Printable View
It seems to me that we are the decentralized kind of group that Robb argues we need.
The way we bounce ideas off each other is much better than if we had one leader and 9 paid people below them.
Technology has really made this place possible.
If we cant defeat the terrorists we can at least be happy that they cant defeat the SWJ........
Anyways I am re-reading the book and will be posting more of what I think, I hope people are still up for some debating.
I got a copy but got diverted by this thing called a job. Still have to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FascistLibertarian
In any case with regards to the terrs and SWJ, we can outpost 'em till their eyes bleed...:wry:
Tom
on page 4 Robb states
"their single most important asset is their organizational structure, an open-sourced community network"
Seems like what we have going on here ;)
What book?
Brave New War by John Robb
check out his blog here
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
hes wicked (Canadian slang)
;)
Oh, thanks. I'll put on my list.
I got the book but unfortunately I also got a dozen books added to my reading list.
I'll read it on Friday and post some thoughts.
You can read a book like that in a day? I wish I can do that. It may take me a couple of weeks to get through something like "Imperial Grunts". The subject matter is just too intense. I'll get through a couple of chapters and be mentally exhausted. And one of my majors was History. I guess I'm getting older.
Grad school works your fortitude up.
I have a "stupid" question. What is the difference between low intensity conflicts and small wars?
In reality, nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Of course, there are plenty of folks who will argue the toss about definitions - like the 4,000 insurgency definitions we have and the 10,000 or so terrorism ones. Bottom line, if if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck......
Cheers,
Mark
'Low intensity conflict' was the U.S.' doctrinal phrase during the 1980s and 1990s. In included counterinsurgency, support to insurgency, counterterrorism, and multinational peacekeeping. It was eventually replaced by military operations other than war, then simply operations other than wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
So, I think there is a difference. "Small wars" would focus on the warfighting dimension. Some things which were part of low intensity conflict--peacekeeping and counterterrorism--would not, to me, be war.
Today, the primary doctrinal and strategy phrases are irregular warfare (IW) or irregular challenges, and stability, security, transition and reconstruction operations (SSTR)
Hi Sam--
To expand on Steve's response a bit (even though you didn't really want to know:D), we - the USG and US military - have always had a hard time coming up with a descriptive and acceptable term. In 1973, the Army was using Stability Operations. This was after it had used COIN throughout the Vietnam War. In 1981, following from the writing of Frank Kitson - a Brit - the term Low Intensity Conflict (Kitson's term was low intensity operations) came into currency. It survived through FM 100-20 of 1990. FM 100-5 of 1993 introduced the term Operations Other Than War (OOTW) which the Joint community modified in Joint Pub 3.0 to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). By 1997 the Army was trying to move away from OOTW/MOOTW and came up with Stabilty & Support Operations (SASO) - haven't we been there before? This year the Army and MC published FM 3-24 the COIN manual, deja vu all over again.
As to Small Wars. I first found the term in COL C. E. Callwell's 1896 publication Small Wars. In 1940 the USMC published the Small Wars Manual. Both volumes address nearly all the types of conflict that are found in LIC, SASO, OOTW, MOOTW, and COIN.
I don't think there really is much difference then, between (among) these terms. My personal bias (perhaps due to serving in the Southcom Small Wars Operations Research Directorate (which began life as the Southcom Low Intensity Conflict Cell [SLICC]) is Small Wars. But I will be glad to discuss substantive issues under any terminology:)
Cheers
JohnT
PS The only term that has legal currency is LIC. It is found in the Cohen-Nunn Amendment to the 1986 Defense Appropriations Act and creates the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD-SO/LIC), the only ASD that is created by law.
I maintain a dissenting view - I think the 'small wars' label tends to be all encompassing. If one took the USMC manual as an example, it is about far more than 'merely' warfighting. That is the reason why it was written - most military people get the 'warfighting' piece - it is all the other stuff rolled into the label (pol, legal, dev etc) that required amplification and expansion. The rational is evident in C.E Calwell's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMetz
I think the posts have substantiated the view that our lexicon is problematic and remains contested.
Mark--
Just one more word. the term Small Wars as used by Callwell and the USMC 1940 appears to apply to conflicts that involve regular forces and what we today call non-state actors. To me, that seems a good enough definition for a term that, for all the tinkerig, hasn't been improved upon.
Cheers
JohnT
.... though Bill and I did buy the domain name licmootwootwiwcoinsmallwarssasosstr.com just in case.
I bet there was not too much competition for that one!Quote:
Originally Posted by SWJED
Hooah!!! Oorah!!! Hip, hip, hooray!!!:)
Was about to say the same thing. After all, isn't the consensus view that politics is generally more important than military force in the majority of small wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill
Another term for the mix is "aid to the civil power." The Brits used that one back in the day.
I'll hop on the "small wars" bandwagon as well.
Make it a 4-some
The very nature of small wars make them high risk because while they ideally are done out of sight, out of mind, they are politically explosive at all times.
Tom
...... and when you add in the idea of de-centralized warfare (from the book) what happens to small wars? Is it still in the genre of low intensity conflict or totally different? Is it possible small wars is a sub genre of low intensity conflict or is it totally unrelated?
I wouldn't really consider small wars per se to be part of LIC, but rather the reverse.
One reason I tend to prefer the term "small wars" is that it often reflects the overall level of a nation's commitment in terms of time and treasure to the conflict. Notice that I use "nation" in preference to "military" because that's the level of policy that is being discussed, IMO. It's still engaging all aspects of a nation's power, just at a lower (smaller) level than a full-scale war might. To me the term LIC is just too limiting, as it implies just the military side of things and tends to hint that somehow it isn't a war...which again to me sends up signals of "disposable" forces and objectives.
The commitment of Marines in Central America during the 1920s and the British colonial involvements over the years were questions of national policy and engaged many elements of both nations' political and military infrastructure. They were certainly wars (although with limited forces - the objectives weren't always as limited), but the overall commitment of time and treasure in comparison to other national activities was small.
I would hazard a guess that one reason the US has been so anxious to create new terms for this (LIC, MOOTW, alphabet soup....) has more to do with domestic political considerations (possibly including the fact that the use of the term "small war" might get some in Congress excited about needing a declaration of war) than it does actual utility. The resistance of some of the services to working with the State Department (and vice versa) may also play a role.