SFA as part of a campaign design: supporting operational requirements (part 1)

[slapout9]

Cable outage but am back now. BW this may be a chicken or the egg question. I am sure you think you proved your point.....but I think you proved mine and hear is why. If you trace it back to the beginning, as you did, you get a person with a motive. The King and his desire for power. The reason I push this is I think this fits in with your Population Centric Based Solution.

Example a bad or unjust law caused the rebellion....who created the law!!! You have to deal with that or as you point out the revolution will just smolder and eventually resurface when another cause (triggering method)appears because the motivated person is still there and may want revenge. Where their is a will there is a way. So the objective has to be to somehow de-motivate the person(s) hopefully through nonviolent methods but might not turn out that way.

Again I think this is critacal because as you pointed out( maybe on this or another thread) is why insurgencies take to long and costs to much......which is one of my pet rocks,

[Rob Thornton]

I'd made mention of these earlier. Here is the link to the UNCLASS functional design guide that came out of our support to OSD PA&E. Keep in mind this was done outside the context of the larger campaign design in the interests of illustrating a methodology for functional design. Ideally, the design would be informed by the assessment methodology (organizational/Operational Environment/Institutional) which would tell you what the required capabilities were in light of the conditions and objectives.

Note- the terms BSC (Build Security Capacity) was one used by PA&E. It is not a doctrinal term - but was useful in terms of its function.

Anyway after sending them to Marc and Slap, I thought it worthwhile to bring them up. The first few slides get after identifying the correct problem, and in establishing a design framework to postulate a theory.

Best, Rob

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but the past couple od days have been nuts!

Rob, I think you're right that the Hessians where not SFA per se, although if I remember correctly (the book I got this from years ago isn't available), they were involved in some training or, at least, cadre activities for Loyalist militia units.

Bob's World made an interesting point:

England did not need to send the most powerful Navy and Army in the world to solve this problem. A simple letter of apology and recognition of full righths of citizenship from the King would have nipped it in the bud.

Just as a matter of historical fact, the King couldn't do this.... at least in practice; this was a matter for Parliament. On the issue of 2nd (or 3rd!) class citizens, you are pretty much correct, but I'm not sure how important that actually was. A ket emotional motivator, surely, but a primary cause? Hmmm, I don't think so. BTW, the reason why I say that is that there is the rather complex example of Quebec not revolting during that time.

Where I think there are immediate lessons we can pick up is in the structures of governance; they also become crucial when we look at Upper and Lower Canada in the 19th century and, also, latter on in the other colonies that become Dominions. The evolution of socio-political thinking around governance in the 19th century, at least in Britain and the Empire, is truly fascinating - a model that really fits the currently trendy phrase of "Think Globally, Act Locally".

Part of the reason why I like to go back to the American Revolution / War of Independance is that it is one of the earliest and, in some ways, a prototype for, later revolutionary movements. We can see, at least in seed form, many of the later developments that, strangely enough, we are still struggling with: mass produced, local media (aka cheap printing presses), guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics (on all sides), and perhaps most importantly, the key to winning the conflict - it's centre of gravity - lying outside the theatre of operations (London and, to a lesser extent, Paris - shades of the Cold War!).

So, let me toss out a question.... In terms of SFA/FID operations, how would people classify (or conceive of) the French activities in that war?

[Bob's World]

Hi Folks,

Sorry for the delay in responding, but the past couple od days have been nuts!

Rob, I think you're right that the Hessians where not SFA per se, although if I remember correctly (the book I got this from years ago isn't available), they were involved in some training or, at least, cadre activities for Loyalist militia units.

Bob's World made an interesting point:


Just as a matter of historical fact, the King couldn't do this.... at least in practice; this was a matter for Parliament. On the issue of 2nd (or 3rd!) class citizens, you are pretty much correct, but I'm not sure how important that actually was. A ket emotional motivator, surely, but a primary cause? Hmmm, I don't think so. BTW, the reason why I say that is that there is the rather complex example of Quebec not revolting during that time.

Where I think there are immediate lessons we can pick up is in the structures of governance; they also become crucial when we look at Upper and Lower Canada in the 19th century and, also, latter on in the other colonies that become Dominions. The evolution of socio-political thinking around governance in the 19th century, at least in Britain and the Empire, is truly fascinating - a model that really fits the currently trendy phrase of "Think Globally, Act Locally".

Part of the reason why I like to go back to the American Revolution / War of Independance is that it is one of the earliest and, in some ways, a prototype for, later revolutionary movements. We can see, at least in seed form, many of the later developments that, strangely enough, we are still struggling with: mass produced, local media (aka cheap printing presses), guerilla warfare, terrorist tactics (on all sides), and perhaps most importantly, the key to winning the conflict - it's centre of gravity - lying outside the theatre of operations (London and, to a lesser extent, Paris - shades of the Cold War!).

So, let me toss out a question.... In terms of SFA/FID operations, how would people classify (or conceive of) the French activities in that war?

Marc we have a similar understanding, but coming from different perspectives draw different conclusions.

As to the French and British, clearly the American Revolution was a side show, an opportunity for the French to seek an advantage in their long competition with England. If London or Paris were a COG, it would only have been so for France or England, certainly not for the Colonists. Important in that, as I say, soldiers do not start or end wars, merely fight them. Is the peace process then a COG? No, not a source of all strength and power. More a critical requirement. You need that treaty to "end" the conflict, but not a COG.

As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA. If anything it was UW. The American populace broke into two camps: Loyalists and Rebels. He who is the current legitimate government and works with the loyalist populace is conducting FID/SFA. He who is the outsider seeking to influence the revolution to support his own selfish ends is conducting UW. France conducted UW. England conducted FID/SFA.

[Ken White]

As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA.

Agree...

...If anything it was UW.

Hmm. This doesn't look like any UW force I've encountered, (LINK).

Nor do these guys look like Go-rillas...

[Bob's World]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

[Ken White]

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

will get you for that...

[jmm99]

have a Bud Light (I'll join you virtually with a Bud high-test) - and reconsider the following statement in terms of the legal relationships (yup, I'm asking you to put on your lawyer's coif and put the green one in an honored position next to the Bud Light):

from BW
As to the French role. Neither FID nor SFA. If anything it was UW. The American populace broke into two camps: Loyalists and Rebels. He who is the current legitimate government and works with the loyalist populace is conducting FID/SFA. He who is the outsider seeking to influence the revolution to support his own selfish ends is conducting UW. France conducted UW. England conducted FID/SFA.

Consider:

1. Legal relationship between the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists (whose pre-rev governments still existed, albeit with some in exile) - as viewed by the British Crown and the Loyalist Colonists.

2. Legal relationship between the French Crown and the Continental Congress (starting with our beloved Declaration of Independence - although you and I have different takes on its present uses; but more importantly, the relationship after the Battle of Saratoga) - as viewed by the French Crown and the Continental Congress.

After some consideration of the above, you should conclude that Ken is closer to the mark than you are. In short, you can have two conflicting, but valid, legal (and political) views driving an armed conflict.

I am in the process of reading (half-way through; and subject to many side-tracks) George O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution (1899; yes, the last year of the 1800s), which presents the Brit legal and political views of that conflict (biased toward the Whigs, e.g., Burke & Fox); as well as the Loyalist and Rebel views. Great insight (IMO).

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

So far (still only half there), Trevelyan suggests that George III and his ministers never got beyond version 1.

BTW: interesting trivia from Trevelyan - did you all know that many of the Brit generals in the Revolutionary War were also MPs ?

[Tom Odom]

Well, like I said, "if anything, it was UW" Actually a mix of UW and plain old surrogate warfare, as is often the case.

Did you take that photo yourself?? :-)

No, he painted pictures on a cave wall...