No statement pertaining to warfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
I also think KW's assertion that both are occurring simultaneously is not completely accurate.
is ever completely accurate. War is too chaotic to codify and define precisely. We can have fun trying but we will not succeed.
Quote:
Doctors both stabilize patients and treat patients, often, but not always, simultaneously, and often, but not always, using different procedures. One goal of patient stablization is to try to ensure that they don't die on the table while the docs are trying to treat the cause of the problem--for example, they keep pumping blood into the patient (stablization) while they are figuring out which artery has been cut and then suture it back together (kinetic intervention or treatment). Sometimes however, I suspect that stablizaing the patient is also treatment--as when aspirin is administered to a person with a fever. Maybe I'm applying the wrong analogy, but it sure seems to me that peace is the political analogue to biological health.
Good analogy. Simultaneous efforts in different directions by the same actors (Doctors) and / or others on the team...:wry:
Sort of like pursuing an irregular or other war while attempting to stabilize the nation through various means. Frequently including Band aids... :D
I'd add that the hippocratic oath model, 'first do no harm,' is at best extremely difficult to accomplish and at worst a wishful dream if war of any type at any level is involved. War is by nature harmful and you absolutely cannot clean it up. The worst mistake we, the US have made in recent years (1950 forward) is to try to fight wars and do minimal harm in the process. Going light inevitably, without fail, always (I'm into triple redundancy...) increases own and other casualties and lengthens combat time. Always.
Rank amatuer said above we were too nice -- I disagreed on the premise that he was talking about the Armed Forces. We aren't nice, we do what our civilian masters say. They are too nice (left handed compliment), seriously. Unfortunately, that attempt to be nice sends a message. To the western mind, it's that we're really basically nice guys who want to be loved -- to everyone else in the world, it's a sign of major weakness. The unnecessary debacles of the handling of Viet Nam, Tehran, Beirut and such sent a message that we did not intend -- that we're not up to the tough stuff. We are now paying for that utter stupidity.
There's always a time to play nice -- unless force is involved; then to play nice or attempt to is to invite a disaster. Fortunately, we're pretty good at cobbling together band aids and fixes to prevent total melt down -- but we lose too many good kids in the process...
I digress...
Irregular Warfare is indeed a western construct and is not an applicable term to either the Asian or Middle Eastern forms of warfare and those forms do differ in considerable detail. Still it is a handy term and there's no reason not to use it to describe, to western minds, a form of conflict.
Irregular Warfare (and / or other types of warfare) and Stability Operations may be simultaneously conducted. Or they may not be. Or there may be a time phased melding. I believe that METT-TC applies in that determination...
Uncountable accountability
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
I certainly didn't mean to imply that we were worse than anyone else.
Didn't think or mean to impute that you did so imply. My point was that is not an aberration or a new, specific to the 'GWOT' thing; here or any where else in the world.
Quote:
I agree with you that war is chaotic and destructive (which is why it shouldn't be entered into lightly, and if you do it, you need to win.)...
I agree with you. Now which of us is going to get the Politicians to wake up and get real? :wry:
Quote:
...Except for one thing, when one of our guys is killed building a school, paving a road or handing out candy. To me, that is avoidable and means someone has screwed up somewhere.
Not sure how you avoid that. Roads need to be built; having Schools is a good thing -- somebody's gotta do it. If the bad guys appear while either of those things is being done, a fight is likely -- no different from a fight started by an attack on a resupply convoy or an attack on a combat outpost...
Candy handout by American troops has a long and mostly honorable history; the Troops do it on their own -- even when they're ordered not to do it. Thus, I'm not sure why those three things (or somewhat similar things) being done and resulting in a death are any worse than any other reason...
Quote:
I think you need to hold the people who screwed it up accountable: even if you voted for them. (If you give a politicain a free pass, you know that the next one in line is going to feel entitled to another free pass in the same situation.)
I agree with that but I'd strongly suggest they be held accountable for what they screwed up and not for the screwups of others or their subordinates who screwed up. That only seems fair. For example, the invasion of Iraq was done fairly well; the subsequent 'occupation' and the unnecessary insurgency were the fault of, respectively, unelected Generals and to a lesser extent, equally unelected Intell Community types. If you have a way to "hold them accountable" let me know what it is and I'll jump on that bandwagon.
Harry was just another politician.
They're all pathetic and say stuff like that but rarely follow through. He wasn't much better than any of the others.
Still, accept that the premise is valid. That means you vote against Bush. Wait, he's not running. What to do...:D
Seriously; you can obviously believe that and act on it. Fine with me (my general rule is to vote for the least bad candidate and to vote out incumbents, all party immaterial) -- however, you do realize that if I'm correct and the Intel Community and the Generals bear considerable responsibility for their errors, your solution does not fix that problem and it will just recur...
Edited to add:
Some how I missed part of your response above; three items:
Re: "Right here. The Brits left and we only use them for peaceful purposes. Except for the criminals, but there are criminals everywhere: always will be." Obviously you missed the period 1861-65 or had no history classes and are unaware that there are probably more firearms than there are people in this country. We're a lot of things, disarmed is not one of them. So, that won't work. Find me another nation that has effectively totally disarmed the populace -- and Criminals count, the tool is the object, not the user.
Re: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" -- nice juvenile and facile answer but sometimes things happen due to gross miscalculations. One can play 'Who's to blame for this?' all day long; doesn't change reality
Re: "Just wanted to save that for future reference ;)" Your preorgative -- one would hope you would use it in context...
Gotta beware of blowback,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
I've learned you that you do whatever you can to get a tactical advantage: especially when you're outgunned.;)
it's always a prob... :D
Quote:
Re: juvenile: Other than Afghanistan, all our COIN missions are optional and retreat isn't the same as defeat. If success requires at least a decade, and we're not prepared to stay a decade than engaging means almost certain failure.
Afghanistan is optional, totally, as well. Iraq was not intended to be a COIN job; something changed in May 2003 and we turned from an imminent departure to staying. Thus far, I haven't been able to find out what that was. Could speculate but not here.
That decade bit is Kilcullen and Co. blather -- it's not written in stone, the length can vary depending on many parameters; Kenya only took a nominal seven years, 1952-59 but most of the the actual fighting was confined to 1954-57. Greece also took only three -- conversely, the Philippines took over 15 in total; ten is just an average. Nothing in war is ever certain and the unexpected is always right around the corner...:eek:
No, retreat is not the same as defeat -- yet, it can send a message that is better not sent. For example we retreated in front of ME attacks from 1979 until 2001, over 20 of them with the Tehran Embassy seizure and the several messes in Beirut simply encouraging them to keep at it. We weren't defeated but we were embarrassed and looked weak. To the ME, that is an open invitation to attack. They do not fight like we do and they do not think like we do -- they aren't wrong, just different.
Each successive turning of the other cheek only emboldens them. Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton all erred significantly in that regard -- you don't like where we are; they're the folks you really need to be upset with. They are the reason we're in the ME (Afghanistan is NOT in the ME), the current Admin is merely the reason the place in the ME is Iraq. I'd submit that if one has to be there in a combat mode, Iraq is easily the easiest and best place to be...
You have to tailor your tactics and your parameters to your enemy. You do not need to fight the way he fights but you have to know how he fights and you should be very careful not to send the wrong signals. We did that for almost 30 years and are paying the price for doing so. We could leave Iraq and do it fairly quickly. I'll flat guarantee you that if we do it too quickly we'll have to go back and it will be far worse.
Definitions are clear as they need to be
Marc sort of mentioned it in one of his posts here, but words not only have meaning, they shape the way we perceive and explain the world. Imagine a doctor from the 16th century and a doctor from the 21st century explaining the life cycle of a disease. The doctor from the 16th century would not only be limited by available knowledge, but by his vocabulary. Not only do we have more knowledge, we have developed additional terms that explain certain phenomena that simply were inconceivable previously. More to the point, words shape the way we define problems (whether simple or complex), to include the nature of war and how we should respond to it.
After several false starts, under GEN Abrams the Army seemed to have finally relearned that war is not simply war, but that the nature of war varies greatly, as does the way we should wage it. If the book, “Army at Dawn” is considered credible, than at the start of WWII we had officers who didn’t see the value of armor, and sincerely believed they could defeat Rommel’s armor with horse Calvary. This further illustrates our reluctance to change, thus true leaders are those who have the ability to push past these self imposed cultural constraints that limit how and what we think (we’re more like Mao’s communist puppets than we want to admit).
Whether or not irregular warfare is old term in a new dress is not important, what is important is that our Army as a whole didn’t understand the underlying concepts of IW, so therefore resurfacing the term was critical in facilitating a needed cultural change within the Army to enable it to adapt to the type of war it is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Terms can help facilitate a more accurate understanding of the problem, which is the first step to effectively solving any problem. Is the term IW needed? Definitely!
I’ll take a stab at further mudding the waters by attempting to explain away the apparent conflict between irregular warfare and stability operations.
In short irregular and conventional warfare are broad strategic approaches to solving a problem with armed force. In conventional warfare the objective is defeating the enemy’s fielding armed forces and/or forcing their leaders (usually state leaders) to capitulate by targeting their national infrastructure. In irregular warfare the objective is controlling (which means influencing) the populace. There is a gray area in the middle where there is some overlap, but if one attempts to control the populace with conventional warfare they will fail unless they identify the entire populace as hostile and target them for genocide or dislocation.
To further complicate the matter, unconventional warfare tactics such as guerrilla warfare and sabotage can be used to support conventional warfare. If the focus is on defeating fielding enemy forces or coercing/killing their leadership versus controlling the population, then it is still conventional warfare. An interesting note is that the first Special Forces qualification course was called the PSYWAR course for psychological warfare (or political warfare). At least at one time we understood the true nature of this type of warfare.
Moving on to stability operations, FM 3-0 states we do offensive, defensive, and stability operations in both conventional warfare and IW. This is overly simplistic, but it does clarify that stability operations are an operation, not a strategic approach in itself. It further states there must be a degree of peace (stable to unstable peace) before we can conduct stability operations, which may mean we need to first conduct offensive operations to clear an area, then defensive operations to provide security for the populace while concurrently conducting stability operations in the areas secured.
Stability operations can be conducted in numerous situations, including counterinsurgency operations, peace enforcement operations, humanitarian assistance operations, etc. The objective is to establish, or re-establish a safe and secure environment and facilitate “essential” services. The military’s role can range from providing logistics to security to actually providing the services as a stop gap measure.
Stability operations, if successful, create a window of opportunity for effective political intervention. They are not an end in themselves.
Since most of us are focused on COIN currently (a mission within the scope of IW), stability operations are a supporting operation to help establish conditions to effect government control of an area. As stated earlier there are two types of control, coercive and legitimate. If the situation warrants the government conducts defensive operations (coercive control of the populace), then they strive to achieve legitimate control as quickly as possible with stability operations and other political activities.
While mostly in agreement, one question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
c.) A Stability Operation is about creating Stability, but so is every legitimate conflict. Conflict must create a better peace. Even when groups aim at creating "instability" they do so to create circumstances under which they can prosper and gain eventual stability.
d.) Stability is relative, not absolute. Stability will mean different thinks to different folks. Providing security creates a degree of stability.
Does conflict necessarily have to result in a "better" peace or can it result in a simple lack of further conflict do to one parties inability to continue effectively (at that time)?
Furthermore would this then lend to the transition to different types of conflict and thus the necessity to study and understand each in and of itself?
Finally isn't it human nature that we require definitive separation of styles of warfare in order to understand how to prosecute them effectively. in other words whether they are truly different or not matters not so much as how we approach them differently.