What to Know Before You Go

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

Okay, if we go by that definition, the Special Forces troops engaged in behind the lines actions are criminals, as are partisans. I could also argue, again based on your definition, that George Washington was a criminal as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The point I'm trying to make here is that "actions" are not a thing in and of themselves - they take place in a context of meaning (a point, I should note, that is recognized in most of the English derived legal systems). If we judge solely by actions, then there is no difference between "killing" and "murder".

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

It strikes me that you are actually making my point for me . I never said that kinetic operations must be a "reasoned debate" . "Break the will of another"? What is that but soften them up to accept your "solution".

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

Hmmm, I think I'm going to disagree that a military defeat is a necessary condition here. As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and Pyrrhus, but there ae others.

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.

Your point about undermining narratives is well taken, and it's a good one. Personally, I would argue that the entire concept of "conventional" (as in "conventional warfare") is a narrative, as is rule of law, human rights, etc., etc. (including academic theories ). I think a lot of these narratives underlie military thought. Hmmm, try this for an example - why doesn't the US toss a bunch of nukes into Waziristan? Now, before anyone freaks totally, let me point out that I am not suggesting this at all. I am using it as an example of an underlying (semi-conscious as it were) example of how our perceptions and emotions can be controlled by narratives. Why were nukes used the two times they were dropped and why is it almost impossible for us to even think about using them now?

Anyway, I'm off watching the US primaries. Some inetersting results coming out now.

Marc