Tentative Guidelines for building partner armies post conflict

[Tom Kratman]

Okay, I have obviously NOT gotten the trick of interspersing with quotes. See the above.

[QUOTE=Tom Kratman;96660][QUOTE=marct;96646]Hi Tom,



Oh, it's flawed at that level, too, but that wasn't what I meant. His entire thesis is based on a fatal flaw which, at it's root, is the association of a "civilization" with a genetic grouping. In reality, there are three fatal flaws in it. The first is that he doesn't understand genetics and uses "culture" (actually "civilization") as a proxy for it. The second is that he doesn't understand genetic variances and the interplay between genetic groupings and cultural groupings. The third fatal flaw is that he doesn't understand the relationship of culture as a selection criterion in natural selection.[QUOTE=marct;96646]

Except in the case of the Japanese, I'm not sure that's true, both your criticism and your characterization. I mean, he has to have been aware of blond, blue eyed Islamic Circassians, highly western Americans with epicanthic folds, bloody Magyars, and the like.

[QUOTE=marct;96646]Given those three flaws, I would have to chcracterize his exclusion of the Latin and Orthodox "civilizations" as a minor peccadillo .



It's a theoretical distinction that flows from his flaws. Given his model, it's the only possible solution. However, his model cannot account for the rise of trans-civilizational actors or intra-civilizational ones either.

Hmmm, let's see: how would Huntington account for the rise of the Cosmos? What "civilization" would they be part of? (Note: for those who don't know what I'm talking about, this is a scenario that is playing out right now that Tom examines in some of his books)[QUOTE=marct;96646]

Most are likely to know it under the term "Tranzis." Though I think my term, "Cosmos," is slightly more accurate, and less prone to mispronounciation. (Tranzis as in "band," not Tranzis as in Nazis.)

By and large, they're western with some token participants from other civilizations tacked on, mostly for reasons of Cosmo aesthetics. They're neither diasporic nor primarily from any other civilization. And, as I've said, somewhere or other, they're a disease not unlike AIDS.

[QUOTE=marct;96646]At best, Huntington's model would have to assume that such groups were a) part of a "civilization" and b) were diasporic in some sense. He would have to model them, since he uses an organicist analogy for civilization, as an "infection" of some type (cf Mein Kampf, Book 1, Ch. 11 for an example of this).

Getting away from the flaws in Huntington's model for a minute, and back to your observation about peer and near peer competition, sure they happen and, you're quite right, only a twit would argue against that. Of course, "competition" doesn't necessarily mean conflict, it could be economic, it could be status oriented (think about the monumental architecture of the early Sumerian city states), etc. I'm not saying that it won't be conflict, just that that will not be a constant.

Well...no; exhaustion sets in. But something need not be constant to be more or less endless, which is, I think, Huntington's view.



I used tanks, of course, as a measure of can, not should, and only in relation to the question of "can they industrialize?" which you seemed to be answering in the negative. Or did I misread you?

[marct]

Well, it's all in the coding ! Sometimes, I just cheat and use wordpad....

[Dayuhan]

What are the social relations of their society likely to produce if large numbers of tanks become standard equipment?

I’d guess the production of tanks would have a fairly minor impact on social relations, given that the primary function of the tanks will probably be to roll down the boulevard on Independence Day (an excellent and laudable function for a tank and far superior to the intended one, IMO). If national pride demands tanks, better to manufacture them locally and keep some of the money in the country than buy them abroad…

His entire thesis is based on a fatal flaw which, at it's root, is the association of a "civilization" with a genetic grouping. In reality, there are three fatal flaws in it.

Only three? I stopped counting in the double digits, though I admit that I made little effort to synthesize. I always had a sneaking suspicion that he came up with a catchy title for a book and had to conjure up a theory to go with it. Stranger things have happened.

By and large, they're western with some token participants from other civilizations tacked on, mostly for reasons of Cosmo aesthetics. They're neither diasporic nor primarily from any other civilization. And, as I've said, somewhere or other, they're a disease not unlike AIDS.

That's scary. Because, you see, I met one once, and despite being loony she was cute, and one thing led to another, and does that mean...

Colin, the good news is that your thread has drawn a group of people who are eminently capable of constructive comment on the question you raised. The bad news is that instead of commenting on the question you raised, they're rambling off Brazilian industry, Huntington's flaws, and transnational regressions.

Hey, it's the Internet. Sic Bisquitas Disintegrat, as somebody said...

[Tom Kratman]

I’d guess the production of tanks would have a fairly minor impact on social relations, given that the primary function of the tanks will probably be to roll down the boulevard on Independence Day (an excellent and laudable function for a tank and far superior to the intended one, IMO). If national pride demands tanks, better to manufacture them locally and keep some of the money in the country than buy them abroad…



Only three? I stopped counting in the double digits, though I admit that I made little effort to synthesize. I always had a sneaking suspicion that he came up with a catchy title for a book and had to conjure up a theory to go with it. Stranger things have happened.



That's scary. Because, you see, I met one once, and despite being loony she was cute, and one thing led to another, and does that mean...

Colin, the good news is that your thread has drawn a group of people who are eminently capable of constructive comment on the question you raised. The bad news is that instead of commenting on the question you raised, they're rambling off Brazilian industry, Huntington's flaws, and transnational regressions.

Hey, it's the Internet. Sic Bisquitas Disintegrat, as somebody said...

Matter of fact, when a book comes to me, it comes in the form of a title first. Then the story more or less falls in on the title. No doubt the story was floating around in the back of my head prior to that, but subjectively it never appears that way.

And, sad to say, yes, you're going to die. The good news, however, is that you're most unlikely to die from your no doubt sordid little tryst with a Tranzi.

[John T. Fishel]

Huntington first published the article, then the book.

Marc, I'm afraid I don't see anything genetic in Huntington. My read is that he sees culture writ large as civilization. And it is between these big cultures that he sees conflict. Historically, his thesis holds up best along the Eurpean/Islamic fault line. It falls apart entirely when he argues that the Mediterranean sub-set of Western Culture is a different civilization that he calls Latin American. Then there is the argument that Victor Davis Hanson makes in Carnage and Culture that the really nasty wars are between various enemies from within Western culture - WWI and WWII. We can reject parts of hunington's thesis on grounds other than the genetic argument but it still retains a heuristic utility. (Haven't been able to use "heuristic" in a long time.)

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Kratman]

Huntington first published the article, then the book.

Marc, I'm afraid I don't see anything genetic in Huntington. My read is that he sees culture writ large as civilization. And it is between these big cultures that he sees conflict. Historically, his thesis holds up best along the Eurpean/Islamic fault line. It falls apart entirely when he argues that the Mediterranean sub-set of Western Culture is a different civilization that he calls Latin American. Then there is the argument that Victor Davis Hanson makes in Carnage and Culture that the really nasty wars are between various enemies from within Western culture - WWI and WWII. We can reject parts of hunington's thesis on grounds other than the genetic argument but it still retains a heuristic utility. (Haven't been able to use "heuristic" in a long time.)

Cheers

JohnT

What's always (or, rather, since reading it) struck me most about Huntington's thesis, and supports it most, is how freaking _merciless_ cross civilizational wars are. Between Brits, French, and Germans we can have something like the spontaneous 1914 Christmas Truce. This never happened between the US Army and AmerInds, nor between us and the Japanese or VC/NVA or Norks or PLA. Instead, we had absolutely ruthless, murderous, merciless slaughter, with very few, if any, instances of humanity to lighten it. It springs, I think, from a lack of feeling, on both sides, that the other side is quite fully human, while the resentment of slaughter has the effect of causing war to go on long after it should be ended. Revenge and all.

[Tom Kratman]

I’d guess the production of tanks would have a fairly minor impact on social relations, given that the primary function of the tanks will probably be to roll down the boulevard on Independence Day (an excellent and laudable function for a tank and far superior to the intended one, IMO). If national pride demands tanks, better to manufacture them locally and keep some of the money in the country than buy them abroad…



...

Maybe, maybe not. I understand that Venezuela remanufactured its AMX-30fleet. Now the turrets can only traverse about 60 degrees. Who knows what they might have ended up with if they'd started from scratch...

[William F. Owen]

I’d guess the production of tanks would have a fairly minor impact on social relations, given that the primary function of the tanks will probably be to roll down the boulevard on Independence Day (an excellent and laudable function for a tank and far superior to the intended one, IMO). If national pride demands tanks, better to manufacture them locally and keep some of the money in the country than buy them abroad…

Tanks demand great skill to be employed successfully, both against regular and irregular enemies. It's not an argument about do we/don't we need tanks. It's far more about "do we have the skill and resources to make having them necessary?" Only very good armies can operate tanks successfully. - lots of very poor armies still have lots of tanks though.

[Tom Kratman]

Tanks demand great skill to be employed successfully, both against regular and irregular enemies. It's not an argument about do we/don't we need tanks. It's far more about "do we have the skill and resources to make having them necessary?" Only very good armies can operate tanks successfully. - lots of very poor armies still have lots of tanks though.

That's all true enough, but there are a number of sliding scales in there, as well as some objective factors. For example, a rebuilt and somewhat upgraded (thermals and ERA, maybe a new engine and trannie, possibly Drozhd or Arena or an equivalent if those can be supported by the platform..._and_ pan out) T-34/85 or M-4 (or Isherman see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Super_Sherman) is much more likely to be supportable by a Third World army than are any first line western, or Russian, for that matter, tanks. And likely to be about as useful. Some armies couldn't, of course, while others - on the margins, say - perhaps could. Even if they could maintain the more modern ones, though, the costs are often prohibitive. I'm not sure of the costs of running and maintaining an M-1, today. I do recall that it was over 50 dollars a mile, for Class IX alone...about 25 years ago.

Then there's the sliding factor of the enemy. A truly crappy enemy allows less skill and less innate instinct - likewise a less capable vehicle - than a truly good one. An irregular enemy, without heavy weapons, permits more than a regular one, with. (Though if that regular enemy's tank fleet is all deadlined...)

Roads, too, are an objective factor. The best tank crews in the world aren't worth much without a fleet of trucks and roads to supply them over, along with logisticians and maintenance types capable of managing them. Difficulty of maintaining them, too, counts, as well as societal discipline to keep the crews doing their part in that.

In short, it's a very complex, case by case, question.

[marct]

Hi Guys,

Roads, too, are an objective factor. The best tank crews in the world aren't worth much without a fleet of trucks and roads to supply them over, along with logisticians and maintenance types capable of managing them. Difficulty of maintaining them, too, counts, as well as societal discipline to keep the crews doing their part in that.

In short, it's a very complex, case by case, question.

As Tom says, it's very complex, and a lot of the effects are 2nd, 3rd and 4th order in the "civilian" area. Roads in and of themselves shift transportation patterns which cause changes in population settlement (think about how the Interstates effected the US). They also cause shifts in production, consumption and employment patterns which may or may not destabilize an area.

Fleets of trucks either have to be locally manufactured or imported (introducing more production changes) and, in any case, have to be both maintained (requiring changes in education structures) and fueled (with shifts in either production, distribution and/or importing and consequent changes in balance of payments).

Increased motorized transport also causes some rather odd changes in marriage patterns (increasing the mate selection hinterland), which has an effect on the strength of kinship ties and, in many cases, has eroded clan based societies via increasing selection pressures towards individualism. The converse can happen as well IFF ownership, maintenance and fueling are handled at the clan and para-clan level.

One other effect of introducing tanks into a country is to shift the balance of power, increasing the importance of those who control them in relation to those who don't. At the same time, especially when you have a clan or para-clan based society, you will see the development of mobile alternatives (Wilf's last article talks about this), so the gathering of tanks may or may not serve to further destabilize a society.

As Tom said, it's complex....

[Dayuhan]

Fleets of trucks either have to be locally manufactured or imported (introducing more production changes) and, in any case, have to be both maintained (requiring changes in education structures) and fueled (with shifts in either production, distribution and/or importing and consequent changes in balance of payments).

Increased motorized transport also causes some rather odd changes in marriage patterns (increasing the mate selection hinterland), which has an effect on the strength of kinship ties and, in many cases, has eroded clan based societies via increasing selection pressures towards individualism. The converse can happen as well IFF ownership, maintenance and fueling are handled at the clan and para-clan level.

All of this seems less a consequence of the manufacture of tanks than a general consequence of industrialization. Of course the consequences of industrialization are numerous and profound and not universally seen as beneficial, but industrialization is still something virtually all non-industrialized cultures desire... except of course those afflicted by pastoral utopianism, an aberration largely overlapping Tranzi-ism. Of course very few pastoral utopianists, if any, come from non-industrialized cultures.

Capacity for rational thought helps, but a) wann die putz steht, liegt die Sinn in die Erde and b) the male IQ drops, in the presence of a cute female, and in direct proportion to her cuteness.

In short, what were you _thinking_, man, taking a risk like that?

Thinking??? As you said, wann die putz steht...

Rational thought may not prevent exposure, but it does seem to protect against infection... to date I've yet to show symptoms. Occasionally we dodge a bullet.

PS: Question for the German speakers, taking digression to the extreme: why the #@!! is it "die putz" instead of "der putz". I mean, if ever anything was masculine....

[Tom Kratman]

All of this seems less a consequence of the manufacture of tanks than a general consequence of industrialization. Of course the consequences of industrialization are numerous and profound and not universally seen as beneficial, but industrialization is still something virtually all non-industrialized cultures desire... except of course those afflicted by pastoral utopianism, an aberration largely overlapping Tranzi-ism. Of course very few pastoral utopianists, if any, come from non-industrialized cultures.



Thinking??? As you said, wann die putz steht...

Rational thought may not prevent exposure, but it does seem to protect against infection... to date I've yet to show symptoms. Occasionally we dodge a bullet.

PS: Question for the German speakers, taking digression to the extreme: why the #@!! is it "die putz" instead of "der putz". I mean, if ever anything was masculine....

Because it's one or another dialect of Yiddish, not German. That, or I just got the gender wrong, in Yiddish. Or, it could be rapidly encroaching, premature senility, and where I read it was right, but I remembered wrong. Or it could be that Yiddish has only one definite article for the plural, di or die, and putz is, in context, a collective plural. Or it could be...

To hell with it, you knew what I meant.

[marct]

Hi Dayuhan,

All of this seems less a consequence of the manufacture of tanks than a general consequence of industrialization. Of course the consequences of industrialization are numerous and profound and not universally seen as beneficial, but industrialization is still something virtually all non-industrialized cultures desire... except of course those afflicted by pastoral utopianism, an aberration largely overlapping Tranzi-ism. Of course very few pastoral utopianists, if any, come from non-industrialized cultures.

Hmmm, actually, it's not a consequence of industrialization per se but, rather, a consequence of a certain type of industrialization that has been pushed for the past 80 years or so. It is quite possible to industrialize and have mass transport capabilities that do not rely on fleets of trucks: canal systems and rail systems being the two main alternatives.

Personally, what I find fascinating is the process of technological leap frogging that goes on in some places, Brunei being one example. I'm wondering if we aren't likely to see such a thing happen in terms of transportation as well (it's mainly in communications technologies right now).

Back to the motorization stuff again...

One of the things about tanks, as opposed to, say, armed Toyota trucks, is the maintenance requirements both for the tanks themselves and for the road system. It's quite possible to have a national road system that is primarily dirt tracks (assuming no major rainy season) for pickups, but that does play hell with tanks (again, going back to the interstate system and, also, the German Autobahn).

I'm not saying that all countries which get tanks will do this. All I am saying is that if they get tanks and try and do things most efficiently, they will have a number of social consequences that may not be optimal for security and stability.

[Tukhachevskii]

As Tom says, it's very complex, and a lot of the effects are 2nd, 3rd and 4th order in the "civilian" area. Roads in and of themselves shift transportation patterns which cause changes in population settlement (think about how the Interstates effected the US). They also cause shifts in production, consumption and employment patterns which may or may not destabilize an area.

[snipped]

One other effect of introducing tanks into a country is to shift the balance of power, increasing the importance of those who control them in relation to those who don't. [...] so the gathering of tanks may or may not serve to further destabilize a society.

As Tom said, it's complex....

Indeed, in the case of Yemen they got the Chinese to pay and construct their "national road" system. On the outskirts of the city there's even a "Chinese cemetary" built for the Chinese labourers who died during construction. In Sana'a the main overpass over Shari'a Zubayri (sp?) has a large chinese sign over it that I once jokingly commented says "made in china". As for shifting the balance of power that's one of the key "force multipliers" (if you will) that Salah can count on. The sheer ability to move forces by road to (for example) the North vastly improves his attempt to keep his state together yet alone attempt to develop it. Thought he relies upon 10,000+ tribal levies to help with the war he doesn't have to leave the war to them and thus by inserting federal forces can shape both parties actions to his ends (whatever those unfathomable things may be). Conversely, the road network peters out the farther east one gets as does the amount of central government control. They "control" the roads (just barely) and that's about all. Yet the fact they do control the roads means, even though they can't impose central authority, they can influence the tribes by controlling access to the road network (if nothing else, such as education, health services, etc.). Given the produce of the east (fish, Qat and other items) is largely consumed in the west that's a strong plus. Nonethelss, having roads upon which HETT and tanks can travel is ultimately nothing short of useless if you don't have the competent trained crews or forward based CSS units able to operate/maintain tanks effectively (of which Yemen doesn't really have many anyway). I was once meandering down Sharia' Hadha (one of the two main roads in the city) on my way to my local (at the time) Syrian schwarma store for a "sarookh" (Rocket!) when a (apprently) overloaded and barely road-worthy (wheezing, creaking and leaking) Soviet made tank transporter of 1950s vintage rumbled down the road carrying three (and the remains of a fourth) French manufactured AML-90/60 armoured cars each of which had what looked like multiple HMG and RPG strikes. Getting stuff up north may tip the scales in the Yemeni Gov.'s balance but they are useless once they get there (still, at least they can get them back again!!!).

[Dayuhan]

Tanks demand great skill to be employed successfully, both against regular and irregular enemies. It's not an argument about do we/don't we need tanks. It's far more about "do we have the skill and resources to make having them necessary?" Only very good armies can operate tanks successfully. - lots of very poor armies still have lots of tanks though.

That's assuming they're intended to be used in combat. How much skill does it take to drive them down the boulevard on Independence Day? That may also explain the restricted movement on the Venezuelan rebuilds, poor Hugo may have worried that unrestricted movement might lead a crew to take a pop at him as they roll by the reviewing stand.

Items such as tanks in a 3rd world army are most often for show, though rolling them out in the streets during public disorders looks impressive.

Roads, too, are an objective factor. The best tank crews in the world aren't worth much without a fleet of trucks and roads to supply them over

Bridges too. Some years back I observed a number of M48s rusting in peace in the Philippine Army HQ. An officer explained that they'd never moved, as at the time they got them there weren't more than a dozen bridges in the country that could support one. There still wouldn't be many, especially in the areas where fighting takes place.

And, sad to say, yes, you're going to die. The good news, however, is that you're most unlikely to die from your no doubt sordid little tryst with a Tranzi.

Death be damned, I was afraid it was contagious, a fate far worse. I suppose even a limited capacity for rational thought would confer substantial immunity...

[John T. Fishel]

the spontaneous Christmas truce in WWI, Tom, and similar "truces" during the American Civil War, wars within the West have always been the most deadly. That raises the question of how we treat Japan during WWII. I would argue that it was, by then, a part of the West.

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Kratman]

the spontaneous Christmas truce in WWI, Tom, and similar "truces" during the American Civil War, wars within the West have always been the most deadly. That raises the question of how we treat Japan during WWII. I would argue that it was, by then, a part of the West.

Cheers

JohnT

Economically? Sure. In terms of its position in the post-Westphalia world? Sure. Culturally? Far from clear. And, since perception in these things tends to be reality, they didn't think they there were, and neither did we.

[Tom Kratman]

That's assuming they're intended to be used in combat. How much skill does it take to drive them down the boulevard on Independence Day? That may also explain the restricted movement on the Venezuelan rebuilds, poor Hugo may have worried that unrestricted movement might lead a crew to take a pop at him as they roll by the reviewing stand.

Items such as tanks in a 3rd world army are most often for show, though rolling them out in the streets during public disorders looks impressive.



Bridges too. Some years back I observed a number of M48s rusting in peace in the Philippine Army HQ. An officer explained that they'd never moved, as at the time they got them there weren't more than a dozen bridges in the country that could support one. There still wouldn't be many, especially in the areas where fighting takes place.



Death be damned, I was afraid it was contagious, a fate far worse. I suppose even a limited capacity for rational thought would confer substantial immunity...

Capacity for rational thought helps, but a) wann die putz steht, liegt die Sinn in die Erde and b) the male IQ drops, in the presence of a cute female, and in direct proportion to her cuteness.

In short, what were you _thinking_, man, taking a risk like that?