From the same link Wilf provided, there is this:
Quote:
"The hybrid warfare challenge is complicated {1}. The 2010 QDR will be helpful only if it provides clear guidance in response. Planning documents that leave leaders unclear about what they are responsible for will result in confusion, not clarity{2}."{Notes added / kw}
While I really agree in principle, in practice I'm terribly afraid Note 1 negates any possibility of Note 2 being provided. Thus it has always been... :wry:
Clarity in military operations is always desirable but rarely provided, thus the requirement for people to THINK instead of merely reacting in a rote manner. He or she who does not rapidly adapt is likely to fail. Any attempt to provide excess clarity in doctrine or planning is also likely to fail -- and to breed further failure in the attempt...
You cannot completely teach adaptability and flexibility. You have to hire for them. As well as fire for the lack of them...
Wilf, I believe this ....
Quote:
from Wilf
Having said that, how come 5 years of the current ROE, has meant that US Forces have killed more civilians in 2 x COIN campaigns than Israel did 2 x State v State Wars, in the same time period, and nobody blinked?
is a profoundly intelligent question which should be answered - if the factual premise of the question is correct (I don't know one way or the other).
So, if you will consent to be the expert witness under barrister examination (;)), what are the statistics for the factual premise and the sources for those statistics ?
As we all know, the statistics for civilian casualities have been a matter of dispute as to the numbers and who caused the deaths; and have been spun, spindled and mutilated with reckless abandon.
The comparisons (hopefully leading to the answer to your question) could relate to the relative kinetics vice the opponents in each conflict, and to the relative kinetics vice the conflicts. But, first we have to have facts we can agree on.
Wilf, OK, I'm more comfortable ...
with the comparable statistics going by the boards; and framing the question in your present terms:
Quote:
from Wilf
It's political-operational point. [1] 3 years after the US became "COIN"-aware [2] F-18's are rolling in on targets, and [3] civilian deaths by NATO are in excess of 500 a year (maybe 800). That to me, is symptomatic of a problem.
1. Please define the problem; and the general solutions you posit.
2. As to which of the three symptoms does the IDF differ; and how could its experience assist in solving the problem you have defined in answering #1.
I believe your answers will be material to the question of what degrees of force should be used.
PS: This is direct (friendly witness) examination because the questions are totally open-ended - from your friendly barrister :)
Interesting report, but ...
only one side of the story. The data required for a full LOAC analysis is probably not open source. You would need something like the following for each air strike:
Type (CAS, UAV, HAB - whatever other types there are)
No. PGF involved; KIA & WIA (any fratricide ?)
No. AGE involved; KIA & WIA
No. NC involved; KIA & WIA
Based on the report, a couple of events = a lot of KIA & WIA. How many airstrikes involved no NC casualties, for example. The idea is to get at the overall military necessity and proportionality.
The professionals here can improve on this by correcting the terminology, etc.