The other thing you might want to do is get rid of the silly term "asymmetric" - it simply does not work. The 1st Boer War saw the Boers as well trained and well equipped as the British. Supposing that there are two distinct things called "COIN" and "War fighting" is not smart.
My view is here
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
Ok lets just call it guerrilla warfare or even small wars then if that term works better?Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Almost. Irregular Warfare is warfare conduct by or against irregulars. It WHO fights, not how or why. Small Wars is a very good description, taken on the Victorian/Edwardian context. - but note: The difference between Warfare, and Wars. Small Wars does not mean small Warfare. Small wars generally means irregular warfare.
Obvious so far?
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
Yes!Almost. Irregular Warfare is warfare conduct by or against irregulars. It WHO fights, not how or why. Small Wars is a very good description, taken on the Victorian/Edwardian context. - but note: The difference between Warfare, and Wars. Small Wars does not mean small Warfare. Small wars generally means irregular warfare.
Obvious so far?
I guess small wars would be better description for the colonial conflicts of the 19th/early 20th century Century?
WILF and I will agree 100% that the current grasping at new terminology to describe old things is not helpful.
We will differ as to the importance of "size" as a defining criteria. From my studies, it is understanding the nature of the competitor and his purpose for action that sheds the best light as to how to most effectively deal with him.
Wars waged by states against states for political purpose can be large or small. Similarly, wars waged by populaces against states for political purposes can be large or small.
A State, however, has very different risks, vulnerabilites, strengths, etc than a populace-based organization that must be addressed very differntly (and both fine tuned by the details of the situation at hand.
So ask yourself, are your dealing with a state, or a populace as the first, and most important branch in your quest for understanding.
I also contend that the one thing truly unique today is the rate and availability of information. This does not change the nature of war, but is does require one to reassess the TTPs that were developed for dealing with populace based wars prior to the 1980s. I believe it was this modern information age that actually brought down the Soviets (sure the West's containment efforts and the Soviet's own weak economy and mistakes contributed), but when it all began to quickly unravel, it was the people across eastern europe empowered and informed that made it happen. This was just the bowwave of similar popular uprising in the Middle East and Africa today.
One significant differnce is that Gorbachav made the conscious decision not to counter these popular uprisings. The West, faced with a similar loss of control over populaces of the Middle East chose a differnt route... So the Soviet puppets were tumbled, the Western puppets still sit; pretty fascinating stuff actually.
Last edited by Bob's World; 11-07-2009 at 06:27 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
I have found it is always quite difficult to use modern terms in reference to centuries old warfare. The debate about the about Jeff Davis' "offensive-defensive" vs. "defensive-offensive" is but one example.
At times, one man's insurgency is another's conventional war.
bs
Other than Iran in 1953, where has "the West" countered a popular uprising in the Middle East... and where in the Middle East does "the West" still control a populace?
Last edited by Dayuhan; 11-11-2009 at 08:40 AM.
Everywhere
Control is a relative term of course, and if one takes it too literally one is apt to mollify themselves into a self-serving perspective that casts ones meddling into a benign, always good to all people, light.
This is not how the populaces of the region see it, and it is their perception that matters in the current conflict. The U.S. must target that perception to prevail, not the insurgent elements of those populace, nor even be perceived as merely building the capacity of those governments we have helped establish and sustain to continue their reigns over their populaces by crushing popular uprisings in the name of "counterterrorism."
Take your own home. The people of the Philippines don't believe there is excessive US meddling in their governnance? The people don't perceive that on many issues the national government listens more to, and responds to, what the US wants over what they want? The people of the nation, don't in large numbers support organizations like the NPA in the north, or the MILF and MNLF in the south as expressions of their sense of lack of representation in and support by their own government? Even with the extremely carefully tailored US operations in support of the AFP in the south, with every action by-thru-with Philippine lead, is there not perceptions and constant challenges raised that the US is exerting its will there and helping the government to suppress a problem rather than actually resolve it?
Perception is fact in this business, and in many places we make it all too easy for those who oppose the status quo to spin facts to support their agendas. My position is that the US must update its engagement for the current world order rather than the last one, and thereby disempower the messages of many of these resistance movements by becoming a leader for self-determination and freedom for all peoples. And that requires relinquishing control of what those outcomes will look like. By controlling less, I believe we will influence more.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Nothing wrong with Guerrilla Warfare(armed civilians fighting for a cause). 95% of the world will understand what mean, the only people who don't are in the military.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks