Thanks a lot guys.
David, I'll make good use of SWJ's search feature in the future. Thanks for helping me get some bearings.
Bob, those links you provided are great. In just after a few minutes playing around with those CARL's digital library and the COIN center I've found some good material for my papers as well as some interesting info about some other topics I've been wondering about.
John, I'm trying to heed your words on intellectual fads. That's why I put globalization in quotes. Its dubious term that doesn't really take in account the historical evolution of the world-system. In terms of world trade, the 1990s was merely a return to pre-WWI levels. I think a pendulum shift from protectionism (Fordism) to free-trade (flexible accumulation) is more descriptive of what has actually happened in the economy since the 1970s. At the same time, however, new media and communications technologies have really changed the way humans related to each and that's what I am really grappling with. I think this is where the difference between your hierarchical party systems and a decentered network of shifting alliances among related small groups becomes especially clear. Add to that there there is trend for movements to shift away from holding territory and seizing state power and I think there is a new reality to which counterinsurgency is adapting.
So with all that said, what do you all make of this three part framework I am playing with?
Conventional-establishment approach: (general trends in COIN emerging out of 19th century): Relies on orthodox military strategies and a preference for conventional ground and air operations requiring large deployments of troops, "search-and-destroy," missions, the tactics of "encirclement" and "attrition," which involve, on the one hand, the establishment of large military fortifications (bases, enclaves) connected by “mobile battalions" and, on the other hand, the massive displacement of the civilian population and the creation of free fire zones and resettlement programs. The ultimate goal is to help multiply the political and institutional pressures toward forcing, surprising or luring the guerrillas into conventional showdowns.
Liberal reformist: (the post WWII "golden age" of COIN) An elaboration upon the conventional-establishment approach with methods from intelligence work and special forces: the creation of counterguerrilla guerillas, irregular tactics, the unity of civilian and military roles, psychological warfare, and, above all, an emphasis on lateral intelligence sharing and coordination leading to a decentralization of decision making to lower levels of command. The ultimate goal is to destroy the insurgent political command and control, i.e. the targeting political cadres over and above mere guerrillas.
Netwar: (Emerging in the mid-1970s and coming to fore today): A transformation of the liberal-reformist elaboration to the conventional-establishment approach which attempts to adapt to the new form of movements by further emphasizing the importance of intelligence to determine form of the network organization, its unifying themes and tropes, and identify its critical nodes. Netwar places a greater emphasis on the technologies used to coordinate the networks, technological disruption (cyberwarfare) and looks to technology to reduce causalities of the great power (the further deepening of capital intensive warfare). Ultimate goal is not the complete destruction of networks but their effective disruption by neutralizing key nodes.
Being a good student of sociology, I think of these three trends as ideal-types in the way I think Max Weber originally intended them. That is not as normative standards to which to strive but as generalized trends that can help organize a historical narrative. In other words, I see these three stages as conceptual tools and not as hard and fast truth claims. In any of three stages, elements of the other are visible, not simply as successive elaborations, but as a diverse field where future strategies are prefigured in older forms. For basketball fans, I think its like saying that Oscar Robinson foreshadowed Magic Johnson who, in turn, foreshadowed Lebron James, while still leaving space to make the argument that the Big O was, in fact, the same as and better than "King" James.
For my paper, I am trying to find a good case to test this stages. I'm trying to focus on the shift form the liberal reformist approach to netwar. For my senior thesis I looked counterinsurgency in Indochina from France to the US and I feel pretty comfortable with the elaboration of COIN from the conventional establishment to the liberal reformist. Any comments you like to offer would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time....
Bookmarks