Printable View
Found this article in Oct 69 issue of military review. A different point view of in which the author believes there are 3 types of counterinsurgencies, of which only one can be won by a major power! Although it is old he points a few sticky points on CI theory like the British have lost more than they have won. And worst of all terrorist based CI has never been defeated by a major power. What doe the council think of this person views?
https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil...CUR_DOCUMENT=1
I think the whole part about Terrorist War is relevant. With that in mind, it appears, at least at the moment as well as the coming test of Iraqi security forces, that the counterinsurgency has a slight lead. Blowing up a line of would-be police recruits only to watch the survivors and responders clean up the mess and see these people get right back in line is not a good sign for the terrorists. Strike one. Of course, I'm hypothetically looking at the insurgency (terrorists) as one cohesive force, which is not exactly the case in Iraq. Strike two. Also, the insurgency (terrorists) have lost the valued asset of staying the course and not losing. They have blown that out of the water as far as I am concerned. Strike three.Quote:
The terrorists can successfully operate in the cities only if the population approves their cause and their methods, otherwise they would risk betrayal and extinction since security forces are usually strong in the cities. If the terrorists have insufficient popular support, their movement confronted by a determined security force, will collapse.
Strikingly (no pun intended), I see the counterinsugency methods for Terrorist War described in the article currently being implemented in Iraq. Thanks for sharing this with us.
I think the part about Terrorist War is a must read. The other parts are not that relevant for what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nevertheless, this is definitely a reading list recommendation for anyone needing a quick idea of what is going on with unconventional wars.
It's an interesting read, to be sure. I'm not sure if I agree with all of his conclusions, though.
Yes, I have some questions myself but according to the sidebar he died a few months before the article was published. I do think he was on to something with his classification system, but it does not look like we will ever know what his complete theory was.
Culpper and Steve thanks for responding. Anybody else out there with comments??
I also see the terrorist war as relevent, especially in how he mentioned the cities as the major area of operations. That's exactly what we are dealing with in Iraq.
More than anything else, and I might be oversimplifying this, but the article does not address the issue of popular support of the counter insurgent from the counter insurgent's home country.
I think we have over analyzed the insurgents and terrorists, I think that we fully understand how they operate, their TTP change, but that has always been. Now is the time for us to analyze why is it that America can't seem to muster the starch to support their own military in a counter insurgent role. Especially when that support requires absolutey no sacrifice in their daily life? America has always stood for, indeed, proclaimed publicly that it will work toward the liberation of the oppressed and for the spread of democracy, every president of the modern era has expressed this ideal to wild cheers from audiences the world over. Now, here we are in the middle of such an effort, and America seems to have misplaced it's collective backbone. I tell you, I'm at a loss. We can put down the insurgency in Iraq, to me, it's simply a matter of being patient, and supportive.
The article was interesting, it didn't offer anything we don't already know. What I found significant was that it was written during the Vietnam War and that most of it is as relevent today as it was back then.
I've come to the conclusion that a small number of people have managed to frame the argument over the Iraq war. I've also come to the conclusion that the real opposition to the war isn't so much over the war itself, but opposition of Bush. I think there are just enough Democrats out there still so angry over the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 that their top priority is to deny any modicum of success no matter how small, but especially the war in Iraq to the Bush Administration. I may be over simplifying here, but I think there is a good deal of truth to it.
I agree, the ability to create wholesale sedition can be placed right at the foot of the executive branch. Woodrow Wilson used the Sedition Act of 1918 for good reason and with good results. The Sedition Act was short and sweet and makes the entire Patriot Act look like the Girl Scout Manual.
Yep, having been around during Vietnam there was definitely a get Nixon attitude and we are seeing it again with a get Bush attitude. Who suffers America.
There are defiantly some people out there who just don’t want to see Bush have any success but I don’t think they are really much of an issue. I assume they were out there 3+ years ago when public support for the war was in the area of 70%, the change since then isn’t more people are out to get Bush it is 3 years of failing policy. The fact of the matter is that had we had any real success in dealing with the Iraqi guerrillas those that wanted to bash Bush would not have much to use against him; but as the insurgency has grown (in spite of administration statements to the contrary) those that opposed Bush have come more to look like visionaries than partisans.
For the original article, it is very interesting but I agree that it doesn’t seem fully developed.
Stu-6 thanks for bringing the conversation back to the real subject, which is the article and our failed policies, not anti-Bushism. Bush is unpopular because his policies have positioned our country on the losing side of the battle in Iraq. His unpopularism doesn't equate to Americans wanting to see us fail in Iraq, it is exactly the opposite, we're a country that doesn't accept defeat easily, and we have an administration leading us in that direction. Is it patriotic to blindly embrace an administration that has led the country astray, or is it patriotic to challenge the administration for the good of the country? The last thing we need is an act that shuts up those whose challenge any administration. That is a slippery slope we don't want to get on as a nation.
I think we need to refocus the conversation back onto the article. It stated in the article that this was an abbreviated version, so it would be worthwhile if we could find the original article in full.
This shouldn't be too hard to find. Just track down the issue of the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution and you'd be set.
I think discussing counterinsurgency support at home is relevant to the topic. Woodrow Wilson used the following and was able to fight a world war and have the troops home within about 18 months. When the act was no longer needed it was simply repealed.
Quote:
Section 3
Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service...
[edit] Section 4
When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or concern is using the mails in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person or concern to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed, with the words "Mail to this address undeliverable under Espionage Act" plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof, and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders thereof under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.