Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: Is an insurgent an insurgent?

  1. #81
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Does your edition include the diagram of the committee system, Figure 2, Chapter 3? - The PIO, for example, is almost certainly special branch.
    I'd also refer you to the last paragraph of Chapter 5. "In conclusion..." Yes he states Army officers should be able to advise and assist, but in the non-violent phase, the Army are supporting the Police - Northern Ireland saw some 28+ years of "policy Primacy."

    In fact the more I read and re-read Kitson, Paget, and even Samay Ram (Indian Army's Kitson) the more I believe the "80% political, 20% military" is merely a re-statement of Clausewitian observation.
    Yep got it.....dosen't say special branch on my diagram.....also slide across the diagram....it says single commander system...means military commander does it not? now read page 92 which references chapter 3 and how the military has to be trained to do it because the regular government forces may not be able to do it. I forget the page numbers but he also says they (soldiers) should build schools and teach school and run clinics and build roads,etc. also check page 87 for "Drowning the revolution in babies milk".

  2. #82
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    [QUOTE=slapout9;79583]
    Yep got it.....dosen't say special branch on my diagram.....also slide across the diagram....it says single commander system...means military commander does it not?
    Page 55 says under the single commander case, the commander may be a military "though this need not necessarily be the case."
    The provincial intelligence officer, is (under the British System, either Special Branch, or the Security Services. It is not military).
    Morever he goes on to stress, that where a military officer IS in Command, his right hand man "might be a police officer."
    Additionally, both these diagrams refer to "Provincial" Command levels, not National. Page 110 actually uses the example of a Police inspector running the intelligence cell at the District level. This is all classic UK COIN/CRW.
    Yes, the Army runs or may help run intelligence operations, especially rurally, to enable police operations. It is Aid to the civil power, not substitution for it

    now read page 92 which references chapter 3 and how the military has to be trained to do it because the regular government forces may not be able to do it.
    That the Army sets up the C2 for the committee system, does not mean you have soldiers running schools or doing anything non-military, apart from standard security tasks. The summary on Page 81 is pretty good.

    I forget the page numbers but he also says they (soldiers) should build schools and teach school and run clinics and build roads,etc. also check page 87 for "Drowning the revolution in babies milk".
    Teaching school? Can't find it.
    The Baby Milk thing reference someone else's work, not Kitson's, and is talking about co-option. In fact it merely means rewarding the behaviour your policy has sought to induce. EG: "You, the population, are responsible for helping keeping the peace."
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #83
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,222

    Default Phew, Kitson is being read again

    Wilf,

    Well I have the 1991 Faber re-print of the 1972 Edition, with a new introduction.
    Just checked I have the 1972 edition; which rather ages me now. Actually I purchased the book before university and when the UK was in such a state some thought the army would mount a coup.

    Slap,

    I think your linked review: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/054.html reflects the liberal / left view that the military wanted to play a far more active role internally. His writings were certainly controversial - in the UK - when written; note the context then was Northern Ireland primarily, plus the Miners Strike and more.

    davidbfpo
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-09-2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason: Add link and another sentence.

  4. #84
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    His writings were certainly controversial - in the UK - when written; note the context then was Northern Ireland primarily, plus the Miners Strike and more.
    Can't forget all the "Executive Actions" clowns, like Goldsmith and the Mayfair set. Something Margaret Thatcher put an end to. Army these days is actually quite liberal! Certainly not as right wing as it was when I joined.
    Well I remember the Summer Riots and discussion of the Army's role in suppressing them. Problem with the Minors strike was there were quite a few son's of Minors in the army.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #85
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    [QUOTE=William F. Owen;79589]
    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Page 55 says under the single commander case, the commander may be a military "though this need not necessarily be the case."
    The provincial intelligence officer, is (under the British System, either Special Branch, or the Security Services. It is not military).
    Morever he goes on to stress, that where a military officer IS in Command, his right hand man "might be a police officer."
    Additionally, both these diagrams refer to "Provincial" Command levels, not National. Page 110 actually uses the example of a Police inspector running the intelligence cell at the District level. This is all classic UK COIN/CRW.
    Yes, the Army runs or may help run intelligence operations, especially rurally, to enable police operations. It is Aid to the civil power, not substitution for it


    That the Army sets up the C2 for the committee system, does not mean you have soldiers running schools or doing anything non-military, apart from standard security tasks. The summary on Page 81 is pretty good.


    Teaching school? Can't find it.
    The Baby Milk thing reference someone else's work, not Kitson's, and is talking about co-option. In fact it merely means rewarding the behaviour your policy has sought to induce. EG: "You, the population, are responsible for helping keeping the peace."


    1-Page 79 covers teaching,setting up clinics,construction,and agricultural. As for the rest of your comments it just proves my point that Kitson said the Army must be trained and prepared to do everything, if civilian assets are available great to use them but you can not depend on that because of the unknown or deteriorating situation you may face. Which is why he wrote the book in the first place to help prepare the Army for such situations.
    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.
    3-But his best suggestions are perhaps found in his conclusion chapter. On page 199 where the he recommends that priority be given to training armies in the use of persuasion on a large scale and providing the psychological Operations specialists and units required.
    4-And then page 200 "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"


    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.

  6. #86
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    1-Page 79 covers teaching,setting up clinics,construction,and agricultural. As for the rest of your comments it just proves my point that Kitson said the Army must be trained and prepared to do everything, if civilian assets are available great to use them but you can not depend on that because of the unknown or deteriorating situation you may face. Which is why he wrote the book in the first place to help prepare the Army for such situations.
    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.

    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.
    Look at the context. If you can, then there is no problem. What about the die hard jihadist?

    "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"
    Absolutely agree with that.
    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.
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #87
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default From my armchair ...

    on the tennis court mid-line at the net, I'd say that the two of you (Wilf and Slap) are discoursing at cross-purposes.

    In all wars (armed conflicts), we have on-going the Political Struggle and the Military Struggle. See chart attached. CvC wrote of the Military Struggle, but certainly recognized the existence of the Political Struggle - and that the latter's objective determined the strategy of the Military Struggle.

    If the discourse is about who is in charge of each struggle, that is another kettle of fish. Since we (UK and US) do not have political commisars, that issue cannot be resolved as easily as it was in Zhivago:

    Liberius: I could have you taken out and shot!

    Razin, Liberius' Lieutenant: And could you have The Party taken out and shot? Understand this: as the military struggle draws to a close, the political struggle intensifies. In the hour of victory, the military will have served its purpose - and all men will be judged POLITICALLY - regardless of their military record! Meanwhile, there are still White units in this area - the Doctor stays.
    For us, a civil-military committee perhaps ?
    Attached Images Attached Images

Similar Threads

  1. Why is Egypt Airing Insurgent TV from Iraq?
    By SWJED in forum The Information War
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-04-2009, 01:05 AM
  2. Iraqi Insurgent Media: War of Images and Ideas
    By MountainRunner in forum The Information War
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-31-2008, 06:38 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2005, 04:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •