I read something some time ago that essentially argued that a nation's public posed less of a problem for operations of a smaller scale with less PR despite the length. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I do not have more than a basic understanding of the NI operations, but does this ring true for the British? Perhaps this is a lesson we can take from it? Also, did the British employ more police-like tactics rather than all out combat tactics?
-john bellflower
Rule of Law in Afghanistan
"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)
Seems like it to me. I think Max Boot made that point well in his The Savage Wars of Peace, about the many small wars America fought pre-WWII, mostly with Marines in Central America, and largely out of the public eye.Originally Posted by LawVol
Whether this still holds true in the age of the internet and instant global media coverage is another question.
This has come up before, and I tend to believe you're correct, GS. Although there are other factors that can come into play as well (mainly politics). For example, if a popular leader sends troops into an area where only a few are killed over an extended period (and that leader enjoys the support of the press), the situation is manageable. If those conditions are not in place (as in media interest, lack of domestic popularity and/or a sudden spike in losses) then it's not so easy to maintain.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Small Wars and Media
There is also the reverse of this rule, especially in the golden age of European imperalism and colonialism. What I am referring to was the role of the jingoistic press (also very real in the US). Three cases pop into mind:
A. The British press and Chinese Gordon's failed attempt--he paid with his head--attempt to embarrass #10 Downing into intervening against the Mahdi.
B. The follow up to the Gordon episode some 15 years later when the French sent a mission to claim Fashoda'; this threatened the UK considered its own turf in the Sudan and Uganda. This necessitated the reconquest of the Sudan. The British press role in whipping up the enthusiasm for this was large. Indeed it was Winston Churchill's first stab as a correspondent; one literally nearly cvut short in his ride with the ill-fated 21st Lancers at Omdurman. (see photo below of Omdurman monument)
C. In the case of the US, one has to look no farther than the USS Maine as a cause celebre for getting the US into a war with Spain.
I would say in the modern age, the same reverse rule can apply. Consider our intervention in Somalia, once driven by the viedo camera and pictures of dying Somali chldren. Our exit from Somalia would be driven by the very same phenomenon, media coverage of the Task Force Ranger fight.
In the backlash of Somalia, we would not respond to the Rwandan genocide six months later despite media coverage of the slaughter until the refugee crisis (again covered by the media) made it impossible to ignore.
Finally I would offer that similar pressures continue to push for an intervention in Darfur.
Best
Tom
I agree that the press can and is playing a role in the Darfur issue. I can definately envision US troops there. However, I don't think these people have thought this through, which seems surprising given the backlash with Iraq. If we intervene in Darfur, we will certainly face opposition that will likely take the form of an insurgency (Janjaweed) with support by the Sudanese government. This is essentially a mirror image of Iraq. And when it happens, the two-headed monster of the press will turn on the military. Its a lose-lose situation.
-john bellflower
Rule of Law in Afghanistan
"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)
You are correct in saying that Darfur is not the good guys--bad guys scenario played out in the media and among the various interest groups looking to stimulate an intervention. Recent reporting suggests that supposed enemies have allied with each other in attacks on others. the complexity of the Sudanese arena is deceptive. Various interest groups in the US and elsewhere have for years portrayed the North-South dispute as one of Muslim versus Christian, prompting an almost knee jerk response from interest groups to "save" the southernors. Neither side in that dispute had or have clean hands and the southern rebels themselves killed many a fellow southernor over the years. The Darfur/Kordofan dispute was pretty much an Arab versus Arab affair but it too has morphed and developed linkages with the North-South conflict. I would offer that our best course of action is to support the African forces already deployed and stay the hell out of the arena.
best
Tom
If this is to be believed, troops (not US) are on the way: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2174209.ece. Started a thread about it in the Africa section.
Brokering the peace
Came across this podcast by Peter Hain, the former Northern Ireland Secretary, talking in London in December 2008 on the peace process: http://www.mtcmedia.co.uk/icsr/seminar.php and the podcast is 27 minutes long. Interesting summary and points.
This thread could fit elsewhere and took time to choose here.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks