Quote Originally Posted by rborum View Post
William - you noted "The population can only share your political aim. They can't share your military aim." That's a useful point, though distinguishing among them, I suppose can be a bit tricky.
The political aim is the outcome as in who will be in authority over them. The French didn't worry too much about the 1,000's of French civilians killed by the Allies, because it meant a French Government.
I understand the arguments for cultural sensitivity and against promiscuous killing. I am trying to understand, though, whether - and if so how - the "utility of force" (as Clausewitz puts it) is variable not only across conflicts, but also across different COIN campaigns as well.
What's the difference between conflicts and COIN? None as far as I can tell.
Stephen Biddle insightfully (I think) observes that the character of Maoist-type "wars of the people" may differ from conflicts where the counterinsurgency is driven by a third party nation. Rupert Smith describes many post-Cold War conflicts as "Wars amongst the people."
Much as I like him personally, Rupert Smith is not on my reading list. Again, forget the "war amongst the people." That's just a condition, which may or may not be present. It's nothing to do with the end state.
Is the reason for disagreement about the proper role/degree/utility of force in Afghanistan, for example, because of differences in how we view the nature of the conflict? Differences in how we view the nature of the adversary? Differences in how we view our role as counterinsurgents? Some combination of the above?
In my opinion the disagreements are because we don't agree on how to apply military force to gain a political objective.