I think SWC started this first not Fabius
We had this discussion some time ago on SWC when I said there are 2 kinds of war under our system declared and undeclared and then moved on to war in the 1st,2nd,third degree based upon intensity and violence. Bill Moore was involved. Also I found an article from military review called "Insurgencies you cannot win from 1973" I think. The author specifically mentions type one,two and three when naming insurgencies and recommends the military change to this system to better understand it. I will try and find all the post later today have to go to work now.
Here is the link to the article it was posted under thread is everybody wrong? The theory was never completed because the uthor died shortly after publication.
https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil...00010/art5.pdf
A flawed epistemology leads to a flawed typology
Hi Folks,
First off, let me echo Mark's comments about maybe this would be betterin the Kilculen thread <wry grin>.
Quote:
Quote:
As a simple dichotomy for analytical purposes, we can say that 4GW’s come in two types, reflecting the degree of involvement of outside interests (obviously there are many other ways to characterize 4GW).
1. Violence between two or more local groups, who can form from any combination of clans, governments, ethnicities, religions, gangs, and tribes.
2. Violence between two or more sides, where at least one is led by foreigners – both comprising, as above, any imaginable combination of factions.
......
The issue is how to distinguish the local groups of a type one 4GW from the foreign groups of a type two 4GW.
There seems to be a basic epistemological assumption operating here that defines "distance" in terms of either physical geography or membership within a nation state: i.e. terms like "local", "foreign", etc. I think that this is a fundamental error.
We have been talking about what constitutes a "nation", or any other type of community, in the information age in another thread (sorry Dave, couldn't find it to link). I've argued elsewhere that it is a combination of shared interest and communicative ability. "Community" does not require geographic proximity or contiguity (which is an assumption that underlies the concept of nation states). Given this, why should we base any typology of conflict on it; especially when it is glaringly apparent that our opponents don't?
I'd like to pose a question for discussion: What if we recast "distance" in terms of perception, "interest" and communication?
Marc
Proper identification of reality
marct, I agree epistemology or proper identification of reality is the first step to success or mis-identification the first step to failure. Thats why I thought wars should be classified on violence and intensity. Example 1st degree war WMD's in use 2nd degree warfare conventional weapons in use 3rd degree warfare small arms and explosives. The range or location does not matter the intensity and effect of the weapon does. Example one non-uniformed bad guy with WMD=1st degree warfare and requires a 1st degree response. what say ye?
Interesting conceptual framework!
Hi Tom,
Thanks for posting it. I've only skimmed through the conceptual framework so far, but I think that this could be another dimension.
Steve, I'm thinking of this as a "dimension" because I really hate the static, either/or concept of Regular vs Irregular. I know there are a lot of historical examples where so-called irregulars annihilated "regulars" in combat settings (the one that pops to mind is the Teutenberg wald in 9ce). Since you have been doing a lot of work on the Indian Wars, how would you classify the Tennessee Militia under Jackson, say, after the 1814 campaign? Regular? Irregular? half and Half? How about the Georgia Militia of the same period (I think Jackson refered to them as first to loot, last to fight"?
Marc
Read a Little, Chew a Little
Quote:
Tom, 334 pages!!! I want the Chatty Kathy version It sounds like Sun Tsu. Anyway chicken wings are getting cold. Later Guys
You may have yo chicken in small bites; it is an anthology :)
Tom
Compound Beer Drinking? Does that Mean Boilermakers?
Quote:
Marct and Steve, suggestions for Compound beer drinking operations and appropriate symbols. The regular drinking force should be coordinated with the irregular none drinking force, should be females with low tops and short skirts. At the completion of regular force drinking operations the "non drinking" female irregular driving force may proceed to said mentioned sobriety checkpoints at which time they should be able to overcome any blue meanie obstacles with little effort. Then the entire force may proceed to their final destination completely intact and avoid all risk of jail and accidents.
I am really having a hard time typing because I am laughing so hard...my NCO is looking at me like I am mental just like Stan used to look at me before he brought me back to reality on any given issue...
Best
Tom