Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 102

Thread: War is War

  1. #21
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Disagree Tom (despite the fact that Dan gushed over you when I was in his office a couple of weeks ago). We're talking about something with strategy, policy, and legal implications. We dont define those from the foxhole perspective.
    I agree to disagree, Steve, because if you ever try and forget the "foxhole" perspective, your strategy, your policy, and very often your legality go astray. War is not a bloodless exercise; witness the end of "combat operations" in Iraq.

  2. #22
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Not allowing the foxhole perspective to define a policy and strategy issue is not the same as forgetting it. It would be totally unrealistic to say the United States is at war every time a soldier gets shot at.

  3. #23
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default I concur with Dr. Metz

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Disagree Tom (despite the fact that Dan gushed over you when I was in his office a couple of weeks ago). We're talking about something with strategy, policy, and legal implications. We dont define those from the foxhole perspective.
    And just as all orgainized violence is not war I would add that everyone helping to deal with an insurgency is not conducting COIN either.

    Sadly, confusing other peoples COIN issues for war, and our own assistance to the same for COIN has put a lot of good men in holes indeed, but they weren't rabbit holes.

    (But then I also am strongly of the opinion that it is governments who cause insurgency (or at least the conditions of insurgency that others then come in and exploit to their own ends) rather than some malignant internal or external force that comes in and "radicalizes" the populace. Poor Governance is what radicalizes a populace, those malignant forces just take advantage when government lets that happen.)
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    223

    Default War is War, but...

    I've been thinking lately that what distinguishes "War" from "war" is the alignment between the targets of violence and the objects of the conflict. In conventional wars violence is directed at the warmaking capacity of the enemy regardless of the overall object of the war itself, partly in an effort to insulate civil society from the destructiveness of violence. In less conventional wars, violence is applied directly to the object, and warmaking capacity is often only targeted indirectly.

    Examples from opposite ends of the spectrum: The cabinet wars of the eighteenth century, where being placed at a military disadvantage through the loss of a fortress or a battle was often enough reason for one side to give way and settle whatever political, dynastic, or economic dispute led to the military contest; Vietnam, where political opponents of the communists and their supporting populations were targeted directly.

    Obviously, because we are speaking of a spectrum here, the examples bleed into each other, and you can always find an exception, but this idea of using violence to directly gain your objectives (rather than indirectly when two militaries clash) seems to me to be a useful analytical tool.

  5. #25
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Agree with JMM and wilf: war is war, what changes is warfare

    Then now if war is not war and war cannot be peace then what is war?
    Or what is peace so we may assume that war is not that.

  6. #26
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    My tiny little mind tends to work through metaphors. In this case, I find a biological one useful. There are pathogens floating around all the time. But they are the most successful and do the most damage when the host is weakened by something else.

    The American approach to counterinsurgency tends to be bringing the existing infection under control but, because it is very hard and expensive, we seldom eradicate the factors that weakened the host system in the first place. This means that a recurrence of the infection--a "resurgency" (which is something I intend to write about in the future)--is possible or even probable.

  7. #27
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Again, Steve, I will agree to disagree. Forgetting that people are getting shot (whether they are soldiers or not) is a recipe for disaster. When you use the term "at war" do you hold to the legalistic terms of a declared war?


    Bob,

    I will disagree with you as well. The folks who put soldiers and civilians were generally those who did not get that war means killing.

    Both of you draw neat lines where none exist. I went through a similar exercise in 1994 when we tried debating genocide versus acts of genocide.

    Regards.

    Tom

  8. #28
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Again, no one is advocating "forgetting" about the soldier in the foxhole. But being in a state of war has very specific legal, policy, and strategy implications. For instance, it clearly implies that the solution is at least largely military.

    It's simply infeasible to inact those whenever anyone is shot at. This would obliterate the distinction between war and not-war.

  9. #29
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    If anyone is interested, I discuss some of these issues at length in my forthcoming conference report. It's attached to this post.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by SteveMetz; 10-05-2010 at 02:57 PM.

  10. #30
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Being LE minded War is any act of dishonesty that allows you to gain some object or unfair advantage over another person or group of persons. In short it's all about breaking the rules by ANY means, not just force or violence. Trapping yourself into the "thinking box" that it only involves violence usually means you are going to loose.

  11. #31
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Being LE minded War is any act of dishonesty that allows you to gain some object or unfair advantage over another person or group of persons. In short it's all about breaking the rules by ANY means, not just force or violence. Trapping yourself into the "thinking box" that it only involves violence usually means you are going to loose.
    Good points for consideration, Slap, in effect broadening the definition.

    Tom

  12. #32
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Tom, not looking for neat lines, only logical ones

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Again, Steve, I will agree to disagree. Forgetting that people are getting shot (whether they are soldiers or not) is a recipe for disaster. When you use the term "at war" do you hold to the legalistic terms of a declared war?


