Everything You Know About Counterinsurgency History Is (possibly) Wrong!

[Bob's World]

A lot of great discussion taking place in this thread.

A couple points to consider that may help:

First, GWOT is not COIN; and really isn't GWOT either. We know that, yet struggle to devise a smarter approach the new range of security challenges we face today.

When President Bush left office he stated as his one metric of success that "we have not been attacked." Two comments on that:
1. A very poor metric of success, as one's opponents have their own agenda and schedules for how they pursue their ends, and if no attacks are necessary, why launch them and risk messing with success? So I don't credit it much as to our larger effectiveness in the GWOT. It may or may not mean our efforts are working.
2. HOWEVER: It does clearly indicate that the Commander in Chief saw the primary purpose of the GWOT campaign under his watch as one of Deterring such terrorist attacks from happening again.
This got me thinking, as I have been discussing Deterrence with a broader conventional community and attempting to highlight some of the new challenges in deterrence today than back in the good old days when all we had to worry about was MAD.

If our current campaign is primarily about deterrence (this is what militaries do in times of peace); and it is not really GWOT, then what is it? The concept that I am playing with is to shift it from a campaign focused (in name) on countering terrorism to one focused on Deterrence of Irregular Threats.

Many diverse organizations will employ terrorism as a tactic, and all require unique approaches. Weak(er) states; failed states (like Somalia); Quasi-state actors (like Hezbollah), non-state actors (like AQ), nationalist insurgencies (LET, MILF, etc etc etc), and the odd dissident individual (such as Mr. McVeigh). To lump them by their tacics leads to a dangerous conflation that contributes to approaches that are as likely to provoke some groups as they are to deter others. But by focusing on deterrence it forces one to break down the problem set and conduct a more sophisticated analysis and to better balance potential cost/benefit analysis by each category and major actors within those categories to various courses of deterrence or engagement that we plan to set out upon.

It also allows for a much more positive narrative that our allies and own non-DOD agencies can much more readily get on board with.

Now, before the "kill them all" gang gets too fired up, yes, any good deterrence campaign incorporates a balanced and appropriate LOO directed at bringing to justice those needing the same. Most will be in a court of the own HN; others will simply wake up knowing they are dead, yet wondering where all the virgins are. Such things are best done in low key fashion as a capable and certain supporting effort to a much larger and holistic campaign of deterrence.

[marct]

Hi BW,

If our current campaign is primarily about deterrence (this is what militaries do in times of peace); and it is not really GWOT, then what is it? The concept that I am playing with is to shift it from a campaign focused (in name) on countering terrorism to one focused on Deterrence of Irregular Threats....

It also allows for a much more positive narrative that our allies and own non-DOD agencies can much more readily get on board with.

You know, I'm beginning to think that my mind is truly warped... I immediately translated this into the rhetorical meme of "armed etiquette instruction" !



Actually, and all silliness aside, I think you have a really good point here. Possibly more important that a potentially new narrative is the possibility for a reconstructed dialogue at the global level.

[Taiko]

If our current campaign is primarily about deterrence (this is what militaries do in times of peace); and it is not really GWOT, then what is it? The concept that I am playing with is to shift it from a campaign focused (in name) on countering terrorism to one focused on Deterrence of Irregular Threats.It also allows for a much more positive narrative that our allies and own non-DOD agencies can much more readily get on board with.

Sounds good in theory:

1. How do you deter an individual or group of individuals with no fixed address?

2. How do you deter an individual or group of individual who a) are not afraid to die b) prefer the consequence/cost, and in some cases the reward of death, over inaction?

I've been having a look at this subject area for some time now and concur with David that this is very worthy of a thread of its own.

Where I suspect we disagree is on the nature of causality. I view "causality" in an inductive format, i.e. by changing the frequency distribution of a particular behaviour, that technology has "caused" that behaviour to change. The social understandings at the time of those changes are the "ideas" which, since they are embedded in the change themselves, are "created" by that change. I know, it sounds post-moderninst, but it actually isn't

I view causality deductively within the framework of power, in this case political power. Your ontological framework of preferencing behaviour is problematic in the sense that it is conditioned by the presence, or lack there of, of power, or the aspiration for power. Power, more specifically political power is the independent variable and behaviour is the dependent variable. All the technological innovations you have cited and the 'change in behaviour' they have created are examples of human's attempting to control the minds and actions of other humans, they are examples of aspirations for power. In short the exercise of power (the why) that has been a ongoing condition of human nature's struggle for power and, it will continue, despite the advances in technology (the how). You are correct in highlighting the variations in how this struggle for power takes place, but it does not change the struggle for power. There is no neo-marxist or liberal condition which will see technology as the route to the perfection of man and the end of history. The theoretical position itself, the belief that it will change behaviour, is an exercise in power! Rather than a linear progression of history there is an enduring cyclical quality based on the struggle for power at the domestic and international level. Hence, war, the use of violence, is the continuation of politics by other means. To draw on a poker analogy: I'll see your Alex Wendt and raise you one Hans Morgenthau

[goesh]

this section is turning me into a hippy again and I'm going to have to start wearing my ju-ju in order to attempt to evey try to keep up...

[slapout9]

Here is my theory..... we haven't done COIN since the Civil War and that is the only way it can be done...the failing government fights back against the rebelling forces and either wins or gets overthrown. What the US does a lot of is to use COIN TTP's in what I was taught in Law Enforcement as Karpman's triangle.

The triangle has an attacker...a victum....and a rescuer. The US often plays the role of rescuer with all the dangers that it involves including having the victim turn against you.
Apply this triangle consistently in the daily news and you will see it is the source of many if not all US problems.

Randy if you have time (being the psychologist and all) perhaps you could expand upon the triangle for SWC especially since you have an LE back round.

[Ken White]

had a Tu-tu?

[goesh]

(wrong thread/wrong post)

[goesh]

"All the technological innovations you have cited and the 'change in behaviour' they have created are examples of human's attempting to control the minds and actions of other humans, they are examples of aspirations for power. In short the exercise of power (the why) that has been a ongoing condition of human nature's struggle for power and, it will continue, despite the advances in technology (the how)." ((Taiko))

It seems some fundamentals of physics are being ignored in this general discussion of animate and inanimate matter, the sentient and non-sentient, that all matter is energy and vibratory and each exerts an influence upon the other. Physicists have no problem thinking in 4 dimensions but we tend to stay in 3 and pay homeage to our Judeo-Christian heritage admirably, where man (mind) is the center and reigns supreme at all times, rather God-like. Life is just not that static and predictable. In the bush in W. Africa there were a few guys that wore ju-jus for protection from knife attacks. I met one and scoffed at him. He took off his ju-ju and told me to cut his arm, very lightly with my knife, I put a small cut on the inside of his forearm, he held the ju-ju in his hand and told me to try again and with the same general force I did and he was not cut the second time- reminded me of the principle of an antibiotic. All this really means is while some folks extrapolate this out to the Nth degree of probabilitiy/rationality and accountability in 3 dimensional thinking, others generate X amount of matter and thought interactions that create, grow, stagnate and decline (4) , equally. That's my tangent for the day.

[marct]

Hi Taiko,

I view causality deductively within the framework of power, in this case political power.

And which framework would that be, since there are several that use that term?

Your ontological framework of preferencing behaviour is problematic in the sense that it is conditioned by the presence, or lack there of, of power, or the aspiration for power. Power, more specifically political power is the independent variable and behaviour is the dependent variable.

Behaviour is empirical - you can see it; "power" isn't, it has to be inferred. Also, at least as far as research methods are concerned, even within a nomonological-deductive framework in the social sciences, you can always exchange the dependant ind independant variables. A strict deductive methodology that doesn't allow that is usually called a theology .

All the technological innovations you have cited and the 'change in behaviour' they have created are examples of human's attempting to control the minds and actions of other humans, they are examples of aspirations for power.

That is certainly one interpretation, but it isn't the only one. I'm begining to suspect either a Marxian or Foucauldian framework, with a touch of Nietzsche.

In short the exercise of power (the why) that has been a ongoing condition of human nature's struggle for power and, it will continue, despite the advances in technology (the how).

Personally, I think you are confusing the potentiality for power (however that may be defined) with the socio-technical conditions that allow for or inhibit the practice of power. You might want to take a look at Stewart Clegg's Frameworks of Power.

You are correct in highlighting the variations in how this struggle for power takes place, but it does not change the struggle for power. There is no neo-marxist or liberal condition which will see technology as the route to the perfection of man and the end of history.

That sounds like one of your axiomatix assumptions. As to the teleological implications, I don't subscribe those implications - I'm more along the lines of a neo-Darwinian that a Teilhard de Chardin.

The theoretical position itself, the belief that it will change behaviour, is an exercise in power!

Sounds like another axiomatic assumption - did you want an "Amen, Brother" after it ?

More seriously, anyone who doesn't think that changes in technology will cause (in the inductive sense I described earlier) changes in behaviour needs to seriously rethink their position. Is that an "exercise in power"? Maybe... what is your definition of power?

Rather than a linear progression of history there is an enduring cyclical quality based on the struggle for power at the domestic and international level. Hence, war, the use of violence, is the continuation of politics by other means.

Neitzsche meets CvC, with Foucault hosting the lovefest!

To draw on a poker analogy: I'll see your Alex Wendt and raise you one Hans Morgenthau

I'll see your Morgenthau and raise you a Dilthey .

Cheers,

Marc

[Taiko]

And which framework would that be, since there are several that use that term?

1. Power is an individual's capacity to act, but above all to influence the actions or feelings of other individuals.

2. Power is the capacity of a political unit to impose its will on other units.

Behaviour is empirical - you can see it; "power" isn't, it has to be inferred.

Power is empirical, it can be measured by the number of the barrel of guns being pointed at me, or the votes cast in a ballet box. It can be measured by the resources, including technological, a individual or state brings to bear in order to impose its will on another individual or political unit to change their behaviour. This can be measured when the will to resist ceases: they stop shooting at me and blowing stuff up, or accept the vote as valid and prepare for the next election cycle. If this was not the case then the balance of power would be a hollow phrase indeed. The material sources of power are easily measured, the ideational sources of power less so.

Also, at least as far as research methods are concerned, even within a nomonological-deductive framework in the social sciences, you can always exchange the dependant ind independant variables. A strict deductive methodology that doesn't allow that is usually called a theology .

Far from being a theology, a deductive approach can build a phenomenological abstraction which can provide a superior generalization of the cause and effect of the phenomenon being studied. I'll take one CvC for a bus load of Jominis or Bulows any day of the week.

Personally, I think you are confusing the potentiality for power (however that may be defined) with the socio-technical conditions that allow for or inhibit the practice of power.

Not at all. I am speaking truth to power. I am pointing out that your theoretical proposition is itself an exercise in power. The mask of ontology and methodology can only hide an ideology for so long

Sounds like another axiomatic assumption - did you want an "Amen, Brother" after it ?

More seriously, anyone who doesn't think that changes in technology will cause (in the inductive sense I described earlier) changes in behaviour needs to seriously rethink their position.

Hello pot meet the kettle. This statement is a tautology based on a teleological assumption arrived at via induction. You have identified the effect, now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power.

I'll see your Dilthey and raise you an Aron

[marct]

Power is an individual's capacity to act, but above all to influence the actions of feelings of other individuals.

Power is the capacity of a political unit to impose its will on other units.

Oi vey! Talk about a mishmosh! Three different definitions without significatory distinctions? Definitely Foucault mixed with Neitzsche!

Power is empirical it can be measured by the barrel of a gun or the ballet box.

Ridiculous. Those are merely indicators of potential actions (behaviours) and the socio-cultural acceptance of such indicators. If these were indicators of empirical power, then the US would not exist (the Brits had more guns and there was never a vote in the fullest sense in the thirteen colonies for succession).

It can be measured by the resources a individual or state brings to bear in order to impose its will on another individual or political unit. If this was not the case then the balance of power would be a hollow phrase indeed.

If it was the case, then the Taliban would not be operational any more. And "balance of power" is an empty phrase unless you have a better definition of power.

Far from being a theology, a deductive approach can be a phenomenological abstraction which will can provide a superior generalization of the cause and effect of the phenomenon being studied. I'll take one CvC for a bus load of Jomini's any day of the week.

Most theologies are phenomenological abstractions. The generalization might be "superior", then again it may not be. If you look at the history of science, one thing that is pretty clear is that rigid, deductive models that metastesize into theologies are always overthrown by inductive models (check out Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Not at all. I am speaking truth to power.

Always good to see people spouting theological truisms, especially when they are taken from theologies that would disagree totally with what you have said so far - I doubt the Quakers would agree with your definitions of power .

