Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: ANSF performance 2015 onwards

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    861

    Default

    "A power that creates and protects a government in some foreign place, cannot create a security force to effectively secure that de facto illegitimate government against some challenger who's forces perceive their cause as legitimate."

    This is too broad a generalization. It depends on the power, the force they create and the enemy they face.
    In this case, failure was not guaranteed. But of course, it COULD fail.
    The tragedy is that it could have worked.

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

    Default

    Broad indeed. But not too broad.

    Please give me an example of where this has worked?
    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)

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    "A power that creates and protects a government in some foreign place, cannot create a security force to effectively secure that de facto illegitimate government against some challenger who's forces perceive their cause as legitimate."

    This is too broad a generalization. It depends on the power, the force they create and the enemy they face.
    In this case, failure was not guaranteed. But of course, it COULD fail.
    The tragedy is that it could have worked.
    I'm with you on this and it takes us back to the wise saying that, "all models are wrong, but still useful." If someone becomes overly enamored with their model, it no longer serves its heuristic role. Clearly the USSR created a number of governments where its security forces held the line for decades. One could argue we did the same in Germany and Japan. In Vietnam, the government did hold against the insurgency, they couldn't hold against the superior conventional power of North Vietnam, and no this wasn't Phase 3 of Mao's insurgency model. You can also argue that the UK and France created a number of states and trained their security forces that have held the line.

    If you're going to argue that they failed 50 to 100 years later, that is getting a bit petty and unrealistic. New issues emerge, history doesn't freeze in place.

    If you look at the Arab Spring, any state that kept control of their security forces defeated the uprising, with the exception of Syria. Assad's government in Syria, to the surprise of many who embrace liberal social models, still exists.

    Clearly these issues are much more complex than any simplistic model can explain. We need to use multiple modes as lens to try to understand, but also free ourselves from models to take a fresh look at the issue as it really is, without the bias of a model or ideology.

Similar Threads

  1. Wargaming the South China Sea
    By AdamG in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-05-2017, 10:05 PM
  2. Afghanistan 2015 onwards: Moderator's Notice
    By davidbfpo in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 09:12 PM
  3. Afghan National Army (ANA) thread
    By BNopsSgt in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 01-24-2014, 04:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •