Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

  1. #21
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Wilf,

    Fair question as to why I distinguish between "armed rebellion" and "insurgency"

    Several reasons go into this, and I will attempt to lay some of that out here (in no particular order as I think of them):

    1. An insurgency may well manifest as an armed rebellion, and likewise an armed rebellion may well be an insurgency: But neither is necessarily the other.

    2. As you say, insurgency is politics. Agreed. But not all armed rebellions are politics. Some are for power, some are for money; both of which will affect politics, but neither of which are politically driven.

    3. Insurgencies require a popular base. Many armed rebellions, particularly those of the type described in #2 above, do not require and typically do not possess such a base. To lump these all together leads to inappropriate responses.

    4. I strongly believe that the presence or absence of violence is a poor way to define a conflict. It is not unlike employing the presence or absence of sex to define a relationship. It is a good indicator, but it is in no way definitive.

    5. knowing if the rebels are armed and violent is important for the design of my "counter-rebel" operations; but offers no clues as to what conditions must be addressed, or how those undefined conditions might best be addressed to resolve the causation for the rebellion. To simply defeat the rebels is to simply suppress the symptoms. The problem lies unaddressed and will re-emerge once the suppressive efforts relax.

    6. Insurgency is internal politics rather than external politics. That is a very important distinction. If my own child is acting out improperly it is far different than if it is my neighbor's son or some stranger. Each requires unique approaches and each carries unique consequences. To ignore such distinctions is to apply a "one size fits all" solution that will likely not fit any of the three very well.

    7. Western thinking on insurgency is muddied considerably by the colonial experience. Most of our COIN doctrine is based on such experiences. The US does not have COIN doctrine based on lessons learned from the founding fathers decision to scrap the Articles of Confederation in favor for our current constitution; or on the governmental strategy for resolving the growing civil rights rebellion. I suspect Great Britain does not have much COIN doctrine that is derived from her inner turmoils either (and Ireland does not count, as it was treated as a colonial operation). Instead we focus on what we learned from our efforts overseas to build and sustain colonial enterprises. That is simply not COIN at all. Dealing with an "armed rebellion" in some colonial enterprise is completely different than dealing with an "armed rebellion" at home. The stakes at home are much higher; and the residual consequences of tactical choices, win or lose, are both much higher at home.

    8. Insurgency does not "just happen," nor is it the work of some "malign actor" or "ideology". Similarly insurgencies are not caused by poverty. Well governed populaces do not rise up against their governments because they are evil or because they are temporarily insane, or because they are poor. This is governmental propaganda. This is why I look at "conditions of insurgency" on a continuum from "good governance" with a satisfied populace and very low conditions of insurgency; rising up to an insurgent populace, experiencing poor governance with very high conditions of insurgency. Even a populace with high conditions of insurgency may be suppressed into inaction through governmental oppression. Such a populace may choose either violent or non-violent tactics when they do act out. Such a populace may organize and be led by internal actors, or they may be incited and supported by external actors conducting UW.

    None of this can be fairly described by such a broad and inartful distinction as "armed rebellion."
    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)

  2. #22
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Black Globalization

    Copied this from John Robb's Global Guerrillas site. Black Globalization is the transnational criminalization of global markets.



    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/view.html?pg=4
    Last edited by slapout9; 01-26-2011 at 07:51 PM. Reason: stuff

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default I have to agree with JohnT...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    John,

    You just described the United States. But though we have all of these "classic symptoms" there is no real danger of insurgency. I would offer that Gurr's position is sound, but that if he would have dug a little deeper he would have gotten closer to the true roots of causation.

    As we discussed, you bundle the four primary causal factors that I look to under the single umbrella of "Legitimacy." That is one of those words that carries far too many meanings, I think it is critical to break it down into four more focused bundles when assessing insurgency:

    Legitimacy: The populace must recognize the right of the government to govern.

    Justice: The populace must perceive that the rule of law as applied to them is just.

    Respect: No significant segment of the society can perceive that they are excluded from participation in governance and opportunity as a matter of status.

    Hope: The populace must perceive that they have a trusted, effective and legal means of changing governance, when they believe such change to be necessary.

    When these conditions exist and hope is absent, conditions of insurgency will grow. Certainly economic hardship adds fuel to this mix, but it is a mix rooted in domestic policies and politics assesssed through the eyes of "the populace" (which is never a monolith). At point all it takes is a spark. Some internal or external leader armed with an effective ideology; or some event (as in Tunisia). Whether it then goes violent or non-violent is a choice of tactics, with little bearing on the nature of the problem.

    Hope is codified and preserved in our Constitution. This is the role of a Constitution. Any constitution that creates such hope in a populace is the kind of effective COIN tool our founding fathers intended and designed our own constitution to be.

    Cheers!

    Bob
    Bob-

    I think you could make an arguement that the Tea Party represents an insurgency, and I think economics are the prime driver of this movement. Comparing the US economic "woes" to those in some of these other countries is comparing apples and oranges, however- we're not that bad off (not that that's good, mind you!). We simply have a robust system that can process insurgencies - IE, the elections!

    As for the other posts (sorry I am behind so mass replying) - I am closer to JohnT's opinion I think.

    I agree that war is politics by other means, and insurgency is warfare by and for politics more so than most other types of war.

    That said, I think you ignore economic causes at your peril. Certainly they are expressed politically, but economics have been at the root of numerous revolutions/insurgencies - like our own (taxes due to the British debt) or the French Revolution (debt from numerous wars against the Brits). In many cases where this doesn't hold true I would argue that a few self-interested folks hijacked the populace's economic dissatisfaction (Lenin, Mao)...

    I am not arguing that all insurgencies/revolutions are caused by economics. But I am arguing that these will become more common than ever before. Globalization means that our economic interests are more integrated than ever before. While globalization has occured before, the integration of supply chains across nations has never occured to the level we see today. Likewise, the competition in almost every area of the economy has never been as widespread as it is now. This round of globalization is different as a result- it's not trade in raw materials or finished products but technology enabled flat supply chains operating on just-in-time principles.

    Due to the system of liberalized international trade and finance set up by the victors of World War II, states tend to compete in the economic realm rather than in the military one, and we haven't seen a great power war since World War II. Let's be honest - as long as your average middle class person has a job and can take care of their family and improve their life, they don't have as much to be dissatisfied about. That's why China hasn't seen massive countrywide protests- as long as the CCP can deliver reasonable growth, the folks will stay reasonably happy. In places where this is not the case, you see upheaval.

    Again, I am not saying that politics or legitimacy do not matter. They most certainly do. But I am saying that economic issues will become even more important than ever before. As countries develop this will tend to be more the case, while in lesser developed countries it will be less so. Is the development the cause? It seems that you could make an arguement that people at the low end (very poor, little economic activity) tend to dislike their government, and people at the high end of development (more economic activity, developed economy) also tend to get there. South Korea is a good example - not much democracy until their economy took off - then massive protests and upheaval.

    In summary, I think that economic causes are a major part of many insurgencies. Getting bogged down on semantics or trying to separate economic and political causes (It's only about the legitimacy - in four parts!) disregards important aspects of the problem. I think part of the reason for this tendency is the centrality of the military to dealing with insurgencies in the West - which is exactly why Dr. Barnett and others argue for a "department of everything else" or Goldwater Nichols for the interagency - to give the USG non-military tools to deal with these issues.

    V/R,

    Cliff

    PS - good to see you Prof Fishel! Hoping I can be a poster and not just a lurker, at least for a few more months!

  4. #24
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Cliff,

    The Tea Party absolutely is not an insurgency for the simple reason that it is within the rule of law. The Tea party is legal politics.

    However, in many, perhaps most countries around the world the Tea Party absolutely would be an insurgency because it would be illegal politics.

    This is why I add "Hope" and describe it as the great off ramp from insurgency. Imagine a U.S. where the populace lost their faith and confidence in the Constitution? An America where there was no trusted, certain, and legal means to address conditions of poor governance?

    Take that away from the segment of America that comprises or supports the Tea Party and option would they have besides insurgency? This is the situation the African American populace found themselves in; as they were excluded as a matter of status from inclusion in the good governance of the United States. Lyndon Johnson threw his own political future under the bus, a far more significant bus than the one "Ms Parks was on. He had the moral courage to pass three landmark laws that brought the African American populace within the circle of "good governance" and also with the voters rights act insured they had Hope.

    Many Americans today are in denial over the civil rights situation that exploded post WWII in much the same way many Germans are about the Holocaust. Somethings are so horrible, so hard to imagine in the context of modern times that they are discounted as to how bad they were.

    So, in Afghanistan, building equity and justice will take time, though we could get started on the laws and infrastructure required for both. Hope can come much more quickly; but begins with a new constitution. The current constitution robs virtually the entire populace of Afghanistan of hope; and discriminates against half as a matter of status. Does anyone think the Northern Alliance would stand for the current Constitution if Mullah Omar was sitting in the presidency with the power to pick a 1/3 of the senate, a new Supreme Court, every District and Provincial Governor and Police Chief; plus many more??

    As to economics, I don't ignore them, they are a critical part of the equation. But people will tolerate crushing poverty if they believe that it is fair. But even the wealthy rise up in rebellion when the conditions of insurgency reach a certain point.
    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)

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default You make my point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I don't ignore them, they are a critical part of the equation. But people will tolerate crushing poverty if they believe that it is fair. But even the wealthy rise up in rebellion when the conditions of insurgency reach a certain point.
    Bob-

    You make my point for me.

    Globalization means that people everywhere know more about other people. So the folks who are in dire economic straights KNOW that they are there... and once most people know that they don't think it's fair anymore, because they see that the Jones (or the next tribe, next country, other ethnic group, etc.) have more than they do.

    This is why economic issues will become increasingly important- like you said, it is hope! As long as you have "hope" in the form of increased wealth through your life and better position for your kids, you can be placated because you see yourself as moving up the ladder. You can picture yourself in the fat cat's place, if only you work harder. If you suddenly lose that opportunity... well then we have a problem.

    Once you've given people a taste of this, you can't really take it away... especially if their neighbors have opportunity!!

    V/R,

    Cliff

  6. #26
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    2. As you say, insurgency is politics. Agreed. But not all armed rebellions are politics. Some are for power, some are for money; both of which will affect politics, but neither of which are politically driven.
    How is the pursuit of power anything but politics?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Ahh, but empire-like controls help corporations to prosper. Prosperous corporations have powerful lobbies, as do the governments that prosper from these same corporations.

    Capital may well be a coward, but it loves a good dictatorship.
    True enough in the 60s and 70s, far less true today. The corporate side has evolved a good deal, though it would be most un-American to give them credit for it. Certainly they'll work with dictators where they must, but the illusion that dictatorship = stability is long gone. You see this often in oil-producing dictatorships, where western companies prefer to work on service contracts rather than owning resources or physical plant, even where that means lower profits. Basic risk mitigation: everyone now knows that dictatorships are a risk and you have to consider what happens when some colonel decides that Allah desires that the dictator meet with a bullet or the population rises in the streets.

    If the government and the corporation are both prospering, that sounds pretty much win-win and a desirable situation. Of course the government may elect to stash its prosperity in the Cayman Islands, but that's hardly something the corporation can control.

    As to economics, I don't ignore them, they are a critical part of the equation. But people will tolerate crushing poverty if they believe that it is fair. But even the wealthy rise up in rebellion when the conditions of insurgency reach a certain point.
    Varies from case to case, but it is possible to buy off a populace. We see it today: both China and Saudi Arabia could be considered ripe for insurgency, but I doubt you'll see either hit critical mass unless there's a serious economic upheaval.

