Have to agree with James M, in a COIN fight
there is no 'victory' unless you're going to use the G.Khan /J. Caesar model of annihilation; all you can do nowadays is achieve an acceptable outcome.
As are the Brits doing in Northern Ireland and as they did in Malaya. They did not defeat the insurgency there, they achieved a reasonably acceptable outcome only through considerable repression and some very tough tactics but there were CTs still in business long after Malaya became independent; the Malaysians and the MNLA finally signed a Treaty in 1989, 29 years after the Malaysians declared the 'Emergency' over and 32 years after the British effectively departed. The last fairly large organized fighting remnants of the MNLA only surrendered about a year after the British had moved on...
Don't know, wasn't there -- in spite of what some on this board say.
Probably true in broad measure but I submit it was the thought that counted. :D
I'm sure Genghis also spared a batch here and there, he also expanded his forces with some locals occasionally.
Subatai probably did not spare many if any, old soldiers are notoriously testy... ;)
I hate to be to be annoying and difficult...
However, I'm sort of inclined to say Che and Bolivia were a flash in the pan and little more, so there wasn't much 'win' there. I also am inclined to think Malaya is not a good example of much of anything (but that's just me...).
El Salvador was not a win but an acceptable outcome for the Government because, as you said, the Chapultepec Peace Accords of 1991 ended the fighting. An agreement to stop fighting wouldn't be required between the parties had one side 'won.'
Guatamala, I'll give you and being a nice guy, I won't even cite the imbalances and costs... ;)
Admittedly we're into semantics and angels on the heads of pins here. My real point is, simply, that 'win,' 'victory,' 'lose,' and 'defeat' are bad and rather imprecise words to apply to by far the majority of COIN situations and those words are politically dangerous as they can lead the uneducated (or ill inclined) astray...
Thus, I tend to try to discourage their sometimes careless use. Possibly to a fault. :o Having said that, I agree with OE32, particularly in view of these:
Quote:
"...Only the indigenous government can "win".(Note his quotes)
"...prevail against the insurgents. This must be done not just by force, but also by other political and economic measures."(emphasis added /kw)
We can disagree on parts of that, hopefully without upset.
You can obviously use any terminology you wish and no one, certainly not me, can say you're wrong. My issue is with promiscuous use of the words I cited (particularly by PAOs, Generals and Politicians in public pronouncements) and I'm still convinced their misuse sends bad messages. We may disagree on what constitutes misuse and that seems perfectly acceptable to me -- be a pretty dull world if we all agreed on every little nuance.
Had a couple of good former fellow snake eater friends who weren't in Bolivia at the time but were... :wry:
Malaya was many things, IMO one thing it was not and is not is a good example of a COIN campaign for the US; the British WERE the government, we are unlikely to ever be (hopefully). I'd also note that the last big batch of CTs was scuffed up in 1958; the additional two years of the Emergency were mostly for Malaysia to complete disbanding the settlements. However, there were a few MNLA holdouts that hung around the Thai border until the mid 80s, thus the late date for signing of the final 'peace accords.'
You were there, you call El Salvador a "pretty total victory..." I wasn't there so I can't dispute that -- but then, I am not disputing it or saying you're wrong, in fact. Not at all.
However, to me it was brought to an acceptable outcome because the end was an agreement that ended the fighting and thus it was not a victory in the classic military sense with the opponent unable to continue due to total or near annihilation or surrendering unconditionally. We should be able to differ on that score and I'm sure there are others who agree with you, with me and still others who have totally different opinions than either of us -- that's all fine with me. :D
Your wife lets you be right?
You lucky dog! Hang on to her, she's one in a million.
Mine is a philosopher:
Quote:
"If a man walks alone in the forest, is he still wrong."
Note period in lieu of question mark; to her that's a truth, not a query... :rolleyes:
Victory maybe the wrong word
If the Insurgent ceases to use "military means" - violence to gain what he wants - and still has not gained it, the insurgent has failed. If the Government has got an outcome acceptable to it, and not to the insurgent, then the insurgent has also failed.
Yet again it strikes me that COIN has to be very careful of using the language of combat operations, as COIN is really security operations.
Semantics is the root of all evil
Ken, I think we really agree on this whole subject much more than we disagree. I like your characterization of Malaya but I would note that even here, there are some commonalities to be exploited.
Oddly enough, I was in Bolivia during Che's little romp in the woods. I was doing my doctoral dissertation research (civilian grad student - 2LT in delayed entry on to AD for grad school status) when I arrived in Bolivia fresh off the boat from Puno Peru - the old steamer Inca. On that day, Che ambushed his first Bolivian Army patrol but nobosy knew it was Che at the time (perhaps the intel community did but nobody outside).
Interesting point on all this is that most wars end with some sort of peace agreement - and the terms are important. Perhaps the most critical concession that the Salvadoran govt made in the negotiations was to NOT claim victory - and that was not explicit but rather tacit. So, the point made by many on this thread that COIN is a complex phenomenon strikes home again. The words we use are everything.:wry:
Cheers
JohnT
My suspicion is this is a
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
I cannot remember having lost an argument with my spouse, and usually benefit from having compromised in the process of "winning".
reasonably accurate statement that might possibly be even more accurate if the order of outcomes were reversed.
In life as in COIN frequently the real 'winner' is not apparent and the quiet smile of the winner of the 'compromise' tells much... ;)
Probably true on semantics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
Ken, I think we really agree on this whole subject much more than we disagree.
I believe you're correct.
Quote:
...So, the point made by many on this thread that COIN is a complex phenomenon strikes home again. The words we use are everything.:wry:
That's a certainty...:eek: