Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Madhu]

Bill Moore:

I can't think of a conflict that gets to a point where people kill each other that doesn't involve strong hatred, so I don't see where that has anything much to do with it.

As far as the dreaded nation building goes, that is only part of a good small war fight. The way we do things of course often has next to nothing to do with good practices. Ultimately you have to win over the population, or at least get them stand aside from the fight to the extent they don't support passively or actively the opposition. If you don't do that the only alternative is to get beat or do it the Syrian gov way.

Where do you get this information that a good small wars fight involves certain good practices? What are you basing your information on? Galula's book is hugely flawed, carl, there are huge problems with it and the situation he described didn't exist in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

It doesn't mean that tactically we can't learn things from it but it has to be put in context and matched up with other things.

Seriously, hard evidence? Sorry to be such a jerk but I can't understand this largely male fantasy. It's like male chick lit.

[Madhu]

The Centurions review:

M. Larteguy's argument, revolutionary though it is meant to sound, is a familiar one. If anything, that is its strength: The Centurions is a call for a radical defense of the old values. The Communists have remembered what we have forgotten; if we rededicate ourselves to the ideals of strength, independence, self-reliance, we can destroy them and thereby save ourselves. Indeed, we will have saved ourselves by the rededication itself.

Larteguy is probably right on military grounds. The day of Napoleonic Grande Armee has passed; the French experiences discussed in The Centurions prove it, and the United States is learning the same thing today in Viet-Nam.

But his contention that a revolutionized Army is the key to a new Revolutionary France is wide of the mark. Sartre's contrary theory of involution--that the desperation and violence of the Army is corrupting whatever survives of a healthy France--is, I think, more accurate. Perhaps Larteguy is just when he blames domestic decadence for the impotence of the Army in the colonies; but he does not convince me that it can and must therefore save France.

In fairness, I should say that I doubt anybody could sell me on such a theory. But if anyone could, it certainly wouldn't be Larteguy. The problem, as I suggested above, is that The Centurions is a very bad novel. Larteguy has allowed his venomous feelings towards France and his intoxication with the military to overwhelm his book.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/19...-army-needs-a/

No, this is not a thread jack, promise

Aw, maybe it is. I seem to have this stuff on the brain. That review is weird, though. Seriously, male military fantasy. Don't get mad, okay? You all know I'm on your side.

PS: To pull this all together, it seems to me that a bunch of people romanticized guerrilla warfare and colonialism and certain novels and memoirs and somehow, doctrine incredibly followed this romantic, unsupported view of how to fight based on a bunch of idealized notions that weren't really what happened. That Americans with their own history could do that! I guess if the people are brown, the Constitution and our foundational values go out the window.

Now you can all yell at me and tell me what I've got wrong!

[carl]

The Centurions review:



http://www.thecrimson.com/article/19...-army-needs-a/

No, this is not a thread jack, promise

Aw, maybe it is. I seem to have this stuff on the brain. That review is weird, though. Seriously, male military fantasy. Don't get mad, okay? You all know I'm on your side.

PS: To pull this all together, it seems to me that a bunch of people romanticized guerrilla warfare and colonialism and certain novels and memoirs and somehow, doctrine incredibly followed this romantic, unsupported view of how to fight based on a bunch of idealized notions that weren't really what happened. That Americans with their own history could do that! I guess if the people are brown, the Constitution and our foundational values go out the window.

Now you can all yell at me and tell me what I've got wrong!

It's a novel and if I recall right, it reflects the ideas of a certain group of French officers who were really impressed by their captivity at the hands of the Commies. They actually believed that if they go the propaganda right everything would fall into place. It didn't but they had some influence for a while. The Constitution goes out the window in many wars including ours. It has to. Check out the fate of Vallandigham.

[carl]

Where do you get this information that a good small wars fight involves certain good practices? What are you basing your information on? Galula's book is hugely flawed, carl, there are huge problems with it and the situation he described didn't exist in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

It doesn't mean that tactically we can't learn things from it but it has to be put in context and matched up with other things.

Seriously, hard evidence? Sorry to be such a jerk but I can't understand this largely male fantasy. It's like male chick lit.

Which Galula book are you talking about? I only skimmed Counterinsurgency because I read Pacification in Algeria and it covered everything in greater and more readable detail. You should read that. It's great...and free at RAND. I don't think Galula's ideas are flawed hardly at all. Our interpretation by career oriented interpreters is very flawed however. But if you don't like him how about Lyautey? Most of the things Galula advocated had been done by Hubert. Or the US Army experience in the Philippines and Moroland? Or The Village? Or the Snake Eaters? Or the fight against the Huks? Or on and on.

Obviously the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan differs from Algeria or Peru. If somebody believes that what worked in one place can be precisely applied in the same manner someplace else there is something wrong with them, not with the overall idea. Just like you say it has to be adapted to the situation.

There isn't any hard evidence. It isn't science. It is things that generally work. You want hard evidence, stick with ballistics, except for terminal ballistics, which involves humans again so things get complicated.

You ain't a jerk.