All this refers to the "preparatory phase." Nothing wrong with soldiers doing that, the same way you use soldiers for hurricane relief. It is a putting forth of policy - my beef with massive social programs, and not some remedial action, is that you are providing targets for the insurgent. If the bad guys burn down the school, where are you then. The social programs have got to run in context of the violence. They will not stop it, and they only might prevent it starting.
Look at the context. If you can, then there is no problem. What about the die hard jihadist?2- The Baby Milk reference is Kitson, since he was using it to demonstrate a point about how one might co-opt the enemy by using non-violent means.
Absolutely agree with that."Those who are not capable of developing these characteristics are inclined to retreat into their Military shells and try not to notice what is going on around them. They adopt the 'fit soldier with a rifle theory', and long for the days when they can get back to 'proper soldiering' by which they mean preparing for the next-or last-war,as opposed to fighting the current one"
It's all CvC. That is exactly the point he is trying to put across. The political dimension to conflict. Subversion is the use of non-violent means (mostly). So what? Subversion is politics.As I said there is no CvC in this book. CvC's definition or "War as the use of violence to impose one's will" is not compatible with the modern low intensity conflicts where subversion (mental violence) is so prevalent.
Bookmarks