New Rules of War

[Bill Moore]

Posted by William F. Owen
Swarming is essentially perceived phenomena by people observing a condition and arbitrarily assigning the word "swarm" to what they see. It has no basis in tactical doctrine, other than the successful application of normal and well understood tactical applications may look like a "swarm" to the victim.

Agree with you that "military" examples cited are pretty lame, and probably the result of someone asking RAND to do a study on what swarming means to the military. Every military tactic I have seen described as swarming is simply an ambush, encirclement, isolating maneuver, raid, etc. Absolutely nothing new, and largely a waste of tax payers dollars to conduct such a study.

Going back to my original post where I cited examples ranging from the activists in Iran, the Battle for Seattle, etc. as potential events that could be described as swarming (though still no utility in doing so), where you have a trigger event(s) and a spontaneous reaction that self-organizes (to some extent). Kind of like kicking a hornet's nest. The hornets don't have a plan for such an event (an assumption), but quickly react by swarming their poor attacker. Understanding it that way may have some value (the availability of information globally can lead to spontaneous swarming events, etc.), but tend to agree with the so what crowd. Need to call it what it is, but on the other hand the study of such biological phenomia is fascinating.

[zenpundit]

Wilf wrote:

So what did compel Hanoi to start peace talks?
By 1972, Nixon is sending more Carriers, mining North Vietnamese harbours and increasing the bombing. NVA desertions reach record levels. Military force is getting Nixon what Nixon wants - flawed as those desires maybe.

My point is that even as late as 1973, the Vietnam War was America's to loose.

While Richard Nixon was a complex and morally flawed man, when he was at his best as a statesman there's much there worthy of admiration and close study. Coming into office having been dealt the worst hand of any president since FDR, he played his cards shrewdly.

The negotiations began in 1968, the Paris Accords were signed in 1973. Who was most effective in using military force to acheive political ends is best judged by which side got most of what they wanted. In my view, what Nixon managed to eke out from Hanoi with punishing bombing campaigns was an unreciprocal release of American POWs and a longer "decent interval" for the GVN than Hanoi might have preferred. That's about it.

Now, Nixon was being actively undercut by liberal Democrats in Congress at every step, some of whom, IMHO, badly wanted the US to lose the war for ideological and partisan reasons and were also nasty and vindictive toward our South Vietnamese allies - a prime example being our sitting Vice-President's whose conduct as a freshman senator toward South Vietnamese refugees was a disgrace. If Nixon had popular support, he might have pressed North Vietnam still harder with military force and gotten a better deal, but his objective was always cutting a deal that could be sold at home, not a victory.