    We also can't forget fear as a motivating factor pressing populaces to reject insurgency. The Chinese, for example, have a quite vivid national memory of what happened when a nominally progressive movement toppled a fading government in 1911, but lacked the capacity to govern themselves. The result was devastating. They also have memories of what happened when Chiang Kai-Shek's fading effort at despotism was toppled by a group who did have the capacity to govern. They look at current conditions and know they aren't great, but they know too well what the alternative can be. In Saudi Arabia desire for change is balanced against an acute awareness that they sit on something lots of people want, and an overwhelming fear that if change brings weakness and division they may simply be swallowed up by some larger outside force. I can't count how many time I've been told, in the Gulf, that "America wants us to be democratic and tolerate opposition so the CIA can rig our elections and manipulate the opposition and take over". Conspiracy theory perhaps, but powerful nonetheless.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 01-26-2011 at 11:07 PM.

  7. #27
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Copied this from John Robb's Global Guerrillas site. Black Globalization is the transnational criminalization of global markets.
    I wouldn't read too much into the fake merchandise markets. It's all over, but it doesn't really hurt the corporations that much. Everyone knows the difference and if anything the spread of fakes has only increased the status symbol value of the real thing... maybe not such an issue in the US but huge in the developing world. The rising classes in China wouldn't be caught dead in Chinese-made counterfeits, and they know at a glance which is which.

  8. #28
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    But not all armed rebellions are politics. Some are for power, some are for money; both of which will affect politics, but neither of which are politically driven.
    If its for power, then it is political. Politics is power over people. It is not just what politicians do. All conflict is driven by politics, because all conflict seeks to alter political power. Populations rebel for that reason.
    3. Insurgencies require a popular base. Many armed rebellions, particularly those of the type described in #2 above, do not require and typically do not possess such a base. To lump these all together leads to inappropriate responses.
    Example? All the definitions of insurgency I know of, make no such distinction. The appropriateness of the response is defined by the policy, not the conflict.
    I strongly believe that the presence or absence of violence is a poor way to define a conflict.
    Well no violance, no conflict.
    5. knowing if the rebels are armed and violent is important for the design of my "counter-rebel" operations; but offers no clues as to what conditions must be addressed, or how those undefined conditions might best be addressed to resolve the causation for the rebellion.
    It is not the job of the Army to resolve the problem. Defeat the rebels, then the government can do what it wants.
    Dealing with an "armed rebellion" in some colonial enterprise is completely different than dealing with an "armed rebellion" at home. The stakes at home are much higher; and the residual consequences of tactical choices, win or lose, are both much higher at home.
    Well the logic of that is infantry tactics in a civil war are different from that of a war with another nation. The only difference between foreign and domestic is the policy.
    None of this can be fairly described by such a broad and inartful distinction as "armed rebellion."
    Broad and inartful? Those words have sufficed for 5,000 years. I see no reason to change.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Gents-

    Perhaps it might be useful to delineate our terminology a bit.

    An armed group who seeks purely economical ends is a criminal gang, cartel, mafia, or something similar. They are not insurgents, nor are they rebels.

    Insurgency is always political, as Mr. Owen states. If it is not political, it is not warfare and must be something else. War always has political ends.

    The insurgent or rebel always seek a political objective. These objectives fall into two broad categories: Those who wish to overthrow a government and replace it with another (usually the insurgent/rebel leadership), or, those who wish to force a government to change a policy/policies, but do not wish to overthrow that government.