I am pointing out that your theoretical proposition is itself an exercise in power. The mask of ontology and methodology can only hide an ideology for so long

All theoretical models are, loosely speaking, exercises in power. As yto your second statement, right back at ya .

More seriously, anyone who doesn't think that changes in technology will cause (in the inductive sense I described earlier) changes in behaviour needs to seriously rethink their position.

[QUOTE=Taiko;78478This statement is a tautology based on a teleological approach arrived at via induction. You have identified the effect, now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power.[/QUOTE]

You know, I think you need a dictionary! Check out exactly what teleology means:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
Source

What, pray tell, do you see in my statement either implying a metaphysical "purpose" or "design", or a direction to a final result? You, on t'other hand along with many others in the Realist School of IR, automatically assume a telelogical position by asserting the "struggle for power" as both a cause and an end.

The danger with such a position is that you already know the cause - "now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power". That is a theological position.

[Taiko]

Oi vey! Talk about a mishmosh! Three different definitions without significatory distinctions? Definitely Foucault mixed with Neitzsche!

Hardly a mishmosh, more a accurate explanation of reality, rather than a normative descriptive exercise that bleeds the concept of all meaning. You are way off base with Foucault and Neitzschel. I am not a naval gazer, try Machiavelli instead, I'm more interested in praxis.

Ridiculous. Those are merely indicators of potential actions (behaviours) and the socio-cultural acceptance of such indicators. If these were indicators of empirical power, then the US would not exist (the Brits had more guns and there was never a vote in the fullest sense in the thirteen colonies for succession).

One of the problems with an inductive approach. Mistaking specifics for a generalisation. I stand by my statement that the casting of a vote is a direct measurement of power in a democracy. I'll take your point that the amount of force a person/political unit brings to bear in order to impose their will is an indirect measurement of power.

If it was the case, then the Taliban would not be operational any more. And "balance of power" is an empty phrase unless you have a better definition of power.

Ever heard of an organisation called ISI and A'Q? Apparently they have very deep pockets. A fascinating study of how to measure power via the resources an individual or political unit brings to bear in imposing their will. Quite a practical one as well, if this was not the case in reality, then was the attempts by the US to cut off funding to A'Q merely an aberration of my imagination? Or am I being too subjective in accounting for reality in objectively determining the cause as being the struggle for power?

Balance of power is a correct phrase to explain the reality of the role of power in domestic and international politics

Most theologies are phenomenological abstractions. The generalization might be "superior", then again it may not be. If you look at the history of science, one thing that is pretty clear is that rigid, deductive models that metastesize into theologies are always overthrown by inductive models (check out Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Always? So far you have presented a normative argument that bears very little resemblance to reality and confused specifics for generalisations.

Always good to see people spouting theological truisms, especially when they are taken from theologies that would disagree totally with what you have said so far - I doubt the Quakers would agree with your definitions of power .

Don't you mean what you disagree with what I have said so far? Quakers are not trying to impose their ideology on other people.

What, pray tell, do you see in my statement either implying a metaphysical "purpose" or "design", or a direction to a final result? You, on t'other hand along with many others in the Realist School of IR, automatically assume a telelogical position by asserting the "struggle for power" as both a cause and an end.The danger with such a position is that you already know the cause - "now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power". That is a theological position.

Hardly. The roads to human power and knowledge lie close together and are nearly the same; nevertheless on account of perniciousness and inveterate habit of dwelling on abstractions, it is safer to begin and raise the sciences from those foundations which have relation to practice, and let the active part be as the seal which prints and determines the contemplative counterpart (Novum Organum). I don't assume I prove via fact that in reality the struggle for power is the cause. I do not arrive at that statement by applying a tautology based on a teleological assumption arrived at via induction. The struggle of power is the cause the ends of that struggle is the imposition of an individual or political units will over another individual or political unit. Considering that is the reality of what you are doing right now, how can you conflate those two distinction as being the same? Just because reality does not conform to your theory does not mean that reality is false, just may be, your theory is false. You should reread Kuhn. I'll save you the trouble of rebutting this statement by rebutting your next statement. Are you making an objective statement that all reality is subjective?

[rborum]

Consistent with Gumz' concern about not pigeonholing conflicts.....

"Looking at irregular warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet kind of warfare is an outdated concept," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Conflict in the future will slide up and down a scale, both in scope and in lethality."

Might a Hoffman-esque Hybrid framework be replacing the "IW" brand?