I take your point, if the rational enemy was rational and did not possess equivalent technology of his own. It may be different to ours but is may still be effective.Originally Posted by UrsaMaior
Don't dismiss 6,000 Toyota Land cruisers all armed with MANPADs and ATGMS
"Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars".
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
Well, China. Russia, India all possess (sp?) equivavalent technology ie "modern" equipment. But I doubt they will try to 'stand up an' fight' with any sizeable western force. As long as the West has its technological edge in numbers and demostrates its willingness to use it we wont see 6,000 pick ups.
Ok I meant big war, or High intensity conflict. Alas it is another argument for me this chaos of terminology. All society has problems naming new phenomenons. See Kilcullen's relevant article."Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars"
Nihil sub sole novum.
Defining "instrumentality"
Hi Wilf & Ken,
My problem with your answers is the implicit breadth of your concept of what the word "instrumental" means in this context, which seems to be all violent actions north of an epileptic seizure.
Taken to that grand extent, sure, most violence can be defined as purposeful toward an end but when all things are something, then nothing is. Common sense and five minutes observation at a busy intersection in a bad neigborhood at around 11:00 o'clock in the evening will disabuse anyone of the idea that all violence has rational root causes. Sometimes the pretext for violence is a nominal excuse.
Too broad a definition to be useful analytically, in my view. Perhaps WM's suggestion of reframing the debate is more productive
Or, more likely, there is nothing to debate?
'Instrumental' to me as Wilf stated simply means it has a purpose other than recreational; whether said purpose is rational or not is neither said or implied.
Though I could make a valid case for any conflict being at least partly irrational. Necessary perhaps but still irrational...
In any event, I'm not at all sure that debate is merited. Quite the contrary.
As we are stuck on semantics, no.
Hi Ken,
Sorry I can't buy the premise that all organized violence is "instrumental" minus violent acts that might be "recreational" in nature, though "fun" per se cannot be excluded as a byproduct of the former.
I will wish you a Happy New year though! Cheers!
Not a problem.
Happy New Year!
Why not? It's a quite widely accepted premise, coined by Colin S. Gray, if I am not mistaken.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks