An IW “Bottle of Scotch” Challenge
Quote:
Originally posted in the SWJ Blog by Frank Hoffman.
All in all - the beginnings of a good debate. Yes, we need a definition better than what we have. Yes, concur with the point about populations (very COIN centric). But out of a dozen or so definitions that exist in the foreign literature, and the six or so developed by OSD, Army, Booze Allen etc, this is not an improvement. Sorry about that – so it’s back to the white board. I will put up a bottle of scotch to the best definition.
KISS- Keep it simple stupid. I'll drink to that!!!
1. UW-us helping dudes take down a bad government. Broken down into components.
- 1a. Contact me on SIPR.
- 1b. Contact me on SIPR.
2. IW- us helping a friendly government stop dudes from taking them down. Broken down into components.
- 2a. SFA- We give them big guns, ships, and planes to help smack the dudes, and we teach them how to use the toys.
- 2b. FID- We send a small SF team or MTT team to combat advise.
- 2c. Partnership (co-located)-Army unit (the current majority of US forces in Iraq/Afghanistan)- we live with them and help them stop the bad dudes.
- 2d. Partnership (not co-located)- Army units (Iraq 2003-2006) live in their land and stop by once a week to tell them how bad they suck at stopping the bad dudes.
- 2e. Training exercises- Army units embark on temporary duty to jump outta airplanes or drive tanks with our brothers, high five, and encourage them to stop the bad dudes. Army unit leaves with foreign jump wings or gives up stetsons.
Who's next?
v/r
Mike
It sounds like someone...
...has broken into the bottle of scotch a bit early. No, this tangent doesn't have anything to do with defining IW (Britney Spears? PJ's portraying themselves as the "main effort?" Do you actually know any PJ's?). Furthermore, one wonders if you are aware of any irony at all in your rail against AF parochialism.
ginspace,
How you classify irregular forces and tactics in support of a nation state? For example, the Fedeyeen and the car and truck bombs used during the drive to Baghdad during OIF.
Oh, take your irony pill...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion. :(
Not that bad... ;)
Mike F has a point also -- on the parochial bit -- not just dinging the Air Force; all the services, USSOCOM, branches within the Army, communities within the other services all get silly about stuff. It's wasteful and counterproductive. Really needs to stop...:(
However, and very seriously, as to Irregular Warfare.
My first point is that DoD paper is good to go for a first cut and doesn't need to be quarreled with before the ink is dry; that's pointless. Having said that:
Here's the problem as described by Hoffman:
Quote:
"In over a year of effort, and two separate meetings of OSD's most senior officers; we failed to come up with a good solid definition for Irregular Warfare (IW). It’s like porn, we know IW when we see it." (emphasis added / kw)
I'm surprised with all that ego you got as far as you did. When everyone is always right and everyone differs on comma placement, it's hard to agree. You don't ask those kinds of guys for a definition, especially not in a group. You convince them that your definition is correct and their idea. I am NOT being facetious -- nor, really, am I being disrespectful. FlagOs should be doing FlagO stuff and definitions are not FlagO stuff. If you ask them to get involved, they will (and you'll wish you had not), if you tell them their help is not required, most -- the good ones -- will accede.
Oh, and I don't drink scotch; thanks anyway. :wry:
Within our own government?
That would simply be dubbed "Change," but I like where you're headed.
v/r
Mike
Within our own government!
How can one not look at what is happening today within our own government and not see it as a hostile take over or UW if you please, only thing missing is the action arm, oh that's right 20,000 troops dedicated to NORTHCOM!!!! Sorry not to get political on here, just thinking it can be looked at as a form of UW. Which then really blurs the lines. Outta box kinda guy here, sorrry.
Is it the objective or the actor?
The definition is good enough to generate discussion on where we have gaps, but it is far from ideal, just as our definitions of unconventional warfare are far from ideal. Does it need to have a perfect definition, or is an idea or generalized concept enough?
Part of the definition addresses the actors who are non-state, and another part of the definition addresses the focus of the strategy which is a specific population.
Conventional/regular warfare is generally thought of as conventional military forces fighting other conventional military forces, so the actor is the nation state and their conventional military forces and the objective is the enemy's capability to wage conventional war.
I think we all know that war is much more complex than that, and that IW and regular warfare elements will almost always be blended.
This is a tough one, but I do like Scotch, so I may give it a try later.