Is everybody wrong?

[slapout9]

Found this article in Oct 69 issue of military review. A different point view of in which the author believes there are 3 types of counterinsurgencies, of which only one can be won by a major power! Although it is old he points a few sticky points on CI theory like the British have lost more than they have won. And worst of all terrorist based CI has never been defeated by a major power. What doe the council think of this person views?



https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil...CUR_DOCUMENT=1

[Culpeper]

The terrorists can successfully operate in the cities only if the population approves their cause and their methods, otherwise they would risk betrayal and extinction since security forces are usually strong in the cities. If the terrorists have insufficient popular support, their movement confronted by a determined security force, will collapse.

I think the whole part about Terrorist War is relevant. With that in mind, it appears, at least at the moment as well as the coming test of Iraqi security forces, that the counterinsurgency has a slight lead. Blowing up a line of would-be police recruits only to watch the survivors and responders clean up the mess and see these people get right back in line is not a good sign for the terrorists. Strike one. Of course, I'm hypothetically looking at the insurgency (terrorists) as one cohesive force, which is not exactly the case in Iraq. Strike two. Also, the insurgency (terrorists) have lost the valued asset of staying the course and not losing. They have blown that out of the water as far as I am concerned. Strike three.

Strikingly (no pun intended), I see the counterinsugency methods for Terrorist War described in the article currently being implemented in Iraq. Thanks for sharing this with us.

I think the part about Terrorist War is a must read. The other parts are not that relevant for what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nevertheless, this is definitely a reading list recommendation for anyone needing a quick idea of what is going on with unconventional wars.

[Steve Blair]

It's an interesting read, to be sure. I'm not sure if I agree with all of his conclusions, though.

[slapout9]

Yes, I have some questions myself but according to the sidebar he died a few months before the article was published. I do think he was on to something with his classification system, but it does not look like we will ever know what his complete theory was.


Culpper and Steve thanks for responding. Anybody else out there with comments??

[SSG Rock]

I also see the terrorist war as relevent, especially in how he mentioned the cities as the major area of operations. That's exactly what we are dealing with in Iraq.

More than anything else, and I might be oversimplifying this, but the article does not address the issue of popular support of the counter insurgent from the counter insurgent's home country.

I think we have over analyzed the insurgents and terrorists, I think that we fully understand how they operate, their TTP change, but that has always been. Now is the time for us to analyze why is it that America can't seem to muster the starch to support their own military in a counter insurgent role. Especially when that support requires absolutey no sacrifice in their daily life? America has always stood for, indeed, proclaimed publicly that it will work toward the liberation of the oppressed and for the spread of democracy, every president of the modern era has expressed this ideal to wild cheers from audiences the world over. Now, here we are in the middle of such an effort, and America seems to have misplaced it's collective backbone. I tell you, I'm at a loss. We can put down the insurgency in Iraq, to me, it's simply a matter of being patient, and supportive.

The article was interesting, it didn't offer anything we don't already know. What I found significant was that it was written during the Vietnam War and that most of it is as relevent today as it was back then.

I've come to the conclusion that a small number of people have managed to frame the argument over the Iraq war. I've also come to the conclusion that the real opposition to the war isn't so much over the war itself, but opposition of Bush. I think there are just enough Democrats out there still so angry over the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 that their top priority is to deny any modicum of success no matter how small, but especially the war in Iraq to the Bush Administration. I may be over simplifying here, but I think there is a good deal of truth to it.

[Culpeper]

I agree, the ability to create wholesale sedition can be placed right at the foot of the executive branch. Woodrow Wilson used the Sedition Act of 1918 for good reason and with good results. The Sedition Act was short and sweet and makes the entire Patriot Act look like the Girl Scout Manual.