    Bob,

    I will disagree with you as well. The folks who put soldiers and civilians were generally those who did not get that war means killing.

    Both of you draw neat lines where none exist. I went through a similar exercise in 1994 when we tried debating genocide versus acts of genocide.

    Regards.

    Tom

    To call COIN "War" is illogical once one appreciates what actually causes insurgency. If one firmly believes that insurgency is caused by the insurgent warring against them, and that by defeating that insurgent they win the insurgency, then yes, COIN is war. But as Dr. Metz points out, this typically just suppresses the effects for some period of time, followed by "resurgency."

    When we begin to hold governments accountable for their actions we begin to get in front of the current conditions of insurgency that are being exploited by AQ's UW campaign.

    When we stop trying to control outcomes in terms of who or how other states are governed as well, we begin to get in front of those same nationalist insurgents buying into the idea that they need to break the support of the US to their government in order to prevail.

    So, the insurgencies being riled up by AQ begin to fade when all of those respective governments realize that they need to get their sh$& all in one sock; and the terrorism levied against the US begins to fade once we stop enabling bad behavior in our allied governments. Currently we are enabling bad behavior to the Nth degree in Afghanistan. We enable it in many other countries in much more subtle ways every day as well.

    Some choose to blame Islam, or ideology in general, or evil people who don't like us or any number of bogeymen. I prefer to hold governments to task. But that is just me. I don't think the U.S. should be a victim or a bully either one, but that is current strategy "We are a victim, so we have the right to be a bully." We're better than that. We're smarter than that.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  13. #33
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default I smell a rabbit hole...

    Personally I think there's a difference between war (the physical act of conflict and killing...Tom's foxhole level) and being at war (which is more of a political/legal position). None of our Indian Wars were declared, and Congress repeatedly refused to allow any sort of recognition (brevets, mainly) for officers involved in those conflicts (at the time the Medal of Honor was restricted to enlisted men...and before anyone argues, look at the award dates for medals given to officers...they are all after 1891 or so). Yet these were clearly wars...low intensity from the POV of the US, but major conflicts from the Native side.

    To carry Slap's point out, trade wars provide another example. I also tend to find that the statement "war is war" is often shorthand for intellectual laziness or an unwillingness to examine certain points or areas of discussion. War may indeed be war, but it has shadings and meanings that give it an almost infinite amount of complexity. It may be about killing, but the amount of killing (and those killed) can vary greatly depending on the context and the existence of an "at war" sentiment (or lack thereof). It might also exist in another realm to gain economic advantage, where killing is limited or nonexistent.

    Can't say I'm fully in either major "camp" as they have appeared so far in this thread, but I'm probably closer to Tom's position.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    To call COIN "War" is illogical once one appreciates what actually causes insurgency. If one firmly believes that insurgency is caused by the insurgent warring against them, and that by defeating that insurgent they win the insurgency, then yes, COIN is war. But as Dr. Metz points out, this typically just suppresses the effects for some period of time, followed by "resurgency."
    But by that measure (i.e., violence settles the issue in dispute once and for all), few armed conflicts would qualify as war.

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    106

    Default COIN is war, FID isn't

    Posted by Bob,

    I too believe that war is war, and that it must be executed in its extremes.

    Where I differ from most is that I do not believe that COIN is war, but rather a civil emergency and should be addressed as such; perhaps with equal vigor, but with a very different focus. In COIN one is not defeating some other state to preserve one's own; one is repairing the failures of governance to preserve the populace in the longterm, while protecting them from immediate threats in the near term.
    Bob, I understand where you're going with this, but I disagree. If we can agree on the nature of war as an armed dual, I don't even think all the entities need to be States. AQ is a non-state entity with political goals it is attempting to achieve through the use of force. An insurgent is opponent that is using force (it isn't an insurgency otherwise) to over throw the government (or form a separate state). The state is very much under threat of being overthrown by an internal threat in some cases, and attempting to define COIN as something other than war may lead to half efforts resulting in defeat.

    Our support to a nation facing an insurgent threat is FID, not COIN, and I agree that FID is not war from our perspective. The nation we're helping can lose, but that doesn't threaten our nation (only our interests). However, the government in Afghanistan is clearly in a state of war fighting for its survival from internal and external threats. The character of the war is unconventional, whichs means using a conventional strategy will probably result in failure. It is largely political and psychological warfare, where violence is mostly messaging instead of taking and holding land, but it is still war, but the character is very different than what our conventional forces have studied.

    I think "war is war" is useful for the reason that Dayuhan stated above. Once we recognize that we can develop an appropriate strategy. This type of war is total war, it involves the citizens, not just the belligerents, which is why in COIN the civilian populace is the center of gravity. How you influence that COG depends very much on the variables in each environment.

    To win you have to get two things right, your strategy and your tactics. You can have the right strategy, but use the wrong tactics you'll fail. You can do everthing right right tactically, but if you have the wrong strategy you'll fail. If you have the right strategy and use the correct tactics you'll suceed.

  16. #36
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    The key point is not the presence or absence of violence

    The key point is not if one is contested by a state entity or a non-state entity.

    The key point in why I don't think it is helpful to consider COIN war (even though I believe that insurgency typically is war for the insurgent); is because COIN is waged against one's own populace. The techniques, tactics and procedures, the very mindset of war are completely counter productive to a government resolving a dispute with an armed rebellion that enjoys a broad base of popular support.

    I am looking for just one freakin example? Anyone??

    The difference is like the difference between a cop dealing with gang violence vs domestic violence.

    The difference is like the difference between your neighbor trying to kick your butt and your son or spouse trying to kick your butt.

    Now yes, the majority position is that COIN is war (it even says so in the very first sentence of our COIN manual, so it must be so) and governments have been setting out to crush all who dare oppose them for as long as there have been governments. Bleeding also used to be the cure to all ills and many believed with certainty that the world was flat.

    I think Thomas J got it about right when he said: "...that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

    Does anyone here believe that the government of Afghanistan today treats the populace not included in the circle of trust of the former Northern Alliance half as well as the American colonists were treated by England?

    Does anyone here believe that the average Saudi citizen has under King Abdullah half the opportunity, justice, and respect that the average American colonist had under King George?

    Does anyone here think the French had a legitimate right to govern Vietnam or Algeria in the eyes of those populaces?

    Does anyone here think that England had a legitimate right to govern over Malaysia? India? Iran? etc? in the eyes of those populaces?

    Insurgency is illegal. Insurgents are criminals. That is the law. But as Americans we stand for far more than the mere enforcement of the Rule of Law, we stand for ideals that say when certain conditions of governance exist a right and duty is formed in a populace that trumps the rule of law.

    Now, we put that on hold to wage a Cold War and looked the other way in a lot of countries where we justified our actions in the name of Containment and other national interests. That happens in war. But when the war is over you stop compromising your values and get back to normal. The U.S. didn't do that following the end of the Cold War. A whole lot of governments around the world became emboldened by the support of the US and have come to act with impunity toward their own populaces. Many of those places are predominantly Muslim.

    Let's get our foreign policy back on track before we set out to get the populaces of others back on track.

    Let's put pressure on governments to listen to their people and to govern with a legitimacy that comes from those same people.

    Feel free to disagree, I welcome your well-considered arguments to help me understand this better. But we've been drifting off azimuth for about 60 years, and that adds up little by little so that you don't really notice until you realize you aren't where you thought you were. I don't think we're where we think we are. Time to plot a new azimuth and get back on track.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 10-05-2010 at 06:07 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #37
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    The key point in why I don't think it is helpful to consider COIN war (even though I believe that insurgency typically is war for the insurgent); is because COIN is waged against one's own populace. The techniques, tactics and procedures, the very mindset of war are completely counter productive to a government resolving a dispute with an armed rebellion that enjoys a broad base of popular support.
    Now that is illogical unless you somehow believe that COIN is bloodless.

    Name one insurgency that has been "countered" without some use of military force.

    You seem bent on equating what I have said with the idea that COIN is purely military. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You also seem intent on believing that our foreign policy should be directed on behavior modification of various governments to match our value system. Good luck with that.

    Tom

  18. #38
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Now that is illogical unless you somehow believe that COIN is bloodless.

    Name one insurgency that has been "countered" without some use of military force.

    You seem bent on equating what I have said with the idea that COIN is purely military. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You also seem intent on believing that our foreign policy should be directed on behavior modification of various governments to match our value system. Good luck with that.

    Tom
    Now Tom, don't put words in my mouth.

    No one ever said that when faced with a violent insurgency that it would not require violent reactions, only that such violent reactions are not war because the objectives are different than war because the opponent is your own populace and you're going to have to live with them when its over.

    COIN is the business of civil government. Like all emergencies that exceed the control of the civil government the military is brought in as excess capacity to fill that requirement. Last in, First out. Just because the military showed up does not change a civil emergency into war either; though too often when the military shows up the civil government abdicates its responsibilities and the military turns it into war.

    The American Civil Rights movement was largely a non-military response with a main effort of addressing the wrongs of government rather than defeating the wronged segment of the society. That was excellent COIN.

    The co-opting of a conference to update the articles of Confederation in a young nation sliding into widespread insurgency in the summer of 1787 and re-writing the law of the land to control the damaging effects of raw democracy, but at the same time ensure checks and balances to prevent future abuses of a more powerful central government with a President; rather than simply calling out the Militia in each Colony to suppress the rebellions was also excellent COIN.

    It is not the presence of military or the tactic of violence that makes war war. It is the purpose and nature of the conflict. The purpose and nature of COIN is that of civil emergency, and to address it as war typically makes it worse.

    I'm not sure why so many are so hard-set that COIN must be war. I'm even more baffled why so many are so hard-set that when we assist a foreign nation with their COIN that we must be doing COIN as well and fighting their war as well. There is no upside from such an approach. It creates inappropriate perspectives and it also creates avoidable strategic risk for our nation.

    What was the upside of taking over the role of COIN for the (illegitimate) government of South Vietnam and fighting their war for them?

    What is the upside of taking over the role of COIN for the (equally illegitimate) government of Afghanistan and fighting their war for them?

    What would the downside have been to the US's strategic interests if we would have not taken such a course in South Vietnam? We knew then as well as we know now that China was never going to suddenly become great friends with a unified Vietnam, regardless of what form of government they employed to wage their campaign to throw off unwanted Western influence.

    What would the downside be to having Afghans decide what the government of Afghanistan should be? Does anyone really believe that even if the Taliban did ultimately prevail there that they would be able to revert to their old ways of dark age Islam? Does anyone really believe that AQ trainees would be swinging on the monkey bars at training camps again, unmolested by Western CT capabilities?

    This is one of many problems with making something "war." War is like baseball, you keep playing until someone "wins" and someone "loses."

    What good comes from a Government making their populace "lose"? No one wins in that scenario.

    War is indeed politics. So is insurgency. But COIN is Governance and that is a very different thing indeed.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 10-05-2010 at 07:22 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  19. #39
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Your Post
    I am not sure if I agree with you, but you have succeeded in causing me to pause and reassess my opinion.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  20. #40
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Now Tom, don't put words in my mouth.

    No one ever said that when faced with a violent insurgency that it would not require violent reactions, only that such violent reactions are not war because the objectives are different than war because the opponent is your own populace and you're going to have to live with them when its over.

    COIN is the business of civil government. Like all emergencies that exceed the control of the civil government the military is brought in as excess capacity to fill that requirement. Last in, First out. Just because the military showed up does not change a civil emergency into war either; though too often when the military shows up the civil government abdicates its responsibilities and the military turns it into war.

    The American Civil Rights movement was largely a non-military response with a main effort of addressing the wrongs of government rather than defeating the wronged segment of the society. That was excellent COIN.

    The co-opting of a conference to update the articles of Confederation in a young nation sliding into widespread insurgency in the summer of 1787 and re-writing the law of the land to control the damaging effects of raw democracy, but at the same time ensure checks and balances to prevent future abuses of a more powerful central government with a President; rather than simply calling out the Militia in each Colony to suppress the rebellions was also excellent COIN.

    It is not the presence of military or the tactic of violence that makes war war. It is the purpose and nature of the conflict. The purpose and nature of COIN is that of civil emergency, and to address it as war typically makes it worse.

    I'm not sure why so many are so hard-set that COIN must be war. I'm even more baffled why so many are so hard-set that when we assist a foreign nation with their COIN that we must be doing COIN as well and fighting their war as well. There is no upside from such an approach. It creates inappropriate perspectives and it also creates avoidable strategic risk for our nation.

    What was the upside of taking over the role of COIN for the (illegitimate) government of South Vietnam and fighting their war for them?

    What is the upside of taking over the role of COIN for the (equally illegitimate) government of Afghanistan and fighting their war for them?

    What would the downside have been to the US's strategic interests if we would have not taken such a course in South Vietnam? We knew then as well as we know now that China was never going to suddenly become great friends with a unified Vietnam, regardless of what form of government they employed to wage their campaign to throw off unwanted Western influence.

    What would the downside be to having Afghans decide what the government of Afghanistan should be? Does anyone really believe that even if the Taliban did ultimately prevail there that they would be able to revert to their old ways of dark age Islam? Does anyone really believe that AQ trainees would be swinging on the monkey bars at training camps again, unmolested by Western CT capabilities?

    This is one of many problems with making something "war." War is like baseball, you keep playing until someone "wins" and someone "loses."

    What good comes from a Government making their populace "lose"? No one wins in that scenario.

    War is indeed politics. So is insurgency. But COIN is Governance and that is a very different thing indeed.
    An eloquent response but again one that dances past the issues and merely confuses the issues.

    As for putting words in your mouth, Bob, I did nothing of the sort. There is no need to. You seem to enjoy asking yourself rhetorical questions and answering them. In the end, I will hold my position and you can have yours.

    If you care to understand where mine comes from, pause a moment and grasp that absent an understanding that COIN is war, one is skipping down the primrose path. Enjoy the trip. I will stay where I am at, thank you.

    Regards

    Tom

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •