Good news -- the insurgency is over! Now we need a new strategy for the Iraq War.

[Fabius Maximus]

Marct, thank you for introducing this concept to the discussion. It might have many applications to the military arts (that is for another thread, perhaps).

What Marct might have had in mind when introducing this concept to the thread (just guessing) was that combat is a powerful instance of emergent behavior.

To over-simplify (am in a hurry), let’s contrast top-down and bottom-up perspectives.

Many factors encourage a top-down analysis in the military arts. The hierarchical command structure of most armies. The top-down perspective of space given by maps. The top-down view of time given by military history.

But combat outcomes result from bottoms-up activity. Such as the specifics of logistics and terrain. But most importantly, the behavior of soldiers as individuals.

The military professionals might learn from study of emergent behavior in theory and reality in other fields.

That is not a new insight, of course. Perhaps would be an interesting thread on SWC, if there is not already one. I for one would be interested in reading it (not competent to say much more about it, except after many brews).

[marct]

Hi FM,

No time to deal with all of this now. Too much good material to look at here, and some requires a bit of thought. But this is too good to let pass ...

I'll look forward to it.

You say "appeal to authority" like it's a bad thing. OK, what's the length of the Nile River? No appeals to authority, please.

Length: 6,695 km according to Wikipedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile dl/20/3/2007

An appeal to authority is not, in and of itself, an invalid argument (forget "good" and "bad"). My point was that you had used an appeal top authority incorrectly. In order to use such an argument, you must reference not only the author, but the argument or fact and it must be in a manner that can be checked by others. An appeal to authority argument relies on an assumption of trust in the good faith of the authority figure and, at the same time, assumes that you have read their arguments and are incorporating them. What you did with the Penrose reference was toss the name out with no pointers to specifics as if it was, in and of itself, both self evident and unassailable.

That's an extreme example, of course. But not that different from what I did when challenged on my statement that modern science is generally reductionist. I quote some authorities. The alt is to whip out a quick 200 page PhD thesis.

But you didn't quote them, you referred to them, and not their work, which is a different thing. Simply referring to someone who is an expert does not make an argument.

Nor was my comment exactly an appeal to authority. I said that this was the consensus opinion, but I specifically cited a major figure taking the opposite side of the debate.

How can it be a "consensus opinion" if there are major dissenting figures and a "debate"? Besides that, "reductionism" is philosophically different between the natural and social sciences, a point you didn't note but one that is very important.

Also, this does not seem to me a significant point to debate. Reductionish/holistic was introducted just to distinguish the approach of my "brief, hopefully provocative introduction” from Krepinevich’s overview.

Why not? The communication of ideas / perceptions / emotions is at the heart of all writing, so it follows that when someone asks for input on a work, that there use of words etc. will be a major point of commentary.

Marc

[Gian P Gentile]

Let me ask you this: Did we need the surge to get where we are at today? Would your assessment of conditions on the ground and proposal for future action worked in December 2006 before the surge began?

I disagree with your point that the American elite and populace will soon end the war. Sadly i think the ostenisble success of the Surge has created enough optimism within the right's base to maintain this tempo of military operations in Iraq Indefinitely; to the detriment of the American Army.

[SteveMetz]

I disagree with your point that the American elite and populace will soon end the war. Sadly i think the ostenisble success of the Surge has created enough optimism within the right's base to maintain this tempo of military operations in Iraq Indefinitely; to the detriment of the American Army.

I see it differently. The whole purpose of the "surge" was to create "space" for political progress. If there is no demonstrable political progress (and, sadly, I don't think there will be), I believe the American public and Congress will say, "We gave them an opportunity. They didn't take it. We're outta here."

I think both Democrats and Republicans will base their argument on the damage the current operational level is doing to the force. I want to get a copy of the CSA's HASC testimony yesterday where, according to media reports, he made that point.

In my blog, I've compared the "surge" to the Phoenix program--a militarily successful operation that was, politically speaking, too late. If we done the surge in the autumn of 2003, it might have mattered.

[Kreker]

I want to get a copy of the CSA's HASC testimony yesterday where, according to media reports, he made that point.

Steve,
Here's the link.
http://armedservices.house.gov/heari...ormation.shtml
Regards

[SteveMetz]

Steve,
Here's the link.
http://armedservices.house.gov/heari...ormation.shtml
Regards

Thanks. When I Googled the HASC, I got a different site. I was going to get a copy of the testimony from a buddy on the CSA staff.

[SteveMetz]

I also wanted to add that I consider the question of whether the conflict in Iraq is or is not an insurgency a red herring. Insurgency is a strategy. Most conflicts involve multiple strategies; their relative importance can ebb and flow during the course of the conflict. To me, debating whether the conflict in Iraq is or is not an insurgency is like debating whether World War II was or war not amphibious war or strategic bombing.

[Gian P Gentile]

Except for the fact that for almost all of them (the "American public and Congress") their sons and daughters are not dying daily on the streets and roads of Iraq.

[SteveMetz]

Except for the fact that for almost all of them (the "American public and Congress") their sons and daughters are not dying daily on the streets and roads of Iraq.

I think that might affect the intensity of the opposition, but not the extent. The majority of the people who opposed the war in Vietnam did not have family there.