New book release

[MikeF]

The Defense Analysis Department at NPS has a new book to be published in January 2010. Doctrinally, war is looked at linearly as a spectrum of conflict. In SWJ, we discuss aspects of small, medium, and big wars. Others include additional adjectives like hybrid. The professors at DA relook the facets of war as three interlocking circles- intra-state war, civil war, and insurgency. They use Iraq as a case-study to show how OIF evolved through all three circles. While Iraq is the case study, the authors took their own experience and interviewed combat veterans of El Salvador, Colombia, Phillipines, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I haven't read the book, but I participated in different discussions while the Profs put together their ideas. Should be a good read and will hopefully add to our understanding of war.

Mike

The Three Circles of War: Understanding the Dynamics of Conflict in Iraq

Product Description
The conflict in Iraq is characterized by three faces of war: interstate conflict, civil war, and insurgency. The Coalition’s invasion of Iraq in March 2003 began as an interstate war. No sooner had Saddam Hussein been successfully deposed, however, than U.S.-led forces faced a lethal insurgency. After Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq bombed the Shia al-Askari Shrine in 2006, the burgeoning conflict took on the additional element of civil war with sectarian violence between the Sunni and the Shia.

The most effective strategies in a war as complicated as the three-level conflict in Iraq are intertwined and complementary, according to the editors of this volume. For example, the “surge” in U.S. troops in 2007 went beyond an increase in manpower; the mission had changed, giving priority to public security. This new direction also simultaneously addressed the insurgency as well as the civil war by forging new, trusting relationships between Americans and Iraqis and between Sunni and Shia. This book has broad implications for future decisions about war and peace in the twenty-first century.



About the Author
Heather S. Gregg is an assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School’s department of defense analysis. Dr. Gregg is a contributing author of the RAND reports Beyond Al Qaeda (2006) and After Saddam: Prewar Planning and the Occupation of Iraq (2008).

Hy S. Rothstein is a senior lecturer of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. He served in the U.S. Army as a Special Forces officer for more than twenty-six years. He is the author of Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Naval Institute Press, 2006).

John Arquilla is a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is the author of Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy, with David Ronfeldt (RAND, 2002), and Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military (National Book Network, 2008).

[John T. Fishel]

civil war and insurgency differ? Mike, the objective of an insurgency is to overturn the existing order. The objective of a civil war is also to overturn the existing order. Insurgencies take place within a community (writ large or small ie El Salvador, the US, the "global community"), so, too, civil wars. Insurgencies use all types of tactics, operations, strategy from terrorism to conventional force on force conflict; so, too, civil wars. For example, what was Mao's revolution? An insurgency? A civil war? The answer is, "yes." To me, this is a distiction without substance (with all due respect to Hy Rothstein whom I've known since El Salvador days.).

Cheers

JohnT

[M-A Lagrange]

I think that it is dangerous to resume war to just 3 kinds of wars, based on one military adventure and analyzed from only one side.
ICRC came with international conflicts and non international conflicts and that is already complex enough.
I will use the example of Lebanon 2006: a war between a State (Israel) and a militia group (Hezbollah) that took place on the land of a third party: Lebanon State.
Is that an intra state war? Is that a counterinsurgency? Is that a Civil war?
It is already difficult to know if it is an international conflict…
Spanish civil war in the 30th. A group of rebels (the fascists) used the State tool (the regular army) to over come a legal government (the partisans) organized in small armed groups to defend the legitimacy of the law.
If we call it the Spanish civil war, it is because it is a non international conflict between the people of one country and not the consequences of an external intervention, as is and was Iraq.

Wars are more complex than just 2 or 3 boxes. There are means, aim, objectives…
Iraq is a model for counterinsurgencies, yes. And should be analyzed to understand how it is or not part of a regular stabilization operation.

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange

I think that it is dangerous to resume war to just 3 kinds of wars, based on one military adventure and analyzed from only one side.

Well, we can only hope that Iraq/Afghanistan are the outliers of the 21st century, and we limit our future pre-emptive strikes. I can't speak for the authors, but in the preliminary discussions, the Israel/Hizballah conflict would fall into the space where the intra-war circle intersected with insurgency (I think). We'll have to wait and see what the final book looks like. Like I said initially, it should be a good read.

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

[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

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

How do civil war and insurgency differ? Mike, the objective of an insurgency is to overturn the existing order. The objective of a civil war is also to overturn the existing order. Insurgencies take place within a community (writ large or small ie El Salvador, the US, the "global community"), so, too, civil wars. Insurgencies use all types of tactics, operations, strategy from terrorism to conventional force on force conflict; so, too, civil wars. For example, what was Mao's revolution? An insurgency? A civil war? The answer is, "yes." To me, this is a distiction without substance (with all due respect to Hy Rothstein whom I've known since El Salvador days.).

John,

I just wanted to let everyone know about the book. Your question was one of the biggest debates we had, and I'm curious to see how well they address that topic in the book. Personally, I'm a fan of Ken White's description of small, medium, and big wars depending on scope, intensity, and duration.

