't consider that the perfectly normal expression of moral outrage at having your livelihood destroyed, your neighbours slaughtered and your country occupied by foreign crusaders, this "jihad" in your culture's equally valid terms, is anything but a matter of non-violent protest against an undeniably oppressive occupation.

Ahmad: (looking totally confused right now) Ah, are you saying that being involved in an anti-American jihad is okay?

Patrol Leader: (sounding indignant) Not only is it "okay" Mr. Ahmad, it is the moral duty of all persons of good will to resist the imposition of a crypto-fascistic, neo-imperialist, ideological hegemony when it is thrust upon them by the unthinking lackies of the capitalist Globalization conspiracy!

Ahmad: (looking around for the video cameras to make sure that he isn't being filmed for Americas Funniest Home Videos) So, um, I said I didn't do Jihad but you seem to be saying I should.... I am getting confused, here!

Patrol leader: (speaking sternly) Mr. Ahmad! Really, there is nothing confusing about the issue! Clearly, you have been oppressed by the occupying crusaders to the point where you have suffered what Gramsci referred to as an internalization of the ideological hegemony that has been thrust upon you!

Patrol Leader; (speaking to the rest of the partol) Mr. Ahmad, I'm sorry to have to inform you that your T-Score is 88.5 which means that there is a high probability you are have been brainwashed and might actually support the illegal occupation of Iraq and the attempts of crypto-fascist ideologs to eradicate your unique and extremely valuable culture! Guys! Cuff him and take him in for re-education!

[Ron Humphrey]

Not at all! I'm shocked and appalled that you would think an Anthropologist would come up with this :eek:.

Here's the Anthro version - from the extreme Post-Modernist Syndrome side. Bear in mind that none of the real people on the HTT's would ever spout such sierra...

**********



would be coinsiderably funnier were there not such a corrolation with the thinking of some fairly well known people :(

[marct]

would be coinsiderably funnier were there not such a corrolation with the thinking of some fairly well known people :(

Unfortunately, I think you're right <sigh>. Remember, these are my colleagues - I have to deal with them; you guys just gets the splatter :wry:. On the plus side, I have been really impressed by what the HTTs have actually achieved and by the response to that success by a number of my more reasoning colleagues.

[Steve Blair]

Re-education? No! It would be cultural sensitivity education and orientation. Since obviously the poor fool doesn't have the sensitivity to grasp the unique aspects of his culture that can only be divined by over-educated outsiders with polysyllabic capabilities.....:wry:

[wm]

Marc,
Your version reminds me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail were Arthur introduces himself to the peasant, wrongfully identified initially as "Old Woman," who is collecting muck.

My only question is why no quotations from Habermas Adorno, or some other Frankfurt School wizard? :D

Well done.

[marct]

Hi WM,


My only question is why no quotations from Habermas Adorno, or some other Frankfurt School wizard? :D

Well, I suspect it's because part of my mind has been spun off analyzing the rhetoric of some of my colleagues, so it seemed more appropriate to use a bricolage rather than a structural analysis :D. 'sides that, I find that Habermas actually had some really good ideas; he was just hampered by an incredibly clunky, overly mechanistic theoretical model. Let's just leave Adorno out of it for now (I've been working on a book review where he comes up a lot).

Marc

[AdamG]

If you guys make this term mainstream, there are a bunch of us that are going to hunt you down and make you say it three times backwards:D

You do that and Tim Burton will show up looking for royalties. :D

[SteveMetz]

Marc,
Your version reminds me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail were Arthur introduces himself to the peasant, wrongfully identified initially as "Old Woman," who is collecting muck.

My only question is why no quotations from Habermas Adorno, or some other Frankfurt School wizard? :D

Well done.

I often use the "She turned me into a newt" episode from the witch trial to explain American politics.

[wm]

I often use the "She turned me into a newt" episode from the witch trial to explain American politics.
Steve,

I see the connection with Sir Bedevere's logic. The only problem I see with that comparison is that, unlike the peasant, American politics can't say ,"Well, I got better." (At least not yet and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen :))

[SteveMetz]

Steve,

I see the connection with Sir Bedevere's logic. The only problem I see with that comparison is that, unlike the peasant, American politics can't say ,"Well, I got better." (At least not yet and I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen :))

I'm convinced that last week when the question was posed, "What can we do about the decline of the dollar?" Rush Limbaugh's answer was, "A duck!"

[marct]

I'm convinced that last week when the question was posed, "What can we do about the decline of the dollar?" Rush Limbaugh's answer was, "A duck!"

Are you sure it wasn't "It's floating!"?