    I'm not an expert, but my sense of it is that the definitions of these terms depends on who you ask - therefore arguing semantics probably isn't useful. However, my general sense is that insurgency is a sub-category of rebellion in which the insurgent group seeks the overthrow of a government. Rebellions may or may not be insurgencies. Rebels may simply demand a change in policy, or perhaps, secession from a nation-state, without being an insurgency.
    Last edited by M.L.; 01-27-2011 at 01:30 PM.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  10. #30
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Wilf,

    Exactly my point when you mention the state of current definitions of insurgency and COIN. They are all derived from and colored by the colonial intervention experience. For one to argue that other perspectives are flawed because they challenge time-honored perspectives puts one in a large, but not necessarily good company with those who:

    1. Ignored the need for cleanliness and separation of the sick to avoid infection and transmission of diseases. After all, centuries of medical journals "Prove" that the development of illness is the will of god.

    2. Laughed at Columbus' proposal to sail west to reach the east, though there was much evidence that this was true, all of the official works declared it impossible.

    3. Same for those who suggested the earth rotated around the sun, etc.

    Bottom line, is that centuries of a particular influence and history will shape thinking on timeless concepts that man really has little or no influence over. The colonial experience shapes how those who's culture derives from Western Europe think about insurgency. How could it not?

    But to throw out trite lines like "politics is power" is kind of like holding your breath until you turn blue and stomping your feet until I agree with you. So let's look at some of those definitions, ok??

    FM3-24:

    "insurgency: (joint) An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict. (JP 1-02)."

    Ok, I would argue that that is the military shaping a definition to fit their paradigm (and that virtually all joint definitions are a compromise between service positions on a topic and usually suffer from that process). Two aspects that have little to do with causation and everything to do with how it actually manifests in a manner that makes it a military problem to solve are the phrases "constituted government" and "and armed conflict." Is it any less an insurgency if this occur in some culture that does not "constitute" it's governments? No, but such "non-state" problems are too messy, so the military excludes them from being their problem to deal with. "..and armed conflict." Well, the military claims that COIN is a form of warfare, so therefore insurgency must only be where "armed conflict" exists right? There is a "chicken and the egg" dynamic at work here as well as strong shades of our colonial roots. After all, if we go to some foreign land, and constitute a government to rule over them, and then the populace challenges that government with armed conflict, we have an insurgency on our hands and need to wage warfare to reestablish our foreign mandated status quo, right??

    Galula (page 1 and 2 of "Counterinsurgency Warfare, Theory and Practice) takes a more exploratory approach:

    "a revolutionary war is primarily an internal conflict...the strategically important fact that they were challenging a local ruling power controlling the existing administration, police and armed forces."

    "the conflict results from the action of the insurgent aiming to seize political power..."

    "Paraphrasing Clausewitz, we might say that 'Insurgency is the pursuit of of the policy of a party, inside a country, by every means.' It is not like an ordinary war - a 'continuation of the policy by other means' - because an insurgency can start long before the insurgent resorts to the use of force."

    I think Galula is correct in this insight, and as noted above, the U.S. Army abandoned this perspective for one that better fits their paradigm. Insurgency does indeed start long before the insurgent resorts to violence. Where Galua and I will quibble a bit is on his definitions of COIN. He contends that:

    "only one - the insurgent- can initiate a revolutionary war, for counterinsurgency is only an effect of insurgency."

    Ok, come on Dave, really? This is that tendency of governments refusing to take responsibility for the effects of their actions, and begs the question "what is insurgency the effect of"?? I contend that all governance is essentially "COIN" but that prior to the growth of subversion and violence it is primarily pre-insurgent and preventative in nature. But as the "goodness" of governance degrades in critical areas (the ones I find most important are legitimacy, justice, equity and hope) that governance becomes less preventative of insurgency and more responsive to insurgency as the populace begins to act out in illegal ways.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 01-27-2011 at 01:53 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)

  11. #31
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    ML

    I see three broad categories of insurgency (all three of which exist in Iraq, btw and each requires a unique approach to resolve)

    1. Revolutionary: To overthrow or change the policies of an existing nationalist government through illegal means.

    2. Separatist: To break some part of a sovereign nation (or tribal territory) off and bring it under new and distinct governance through illegal means.

    3. Resistance: Efforts of a populace to overthrow a foreign presence that is controlling their national governance. Again, these efforts are through illegal means.

    Both of your options fall under option 1 here. These can come in a variety of blends.
    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)

  12. #32
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Gents-

    Perhaps it might be useful to delineate our terminology a bit.

    An armed group who seeks purely economical ends is a criminal gang, cartel, mafia, or something similar. They are not insurgents, nor are they rebels.

    Insurgency is always political, as Mr. Owen states. If it is not political, it is not warfare and must be something else. War always has political ends.

    The insurgent or rebel always seek a political objective. These objectives fall into two broad categories: Those who wish to overthrow a government and replace it with another (usually the insurgent/rebel leadership), or, those who wish to force a government to change a policy/policies, but do not wish to overthrow that government.

    I'm not an expert, but my sense of it is that the definitions of these terms depends on who you ask - therefore arguing semantics probably isn't useful. However, my general sense is that insurgency is a sub-category of rebellion in which the insurgent group seeks the overthrow of a government. Rebellions may or may not be insurgencies. Rebels may simply demand a change in policy, or perhaps, secession from a nation-state, without being an insurgency.

    M.L. separating the two is a western idea that is generally not shared by the rest of the world which is why Marx said "You can't separate Politics from Economics." IMO this is the source of every problem we have inside America and Outside America.

  13. #33
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Or, when one wants to shut down an opponent without offering any real substance to do so, they can go to a range of "shut-down phrases", such as:

    1. "That's tactical, I'm talking strategic here..."

    2. "That's a Western perspective..."

    3. " That can't be true because Dave Kilcullen said..."

    4. "Well, according to Clausewitz..."

    5. "When I was in Iraq..."

    6. "That is an idealist position..."

    7. (or conversely) "When one takes a pragmatic, realist approach..."

    8. And most conclusively: "Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"

    (Bonus points for combining two or more in a single sentence!)
    Last edited by Bob's World; 01-27-2011 at 03:21 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)

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    M.L. separating the two is a western idea that is generally not shared by the rest of the world which is why Marx said "You can't separate Politics from Economics." IMO this is the source of every problem we have inside America and Outside America.
    I wasn't separating the two. I was simply stating that any armed group that has economic ends without political ends that operates outside the law is a criminal, not insurgent group.

    This does not mean that economics is not part of insurgency, rebellion, etc...
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    ML

    I see three broad categories of insurgency (all three of which exist in Iraq, btw and each requires a unique approach to resolve)

    1. Revolutionary: To overthrow or change the policies of an existing nationalist government through illegal means.

    2. Separatist: To break some part of a sovereign nation (or tribal territory) off and bring it under new and distinct governance through illegal means.

    3. Resistance: Efforts of a populace to overthrow a foreign presence that is controlling their national governance. Again, these efforts are through illegal means.

    Both of your options fall under option 1 here. These can come in a variety of blends.
    I think your construct provides an interesting way to look at the problem, however, in the end all of these either

    A: Want to overthrow the existing government
    -or-
    B: Want to change a policy, but do not want to overthrow the existing government.

    Your three categories are all variations on these two basic themes - the member groups are just different.

    For example, separatist is category B. The Anystan government policy is that all districts will remain a part of Anystan. The North District wants to become Northstan. They don't want to overthrow the Gov't of Anystan - they simply want to change the Anystan policy vis a vis Northstan.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

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

    Default

    Distillations are valuable up to the point that they lead to over generalizations that hinder clear thinking.

    I stop at the three categories I settled at because I believe that to combine those together I begin to lose distinctions that are essential to COIN process. Now, if I am merely a "counterinsurgent" or conducting "counter guerrilla" operations, it does not matter if I lump these three distinct categories of causal motivation together, as all I want to do is destroy those who dare to challenge the government with illegal violence.

    It is this type of thinking that leads to combining the rural, largely apolitical, resistance insurgency in Afghanistan along with the highly political revolutionary insurgency of the Taliban leadership in Pakistan. We then go on to engage one in hopes of curing the other; conflate them as a monolith; and generally end up applying the wrong solutions to the problems, or applying a potentially workable solution to one end of the problem, while addressing the other end in a manner that neutralizes the good effects and makes the entire problem worse.

    If you consider the real success behind the surge was that Gen Petraeus essentially recognized these three distinct segments and tailored his approach to each. He left the Kurds alone and did not press the issue of the central Iraqi government exerting its sovereignty over them. Satisfied, this largely took them out of the fight. For the Sunni it was largely a resistance. They had held power, and were now excluded and in danger of being dominated by a Shia/Kurd government. By reaching out to the Sunni and addressing their concerns at being excluded he began to take them out of the fight as well. For the Shia it was a mix of resistance and revolutionary; wanting the foreigners to leave and to exert their own dominion over the government. (AQ really was not part of this. They were never "insurgents," they were foreign fighters who traveled to Iraq to inflict pain on the West and advance their own political agenda. The majority of those foreign fighters being members of nationalist insurgent movements (revolutionary) in the various Arab states they came from (Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, etc). AQ was conducting UW with the Iraqi populace as well.

    If we would have continued to apply a "one size fits all" approach we would still be mired in high level combat there. Surging troops and pop-centric tactics are all ancillary to the larger strategic understanding of the problem. As is so often the case in insurgencies and interventions, often the greatest aspect of the cure receives the least credit.
    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 William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    2. "That's a Western perspective..."
    That is very often a huge problem. Democracy and legitimacy for example.

    3. " That can't be true because Dave Kilcullen said..."
    Well when I next meet Dave, I'm going to point out to him that his two book and numerous articles have done far more harm than good, in my opinion.

    4. "Well, according to Clausewitz..."
    If he said it, it was probably right and no one better has come along.

    "Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"
    I think of Ken as a Intellectual Reserve. Thus have simple ideas, that Ken White agrees with....
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #38
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    The accrediting agencies for my university program at the program, state, and regional levels all require me to teach globalization. My curriculum must reflect the principles of globalization. At a recent academic conference I asked one of the architects of this requirement, "What is globalization?" His response was a pedantic, "You don't know?" Leaving me breathless and struggling to keep my inner Marine at peace I said, "No, I want to know if you do?"

    To whit, globalization is when my students have to compete for jobs with any student anywhere else on the planet for a job. This is true, and they do, quite well. Globalization is the effect on the local market when cheap Turkish steel is dumped in America and results in 30K steel workers getting laid off. That then turns into a political incident and causes perturbations in domestic politics. Globalization is the fact that over the last thirty years the number of American born professors in STEM higher education has radically dwindled towards a minority. A trend followed by declining STEM education for American students and simply circular. Globalization is the perturbation in the corn market caused when a harvest half a world away fails and my local farmers in Indiana get a little fatter pay-check. Globalization is the fact a flood in Brazil results in an increase sales return on computer equipment designed in Texas, built in China, and delivered by Korean shipping through a Chillean company.

    A mild mistake made by the Barnetts of the world and most arm-chair strategists is laying globalization at the foot of the Internet and basing everything on communications. Those are symptoms of globalizations. From the view of an Indiana farmer globalization isn't about networks it is about peering. Instead of hierarchical relationships or even networked relationships it is about peering relationships. The farmer sells directly to the consumer half a world away. We see this system breaking down in the music industry as artists sell directly to the consumer. iTunes from Apple is an example of the retailer removing the distributor, but now we have the distributor being yanked out of the picture too. NetFlix, iTunes, and even Amazon are retailers who are direct to market. Now technologies are allowing them to be lept and producer to consumer is possible. That should scare most governments because in the seams of the previous nationalized systems is where regulation and taxation fit. Now those seams are closing.

    If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

    Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

    Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  19. #39
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default One or two points to add...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

    Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

    Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?
    Selil-

    I think that Barnett's point mirrors yours- by "connectivity" he doesn't mean the internet, he means the ability of folks in one place to do business/interact with others. The internet is obviously the biggest enabler of that, but it is an enabler - not the effect. This is why I think the economic factor is becoming more important- it results in the "peering" process as you call it. It's tough to get someone to go to war with somebody they work with every day - and even tougher to convince them that that person is the "enemy". One reason you see so much hatred in places like Pakistan is that disconnectedness.

    One of my big concerns though is the strength of military might. You mention it, and several others have alluded to it. Certainly even our military has a hard time "pacifying large swaths of the population"... but this is because we choose to follow the Western norms for warfare. Raw, naked force still has the ability to subjugate, and it could disrupt globalization and cause regression. It would take a massive amount of force, true- but the lesson of WWI and WWII is that at some point even the most fanatical organizations/governments will surrender if they are faced with annihilation- and afterwards, there are significant psychological and social consequences. I'm not arguing that this is a good idea, or right in any way- but if an actor with sufficient power chooses to use it in this way... well, it would probably work. We need to make sure we don't assume that the rules we use will always apply to everyone else.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  20. #40
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    Bob-

    You make my point for me.

    Globalization means that people everywhere know more about other people. So the folks who are in dire economic straights KNOW that they are there... and once most people know that they don't think it's fair anymore, because they see that the Jones (or the next tribe, next country, other ethnic group, etc.) have more than they do.

    This is why economic issues will become increasingly important- like you said, it is hope! As long as you have "hope" in the form of increased wealth through your life and better position for your kids, you can be placated because you see yourself as moving up the ladder. You can picture yourself in the fat cat's place, if only you work harder. If you suddenly lose that opportunity... well then we have a problem.

    Once you've given people a taste of this, you can't really take it away... especially if their neighbors have opportunity!!

    V/R,

    Cliff
    Cliff,

    You may (or may not) be surprised to learn that those who live in abject poverty in so many places around the globe cannot empathize with the wealth of America any more than Americans can empathise with their poverty. Somethings are beyond comprehension.

    I got my first dose of this as a young Captain standing in the Saudi desert attempting to describe my home in SW Oregon to the Egyptian soldiers and officers I worked with. Even when I finally got a tourist brochure and showed them pictures of the coast, the forests, the farms, Crater Lake, etc their eyes went wide with wonder, but they still could not truly comprehend something so far from the only reality they had ever known.

    Fast forward to today. The size of bounties placed on HVTs in the Southern Philippines was (and likely is) a big problem. The amounts were too large. Tell someone you will pay them $6 Million for a guy and they don't get it. Tell them you'll pay them $6,000 and suddenly you have their attention. Like an inverse scene from Austin Powers. The first amount is too large to comprehend, the second is wealth beyond belief, but within understanding. Heck, we'd probably have rounded up all the AQ senior leaders world wide long ago if we had reduced the largest reward to about $25,000 for bin Ladin. It's not like we are attempting to lure western bounty hunters to go after them.

    But that too points out how we have hindered our own efforts by not being able to epathize with the affected populaces where the base of support for such movements exists. Much smaller rewards and DA raids on senior leaders in Pakistan would have likely been seen as quite reasonable by the Pashtun populace that harbored them.

    Instead we created this elaborate and intrusive construct that takes us farther from the prize every day. Crazy.
    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)

Similar Threads

  1. Good Layman's guide to the financial crisis
    By Cavguy in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 479
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 02:12 PM
  2. COIN: Is Air Control The Answer?
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 08:46 PM
  3. A ‘Surge’ for Afghanistan.
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 02:27 PM
  4. Globalization and the Radical Loser
    By Granite_State in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 02:09 PM
  5. Questions the Islamic Society Should Answer
    By SWJED in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2006, 04:20 PM

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
  •