New book release

[M-A Lagrange]

Well, we can only hope that Iraq/Afghanistan are the outliers of the 21st century, and we limit our future pre-emptive strikes.

I think we are not looking enough into the Chinese concept of unrestricted war. From what I read, the last war game on economical war gave China winner with a long long advance... What about an insurgent use of economical aggressive war actions? Just like releasing thousands of fake banknotes? Or savage exchange market actions against key industries? From the testimony I heard, Taliban countered DDR with opium. The idea is good but the mean are wrong: opium is still a controlled resource. But they had a result.

I know that China is looking at asymmetric war now, but still… They often come with good (dangerous) ideas.

But yes, should be an interesting reading.

[jmm99]

My thought about the trailer that Mike posted keeps coming back into my skull as I've returned to this thread a couple of times.

The thought is: are the authors seeking to define "war" in legal terms or military terms; or are they creating some awful hybrid of legal and military mishmash ? Not having the book, I can't really say; but the trailer seems to point in the latter direction.

The terms "intra-state war [or inter-state war], civil war, and insurgency" are certainly terms used in I Law and LOAC to define certain situations, as to which different legal rules apply. I'll spare you the legal stuff for now.

What I fail to see is how legal terms can be transferred with any ulitility to the military realm without creating confusion. The concept of "small, medium, and big wars" (realizing that those terms are segments of a "violence" spectrum; and also realizing that a concomitant political struggle exists alongside the military struggle) seems a more useful construct. It also does not mix legal apples and military oranges - small, medium, and big wars are all armed conflicts legally, no more and no less.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

The thought is: are the authors seeking to define "war" in legal terms or military terms; or are they creating some awful hybrid of legal and military mishmash ? Not having the book, I can't really say; but the trailer seems to point in the latter direction.

Mike, as always, you come with the thousand dollars brilliant question.
I believe they come with a military classification of conflicts nature based on the nature and projects of the actors. But we will have to read first the book.

At this point, I'm looking forward to reading anything of substance that gets past false debates like CT v/s COIN.

I believe the real question would be how to reduce risks to fall into civil war and/or insurgency during hold phase.

Looking at it quickly, I came out with this:
- Not timely addressed internal collapse of political and/or economical local context leading to ethnic/political clashes.
- External disruption of the political and/or economical institutions leading to ethnic/political clashes.
- Mismanagement/dispatch of the occupant men power creating security vacuum leading to either or both ethnic/political clashes and insurgency.
- Mismanagement of the former politico-military apparatus leading to insurgency.
But there are more.

Also, looking at US history, there are basically 2 main approaches for stabilization:
- The post Civil War approach.
Based on an immediate exploitation of economical resources of the conquered territory. That is what has been put in place in Iraq. This comes with the aim of the war: natural resources control.

- The post WWII approach
Based on a strong funding of development as the marshal plan. This is what was used for Europe in the 50. The aim being building a friendly ally from a previous enemy.

For me the question of coming with a linear approach of conventional war followed by ethnic/political war ending into counter insurgency hides the main question: how to conduct hold. What are the immediate priorities that military and civil actions have to address for hold phase to be a success? And not taking as granted that you always end up into a ethnic/political clashes and an insurgency (that will always be there by the way).
For example:
- Do you first try to exploit natural resources and then dispatch significant forces and efforts to do so or do you first provide basic security in the streets and electricity at night in the main cities?
Responding to that question may probably help. (But I may be wrong). From my point of view, if you end up into ethnic/political clashes and counter insurrection operations: you may have forgotten to finalize something.

[jmm99]

from M-A
Also, looking at US history, there are basically 2 main approaches for stabilization:

- The post Civil War approach.
Based on an immediate exploitation of economical resources of the conquered territory. That is what has been put in place in Iraq. This comes with the aim of the war: natural resources control.

- The post WWII approach
Based on a strong funding of development as the marshal plan. This is what was used for Europe in the 50. The aim being building a friendly ally from a previous enemy.

In both of those cases, the military struggle was pretty much placed on the shelf. The political struggle intensified. BTW, the economy of the South was destroyed - more so than its armies. So, Reconstruction - which meant many very different things to many very different people.

Iraq and Astan presented and present quite different patterns - nationally, Iraq may be into the "build" phase (?); Astan is not even close.

[jmm99]

you are absolutely correct in this:

from MikeF
Are you using your mind reading powers to read my magnum opus that I haven't written yet.

I am using my vastly enhanced "N" powers (iNtuitive of INTJ) to begin my program of examining and shaping the military mind - having now succeeded in knowing what the judge will do several weeks from now.[*]

Worry not about which hammer to use - Remote Viewing will allow you to control the nail directly from your desktop.

On a serious note, Chinese "unrestricted warfare" (much of which is not warfare in the "armed confllict" sense) is simply an amplification of Mao's ability to use both the armed struggle and the political struggle (and to switch emphasis back and forth as the situation demanded).

In crude form, we find that in his "shape shifting" use of the Eighth Route Army - sometimes a conventional force, sometimes a guerrilla force, sometimes a special force ala Wingate; but still the same force. That and a sophisticated campaign of political infiltration and subversion among the ChiNat forces.

--------------------------
[*] It also helped that all of the interested parties have now signed consents to my proposed course of action and the proposed order.

I have long since left the realm of sheep and goats as being beneath my talents.

[MikeF]

The concept of "small, medium, and big wars" (realizing that those terms are segments of a "violence" spectrum; and also realizing that a concomitant political struggle exists alongside the military struggle) seems a more useful construct. It also does not mix legal apples and military oranges - small, medium, and big wars are all armed conflicts legally, no more and no less.

Mike,

Are you using your mind reading powers to read my magnum opus that I haven't written yet??? Another good thing about small, medium, big is that it gives guys like me an easy way to figure out which hammer to use .

As far as M-A Lagrange's comment on unrestrictive warfare, I'm not sure how to answer that. I would submit that it's more of the greater IR "game" between nation-states not simply a military matter.

Mike