Operationalizing The Jones Model through COG

[William F. Owen]

To simply say violence is war, and war is a military matter, and the military's job is to crush said violence is the same supervicial analysis from the perspective of the Despot that has lead to many a long, drawnout struggle between a populace and its failed governance.

That is an over simplification of my position. Rebels seek to alter the distribution of power by violence - and other means. The job of the military is to counter that violence. How skilfully that is done pretty much defines how effective it is.

Better instead for Governance to see such movements as the clearest of metrics, the most accurate of polls, and to modify their behavior to the degree practicable to resolve their failures short of simply ramping up the oppression.

That view assumes that the Rebels always have a legitimate point that matches a position the government could take if it wished. That is almost never the case, nor is it ever likely to be.
Rebels rarely, if ever, have a legitimate cause in the eyes of the Government. That is the problem! - Moreover who is to judge legitimacy for the "Jones Model."
The primary purpose of Government is defence of the state. You have a Government so as people cannot set forth policy using violence against the state.
Rebels seek power via violence. You prevent them gaining it, via violence.

Concur completely that AQ is not an insurgent organization. After all, they have no populace, and they have no state.

Yet AQ seeks the re-distribution of power via violence. They have a policy, they aspire to a state, and they conform to a Clausewitian trinity - they do have a populace. People support them. People fund them.
They are clearly strategically inept, so I wonder why we worry so much about them.

What if the instruction given to the military force by its government is to solve the problem by any available means? Shouldn't that force be considering all means, both violent and non-violent, that might have a bearing on solving the problem?

Why should this discussion avoid political devices that might have a bearing on the problem. or be confined to the use of violence?

Well if anyone ever says "solve the problem by any available means" then they are an idiot, because that is not a setting forth of policy. That is the opposite of Strategy. You have to have a policy! That policy set conditions for the employment of force.

In Oman the Sultan, said "defeat the rebels, - so that development can begin."
In most UK insurgencies the basic guidance was "defeat the rebels - so as we can organise the peaceful transfer of power to a democratic political process."

Yes, all instrument of power should be used, but the primary aim should be ending the rebellion, by getting the rebels to give up. Then the politics can kick in.

[William F. Owen]

Sorry, but another point I think worth considering.

Insurgencies and rebellions often see the insurgents/rebels killing a great many civilians to advance their cause. In fact I can only think of 3 insurgencies where this was not the predominately the case.

In all the Algerian insurgencies, Sierra Leone, the vast majority of dead were civilians killed by the rebels. I submit the same is most likely true in Iraq and A'Stan. It was certainly true in Malaya, Kenya, and Northern Ireland, and very many more. The NLF/VC is credited with killing vastly more Vietnamese civilians than they killed US or ARVN.

[Bob's World]

In Oman the Sultan, said "defeat the rebels, - so that development can begin."
In most UK insurgencies the basic guidance was "defeat the rebels - so as we can organise the peaceful transfer of power to a democratic political process."

And in both of those cases, the populace's position was "throw out the Despot so that we can replace it with govnernace who's Legitimacy we recognize, who treats the populace with Respect; where the people can find Justice under the law; and where once again the people can have Hope."

I'm sorry, Great Britain is the best BAD example of COIN theory in the past 200 plus years. Their entire model is based upon sustaining in power forms of government over the populaces of others that recognizes its priority mission being to support the National interests of Great Britain. That, my friend, is not COIN. That is Colonial Oppression.

A great political cartoon would show Uncle Sam staring into his bathroom mirror preparing for his morning shave, and seeing King George staring back at him. The caption would be along the lines of :

"Holy S..t, I have grown up and become my father."

[William F. Owen]

And in both of those cases, the populace's position was "throw out the Despot so that we can replace it with govnernace who's Legitimacy we recognize, who treats the populace with Respect; where the people can find Justice under the law; and where once again the people can have Hope."

I submit that historical fact shows the opposite.
In Oman, the populace largely rejected the communist rebels and opted for the rule of the Sultan. - not everyone wants to be a democracy.
UK policy was to divest itself of the Empire. It cost too much money and it gained little strategic benefit. WW2 confirmed the need for the process. In all but 2 cases the planned transfer of power took place on UK terms.

I'm sorry, Great Britain is the best BAD example of COIN theory in the past 200 plus years. Their entire model is based upon sustaining in power forms of government over the populaces of others that recognizes its priority mission being to support the National interests of Great Britain. That, my friend, is not COIN. That is Colonial Oppression.

Again, I submit that is not an accurate version of history. UK Colonial policy varied greatly in time and place. For example, Ireland was offered Dominion status before WW1. The situation in Kenya was very different from Cyprus. The Kenyan insurgency was tribally based and thus not legitimate in the eyes of a lot of Kenyans 15-30,000 died at the hands of the rebels as a result. The Cyprus insurgency was tied to Greek Nationalism, and not legitimate in the eyes of Turkish, etc etc etc.

Now, I will agree with you that the mean used to defeat each particular rebel group, were extremely brutal, but no more so than the means common at the time. I am no advocating brutality. I am advocating the use of armed force to defeat armed force.

[Bob's World]

And I am advocating that Great Britain (and all of Colonial Europe for that matter) are examples of Empires that crumbled under the very tactics you profess, and that we study so closely today.

That these European Empires were born of an information age powered by the Printing Press; and succumbed to a following information age born of Steam and Electricity. Revolutions in Information technology drive revolutions in Governance. What had worked (as you often profess) forever, is now as obsolete as so many tools that lay about our grandfather's garages and sheds.

Now comes the United States on the heels of these failed Empires, in the midst of this revolution of information technology. All of the tools handed to us by our predecessors were obsolete when we received them, but there was no way to know that, as they had always worked before. Silicon Chips, satellites, etc empowered the populaces of Eastern Europe to stand up to their Soviet masters, knowing the rest of the world backed their play. Now the Middle East seeks its opportunity as well. It is as natural as the rotation of the earth, or the movements of the tides. It is human nature, and it controls us, not the other way around.

We can resist this force of nature, or we can embrace it. I argue that success comes from embracing the emerging age; and that all powers seeking to emerge will do so. History tells us that empires seeking to hold onto their gains cling to the past, and to applying force to sustain the status quo.

Your model is obsolete Mr. Owen. Like Fred Flintstone, you are riding a dinosaur to work.

[William F. Owen]

And I am advocating that Great Britain (and all of Colonial Europe for that matter) are examples of Empires that crumbled under the very tactics you profess, and that we study so closely today.

The British Empire did not "crumble." It either altered into dominions, or was was granted independence - in the vast majority of cases, peacefully - as was the policy. The Empire ceased to exist because of politics and economics. It was not vanquished by force. In fact the exact opposite is true.

I argue that success comes from embracing the emerging age; and that all powers seeking to emerge will do so. History tells us that empires seeking to hold onto their gains cling to the past, and to applying force to sustain the status quo.

Well that's very romantic, but it's not good history. Empires come and go as a result of politics, -which sometimes includes the use of armed force, but almost never as a result of rebellions alone - in fact I cannot think of one.

Your model is obsolete Mr. Owen. Like Fred Flintstone, you are riding a dinosaur to work.

...and immensely happy to be so! Not sure that forms an argument, but certainly an amusing image. My wife recently managed to persuade someone she rode a donkey to work every morning!

[Bob's World]

I think my assessment of history is fine, but I am open minded.

When I was with the Egyptian Army, they all believed quite seriously that they had never lost a war with Israel.

When I talk to "Good Cold Warriors" they see America as bringing nothing but goodness, democracy, and rule of law to the people of the world.

It does not surprise me then, that one with a background in Great Britain would have a similarly biased view of their own history.

If 5 SWJ members, not of the empire, come up on the net and say "yeah, Bob, the Brits really rolled up the carpet as part of a master economic plan, and not due to the populaces of places like the US, India, or Iran throwing them out; then fine, I will hit the books and drill deeper. To say you have a strategy of reducing the empire because your strategy to hold the empire failed in the face of popular revolt, does not count.

[Dayuhan]

Silicon Chips, satellites, etc empowered the populaces of Eastern Europe to stand up to their Soviet masters, knowing the rest of the world backed their play. Now the Middle East seeks its opportunity as well. It is as natural as the rotation of the earth, or the movements of the tides. It is human nature, and it controls us, not the other way around.

The Middle East seeks the opportunity… to do what? To stand up to its masters? The Middle East hasn’t any master to stand up to. Of course they will seek to develop, emerge, and take their place in the world, why should they not? Certainly the US has no reason to try to stop them… Osama and his ilk will certainly try to abort the process, but it’s not likely that they’ll succeed: their support is just not broad enough.

The challenge the Middle East faces isn’t foreign mastery, it’s reconciling the conflicting impulses of their own populaces: some want full-on modernity, some want to retreat to the Middle Ages, some want material progress while retaining cultural traditions. Some want to maintain strong central states, some want regional autonomy… and on, and on, and on. It’s a diverse place with a lot of populaces and a lot of disagreement on direction and desired end state.

A lot of Americans misread the situation by assuming that change, progress, and emergence must necessarily mean abandonment of traditional political structures. Many Americans simply can’t imagine a government run by a King, Sheik, Emir, or Sultan that isn’t faced by a popular insurgency. It’s not something we’d accept, so we assume others shouldn’t accept it either.

Of course reality is much more complicated. Some of the more progressive and most emergent states in the Middle East are under traditional royal structures: Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE... and these governments enjoy very high levels of popular support. Some of those closest to collapse have Western-style structures, (Yemen, for one). In many cases populaces seem quite content with traditional structures, and the objections seem to come primarily from Americans who find the idea of royalty aesthetically displeasing... I can't say I find it aesthetically pleasing myself, but it's not my problem or my affair.

In any event, meddling in the internal affairs of these countries, no matter what the motive, is going to win no points with government or populace. We need to be minding our own business wherever possible, not trying to decide what constitutes good or bad governance for anyone else.

[William F. Owen]

When I was with the Egyptian Army, they all believed quite seriously that they had never lost a war with Israel.

Welcome the Middle East. We have three versions of history. Yours, ours and theirs!

It does not surprise me then, that one with a background in Great Britain would have a similarly biased view of their own history.

Welcome to Middle East...... etc etc.

If 5 SWJ members, not of the empire, come up on the net and say "yeah, Bob, the Brits really rolled up the carpet as part of a master economic plan, and not due to the populaces of places like the US, India, or Iran throwing them out; then fine, I will hit the books and drill deeper. To say you have a strategy of reducing the empire because your strategy to hold the empire failed in the face of popular revolt, does not count.

WW1 Bankrupted the Empire. There was simply no chance of holding onto it, especially as the UK had been left with policing what was left of the Ottoman Empire _ Palestine, the Trans-Jordan and Iraq. While economically of some benefit between the Wars, the Empire became "A-Strategic" after WW2. It was simply unsustainable - politically and economically.

Now you do not have to read a lot of books to see that the vast majority of Colonial possessions were transferred peacefully, and voluntarily.
Now it may be a fine line between the UK dissolving the Empire because both Political and economic circumstances made it impossible, and the issue that the UK probably could not maintain the Empire in the face of any serious opposition, even if it wanted too.

Fact is the UK policy underlying all the major post 1945 insurgencies (except Ulster) was to set the conditions for a peaceful transfer of power - and even the IRA has given up the "Armed Struggle" - in line with the UK's stated policy.
There were failures. In Aden, the UK announced a departure date, which actually made the existing insurgency worse, and the Palestine mandate was vacated with no agreement in place. Rhodesia declared UDI! - and War followed.