Regular vs irregular opponent
Serious question from this:
Quote:
from Klugzilla
Next fun question: what is an irregular opponent? I understand it, the group who did the analysis for the first IW JOC considered using this as the basis for IW, but rejected it.
What is your understanding of which you speak - the definition which was rejected ?
The reason for my question is that the distinction between regular and irregular combatants underlies the key issues (in LOAC); about which, I attempt to post with some semblence of professionalism.
This is a basic definition on which both military and legal have to occupy the same page.
Regards
Mike
Hey, sounds like a new thread ....
Quote:
from Klugzilla
There is a joint or Army definition of irregular forces, which isn't necessarily tied to irregular warfare (I personally see the disconnect). However, the definition is “Armed individuals or groups who are not members of the regular armed forces, police, or other internal security forces.” I would like to see that definition refined and expanded upon. As it reads, it essentially says they’re irregular forces because they’re not regular. And there is no definition of regular forces. The definition for paramilitary forces has similar problems. If you have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and potentially get them into doctrine. Do we all basically know the difference between regular, paramilitary, and irregular forces? Yes, but I would like to see the doctrinal definitions improved.
If this hasn't been "threaded" before (need to check), should it go in "Doctrine & TTPs", "Training & Education" or elsewhere. It is not "Law Enforcement", since the primary importance is in things military (and its interfaces with diplomacy and policy).
Mike
Thanks, Cliff. Good to know
Big Blue didn't lose the bubble. The Army used to do it that way, then the educators got involved... :wry: