Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[William F. Owen]

Killing is an integral part of warfare, but it's usually overestimated in its importance. A military or warrior force that has fought for years won't suddenly have its will broken for fear of their lives. That works differently.

I agree and that is not my point.

I just adhere to history and Clausewitz. Killing is what breaks will. Defeat occurs when either the People, Leadership/Government, or Armed Force, (The trinity) cannot continue armed operations.

In Vietnam, the US Army was happy to go on fighting. The US People were not. Why? 57,000 dead. In Mogadishu, 18 dead broke President Clinton's will to persist with military action.

In the Falklands the Argentine Government and People wanted to fight on, the Army could not/would not.

Hannibal killed lots of Romans. He never broke their "trinity's" collective will to fight and in the end his Army was destroyed - via killing.

In 1945 Japan's Army and people were prepared to fight. Not so the Japanese Government after 2 x Atom Bombs - and they lost more civilians dead to conventional bombing.

Killing is the primary mechanism in the breaking of will. You may not have to kill that many to break will (Moa: Kill one, frighten a thousand) but you do have to kill. The skill in warfare is how effectively (and efficiently) you kill to secure the political purpose set by your leadership. That has always been the case and it will never change.

[Fuchs]

I agree and that is not my point.

I just adhere to history and Clausewitz. Killing is what breaks will. Defeat occurs when either the People, Leadership/Government, or Armed Force, (The trinity) cannot continue armed operations.

In Vietnam, the US Army was happy to go on fighting. The US People were not. Why? 57,000 dead. In Mogadishu, 18 dead broke President Clinton's will to persist with military action.

In the Falklands the Argentine Government and People wanted to fight on, the Army could not/would not.

Hannibal killed lots of Romans. He never broke their "trinity's" collective will to fight and in the end his Army was destroyed - via killing.

In 1945 Japan's Army and people were prepared to fight. Not so the Japanese Government after 2 x Atom Bombs - and they lost more civilians dead to conventional bombing.

Killing is the primary mechanism in the breaking of will. You may not have to kill that many to break will (Moa: Kill one, frighten a thousand) but you do have to kill. The skill in warfare is how effectively (and efficiently) you kill to secure the political purpose set by your leadership. That has always been the case and it will never change.

I doubt that these examples are relevant to the AFG case.

The U.S. withdrew from conflicts when its interest in the region was little more than a delusion.
The TB's interest in the reason is almost a question of existence (I doubt that the Pakistan TB would last long as an important player if the AFG TB failed).

It's excessively difficult to break the enemy's will by killing under such conditions. KIA can be replaced and the fight can go on.
I already explained why I don't believe in a sustained higher KIA rate than replacement rate in this conflict.

The will needs to be broken by other means. The overall situation needs to become hopeless. High casualties that can be replaced are no indicator for hopelessness.

A radio series of a very high-ranking and charismatic cleric who explains that god doesn't influence wars - neither in favour nor against Muslim fighters - might be more helpful than 20,000 dead TB.



By the way; the decisive factor that lead to Carthago's defeat in the 2nd Punic War was the defection of their Nubian allies. The war was won by diplomacy long before Scipio was capable of doing so by force.

[William F. Owen]

It's excessively difficult to break the enemy's will by killing under such conditions. KIA can be replaced and the fight can go on.
I already explained why I don't believe in a sustained higher KIA rate than replacement rate in this conflict.

It is difficult, but not excessively so. I just depends how good you are at doing it. If you do not have enough troops with the right training, it may actually be impossible - so you are out of the Warfare business altogether - the reason why NATO is hand-wringing over EBO/Influence Operations is not because they are proven more effective, but they are not prepared to commit and risk the resources to do what is known to work.

The will needs to be broken by other means. The overall situation needs to become hopeless. High casualties that can be replaced are no indicator for hopelessness.

What "other means" break will? Persuasion and negotiation do not "break will" - Breaking of will means a decision forced upon you, via violence or the effects of violence. How do you make a situation hopeless without killing or threatening to kill?

A radio series of a very high-ranking and charismatic cleric who explains that god doesn't influence wars - neither in favour nor against Muslim fighters - might be more helpful than 20,000 dead TB.

OK, all good. Essentially it's their leadership telling them to desist from violence. How do you force him to say that?

By the way; the decisive factor that lead to Carthago's defeat in the 2nd Punic War was the defection of their Nubian allies. The war was won by diplomacy long before Scipio was capable of doing so by force.

...and Nubians changed sides why? Political conditions set by violence.

Seriously, what is the argument here? What in Clausewitz's basic dictum is incorrect? Diplomacy and warfare are closely related, yet utterly distinct from each other.

Killing the enemy's armed force may be very difficult and hard to do. If you lack the ability to do it well, then it's useless. If you are skilled and committed, then it is never counter-productive, given a strategic aim that can be obtained via violence, and that aim is worth the price of the resources needed.

[S-2]

"You must appreciate, we really do not like the government forces coming up into our territory; but you we do not mind, because you are here for revenge...and revenge we understand."

Yeah, vendetta runs strong in dem dar hills but, as you said, that was a while ago. Ms. Taj says the tribals feel squeezed between the army and the militants. She suggests the Pakistani army slings a lot more hardware without regard than the drones might ever do.

Of course, we wouldn't know as the ISPR has put the press damper on every op from Bajaur, SWAT/Buner, S. Waziristan and into Orakzai now. No way to tell.

Anyway, great quote.

Thanks.

[davidbfpo]

Leaving aside the timing of the story, an interesting development reported by the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8527268.stm

The Israeli Air Force has introduced a fleet of pilotless aircraft that can stay in the air for nearly a day and fly as far as the Gulf.

[davidbfpo]

Regarding my post No.31 on an opinion poll in the FATA, thanks to S-2 for fully identifying the research and I've now found that the polling appeared on another thread far earlier in 2009:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6801

That thread has more details on the polling if it helps the discussion.

[William F. Owen]

Leaving aside the timing of the story, an interesting development reported by the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8527268.stm

IT was announced 5 years ago!! I've touched the damn thing 4 years ago and walked all around it. This is an old, old story. - You can even see it on Wikipedia 3 years ago.

[davidbfpo]

Clearly the BBC editorial team need to be asked - why publicise now this old news? Very odd given the Dubai furore at the moment.