Did I "lump" hunter-gatherers into anything ?
No, I didn't; and in fact I stated the works in that field are "seriously conflicting" - and again, I do things on a case by case basis.
If you have an argument about hunter-gatherers, take it up with The Curmudgeon who raised the topic in post #54:
Quote:
So, if war is political, what do we call it when pre-political hunter-gatherer tribes engage in organized violence - a rugby match? The reason we call it political is because that is how we see the world.
Regards
Mike
You two are having more fun with my little chart
than I did. :)
Quote:
In your graph in the left bottom corner is a condition that indicates that there is a level of violence but armed military action is not yet started. What do you see occurring in that space? Is this simply protests and political rhetoric or could an un-coalesced insurgency be included in that period.
Quote:
It could also represent the "fundraising" phase (as put forward by Carlos Marighella). He contended that insurgent groups (urban guerrillas in his language) needed to raise operational funds by robbing banks, kidnappings, and other activities calculated to generate operational funds.
All of the above are plausible as interactions between groups or a state and a group. As also are interactions between states short of war (aka armed conflict).
Let me tell you what my ideas were on the y and x axes - and they were much simpler (simplistic) than what you two are suggesting.
First as to the y axis of violence and destruction, we've had Lanchester models ("Lanchester's Laws") for a long time. E.g., Taylor, Lanchester Models of Warfare, volumes I & II. Operations Research Society of America (1983), which may be hanging around online as pdfs. And, Hugh Everett's 1959 WSEG study on the "The Distribution and Effects of Fallout in Large Nuclear-Weapon Campaigns". That was a major factor behind the Kennedy-McNamara flexible approach to war. The point is that the interactions of states, state & group and groups leading to violence-destruction have been modeled through the stages of insugency, and into conventional war and nuclear war.
The x axis is more problematic mathematically. It's based on Clausewitz's theory of state-state interactions in ratcheting up their means and wills to go from limited war to absolute war. You also could throw in some Andre Beaufre ("Peace" no longer makes a quantum leap to "War" - it's a spectrum); and Mao and Giap (the Political Struggle and the Military Struggle); and Bill Moore for the Transition Zone (although all errors in expressing it are mine). I don't know of any models based on a Clausewitzian continuum of Means and Wills; but there certainly could be one or more out there.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...7&d=1261157939
In summary, the x axis is a continuum of the Means and Wills created by the interactions of A and B. The y axis is the Effect caused by the interactions of A and B in "pushing" the button on the x axis and applying their Means and Wills from that point.
The genesis for the chart travels back to my watching Dr Zhivago one night, where the commisar says:
Quote:
Understand this: as the military struggle draws to a close, the political struggle intensifies. In the hour of victory, the military will have served its purpose - and all men will be judged POLITICALLY - regardless of their military record! Meanwhile, there are still White units in this area ...
and, before that, a Dow poster showing a Bull and Bear wrestling. All very Claustewitzian. :D
In mucking about the Web today, I came on this abstract, Spatial Lanchester models (2011):
Quote:
Lanchester equations have been widely used to model combat for many years, nevertheless, one of their most important limitations has been their failure to model the spatial dimension of the problems. Despite the fact that some efforts have been made in order to overcome this drawback, mainly through the use of Reaction-Diffusion equations, there is not yet a consistently clear theoretical framework linking Lanchester equations with these physical systems, apart from similarity. In this paper, a spatial modeling of Lanchester equations is conceptualized on the basis of explicit movement dynamics and balance of forces, ensuring stability and theoretical consistency with the original model. This formulation allows a better understanding and interpretation of the problem, thus improving the current treatment, modeling and comprehension of warfare applications. Finally, as a numerical illustration, a new spatial model of responsive movement is developed, confirming that location influences the results of modeling attrition conflict between two opposite forces.
and an interesting abstract on social animals, Lanchester's attrition models and fights among social animals (2003):
Quote:
Lanchester's models of attrition during warfare have served as the basis for several predictions about conflicts between groups of animals. These models and their extensions describe rates of mortality during battles as functions of the number and fighting abilities of individuals in each group, allowing analysis of the determinants of group strength and of the cumulative numbers of casualties. We propose modifications to Lanchester's models to improve their applicability to social animals. In particular, we suggest that the per-capita mortality rate of a group is a decreasing function of the fighting abilities of its members, that the mortality rate is an increasing function of the number of individuals in both groups, and that there will often be diminishing returns for increasing numerical advantage. Models incorporating these assumptions predict that the ability of social animals to win fights depends less on group size and more on individual prowess than under Lanchester's original models. We discuss how data on casualties can be used to distinguish among alternative attrition models.
That's all folks.
Regards
Mike
Did CT Kill COIN?: Perspectives on the Special Forces Raids
Did CT Kill COIN?: Perspectives on the Special Forces Raids
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.