Roman vs. American COIN ops

[Tom Odom]

So it was a Government Policy. It clearly wasn't a military capability used to further a policy. Again, if judged not much different from Soviet Russia of Nazi Germany and how do we learn of leverage that for benefit?

No it was a government exercise of power that included use of military force.

As for the bumper sticker "Smoking Kills" comparison--try that where you live and see how it flies.

Well if you mean telling an Israeli "not to smoke" is the best to get smoke blown in your face, I agree! - which is why I am sceptical of anything that does not involve force.

No by that I mean try equating the Halocaust with a "Smoking Kills" bumper sticker and see how the audience reacts.

Tom, my thesis purely that IO and PSYOPS have imprecise definitions that alter under scrutiny and like wise are generally based on unclear and not wholly relevant examples of success.

Wilf, you continually go for a one size fits all description of war that ultimately is reductionist in its essence. IO and PSYOP are imprecise but less so that what you offer.

We will have to disagree.

Tom

[OfTheTroops]

Wasn't the Persian empire even more successful at "COIN" co-option than Rome?


Too bad there is not as much source material with which we can understand their building policy.

Of course we ignore Persia because it was eastern.

[marct]

Wasn't the Persian empire even more successful at "COIN" co-option than Rome?

That would really depend on how you define "success" but, on the whole, I'd have to say it wasn't.

Too bad there is not as much source material with which we can understand their building policy.

We have some - if you can read coine Greek . There are some really good discussions of Persian history, revolts, politicing, etc. in Procopius of Caesaria's Histories of the Wars, Books I & II: The Persian Wars. Personally, I cheat and use the Loeb Classic Library version because of the Greek and English texts.

Most of their "build" strategy was really what today we would call Tribal Engagement. For most of its history, Persia was a pseudo-feudal "empire", and a lot of their strategies, the non-TE ones, were adopted from the Assyrians (e.g. mass relocations, forced divisions, etc.).

[marct]

One of the more amazing, and effective, grand strategic objectives that the Romans developed was a code of laws. I'm sure Mike (JMM) knows the history of this better than I do, but imagine, if you will, the insane amount of work necessary to distill the essence of over 100 tribal and city state legal "codes" (including customs and traditions) into a single code. Talk about a "build" strategy!

[Firn]

Irregular warfare was certainly also a big thing in the past and was often intertwined with regular one. It is often very muddy water.

If we take Rome there is certainly a lot food for thought from the Social war, the Civil wars, all those wars for Hispania to a very famous COIN operation gone terribly wrong. The latter example shows that you can not transfer strategy and tactics into a new AO, plug in and play with success.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

No it was a government exercise of power that included use of military force.

OK, so what you sat that exactly fits the classical description of Strategy

No by that I mean try equating the Halocaust with a "Smoking Kills" bumper sticker and see how the audience reacts.

My referencing of "Smoking Kills" was speaking to the banality of Government information campaigns. - the Holocaust, in terms of the "final solution" was never an explicit publicly stated policy.

Wilf, you continually go for a one size fits all description of war that ultimately is reductionist in its essence. IO and PSYOP are imprecise but less so that what you offer.

No, not one size fits all, but useful reductionism, yes! Not silly reductionism!

We will have to disagree.

...and that's not a bad thing!