No need to apologize ....
Quote:
from Taiko
My apologies Jim99 I did mean your post on page three. There is little to debate. If you used that passage to support any argument, you will be criticised for taking it out of context.
Your last sentence makes your mentality quite clear to me.
Don't apologize, Mister ....
it's a sign of weakness (She Wore a Yellow Ribbon). :D
As to the three substantive paragraphs, your paras 1 & 2 do not disturb me. We could discuss all of that, as well as CvCs historical summaries, and his auto-Socratic methodology of self-discourse. But, none of that was what my post sought to address - and also get some answers from more learned folks.
Now to this one...
Quote:
... it is just a little puzzling that you would use that specific phrase from CvC to make your points, considering its origins, and what CvC was specifically trying to prove with it.
The answer is pretty mundane. This paragragh is one of the few (if not the only one) where CvC mentions international law (Völkerrecht). Since that was the focus of my post I took what I could get.
Now, CvC had no reason to go extensively into I Law or the Laws of War (LOAC) because in his experience they were not an important consideration. It was not until his fellow Prussian Lieber (as an expat to the US) took off with 1863 General Orders No. 100 that we see a decent codification. Thus, my first question in post #44:
Quote:
[1] "Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power." One wonders what CvC would think of the GCs, other conventions and modern ROEs - which are quite perceptible in our Laws of War.
I suspect he might say something along the lines that those constraints would affect the appearence (form as we see it), and impose limitations on its theoretical "growth pattern", but not affect its basic substance - e.g., his survey of European warfare post-Westphalia and pre-Napoleon. He probably would have used different words (I've used a neo-Platonist formula; as I understand it, he was more of a German Romanticist; but I'm no CvC SME).
Next question is also factually-based. In CvC's time, Transnational Violent Non-State Actors were not much of an issue (the transnational anarchists came later). So, that breed of cat was also not within his experience. Hence:
Quote:
[2] "... for there is no moral force without the conception of states and law ..." One wonders what CvC would have thought about non-State actors such as AQ, who have their own Rule of Law, Principles of War and Laws of War.
I suspect he would have extrapolated from the history known to him. Perhaps looking at the Roman Empire (which he found unique). This seems to be a more important question than the first.
The third reference to CvC is this:
Quote:
[3] The term "wehrlos" translates generally as "unprotected", "defenseless" or "helpless" (more figurative), which have a broader meaning than "disarmed".
My suggestion being that CvC (in normal German usage) is not limited to putting a round between the other guy's eyes, or him physically dropping his musket. There are other ways to accomplish the same result as kill or capture.
Anyway, those were my questions re: CvC - as yet unanswered.
Thanks for the PMs.
internal vs external may be another way to look at this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
What is a "populace based conflict?"
I only ask as all Wars are about political outcomes. It's the authority to which the people defer and obey, which is the issue, not they themselves. That is the same for all human conflict.
In those terms, fighting the Taliban is no different from fighting the Waffen SS. The prize was not the German people, no more than the prize is the "Afghan" people. The prize is someone exercising a useful degree of authority over them.
The nature of the fighting however, may have to be different, for POLITICAL reasons, as Clausewitz explains.
This is a phrase I use to differentiate between a state seeking a political objective from another state through war (state-based conflict) and a populace seeking a political objective from its own government through warfare (populace-based conflict)
My position being that how I resolve my differences with my own populace MUST be very different to how I resolve my differences with the government of some other state. I may well want and need to crush the will of the populace of that competitor state in order to defeat their government; but if a government needs to crush the will of its own populace in order to sustain itself in power, that is probably a governemnt that is so failed it needs to be replaced.
Some would quibble that a good COIN effort is only out to crush the will of some narrow segment of the populace...this is a slippery slope. Far better to ensure the dissident populace has a voice and to work to effect changes where appropriate and to keep the COIN as much in the lanes of law enforcement as possible in dealing with the criminal elements of the movement; while bringing the majority of the group back into the fold of good citizenry.
King George could have crushed the American Revolution with few simple reforms and an apology. Instead he sent the most powerful Army and Navy in the world and initiated the demise of his Kingdom. There are lessons to be learned from the mistakes of others.