Meta-Warfare

[TheCurmudgeon]

I realize you and AP are playing it safe, because the dogmatic ones who tend to dominate the military education systems love to promote that the nature of war doesn't change, only its character.

I don't believe I am playing it safe. I believe that Clausewitzian "war" is all about politics and the political realm, where natural war is a natural state of human affairs that never changes.

" I define natural war as non-spontaneous, organized, lethal violence committed by one identifiable group of people against another identifiable group of people, executed by warriors and morally sanctioned by the entire group, for some purpose other than the violence itself. There are seven elements to this definition:
1.war is not a spontaneous act of violence like a riot;
2.war is organized—even simple raids by one group against another require planning and preparation;
3.from the onset, the probability of the violence leading to death on either or both sides is understood;
4.the fighting involves two groups that have a distinguishable identity based in anything from familial relationships (hunter-gatherer bands), to ethnic identity, religious identity, national identity, or ideological identity;
5.war is generally executed by a subpart of the group, the warriors;
6.the killing is morally sanctioned by the rest of the group—the warriors are not viewed as criminals; and
7.it is for a purpose other than simply violence, such as to gain resources, eliminate competition for resources, or to retaliate for attacks or territorial incursions."

"There Is Only War, But War Isn’t Always Political"

In that same paper I argue that our ideas about what war is and how it should be fought have transitioned in the last five centuries or so from "natural war" to "political war," which has a number of rules about legitimate targets and proportionality. So I truly believe that war has always been the same, but our political frame of reference both expands war into areas that are not lethal (like cyber warfare) and limits war by constricting legitimate targets (surrounding a city and starving out the population is now not war, but a crime).

In today's modern, political society, everything is defined by the frame of reference we surround ourselves with, including war. As that frame of reference changes, so do our ideas about war. What I think AP is saying is that, not everyone agrees with our ideas about what a government should look like. Because of that, their definition of "war" is different from ours. As a result of that, how it is fought and, most important, what it takes to win (or lose) is different than ours. We can fight till we are blue in the face, but we are, in essence, not fighting against each other but fighting past each other. I believe that is the crux of the problem both AP and I are thinking about.

Thanks for clarifying my thoughts, I know what my next paper will be about.

[AmericanPride]

In today's modern, political society, everything is defined by the frame of reference we surround ourselves with, including war. As that frame of reference changes, so do our ideas about war. What I think AP is saying is that, not everyone agrees with our ideas about what a government should look like. Because of that, their definition of "war" is different from ours. As a result of that, how it is fought and, most important, what it takes to win (or lose) is different than ours. We can fight till we are blue in the face, but we are, in essence, not fighting against each other but fighting past each other. I believe that is the crux of the problem both AP and I are thinking about.

I more or less agree with this statement in principle. I would add that I see it in two layers: first, a superficial layer, and second, a core or base layer. In the first, we have different governments like the U.S., Russia, China, et al. Their respective histories, values, and bureaucracies produce different approaches to warfare. But these are all fundamentally similar insofar they are all derived from a similar source: a modern nation-state with a more or less market economy. Each of them have extensive state apparatuses to maintain a large, uniform, more or less highly technical and professional standing army. They arrive at similar conclusions about the conduct and nature of warfare for this reason.

Then you have a base layer; that is the defining political-economic structure underneath all of it. Prior to the modern nation-state, we had feudal political-economic systems. These were defined by personal obligations, small state bureaucracies, small landowning classes, and large dispossessed populations tied to manors. Professional armies, where they existed, were relatively small, and when larger armies were necessary, they were raised and used carefully and temporarily. This perhaps explains why in World War I, when the last of the old era was swept away, that the Austrian-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires failed so spectacularly. The leadership recognized the need for a modern, standing army but their political systems did not allow for it.

I would like to also note that large, professional armies are not necessarily a consequence of modern technology (as opposed to state sophistication). The Roman Army is an example of historical, professional standing army. The Roman state was much more sophisticated than its tribal, despotic, or nomadic neighbors.

So I guess we arrive at another question: is there a particular direction or trajectory of this process or is it haphazard? Will the modern nation-state, as presently conceived, continue to refine and better itself? Or will another political-economic system arise that will also give birth to a new form of warfare?

[TheCurmudgeon]

So I guess we arrive at another question: is there a particular direction or trajectory of this process or is it haphazard? Will the modern nation-state, as presently conceived, continue to refine and better itself? Or will another political-economic system arise that will also give birth to a new form of warfare?

Your question goes far beyond what my small brain is capable of answering.

I will say this (if you believe that God created the earth about 5000 years ago you can stop reading now). Humans evolved with a finite set of psychological capacities that were designed to solve the problems of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, our problem solving capacity made the need to constantly hunt and gather food obsolete. We learned to grow crops and domesticate animals. Then we learned how to live that lifestyle. Then our brains solved other problems and we adjusted our lifestyle appropriately. We have learned a lot about how to remove all the problems we used to have. How to ensure we had food and shelter. How to extend our lives with medicine. How to pass on knowledge though the language and writing. But underneath all that, in our motivational and psychological minds, we are still just hunter-gatherers protecting our little space where we hunt and gather and fighting with other little bands to stay alive.

With that as my base assumption, there are only so many ways we can change. We can create new technology, but we can't change what motivates us (although we try like hell to self-medicate ourselves). I would suggest that you look at Professor Schwartz' ideas on universal human values. After years of study, he determined that there are a limited number of values that motivate people. If he is right, then there are a finite number of things that cause us to chose one social structure (including its political trappings) over another. This means that there are a limited number of political systems (even though you will see recurring themes).

My personal belief is that there are two basic themes: either the political system revers the Group as source of all political power or it revers the Individuals as the source of all political power. Variations of the Group include monarchies, theocracies, various autocracies, and communism. Variations of the Individual are Democracies, Republics, and ultimately anarchy. There are mixes, including Socialism, but these are the basic set of options. That is because these are the limits of what our value systems can support.

Is there something beyond this? Perhaps. Some new mix of values. Some way to balance the reverence with the Individual with the reverence for the group. Maybe something completely different.

Just remember, you asked.

[AmericanPride]

I read an article recently (don't remember the publication) in which the author discussed the consequences of the neural lace, which can potentially transform human thinking (and therefore, I imagine, warfare). I think AI (and human-AI interfacing) will be then next step in political evolution. If scarcity is eliminated, or severely reduced, or if virtually all human labor is made surplus, then the current political-economic system is no longer viable. Automation has been the largest driver of job destruction in the U.S. and that process seems to be quickening. What happens to people if there are no more jobs available? Our values (i.e. "the dignity of work") have not caught up to our technological capabilities.

Automation and AI seems the way forward for capitalism. It eliminates the cost and difficulty of managing human labor and increases profits, efficiencies, and margins. This is already occurring in the financial and industrial sectors. Services, like transportation, are next. The gig economy seems to be the half-way point between old capitalism and AI capitalism. The displaced surplus labor must move somewhere else. The privatization of armies (i.e. Blackwater) and the creation of small, highly capable & technical professional armies seems an accompanying trend to this. Neither of these rely upon a large, loyal population but instead on careerist, technical experts.

[OUTLAW 09]

BTW....it is not globalization that is inherently changing the face of governments and their individual politics...it is simply that we are in the early stages of the "fourth industrialization phase...IE robots" and actually while we write here the world is advancing into the "fifth industrialization phase paralleling the fourth phase...IE AI"...coupled with the 4th....robots......

We see it in the manufacturing and then the repair of say as an example farm machinery where grain harvesters now require a mechanics degree in IT and computer troubling shooting to repair a simple hydraulic leak....as they have five onboard computer systems tied to a central controller computer.

OR in the newest FORD factory that produces cars virtually worker free where the robots do everything and the human watches the control centers...AND where even this position will be replaced next year with AI..as per FORD...BMW has already moved into this new "industrialization battlespace using a combination of robots and AI in building the 3er model here in Germany....

AND BTW....prior wars were all about killing and destruction in order to force your will on your opponent....

SO is a cyber attack and or subtle manipulation of say an election via hacking and an influence ops using fake news...propaganda and disinformation actually forcing your will on an opponent?

So as industrialization changes so does future "wars" of the 21st century...

To argue that "war" has never changed ....flies in the face of 21st century reality....

[davidbfpo]

I do wonder if Western public opinion, which should impact political decision-making, are simply reluctant to consider war - not the almost constant skirmishing in many parts of the world away from them - as being effective for their interests (personal and national) and legitimate.

Long ago our absent member Ken White pointed out when the USA IIRC is engaged in a long war the public gradually start to ask "Is this worth doing?".

We are irregularly told we are in a 'Long War' with jihadist terrorism, reinforced at times by the post-attack media reporting and a good deal of "grandstanding" that builds fear.

Add in our direct involvement in both wars and skirmishing - Small Wars of course - which can hardly be seen as providing meaningful success. No wonder many nations have chosen to reduce military spending and for some a wish to stay out of interventions faraway.

Nor has indirect involvement, primarily "gold", proven to be effective either, unless you consider containment is valid. Somalia being a good example, let alone the Yemen.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I do wonder if Western public opinion, which should impact political decision-making, are simply reluctant to consider war - not the almost constant skirmishing in many parts of the world away from them - as being effective for their interests (personal and national) and legitimate.

Assuming my ideas on 1) the growth of the individual as the center of Western political thought and power, and 2) that war is a group-on-group activity, it follows that 3) war become less likely where outsiders are seen less as groups and more as a collection of individuals. Killing in war (group-on-group) is morally sanctioned. Killing in something less than war (individual-on-individual) is murder. Therefore, those other killings are not seen as legitimate unless they are to either punish those individuals for their past crimes or to stop future crimes.

This is, in my opinion, the foundation of the Democratic Peace Theory - why democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies. Democracies will go to war with autocracies, particularly where it is framed as a war of liberation. The enemy is an oppressive state apparatus. The members of that oppressive state apparatus are seen as criminals. In the minds of the Western Individualist political entities, this is not a war against Iraq or Libya, it is a targeted action against the criminals in the Iraqi or Libyan government. For the liberal individualist, war can never be sanctioned because it goes against their foundational belief in the individual, rather than the group, being the central political figure.

That said, War ain't what it used to be ... so who knows.

[TheCurmudgeon]

AND BTW....prior wars were all about killing and destruction in order to force your will on your opponent....

No, that is a 19th century updated explanation of the purpose of war. It is an explanation founded in the 19th century European Socio-Political framework.

Ten centuries earlier no one would have cared anything about the will of your opponent. Your opponent would either be dead or your slaves.

Similarly, today's 21st century Western definitions of war is restricted by today's Western socio-political and ethical standards. Killing and destruction are secondary to war's ultimate aim, which is political. Where that aim can be achieved by other means, so be it. However, this is really not war. It is coercive demagoguery. There is little or no threat of death or dying.

I don't like referring to "war" in the 21st definition, because I think that psychologically, war still means killing and dying, even if in practice, 21st century war does not require it.

[OUTLAW 09]

BTW....it is not globalization that is inherently changing the face of governments and their individual politics...it is simply that we are in the early stages of the "fourth industrialization phase...IE robots" and actually while we write here the world is advancing into the "fifth industrialization phase paralleling the fourth phase...IE AI"...coupled with the 4th....robots......

We see it in the manufacturing and then the repair of say as an example farm machinery where grain harvesters now require a mechanics degree in IT and computer troubling shooting to repair a simple hydraulic leak....as they have five onboard computer systems tied to a central controller computer.

OR in the newest FORD factory that produces cars virtually worker free where the robots do everything and the human watches the control centers...AND where even this position will be replaced next year with AI..as per FORD...BMW has already moved into this new "industrialization battlespace using a combination of robots and AI in building the 3er model here in Germany....

AND BTW....prior wars were all about killing and destruction in order to force your will on your opponent....

SO is a cyber attack and or subtle manipulation of say an election via hacking and an influence ops using fake news...propaganda and disinformation actually forcing your will on an opponent?

So as industrialization changes so does future "wars" of the 21st century...

To argue that "war" has never changed ....flies in the face of 21st century reality....

Recently I was into a book by Max Boot on US small wars and then onto the industrialization/globalization driven by all things WW1.

If the thesis is correct that WW1 actually drove the initial beginnings of globalization and say the beginnings of the second industrial revolution of mass assembly lines and the firming of the US financial power going in 1913 from a debtor country to in 1917 the foremost world's banker which did not change until the early 1980's flipping the US back into a debtor country.....the flip in the 80s was the direct financial impact of VN seen long term.....

And actually with each new "war like political engagement" the US financial abilities weakened even more.....Desert Storm....Iraq and AFG and now Syria....but the resulting modernization of the industrial base did in fact advance along with a massive leap in technology....all driven by computerization....

Which actually could be now seen in the generation one of cruise missiles...prior to Libya VS generation two post Libya cruise missiles....

Actually wagging tongues say the US Navy literally fired up all the first generation cruise missiles in order to restock with the new generation...if one compares the number of misfires..."lost missiles" and duds on impact in Libya VS this recent attack with 59 out of 59 hitting there is something to this wagging tongues rumor....

Maybe far more research on wars and how they drive globalization and industrialization is necessary before one moves into a "no war" concept....

Because actually if one takes WW1...then WW2...then the Korean War and finally VN....you will actually see not so subtle shifts in financial power and industrial power .....both keys to understanding the long term effects we are now seeing in 21st century.. where from a cost perspective...major wars are a thing of the past....

Hybrid wars regardless of how they look and feel are actually "a cost saving "war" feature"......

A laptop.....TOR and the darknet is a minor investment that can reap massive "wins" and informational warfare conducted by a group of twitter accounts driving fake news can potentially "win elections" and the costs are nothing really...costs far less than a single tank...and or a cruise missile.

BTW...one cannot discuss meta-war without understanding clearly and concisely what we are now seeing as the two cornerstones of the 21st century;......

1. cyber warfare
2. information warfare

Both are going to be the hallmarks of the 21st century as even the simple common man on the street can drive both and not be connected to any nation state....

[Azor]

I don't believe I am playing it safe. I believe that Clausewitzian "war" is all about politics and the political realm, where natural war is a natural state of human affairs that never changes.

" I define natural war as non-spontaneous, organized, lethal violence committed by one identifiable group of people against another identifiable group of people, executed by warriors and morally sanctioned by the entire group, for some purpose other than the violence itself. There are seven elements to this definition:
1.war is not a spontaneous act of violence like a riot;
2.war is organized—even simple raids by one group against another require planning and preparation;
3.from the onset, the probability of the violence leading to death on either or both sides is understood;
4.the fighting involves two groups that have a distinguishable identity based in anything from familial relationships (hunter-gatherer bands), to ethnic identity, religious identity, national identity, or ideological identity;
5.war is generally executed by a subpart of the group, the warriors;
6.the killing is morally sanctioned by the rest of the group—the warriors are not viewed as criminals; and
7.it is for a purpose other than simply violence, such as to gain resources, eliminate competition for resources, or to retaliate for attacks or territorial incursions."

"There Is Only War, But War Isn’t Always Political"

In that same paper I argue that our ideas about what war is and how it should be fought have transitioned in the last five centuries or so from "natural war" to "political war," which has a number of rules about legitimate targets and proportionality. So I truly believe that war has always been the same, but our political frame of reference both expands war into areas that are not lethal (like cyber warfare) and limits war by constricting legitimate targets (surrounding a city and starving out the population is now not war, but a crime).

In today's modern, political society, everything is defined by the frame of reference we surround ourselves with, including war. As that frame of reference changes, so do our ideas about war. What I think AP is saying is that, not everyone agrees with our ideas about what a government should look like. Because of that, their definition of "war" is different from ours. As a result of that, how it is fought and, most important, what it takes to win (or lose) is different than ours. We can fight till we are blue in the face, but we are, in essence, not fighting against each other but fighting past each other. I believe that is the crux of the problem both AP and I are thinking about.

Thanks for clarifying my thoughts, I know what my next paper will be about.

Lt. Col.,

I mostly agree with your take on “terrorism”. Firstly, I have always been of the opinion that it is unconventional warfare. Secondly, states have always been worse terrorists than non-state actors, and invariably refer to their enemies (usually unarmed civilians and their own citizens) as terrorists. On the one hand, terrorism as a term has been rendered almost meaningless; on the other, it is used so often that it cannot be ignored, and tends to mean indiscriminate violence and/or violence against civilians by non-state actors.

Technology is an issue as well. The types of improvised explosive devices utilized by the NLF/NVA against American forces in Vietnam were not available to the resistance movements of World War II. Quite frankly, the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq had an abundance of explosive and detonation devices unavailable to prior guerrilla/terrorist forces.

One question, I would have for you is the moral sanctioning of non-state actors. What "entire groups" are specifically sanctioning Al Qaeda, Daesh and their affiliates? The Taliban is very much a Pashtun movement, and Hezbollah is a Shia movement, so I've left them out...

[davidbfpo]

I was struck by more this passage fits here:

The reduction in the numbers of people buying high quality newspapers in Britain in recent decades has led to a diminution in the amount of first-class journalism available. Together with the digital revolution in accessing information, this has made serious minded media debate on issues like terrorism more difficult.

The author is Professor Richard English, based @ Queens University Belfast and the passage is within a comment on the Westminster attack, so covered in another thread.
Link:https://theconversation.com/the-media-must-respond-more-responsibly-to-terrorist-attacks-heres-how-75490?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Thank you for your kind words. It is nice to know that I am not just crazy.

Technology is an issue as well. The types of improvised explosive devices utilized by the NLF/NVA against American forces in Vietnam were not available to the resistance movements of World War II. Quite frankly, the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq had an abundance of explosive and detonation devices unavailable to prior guerrilla/terrorist forces. ...

I have always viewed technological advances in warfare the same way I view science fiction. Good science fiction places humans in a world of fantasy or advanced technology, but what actually does is reveal a "truth" about the human condition. That despite all the changes in the world, people are still people. So is the same for warfare and technology. Technology makes new ways of warfare possible, but it does not fundamentally change human nature.

One question, I would have for you is the moral sanctioning of non-state actors. What "entire groups" are specifically sanctioning Al Qaeda, Daesh and their affiliates? The Taliban is very much a Pashtun movement, and Hezbollah is a Shia movement, so I've left them out...

In the case of al Qaeda (and to a lesser extent, Daesh), I would argue that it is the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. I am less sure about their support in Persian cultures. In the early days, that was the source of these groups funding. That is the community where their actions are most often morally sanctioned.

I have read a study that indicated that there was wider support amongst the Muslim community in Morocco and a few other Arab Countries for the activities of al Qaeda. It was from Pew and it was on the public support for terrorists. I am cautious of this study, but it would provide support for the idea that the activities of al Qaeda are morally sanctioned by a much wider group than simply some Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

[Azor]

In the case of al Qaeda (and to a lesser extent, Daesh), I would argue that it is the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. I am less sure about their support in Persian cultures. In the early days, that was the source of these groups funding. That is the community where their actions are most often morally sanctioned.

I have read a study that indicated that there was wider support amongst the Muslim community in Morocco and a few other Arab Countries for the activities of al Qaeda. It was from Pew and it was on the public support for terrorists. I am cautious of this study, but it would provide support for the idea that the activities of al Qaeda are morally sanctioned by a much wider group than simply some Salafists in Saudi Arabia.

I'm setting my timer. The Spanish Inquisition of Outlaw, CrowBat, RantCorp and others are coming to explain the nuances of Sunni fundamentalism...

I tried to estimate how many Muslims of the total population were part of armed Islamist formations, and basically arrived at half the proportion of Northern Irish Catholics who were members of the PIRA, INLA, etc. I included parts of the Sudanese and Iranian militaries in my estimates, but it does indicate that Muslim conflicts with non-Muslims tend to be local affairs, and in a number of cases are state-sponsored or led e.g. Darfur. Curiously, only the numbers for Hezbollah and Hamas are in the range of "total war" mobilization, although I suspect much of this strength is dead weight collecting or extorting money, or non-combatants.

With respect to technology, were insurgents denied access to the IEDs used to destroy US vehicles remotely or RPGs, the casualty ratio would be simply eye-watering for them, and about as worth the effort as standing fast in 1991 or 2001...

[TheCurmudgeon]

I'm setting my timer. The Spanish Inquisition of Outlaw, CrowBat, RantCorp and others are coming to explain the nuances of Sunni fundamentalism... ...

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.

I tried to estimate how many Muslims of the total population were part of armed Islamist formations, and basically arrived at half the proportion of Northern Irish Catholics who were members of the PIRA, INLA, etc. I included parts of the Sudanese and Iranian militaries in my estimates, but it does indicate that Muslim conflicts with non-Muslims tend to be local affairs, and in a number of cases are state-sponsored or led e.g. Darfur. Curiously, only the numbers for Hezbollah and Hamas are in the range of "total war" mobilization, although I suspect much of this strength is dead weight collecting or extorting money, or non-combatants....

I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

[Azor]

I wish I’d seen this sooner, but the one man blog known as Outlaw can bury the “Recent Council Posts” list inside of an hour.

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.

Well, I used “Sunni fundamentalism” rather deliberately. I do think that those guys do have a good point about distinguishing Salafism from Wahhabism, as the latter involves acquiescing to the authority of church and state, whereas the former involves establishing a revolutionary authority over both the spiritual and the temporal. Neither Bin Laden nor Al Baghdadi recognize(d) any authority higher than themselves, and Al Baghdadi has taken on this role of supreme leader in a way that even Bin Laden never did. Of course, Mohammed and Qutb are both conveniently dead, just as Lenin was in 1929 prior to Russia’s Third Revolution. Certainly, there is a great deal of philosophical overlap between Salafism and Wahhabism as regards asceticism and dismissal of other Muslim sects as heretical, but what should interest us is auctoritas and potestas, and more specifically, who is permitted to do violence to whom and why, as well as who grants permission to do so.

I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I’m a numbers guy. I started out by quantifying insurgency death rates to determine at what point there was acceptance of a problem. The conflict in Northern Ireland was actually the least troublesome of all modern insurgencies in terms of the violence meted out on all sides e.g. the black-on-black homicide rate is actually three times higher than the death rate in Northern Ireland annualized per hundred thousand. My digression helped me to understand racial divides in the United States as some groups were experiencing life in a warzone by any other name, while others had no comprehension of the killing in their own country.

So, suffice it to say, Northern Ireland is my benchmark, or more accurately my floor, against which I compare other episodes of violence, from the Malayan Emergency to Vietnam to America’s occupations in the Middle East. Curiously enough, whether we are talking about Northern Ireland or Irish political violence from 1919 to 1999, the conflict was overwhelmingly one of islanders killing islanders, with under 10% of the fatalities being residents of England, Scotland or Wales.

Throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland, roughly 0.08% of both the Protestant and Catholic populations were members of paramilitaries. Currently, roughly 0.14% of the Pashtun people are members of the Taliban, so clearly their “hearts and minds” aren’t won over. You probably have more of a feel for Afghanistan than I do, but I am convinced that Pashtun ethno-nationalism was subverted by Pakistan into radical Islam in order to: (a) prevent secession and (b) give Pakistan a hand in Afghan affairs, not unlike what Putin seeks by way of “Novorossiya”. One might suggest giving the Pashtuns a nation carved out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the latter could never accept that lest the Balochis fly the coop as well, and it does have nuclear weapons. Therefore, the only sensible solution would be to abandon southern Afghanistan as a no-man’s land, build up the state in the north and keep the Pashtuns out so long as they accept Taliban rule.

With regards to “moral sanctioning”, I appreciate Outlaw’s updates on the Russo-Ukrainian War, but I am apprehensive of some of the sentiments expressed in Ukraine, particularly the lionizing of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Zaporizhian Cossacks under Khmelnytsky. I am supportive of Ukraine’s right to self-determination, but unfortunately, the Ukrainians’ two great bids for independence (17th and 20th Centuries) saw Ukrainians spend more time annihilating Jews (vast majority of deaths inflicted) than fighting for an independent state (killing foreign soldiers). Again, the devil is in the numbers.

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

Well, unless one is prepared to use Stalinist methods , one has to convince the guerrillas/terrorists’ supporters to abandon them. Northern Ireland went through a tragic cycle of Protestant supremacists successfully suppressing Catholic egalitarian integrationists, and then being forced to deal with violent Catholic supremacist separatists. After three decades of conflict, the Catholics finally accepted the terms that they had originally asked for in the early-to-mid-1960s, and supremacists on both sides were forced to more or less go along with it.

[OUTLAW 09]

I am fine with that. I don't find the term "Sunni Fundamentalism" helpful. Fundamentalism offers a level of correctness to their thinking that I don't think it deserves, so they can beat me up on that too.



I like your comparison with the IRA. I believe that, in 1975 you would have found that half the population of Boston would have "morally sanctioned" the actions of the IRA. But they did not hop a plane to Belfast (although some did).

I think it is very hard to equate who morally sanctions the actions of the terrorists with who would actively engage in the fight, although it is far to equate that number with who you have to convince that the terrorists are not worthy of their support.

I will not beat anyone up....but think about this....all ideologies and or religious beliefs have a "fundamentalist side to them"...."fundamentalist" meaning "conservative".....AND that since the Romans....actually even earlier than that at least if it was ever physically and verbally recorded....

If one takes say the simple term "terrorism" and places it at the top of a drawn "violence" circle and then moves to the "right" and moves then to the "left" from the starting point....AT some point all "violence" from "left and right" meets in the circle at the 6 oclock point on the "violence circle".......AND then continues onward meeting again at the top of the violence circle so when the violence from "left and right" crosses and merges and runs parallel as both share the same dislikes and enemies what do you call it then???

Violence in some form always has and always will exist even in the 21st century....

What is new is the cyber and info war side of this equation ....using both of these key cornerstones of hybrid warfare...will there ever really be another "war" as we know the term war means?

IMHO...the answer is yes there will be some form of "war violence" accompanying the two cornerstones.....

Where humans interact..is always some form of "violence"....we all are not yet robots driven by AI.....

BTWE...if one really goes back into the history of the US from the 1600s until say VN .....how many true "wars" were there VS....truly how many "small wars" as defined by the SWC/Marine definition of a "small war".....IF we count the US Civil War....then five from 1600s onward....

How many "small wars" tens of tens.......in some ways....the 21st century will be seen as the century of the "small wars" fought using cyber...trade...economics...personal development ...information warfare....religion..........with the new political ideology being "populism"......with a tinge of nationalism....

[Azor]

BTW..this is the most perfect example of just how info warfare is flowing these days....

The first tweets under the hashtag #SyriaHoax came from Russia. Cernovich picked up on it; now it's trending in the U.S via the US alt right sites....Infowars and Breitbart.com and Drudge Reports.....

So is this to be considered "a small war being fought via information warfare"....or is it "political warfare"....or "hybrid warfare"......or just good ole fashioned everyday politics"

In the 21st century these terms are fluid and will constantly change....but there is an underlining term that covers them all..."war short of violence".....

Hey now! Is this meta-warfare or is every thread going to be about the Syrian CW attack and US airstrike?