Applying the lessons of late 19th/early 20th century asymmetrical warfare

[Hugh Davis]

I share the frustration of the other participants. it is difficult to agree on a common vocabulary & definitions, to ensure we clearly communicate the precise ideas we want to discuss, without ambiguity. Adding new buzzwords to our vocabulary further complicates matters.

Since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, humans have banded together to secure the needs & wants of one community against the needs & wants of other communuties. Some of these bands evolve into sophisticated cultures & societies, with robust economic, political & military institutions. Some remain relatively unsophisticated, or allow their sophistication to evolve in different directions.

When an "advanced" society tries to intervene in a less advanced society, the "tarbaby effect" can generate an unpleasant surprise. blindly assuming our own superiority, we blunder in & snatch up the tarbaby, intending to bring order out of chaos. It's hard to look dignified, sophisiticated & in charges when you're covered in tar, mud, fur & feathers.

I agree with the earlier commenters that we have much to learn from history. I encourage my children - and other students - to learn from what worked, first, and then to learn from what did not work. After allowing them a few minutes to think about those overly simplified concepts, I remind them that the hard part is figuring out why something did or did not work.

I suspect that we may learn as much about how to succeed in attaining a worthy goal by studying the techniques and practices used to pursue a goal we would not approve, as we could by studying for example, archaic techniques used to pursue less controversial goals.

I think we should draw rational distinctions between different war environments, bearing in mind that all such classifications are at least partly artificial. Sometimes geographic factors are important in analyzing the nature of a conflict. Economic factors, and their impact on social factors, are almost always at the heart of the nature of the conflict. I think anyone who studies human conflict can identify scores of differentiating factors that could be used to classify conflicts. I also think the same serious students of conflict can identify several recurrent themes that cut across any classifications we might devise.

We can rationally differentiate according to the strenght of each belligerent, as well as their relative strength. The political status of the parties may be relevant. Religious, ideological and ethnic/nationalist factors may also shed light.

That's not to say the classification is worthless; to the contrary, I think it helps us break down the individual cases into their component parts, but also allows us to bring those parts back up in a different context, so we can better understand which factors affect each other, & how they do so.

Each conflict cited in this discussion thread should offer valuable lessons to us. The question is whether we can find them & apply them.

What were the participants trying to accomplish? Did they rationally weigh the costs & benefits of pursuing their goal? What course did they pursue to attain the goal? What barriers did they encounter? How did they adapt? Did they attain the stated goal? Did they regret the price they paid?

I can't speak for other scholars on this point, but I try to separate my personal feelings about colonialism & imperialism from my examination of the history. It is hard to avoid tainting analysis with emotional or moral judgments. I am trying to remind myself that the moral analysis can be done after the facts are studied and the utility of the actions are analyzed.

It strikes me as possible (and undesirable) to reject out of hand a morally and ethically defensible technique that was employed to achieve a policy goal I regard as immoral. Without diminishing my moral standing to criticize the abhorrent policy goal, I should try to remain open-minded enough to recognize a technique that appears to be effective, and which could be put to use pursuing a more worthy goal.

Of course, the more moral baggage associated with an event in history, the more difficult it is for us to achieve this elusive objectivity. At the same time, we don't want to slide down the other slope & pretend that morality & ethics have no light to shed on our studies.

The more I learn, the more I see that I need to learn. I have been learning much over the past few months as I read the thoughtful insights of the contributors to these discussions. I expect to keep learning, as long as I live. Thanks for contributing to my learning.

[William F. Owen]

It strikes me as possible (and undesirable) to reject out of hand a morally and ethically defensible technique that was employed to achieve a policy goal I regard as immoral. Without diminishing my moral standing to criticize the abhorrent policy goal, I should try to remain open-minded enough to recognize a technique that appears to be effective, and which could be put to use pursuing a more worthy goal.

So given a morally justifiable end, you can employ "effective" means? This is extremely context dependant, but I do agree that it is the purpose to which force in employed that should largely (not exclusively) define its political merit. However almost every NGO in the world rejects that view.

[Hugh Davis]

All human endeavours are highly context specific. I was trying not to wander too far off the reservation with a philosophical treatise, but sometimes, one's own thoughts can seem overly fascinating.

To more directly address your comment & question, I think it is important to weigh the morality of both goals and techniques. Ideally, we would hope to have a clearly moral goal to pursue, and a toolbox full of clearly moral techniques to choose from as we pursue that goal.

I think it would be overly cautious to reject a course of action with no inherent moral fault, just because it appears to have been "tainted" by another's use of that technique to pursue a less acceptable goal.

Colonialism is a good example of what I have in mind. Please read in any appropriate caveats; like most human activities, colonialism was fueled by mixed motives. However, I think it's fair to say that modern society, both East & West, are uncomfortable with the colonial heritage. There are sound moral arguments to be made against the exploitative nature of colonialism.

Since I haven't walked in the shoes of those who colonized the less developed continents, I won't try to weigh the selfish factors against the generous factors that may have motivated them. I simply note that times have changed, and the older colonial model is not acceptable today, especially when it involves subjugation of both the people and the wealth of the colony. That goal is not acceptable today, and you can use the terms "ethics" and "morality" to describe that fact.

However, I have observed that some colonies developed habits of representative government, respect for the rule of law, respect for individual liberties, and other habits & institutions that helped them form relatively stable governments as they became independent. Naturally, the citizens of these former colonies merit our respect for governing themselves effectively.

My curiosity, however, causes me to wonder what actions by colonial governments encouraged or discouraged this development. There may be lessons here to learn as we seek to help other unstable societies build the institutions & habits that will allow their citizens to enjoy stability and liberty.

I can imagine an otherwise intelligent person saying that we must not copy the policies & procedures of the British Raj, because the goal of exploiting India's wealth was clearly wrong, and therefore, any activity that contributed to that goal is inherently wrong, so we should not use those policies or procedures, even to accomplish a wholly different goal.

I will now confess that I know much less than I want to know about colonial administration. There is at least one other thread extant on this topic, & I'm learning from it. Since I know less than I need to know, I can't be very specific about which practices could be adapted to the modern nation-building environment.

In the point you questioned, I was alluding to the possibility of using the experience of the India Office & the Foreign & Colonial Office to inform the efforts of modern statesmen to assist residents of unstable countries in developing stable institutions. My concern was that the "taint" of colonialism would keep us from asking whether there is a specific moral concern about whichever specific procedures we are examining. If the (hypothetical) procedure is not inherently wrong, it makes sense to me to use it to further the goal of assisting a nation in building a stable state capable of protecting the lives, liberty and property of its people.

Thanks for commenting. Questions make us think more clearly. If it didn't lead me to write more clearly, I apologize. I should have been asleep before I started writing.

[M-A Lagrange]

When an "advanced" society tries to intervene in a less advanced society, the "tarbaby effect" can generate an unpleasant surprise. blindly assuming our own superiority, we blunder in & snatch up the tarbaby, intending to bring order out of chaos. It's hard to look dignified, sophisiticated & in charges when you're covered in tar, mud, fur & feathers.

Could you come with a specific reference to Tarbaby effect?

So given a morally justifiable end, you can employ "effective" means? This is extremely context dependant, but I do agree that it is the purpose to which force in employed that should largely (not exclusively) define its political merit. However almost every NGO in the world rejects that view.

By William F. Owen

This is the perception the military has of the NGO. NGO position is less and less clear and orthodox on that particular point. Many would like to find a Leviathan to protect them (first) and the populations (when they are secured). The real question being which political power is found legitimate by NGOs to be respected as a legitimate user of force. I was once discussing the very same issue with a friend from MSF. He came with this comment: “we (MSF) love the rebels. We do not like the official armies of any countries but we love the rebels.”
This, for me, resumes all. The main problem with NGO is not they do not like force and the use of force. They want to rebel against any form of authority. But if this is what you see on the ground, this is far from being what you see in the HQ. In all HQ of the world, NGO are doing what governments are telling them. NGO are quite a traditional actor into war. They will be on the side of legitimate power and the more they criticize it, the more their actions are supporting it. Well, in some cases, as in Israel may be, it would not be the case. But otherwise, what you discribe is almost enterely due to NGO/military love/hate relation.

[William F. Owen]

This, for me, resumes all. The main problem with NGO is not they do not like force and the use of force. They want to rebel against any form of authority.

As long as they (NGOs and even media) admit that they are not neutral and are actors in the conflict, with a political agenda, which therefore allows certain actions to be taken against them, I have no problem.

They will be on the side of legitimate power and the more they criticize it, the more their actions are supporting it. Well, in some cases, as in Israel may be, it would not be the case. But otherwise, what you discribe is almost enterely due to NGO/military love/hate relation.

Not sure what you mean by "as in Israel", but whose legitimacy, when and where?
EG:After Israel evicted the Jordanians from the West Bank in 1967, they became the "occupying power." Occupations can be legitimate, as can protecting yourself by all and any means.

[M-A Lagrange]

As long as they (NGOs and even media) admit that they are not neutral and are actors in the conflict, with a political agenda, which therefore allows certain actions to be taken against them, I have no problem.

Why do you want to take actions against them?
NGO are the best allies of military power nowadays. They are looking for someone to protect them from weapons carriers or fighters who do not respect their neutral status.

The only thing being their legal status in war zones are asking you to be more subtile than brutal. (I even saw mormons funding muslim NGO in Afghanistan.) What is important is the psyop you conduct with. Not against NGO work but to integrate NGO and to win hearts and minds.

By definition, for NGO, occupying powers are the bad guys. All you have to do is making sure that you control their funds sources and then NGO have an open position against you but do the job for you. But coordination of aid and harmonised approach is may be the most difficult to achieve.

[William F. Owen]

Why do you want to take actions against them?

I don't want to. I may have to. Especially those who are using NGO status to mask military activity.

NGO are the best allies of military power nowadays. They are looking for someone to protect them from weapons carriers or fighters who do not respect their neutral status.

That description does not apply to all NGOs. If they want your protection, they must come under your control, and do what you tell them.

The only thing being their legal status in war zones are asking you to be more subtile than brutal. (I even saw mormons funding muslim NGO in Afghanistan.) What is important is the psyop you conduct with. Not against NGO work but to integrate NGO and to win hearts and minds.

Well this just buys into the "hearts and minds" fallacy. You assume that hearts and minds are important in all conflict. That is simply not true. Obviously you should not do those things that undermine your political aim, but that does not axiomatically mean you should care what the enemy population think.

By definition, for NGO, occupying powers are the bad guys.

Are they really that stupid and simplistic?

[Dayuhan]

Occupations can be legitimate, as can protecting yourself by all and any means.

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? Most actions are seen as legitimate by those doing them, otherwise they wouldn't be taken. Those to whom they are done might have a different perspective, as might the neutral observer. I think one might also find an example or two in history of actions undertaken in the name of enhanced security that actually degraded security in the long run. Military action is often initiated in the name of self-defense or protection; it's a claim that deserves to be scrutinized.

[William F. Owen]

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? Most actions are seen as legitimate by those doing them, otherwise they wouldn't be taken.

So? Why do I care what the other side thing? I am forcing my will upon them. My survival is more important than theirs.

Those to whom they are done might have a different perspective, as might the neutral observer.

-again, so what? Speaks to the political aim of the conflict.

I think one might also find an example or two in history of actions undertaken in the name of enhanced security that actually degraded security in the long run. Military action is often initiated in the name of self-defense or protection; it's a claim that deserves to be scrutinized.

Sure, but again so what?
What looks good on day one doesn't look good 3 years later. You can't tell the future and violence is instrumental to what it is used against, not things that have not yet occurred, or may be flow down effects.
If folks new their wives would divorce them they wouldn't get married.

[MikeF]

All human endeavours are highly context specific.

I was taught to call it METT-TC.

From M-A Lagrange

In somehow, I find ironic this re invention of colonial warfare under new names.

Americans are pretty poor as colonists and running an empire. We're too nice. In Iraq and A'stan, the endstate is not to have a 51st and 52nd state. In truth, we'll be lucky to have neutral partners. I've been skimming the int'l contracts for both states. All the resources and money are going to China, Russia, and others. I have yet to see one major contract for an American company.

The true irony is that we may be paying for others freedom while assisting our economic competitors. So Strange.