Time for a FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency Update

[Bob's World]

Thank you, but I think you overstate your case..

The population will support who ever has POWER, by having the monopoly on armed violence. ONCE that is done, then the political fixing can start.

Time and again it is the "power" of a populace seeking liberty from tyranny that over comes the power of even the strongest and most effective of governments.

As to the trite catch-phrase of "monopoly on armed violence," I gladly toss it to the same bone pile where so many half-right phrases commonly associated with the efforts of intervening powers to suppress such popular uprisings duly belong.

The American populace was guaranteed freedoms of speech, the press and assembly so that movements such as the Civil Rights, and now the Tea Party, could not be deemed treason or insurgency by the sitting government; and were guaranteed the possession of our arms to ensure that they never grew too bold in their possession of some concept of "monopoly" on armed violence. It is the lack of such monopoly that leads to (ultimately) the stability of good governance. It is the presence of such monopoly that leads to the stability born of oppression.

[William F. Owen]

Time and again it is the "power" of a populace seeking liberty from tyranny that over comes the power of even the strongest and most effective of governments.

Not true. Cambodia in the 70's, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, A'stan under the Taliban, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, North Korea etc etc etc.

This "power from the people" is not a reality in the real world, unless they do a lot of killing to get it, and unless they are prepared to keep killing, they can loose it.

As to the trite catch-phrase of "monopoly on armed violence," I gladly toss it to the same bone pile where so many half-right phrases commonly associated with the efforts of intervening powers to suppress such popular uprisings duly belong.

Then you don't understand it. It means "Man on the ground with a gun." It's not presented as a "system of Government". It is a means by which control - for both good and bad - is gained and maintained for the Government to function.

It is the lack of such monopoly that leads to (ultimately) the stability of good governance. It is the presence of such monopoly that leads to the stability born of oppression.

All sounds good, till you look at Somalia, the Congo, Sierra Leone, parts of Colombia, Thailand etc etc etc. It's the competition for the monopoly that creates the problem and it is frankly ridiculous to suggest the US citizens owning guns gives them the capacity to defend themselves against their government. Never seems to work and never has.

[Bob's World]

Not true. Cambodia in the 70's, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Saddam's Iraq, A'stan under the Taliban, Saudi-Arabia, Syria, North Korea etc etc etc.

This "power from the people" is not a reality in the real world, unless they do a lot of killing to get it, and unless they are prepared to keep killing, they can loose it.

Then you don't understand it. It means "Man on the ground with a gun." It's not presented as a "system of Government". It is a means by which control - for both good and bad - is gained and maintained for the Government to function.

All sounds good, till you look at Somalia, the Congo, Sierra Leone, parts of Colombia, Thailand etc etc etc. It's the competition for the monopoly that creates the problem and it is frankly ridiculous to suggest the US citizens owning guns gives them the capacity to defend themselves against their government. Never seems to work and never has.

It is not that I fail to understand, rather that I refuse to agree with your understanding. I merely point out that reasonable minds can differ, and that the model you profess while often applied, is not, IMO, one that can produce enduring, positive, effects.

[Bob's World]

or said another way, as posted on Doctrine Man's (I am a fan) Facebook

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php...&id=1275108793

or this:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...&id=1082681298

[slapout9]

Maybe the new manual has already been written...it is called the Armor Manual.....now we are talkinglink to article below.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc....tanks/?hpt=T2

[JMA]

Maybe the new manual has already been written...it is called the Armor Manual.....now we are talkinglink to article below.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc....tanks/?hpt=T2

Tanks before more gunships???? That will take some explaining from the Marines.

[slapout9]

Tanks before more gunships???? That will take some explaining from the Marines.

I don't know (I am a gunship/SPECTRE guy myself) but the article says it was the Marines that wanted the Tanks, so I guess we will see how it works out.