On the avoidance of small wars
Something was missing in this forum, and now I know what: A "How to avoid cutting yourself" thread. Discussing knifes, knife combat techniques and bandages is fine, but it's better to not cut yourself in the first place.
I called this "avoidance" of small wars for a reason; there will likely always be conflicts. The question is about how to not stick your head too much into the dangerous mess of other people.
Some countries can resist such urges better than others, maybe the more self-controlled ones who can resist such urges and thus did not suffer much harm from small wars do something right?
What's the difference between a country that's believing it needs to be involved in distant, foreign and quite often totally irrelevant conflicts and a country that's cool?
I'm fully aware that there are many ideas (I call them "myths") about how sticking your head into distant conflicts somehow keeps the world from exploding or something, but the history of the last decade should have told even those myth-believers that involvement is akin to self-mutilation.
# What does it take to motivate a country to intervene military in distant places without clear national interests (economical, political obligations) to outweight the costs?
# What does it take to counter these motivations?
# Can institutional safeguards help or is it all about political culture and special interests?
# How can a principal-agent problem ('chickenhawks in government') be avoided?
# Do any countries have effective legal counterweights to political aggressiveness (such as conscription of sons of politicians into front-line infantry?)
# What's the role of mass media? Can feeding the media with interestign stories keep them from pushing for war (intentionally or indirectly) because of a lack of good alternative media contents?
Two very different Worldviews
(1) Don't let one onion layer be peeled, lest the core be lost (Integral Rigidity):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NtWch3yJJe...s400/onion.jpg
(2) Let 'em eat the apple, but protect the core (Concentration of Mass):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...talsN6L0M0.png
The rest of the questions are answered by choice of Worldview.
Regards
Mike
I for one am very interested in this...
I know that the journal Spectrum at the National Defense University is also very interested in something called "Phase Zero Warfare". I'm not sure if this is the same thing as this thread is talking about. I admit to being woefully uninformed about the topic.
As I integrate the elements of conflict into the framework of cyber-power I realized having met with the Spectrum editors that nobody had looked at pre-engagement and the elements of decision processes leading up to a conflict other than as contingency planning.
Sidebar: I contend that small wars is the only paradigm where hybrid warfare is fully ensconced as a principle of conflict. Other conflict proponents refer to "joint" warfare which is not the same as hybrid warfare. I think that the use of cyber-power is inherently a hybrid form of warfare similar to space and air (that ought to raise a few hackles).
So, I'd like to know what the structures and principles of this "before operations" begin likely are. How do you know you're pre-conflict unless you've already decided you're entering conflict (seems circular)? What are the operational steps? I've seen lots of operational plans but they are either assessments "blue sky" that are then "operational plans" but then that brings up the whole circular argument again. That leads to what it means to avoid something via military planning. If you're avoiding it doesn't that mean you've already approached it? I can talk about polar cases (political leadership, military leadership and their failures) but where the defining lines are and how deescalation works in the small wars spectrum works? In large scale conflict of nation state "large" war there is a significant literature but the mechanisms seem ill suited to small wars.
Well that's how it appears.
My sensing is that the majority do know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
The vast majority of Americans are fine people but they do need to know how they and their country are perceived in the world outside (then they can figure out why this is).
Don't care and are not concerned with a great deal of change. There are those in the US who do have concerns on that score and hope for change, mostly in academe or journalism. They do not reflect the opinions of most Americans. Fortunately.
It is noted a number of people from elsewhere are 'concerned' for America. Touching, that. :rolleyes: