BW,Originally Posted by Bob's World
That is why we keep loosing. In old time Special Warfare as opposed to General Warfare there was always a violent illegal means combined with non violent legal means to overthrow, subvert or sabotage the normal operation of the target nation or state. Remember a nation does always have a state.
Slap,
So, my definition, created today, is "why we keep losing"? Ha! Such power I have!!
I would offer that the primary reason we "keep losing" is that we take on things we shouldn't take on, and then define winning in impossible terms.
Of course there is a spectrum of competition - but everything on that spectrum is not necessarily "special," "general," or "warfare."
(And I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).
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)
BW,
Not power..... but force, political force vs combat power.The commies understood and exploited the difference. So when you define something and the leadership accepts that definition you will be misdirected and end up targeting the wrong object and thus lose. Which is why we (USA) keep loosing by not understanding that our enemy combines political force and combat power to
achieve their goals.
War is a two party system. If the other system says they are at war with you and you refuse to accept that, you are in denial and will loose, which is part of Special Warfare.
The creation of Psychological Paralysis and make an incorrect choice, through subversive propaganda.
Sorry,I was very clear in my definition that a system of governance as I defined it did not need to be a state).
You were clear. That comment was for the larger audience.
When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?
I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.
Just as a woman can steal the power of a powerful man by seducing him (I.e., President Clinton gave his power to Monica Lewinski when he gave in to her advances, and nearly lost the Presidency as a result); so too can a powerful nation give it's power to a weak challenger by giving them too much credit. We gave our power to AQ by exaggerating their danger and dragging them up to our level (or dragging ourselves down to theirs).
I'm listening to the sales pitch, but I'm still not buying.
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)
Someone wiser than me once said--until we the US is at peace among ourselves there can be no global peace---something to that.
Hold on for a bit. Have to go to work. Will continue the sales pitch later.
Posted by Bob's World
This comparison has little to do with what we're dealing with today. Much like Bacevichs endless polemics that attempt to wish threats away, and worse none of his arguments are supported by facts. It is simply an endless diatribe against the Cold War (hell, he should have moved to the USSR where he could have assisted them with their "peaceful competition" efforts to expand communism), and now he claims Islamists don't threaten the U.S. Oh I forgot, U.S. politicians actually rigged the world trade center with explosives, it wasn't Islamists who conducted the attack. Enough on Bacevich and back to reality.When I drive down the street and a four year old boy on the side of the road flips me the bird - are we at war because he decided, and should I stop everything, get out of my car and "defeat" him?
I would win the battle, and lose the war. The US actually acts just the way you say we should act. We do not "lose" because we do not do as you recommend, we lose because we do act this way.
Whether we disagree or are just talking past one another I can't ascertain at this point. I do agree with Slapout's point that war involves more than combat. We tend to recognize that with illusionary strategies (the strategies we want to have) that integrate and synergize the elements of national power to achieve our national security objectives. It isn't restricted to special warfare, but from a military perspective the writings on special warfare best capture the logic of a holistic approach.
I do appreciate you providing a definition of war, so at least now we have a position to debate. This will come as no surprise, but I found your definition too limited in scope. If you're in the camp that Clausewitz wrote all we need to know about war, then it could be sound. While recognizing CvC's brilliance, I also think the world has moved on from the wars he studied and wrote about, yet recognizing in some cases they still exist and will exist again. However, what he described in beautiful detail is a slice of a larger whole.
Sun Tzu came closer, and since I'm too lazy to what over and pull the book off the shelf. His points about winning without fighting, and setting conditions to win before the first battle is waged are relevant. A lot of so called security experts (specifically those who think COIN is the end all be all in modern warfare) fail to appreciate that our technical dominance does matter, and few Americans would want to go to war in an environment where our forces didn't dominate the air and maritime domains (now add space and cyber). What we failed to grasp is that we can dominate all the physical domains, and still fail to dominate the human domain. A lot of writing on the topic, but in my view our writing pales in comparison to our adversaries who actually appear to be more effective in manipulating this domain. A lot of that is due to the asymmetry in our laws, and the false assumptions that our liberal democratic culture promotes.
I digress, back to peacetime competition and war (and maybe something in between). Peacetime competition for markets and political influence, is different than competition between actors for markets, political, information, military influence when the aim to (using your words):
You also wrote,War must threaten to compromise the sovereignty of one system of governance to the advantage of the sovereignty of another.
We can say that war is politics or policy by other means, but it is for many reasons, most often to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties. This naturally affects politics, and is a matter of policy.It would sound pedantic if I asked you to define violence, so I'll just jump to the point. Would "force" be more appropriate than violence in today's context? Since war is a contest between two or more opponents where each attempts to impose their will upon the other, can will be imposed by means other than violent warfare? Sanctions (though almost never effective it is an attempt to force our will upon others), what about cyber attacks (different form espionage)? If whatever state attacked Iran's nuclear facility with a worm, were they engaged in an act of war? Finally, jumping to the gray zone, what about subversion? Why did the USSR (Bacevich conveniently neglects to cover this in his numerous diatribes) consider the U.S. promoting human rights as an act of war?2. War may be legal or illegal, but I believe must be violent.
Your first point,I believe war must be between two or more complete systems of governance.On first glance, my strongest disagreement with your definition of war is your comment above. I think al-Qaeda can and has waged war, and considering the number of states under duress due to the movement al-Qaeda promoted they actually present an existential threat to many governments. The beauty of netwar is that owning territory is not required. Yes wars will still be fought over territory, and conventional forces will continue to clash (probably increasing in likelihood), but stateless people can wage what appears to be intangible warA system of governance need not be a state, but must have some form of governing body/system, a security force of some sort, and a distinct population. I think there probably needs to be a territory requirement as well to create a degree of tangibility necessary for war. (So AQ lacks the prerequisite characteristics to participate in war, regardless of what they might declare, or how they might act).In some cases it isn't about expanding their power as much as it reducing ours.to deal with a perceived security concern, or to expand the wealth, power and/or influence of at least one of the parties.
Back to my initial concerns. First, if we ignore others are waging war against us we forfeit the initiative and remain in a reactive role (often after we are in a position of disadvantage). Second, failure to recognize it as war (or some other term) that compels us to develop a holistic strategy (operationalize Phase 0) to win without fighting, or at least limit the fighting required will lead to higher intensity conflicts (wars) in the future. The type of war we're engaged in now doesn't require us to mobilize additional forces, but to treat shaping operations with the same level of seriousness we give to major theater wars.
Bill
I think Clausewitz does handle war pretty well. Where we get in trouble is when we try to apply Clausewitz to problems that are not war, internal revolution, for example; and also terrorist campaigns conducted by non-state political action groups like AQ.
If you call it war, the Clausewitzians will try to apply his theories. It just doesn't work.
The realities of peace is that there will always be individuals and organizations that threaten you, but that are not a threat to you. AQ certainly fits that description. Likewise ISIL and dozens of other groups that we insist on labeling as "terrorist" in order to enable our use of tactics that are incredibly erosive of our national influence, and that too often serve to validate the accusations of those who threaten us and to expand their influence.
We need a new category of competition. Clausewitz saw only tactical and strategic levels of war, but we find defining an operational level helpful. A zone in the middle that serves better than efforts to stretch the two ends to meet. There is a zone between legal peacetime competition and war as well. Many now call that the "Gray Zone" - but without better understanding of the nature of those conflicts and better policies, authorities, and approaches a mere naming convention serves little purpose.
Rising powers will always paint outside the lines to expand their sovereignty. Smart ones will do so in a manner that does not trip clear triggers that bring war down upon them. When the US was a rising power we had no problem with this. Now that we are the primary keeper of the status quo we are losing our minds in frustration. I can laugh or cry at our response to this change of roles, and do a bit of both.
We need a fix, but "forever war" is no fix. At least not for this nation as it was designed and intended to be.
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)
Sales Pitch Continues
In some cases what you mention is nothing but bad parents and a severe marriage problem.
BUT if the 4 year old is part of a Revolutionary Youth Group and his parents belong to the Parent group, it is an act of War and should be dealt with at the level of force.
If sexual blackmail of a senior political official is being used for the purpose of some foreign state or revolutionary group that to is an act of war and should be dealt with by the appropriate force also.
People forget that we "won" the cold war because we recognized it was a War not a competition. People forget competitions have rules, boundaries and referees and penalties if one party breaks the rules. There is no such mechanism outside of the borders of America. We recognized that during the Cold War and we kept it from getting "Hot" by using Diplomatic warfare, Information Warfare,Economic warfare and Covert Warfare.
If you can still find it read a copy of Ike's "Goals for America". The man had clear vision of what America needed to do to remain strong. And as time went by we have violated most of it and we know find ourselves in the predicament we are in.
We Need Elvis And One Nation Under God Like Ike Said
Occupation GI Blues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSojtkl4hB8
Last edited by slapout9; 03-18-2015 at 06:56 PM. Reason: stuff
I think the myth of the nature of Western victory in the Cold War is as dangerous to us as the "victors" as the actual loss was to the Russians.
We never give the Russians credit where credit is due. Certainly not for their role in the defeat of the Germans in WWII; nor for the role of Gorbachav as a visionary leader who's policies served to empower the people of Eastern Europe to stand up, and who's decision to not crush those who led the revolutionary actions that led to the collapse of the deeply flawed Soviet system in truly leading to our victory.
But the Cold War was not war, and most of our most troubling baggage coming out of that time is from those places where we opted to conduct operations in a war-like manner. It will be generations before we overcome the negative side effects of our decision to employ a containment strategy, and certainly how men like the Dulles brothers opted to implement the same.
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)
Cold War Is Not War.....Yep I Agree
That is absolutely correct and that was the whole point of it. There was Small wars (called brush fire wars) back then, General War and Special War(nick named the Cold War). Because of Nukes we had to find something different besides all out war and it was not just a small war (guerrilla war) but something between those extremes.
It is certainly much more then a mere competition. As I said competition is for sports......dosen't work when whole industries can be wiped out and millions loose there livelihoods and destroy there entire way of life. To say that it is just a competition is to show how well psychological ops work at confusing the moral basis of human decision making.
The modern version of this is China's rare earth policy. A combo economic/war strategy/political policy. They snatch up all the critical materials for war production and call it peace. Forget CvC he is old school.
A wise old spook friend from the Berlin days has a simple political view;
I am a socialist because the American political and economic system has basically failed Americans --I am a patriot because we the US have nothing to be ashamed of in our values.
If we finally got our own house in order and it truly functioned then that alone is a strong message to other civil societies that decide to emulate the US--meaning they can succeed whatever their views are towards the rule of law, transparency and good governance.
BUT we must be willing to allow them to go their own ways in order to achieve their determined paths without fear that it is directed against us.
Example---how loud have we made statements about Syria--which many forget that it kicked off four years ago with small demos about the rule of law, fair elections, and good governance and then exploded when the ruling minority government cracked down on the majority.
Now 250K killed, 8M IDPs/refugees and over 1M wounded AND the second round of chemical gas attacks (chlorine) on civilians last night killing more men, women and children--just normal civilians---where is that US red line again --where are our so called values?
Our problem is that we shout out to the world our so called values and then in the end fail to support those values--we have a super split personality and then when someone takes up arms against those perceived values then we flip out and get physical about it without realizing that maybe our concept does not fit their civil society but that society might in fact adopt some of them in their own ways.
Example--Ukraine---the Ukrainians in their Maidan movement were actually displaying the best of what we assume democracy to be--demanding transparency, fair elections, rule of law and good governance based on their own civil society and a massive dislike for wide scale corruption and a longing of what they viewed as European "values".
In bitter freezing temperatures when the US and Europe assumed they would fold they did not and young and old, men, women, children, military members, police and just plain citizens stood their ground much as they did at Lexington--- what is our own governmental reaction by this administration in supporting them further along that path--tap dancing, silence, excuses, words --- but training and defensive arms to support themselves after "trusting" the US in 1994--total silence and waffling.
And we wonder why the world questions our intentions?
You cannot shout out values and demand the world accept them and then simply look the other way without having a "third way forward".
Socialist/patriot--kind of makes sense--the world would then actually understand us better.......if we made that clear by our own actions.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 03-17-2015 at 04:39 PM.
This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.
The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.
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)
So right---when one looks at the world today we see a number of different civil societies attempting to emulate either our values or those of the EU--the interesting question is why though the US or the EU--I think all civil societies regardless of religious beliefs, regardless of whether in Africa or the Pacific, regardless of past political history ie Warsaw Pact or the Far East--all civil societies strive towards a set of norms that ensure them physical security in their society, ensures them employment and a safe environment for their children and opportunities for the children to grow educationally and economically--and if there are fair elections as they define them along the way and a transparent government that responds to their needs so be it.
They would normally then see no need to lash out at the US--there might be inherent differences in approaching common problems but lashing out--hardly.
We simply believed that these societies had to be exact replication of ours in order to be successful and therein lies the core problem they all do not speak English, did not evolve out of the British Empire--and they have their own histories we somehow overlooked.
Would I love the ancient Persian society to once again bloom in the ME--most certainly but along the way they have to lose their revolutionary religious zealous drive and back away from supporting terror as a political means--which IMHO that is at least 20 years away---would I like to see a stable and prospering Russian must certainly as it would lend an additional layer of security to Europe and their civil society has truly suffered since 1917 and desire far better and the list goes on.
So while we have our own issues to work on--I am afraid to say a number of irrationally acting nation states and non state actors will be with us for a long while to come.
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 03-17-2015 at 05:59 PM.
I don't always agree with Colin Gray, but he is one of the more prolific writers on strategy and war. The areas in bold are my injected highlights to facilitate further discussion. I think he is close to being on the mark, but not quite there if I'm interpreting his thoughts as he intended correctly. The comments below Gray's are mine, I'm branching off his thoughts. Mine loosely nest with his, but I don't want to give the perception I'm using his arguments to justify mine. I'm confident he would disagree with my branches.
https://www.infinityjournal.com/arti...ntext_and_War/
Terminology: Clarity, Context and War
By Infinity Journal 03/26/2013
As he explains in the article and other writings, politics is not restricted to states. In fact, small to large non-state groups can and do declare war upon states. They often employ terrorism as supporting tactics, and increasingly they employ terrorism as a form of strategy. To confuse terrorism as simply tactics, and not also as a strategy to compel an adversary to make political changes through the use of force/coercion. The failure to grasp this leads to our confusion on whether or not we're at war with non-state actors. If they are using terrorism to compel political changes, then it is a form of war period. Most wars do not require mobilization of one's nation to wage major battles, rather they're indefinite and relatively small scale affairs, where battle is not decisive.War is not simply the interaction of two state-sanctioned militaries interacting through military means. Rather, war is the use of violence as one tool of politics in order to compel an adversary to do your will.(1) The violence can take many forms and your desired effect of an adversary can be infinite, but what always remains is that it involves the use of force as an instrument to achieve an end. War is a political act to create a political change in an adversary that is beneficial to your own situation.
Colin argues the use of force is required to make it a war, he tends to exchange the terms force and violence as though they're the same thing. I guess it depends upon how you define violence. Is the use of offensive cyber to destroy or disrupt an adversary's cyber systems or infrastructure considered violence? If it is used to compel political change, is it a use of force? Is subversion to promote an uprising against a government considered a use of force? Finally, and not addressed in Gray's article, is Iran's and China's use of soft power tools to marginalize U.S. strategic influence a form of strategic maneuver related to winning an undeclared war, but yet short of war? In my view it is short of war, but it is related to war, and can determine the outcome of future conflicts, as much as moving and maneuvering military forces in preparation and execution of a battle. Putting troops on ships to move them to North Africa to fight the Germans is clearer prelude to war, the intent is clear. Other forms of maneuver in the political and economic domains are not always so clear. Competition? Definitely. Just friendly competition? Hardly.
I'll start at the bottom, I strongly disagree that strategy must contain an element of violence, and that violence is the only means a group or state has to pursue it ends. If he is referring to a conventional war strategy (one type of strategy), then he has a point. However, the world is more complex than this, and strategy is not something the military alone owns.Strategy is a process of negotiation between those that develop the ends (policy makers) and those that execute, through ways and means, war.(2) This negotiation creates a narrative for employing the forces in such a way as to create the desired effect on an adversary. It is not a static product designed to allocate resources for a set contingency, nor simply a plan of action updated every five years. It is a living and breathing process undertaken by and between human beings that is dedicating to determining the best policy for a desired outcome against an adversary, which must have the capacity to use or threaten violence, and how to develop and employ resources to achieve it. Any definition of strategy must contain the element of violence. The reason is simple: if one has no means (combat), one cannot have a strategy.
Moving back to the top of the paragraph, I strongly agree with these comments. As a friend told me recently, we too recently hear the broken record that we don't have a strategy, everything is going bad because we don't have a strategy, etc. IMO this is complete BS, the reality is we have an evolving strategy based on the negotiation process. I agree it appears to be evolving in the wrong direction. But to think we if had some document that locked in our ends, ways, and means all would be better in the world, we're fooling ourselves.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks