COIN and the break down in our own society
[QUOTE=Arnie;102354][QUOTE=William F. Owen;102233]
Dave Kilcullen cannot tell you because he can't tell the future. Neither can anyone else. Even if he could it wouldn't have much if any impact on training. Just do the stuff you've had to do in the past.
Crystal balls are hard to find I agree, but it seems in many facets of human endeavour we are always planning strategies and operations on the past in the hope we will avert a similar tragedy or event in the future.
Is COIN really any different to the "war" that has been waged in our cities between our social justice systems and a crime, drug and violence fuelled neighbourhood? This sector of our population can feel pretty isolated and lacking in representation so looks to other avenues. The Police, social workers, volunteers, NGOs and Government services try to set in a different levels to counter the criminal and gang activity that exploits this mess. May be we need to hire reformed gang leaders to help with COIN in Afghanistan?
Religion, politics and all that...
Carl Schmitt would most certainly agree, as do I, with Wilf's assertion above which see Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty
Quote:
All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularised theological concepts not only because of their historical development - in which they were transformed from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent God became the omnipotent lawgiver - but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in tha last centuries (p.36)
Of course the separation between the omnipotent G-d and the omnipotent lawgiver does not exist in Islam, nor does the separation of church and state. Ironically, it took the Reformation, the rise of humanism (fuelled by the Reformation and the Rennaissance in classical learning) , the Treaty of Augsberg (accepting the division of Christendom into two major sects), the Thirty Years War, the Treaty of Utrecht (sanctioning the balance of power as a principle of international politics and the state as the primary actor in it) and the secularist bias of the Enlightenment (and its incredulity to metanarratives), and the concomitant replacement of the theological epistemology with a rationalist scientific one (although that didn't mean people like Newton and Kant weren't religious) to actually bring about this norm!. Once the Catholic Church's role in legitimating the divine right of kings had been sundered and replaced with nationalism the legitimacy of kings no longer required divine sanction thus paving the way for personal freedom in terms of faith (no longer a political problem with transnational/geopolitical ramifications) and the rise of the national state and the concepts of citizenships, rights, duties, obligations, etc. But the imprint of Christianity, like Roman and Greek civilisation beofre it, was still present in a "sanitised" version (as per Schmitt). Thought we often don't notice people not belonging to our civilisation are the first to pick it up. The separation of church and state, for instance, though sounding secular to us is the equivalence of blasphemy to Muslims given that they see it as an imposition of Christian norms even though we don't use it (or understand it) that way (anymore).
For an intersting perspective with respect to Islam see, Islam and Globalisation: Secularism, Religion and Radicalism
So, you are a "Pied Piperist"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Politics is power over people. Functionally that is the aim of religion. All religion is based in ideology. - Ideas. Ideas as to the right and wrong way for peoples and societies to conduct themselves are politics.
The US was founded on only allowing secular ideas into politics, because it wanted religious tolerance. Essentially it wanted to artificially bar religion from politics - something that is practically impossible to do.
So, is your position one that if ideology exists that is not adhered to by the current government, so therefore otherwise well governed and satisfied citizens rise up in insurgency in order to ensure that a new government that is consistent with their ideology is in power? I would challenge anyone to show me a single historic case of this happening.
Even the explosion of Islam across the Middle East in its first two generations were far more about power, plunder and domination than they were about spreading the good word. Ideology of Islam was "merely" the essential ingredient, the catalyst to rally the masses to take on and sustain the endeavor.
Certainly the US revolution had nothing to do with religion. Even such famous ideologs as Mao and Ho were out to throw off illegitimate governance, communism was employed because it worked in that time, that place, that populaces under that condition to motivate them to rise up and challenge existing regimes.
American revolutionaries were keen that the government not be slave to any one particular religion, nor that the government be able to enslave any man to any particular religion as well. Not a pursuit of secularity, but rather a pursuit of choice. (not withstanding current debate between liberals demanding secularity and conservatives demanding Christianity. I think both miss the point of what was intended) Interestingly, Saudi rebels push for what is almost the opposite of this. They demand that the government adhere more closely to one religion and not allow choice or secularity to corrupt the law of God.
I detect a hysteron-protoron fallacy here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Even the explosion of Islam across the Middle East in its first two generations were far more about power, plunder and domination than they were about spreading the good word. Ideology of Islam was "merely" the essential ingredient, the catalyst to rally the masses to take on and sustain the endeavor.
...but I could be wrong. Although I agree with much of the above I have to say that the proposition that Islam was an ideological catalyst for the explosion of the forces of Islam seems to imply that the Arab tribes that had embraced it( or equally, were coerced into embracing it, especially after the Battle of Badr) were already predisposed to desiring power and dominion and Islam merely freed them to go about their bloody business with a free consicence. In your schema Islam merely becomes a universal and rationalised form of assabiyyah. I would take the opposite view; that Islam is what exploded (although the other forces added to the mix). I would also see assabiyah as having been superviened upon by Islam (as a meta-habitus)Plunder, OTOH, was always a traditional tactic of Bedouin/tribal pastoralists.
Surface and Subsurface Elements of an Insurgency
Okay, so I let my personal and professional life take me away from my study of warfare for a couple of weeks. I know, I know, no excuses. Back on track.
One area where Dr. K and I find common ground is his definition of the composition and nature of an insurgency. IMO, he is an expert in this arena. As he's finishing up the introduction, he offers a picture to illustrate the components. Figure 1.1 Surface and Subsurface Elements of an Insurgency (p. 8). I can't find one previously published so I'll describe it and offer my thoughts.
He starts with a pyramid of insurgency design. From top to bottom, it's
1. Insurgents/Terrorists
2. Supporting Infrastructure
3. Sympathetic networks
4. Population base
He then immerses this pyramid into water with with a broad deliniation of the detection threshold.
This is a marvelous viewpoint. As Dr. Gordon McCormick tells us (paraphrased), "an insurgency is really not an assymetrical fight, at least not in the beginning. The host nation retains a comparative advantage in Mass through it's military arm, but the insurgent maintains a comparative advantage in information. He can see us, but we cannot see him."
It is exactly like standing on the shore and looking at the ocean. One can see the tide roll in and out. For most, they are comfortable in describing the ocean in that manner. However, when one takes the time to dive deep into the water, another world appears. Insurgencies are no different, and a true counterinsurgent must determine how best to dive deep into the water and see what's going on.
So, I applaud this figure.
2 Attachment(s)
Your grandfather's Oldsmobile
I don't have Kilcullen's latest, but your description of his Figure 1.1 Surface and Subsurface Elements of an Insurgency (p. 8) clicked a residuary brain cell.
Back in the 1960s - the era of muscle car Oldsmobiles (your grandfather's big block rubber stripping 442), SORO (American University, Special Operations Research Office, a non-governmental agency operating under contract with the Department of the Army) published two studies:
1963 Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare - SORO.pdf
1966 Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies - SORO.pdf
Both are on the "Suggested readings on insurgency and counterinsurgency" from That Place on the Hudson.
The 1966 study had a pyramid (Fig 6) which looked like so:
Attachment 1151
So no one will have to squint, I'm attaching a pdf file with Fig 6 and SORO's explanation for its pyramid.
The question is whether the 2010 muscle car is an improvement over the 1966 model. It also may involve the ultimate Wilfian concept that nothing under the sun is new. :)
Your analysis of these two 45-years-of-separation vehicles is sought.
Regards (from your grandfather Ransom, who is happy to see you screw off every now and then)
Mike
Tip this pyramid over on an angle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
I don't have Kilcullen's latest, but your description of his Figure 1.1 Surface and Subsurface Elements of an Insurgency (p. 8) clicked a residuary brain cell.
Back in the 1960s - the era of muscle car Oldsmobiles (
your grandfather's big block rubber stripping 442), SORO (American University, Special Operations Research Office, a non-governmental agency operating under contract with the Department of the Army) published two studies:
1963
Undergrounds in Insurgent, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare - SORO.pdf
1966
Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies - SORO.pdf
Both are on the "Suggested readings on insurgency and counterinsurgency" from
That Place on the Hudson.
The 1966 study had a pyramid (Fig 6) which looked like so:
Attachment 1151
So no one will have to squint, I'm attaching a pdf file with Fig 6 and SORO's explanation for its pyramid.
The question is whether the 2010 muscle car is an improvement over the 1966 model. It also may involve the ultimate Wilfian concept that nothing under the sun is new. :)
Your analysis of these two 45-years-of-separation vehicles is sought.
Regards (from your grandfather
Ransom, who is happy to see you screw off every now and then)
Mike
...and you could superimpose it over the Jones Insurgency Model.