Mike

[John T. Fishel]

What's the world coming to???

Mike, I didn't mean to come across as taking a shot at the messenger or the authors (I really thought Hy was one of the sharpest of the OPATT's I met in El Sal) but rahter at the notion that this was a useful distinction. How they define the terms will determine whther the ideas are useful. Will their definitions advance or constrain the conversation?

Best

JohnT

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by John T. Fishel

How do civil war and insurgency differ?

I found this in my personal notes from studying Mao's 3 phases and Vietcong's strategy. This is how I describe the difference. I haven't seen any academic literature or military doctrine that counters it.

Phase Zero: Ideological/Revolutionary Movement
Phase One: Insurgency
Phase Two: Insurgency/Civil War
Phase Three: Civil War

I never figured out what 2.5 or the tipping point from insurgency to civil war is.

Any thoughts?

[jmm99]

Study our (US) Civil War - War of Rebellion. War of Northern Agression, or War of Divisions (my preference) - not only as to the events bellum, but also those ante-bellum and post-bellum. You will find your three initial phases ramping up to the main event and the same three phases in reverse ramping down during Reconstruction and after.

Different terminology is used depemding on the author - I'd use different terms for Mao's and Giap's experiences.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

hey Mike,

From my understanding of Mao, guerrila is a phase conducted by partisans or militias. It is very much a leninist approach of war: a small groups take the lead in the name of the people and conduct propaganda operation (including violent ones). At this stage, in Mao approach, you conduct guerrilla operations tagetting symbols and disrupt the opponent supply. Like in Indochina, you break the supply and communication lines and conquiere country side.
Then you go for civil war: a conventional fight between 2 conventional armies. Mao end up in a very conventional form of war, as during China conquest by the communist after the long walk (grande marche). Just like the final stage against the Kuomongtang.

Concerning stabilization and what leads to insurgencies, I may comme with the following reading recommendations:
- Francis Fukuyama, State Building
- Foucault about bio power and panoptic
- Robert Chambers and all the economist of the theory of action (in economic development).

The last ones are not so much useful to anticipate but rather to evaluate the social processes. You also have to be familiar with Rostow as it is the starting point for economic development (take off and linear development theory).

Africa is a good example to understand most of the bad effects that will lead to a deterioration of your efforts... I would recommend:
- The criminalization of the state in Africa, jean-Francois Bayart, Stephen Ellis, Beatrice Hibou.

I like very much criminalization of the state as it gives a real good base to picture all the side effects that most of new national governments are putting in place when artificially (out of the rule of law and democratic way) put in power.

[MikeF]

Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange

hey Mike,

From my understanding of Mao, guerrila is a phase conducted by partisans or militias. It is very much a leninist approach of war: a small groups take the lead in the name of the people and conduct propaganda operation (including violent ones). At this stage, in Mao approach, you conduct guerrilla operations tagetting symbols and disrupt the opponent supply. Like in Indochina, you break the supply and communication lines and conquiere country side. Then you go for civil war: a conventional fight between 2 conventional armies. Mao end up in a very conventional form of war, as during China conquest by the communist after the long walk (grande marche). Just like the final stage against the Kuomongtang.

Excellent points, mon ami. The description that I posted of defining Mao's phases is something that I came up with to try to conceptualize and understand a framework for what I saw in Iraq.* It also seeks to answer the social scientist questions of:

1. Why do men rebel?
2. How do they train, organize, and equip to rebel?
3. How do they rebel?

IMO, Mao's protracted war explains insurgencies, gangs, and social movements IF you take his work broadly and apply it individuallly to each situation. Keep in mind one of the beauty's of Mao's work is that his phases are not sequential, and the enemy can move in and out of phases depending on what the host nation is doing. Additionally, one never has to go to Ph 3 if the political objectives are met. It's probably time for me to write an essay for publication on my thoughts so that it can be peer-reviewed and confirmed/denied.

As JMM pointed out, a thorough explanation would probably be a dissertation. The American Civil War is a great case study to compare and contrast with others. In the case of the Civil War, you have defining moments of transition (Battle at Fort Sumter is clear shift from Ph 2 to Ph 3, and Robert E. Lee's surrender is clear shift from Ph 3 to Ph 2). Other parts are still murky. When did the southern resistance move from Ph 2-1-0? One could argue that it did not fully occur until the 1960s.

Mike

*The Viet Cong's implementation of Mao in the Vietnam country-side helped me understand my enemy in Iraq. The study led to my publication of The Break Point for SWJ.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by MikeF

Doctrinally, war is looked at linearly as a spectrum of conflict. In SWJ, we discuss aspects of small, medium, and big wars. Others include additional adjectives like hybrid. The professors at DA relook the facets of war as three interlocking circles- intra-state war, civil war, and insurgency. They use Iraq as a case-study to show how OIF evolved through all three circles. While Iraq is the case study, the authors took their own experience and interviewed combat veterans of El Salvador, Colombia, Phillipines, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Oh dear and thanks. Just expanded my library shelves from 23m to 34m so I do need to buy more books! - and reading some of them would be good as well!!