Everything You Know About Counterinsurgency History Is (possibly) Wrong!

[Taiko]

And which framework would that be, since there are several that use that term?

1. Power is an individual's capacity to act, but above all to influence the actions or feelings of other individuals.

2. Power is the capacity of a political unit to impose its will on other units.

Behaviour is empirical - you can see it; "power" isn't, it has to be inferred.

Power is empirical, it can be measured by the number of the barrel of guns being pointed at me, or the votes cast in a ballet box. It can be measured by the resources, including technological, a individual or state brings to bear in order to impose its will on another individual or political unit to change their behaviour. This can be measured when the will to resist ceases: they stop shooting at me and blowing stuff up, or accept the vote as valid and prepare for the next election cycle. If this was not the case then the balance of power would be a hollow phrase indeed. The material sources of power are easily measured, the ideational sources of power less so.

Also, at least as far as research methods are concerned, even within a nomonological-deductive framework in the social sciences, you can always exchange the dependant ind independant variables. A strict deductive methodology that doesn't allow that is usually called a theology .

Far from being a theology, a deductive approach can build a phenomenological abstraction which can provide a superior generalization of the cause and effect of the phenomenon being studied. I'll take one CvC for a bus load of Jominis or Bulows any day of the week.

Personally, I think you are confusing the potentiality for power (however that may be defined) with the socio-technical conditions that allow for or inhibit the practice of power.

Not at all. I am speaking truth to power. I am pointing out that your theoretical proposition is itself an exercise in power. The mask of ontology and methodology can only hide an ideology for so long

Sounds like another axiomatic assumption - did you want an "Amen, Brother" after it ?

More seriously, anyone who doesn't think that changes in technology will cause (in the inductive sense I described earlier) changes in behaviour needs to seriously rethink their position.

Hello pot meet the kettle. This statement is a tautology based on a teleological assumption arrived at via induction. You have identified the effect, now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power.

I'll see your Dilthey and raise you an Aron

[marct]

Power is an individual's capacity to act, but above all to influence the actions of feelings of other individuals.

Power is the capacity of a political unit to impose its will on other units.

Oi vey! Talk about a mishmosh! Three different definitions without significatory distinctions? Definitely Foucault mixed with Neitzsche!

Power is empirical it can be measured by the barrel of a gun or the ballet box.

Ridiculous. Those are merely indicators of potential actions (behaviours) and the socio-cultural acceptance of such indicators. If these were indicators of empirical power, then the US would not exist (the Brits had more guns and there was never a vote in the fullest sense in the thirteen colonies for succession).

It can be measured by the resources a individual or state brings to bear in order to impose its will on another individual or political unit. If this was not the case then the balance of power would be a hollow phrase indeed.

If it was the case, then the Taliban would not be operational any more. And "balance of power" is an empty phrase unless you have a better definition of power.

Far from being a theology, a deductive approach can be a phenomenological abstraction which will can provide a superior generalization of the cause and effect of the phenomenon being studied. I'll take one CvC for a bus load of Jomini's any day of the week.

Most theologies are phenomenological abstractions. The generalization might be "superior", then again it may not be. If you look at the history of science, one thing that is pretty clear is that rigid, deductive models that metastesize into theologies are always overthrown by inductive models (check out Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Not at all. I am speaking truth to power.

Always good to see people spouting theological truisms, especially when they are taken from theologies that would disagree totally with what you have said so far - I doubt the Quakers would agree with your definitions of power .

I am pointing out that your theoretical proposition is itself an exercise in power. The mask of ontology and methodology can only hide an ideology for so long

All theoretical models are, loosely speaking, exercises in power. As yto your second statement, right back at ya .

More seriously, anyone who doesn't think that changes in technology will cause (in the inductive sense I described earlier) changes in behaviour needs to seriously rethink their position.

[QUOTE=Taiko;78478This statement is a tautology based on a teleological approach arrived at via induction. You have identified the effect, now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power.[/QUOTE]

You know, I think you need a dictionary! Check out exactly what teleology means:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
Source

What, pray tell, do you see in my statement either implying a metaphysical "purpose" or "design", or a direction to a final result? You, on t'other hand along with many others in the Realist School of IR, automatically assume a telelogical position by asserting the "struggle for power" as both a cause and an end.

The danger with such a position is that you already know the cause - "now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power". That is a theological position.

[Taiko]

Oi vey! Talk about a mishmosh! Three different definitions without significatory distinctions? Definitely Foucault mixed with Neitzsche!

Hardly a mishmosh, more a accurate explanation of reality, rather than a normative descriptive exercise that bleeds the concept of all meaning. You are way off base with Foucault and Neitzschel. I am not a naval gazer, try Machiavelli instead, I'm more interested in praxis.

Ridiculous. Those are merely indicators of potential actions (behaviours) and the socio-cultural acceptance of such indicators. If these were indicators of empirical power, then the US would not exist (the Brits had more guns and there was never a vote in the fullest sense in the thirteen colonies for succession).

One of the problems with an inductive approach. Mistaking specifics for a generalisation. I stand by my statement that the casting of a vote is a direct measurement of power in a democracy. I'll take your point that the amount of force a person/political unit brings to bear in order to impose their will is an indirect measurement of power.

If it was the case, then the Taliban would not be operational any more. And "balance of power" is an empty phrase unless you have a better definition of power.

Ever heard of an organisation called ISI and A'Q? Apparently they have very deep pockets. A fascinating study of how to measure power via the resources an individual or political unit brings to bear in imposing their will. Quite a practical one as well, if this was not the case in reality, then was the attempts by the US to cut off funding to A'Q merely an aberration of my imagination? Or am I being too subjective in accounting for reality in objectively determining the cause as being the struggle for power?

Balance of power is a correct phrase to explain the reality of the role of power in domestic and international politics

Most theologies are phenomenological abstractions. The generalization might be "superior", then again it may not be. If you look at the history of science, one thing that is pretty clear is that rigid, deductive models that metastesize into theologies are always overthrown by inductive models (check out Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Always? So far you have presented a normative argument that bears very little resemblance to reality and confused specifics for generalisations.

Always good to see people spouting theological truisms, especially when they are taken from theologies that would disagree totally with what you have said so far - I doubt the Quakers would agree with your definitions of power .

Don't you mean what you disagree with what I have said so far? Quakers are not trying to impose their ideology on other people.

What, pray tell, do you see in my statement either implying a metaphysical "purpose" or "design", or a direction to a final result? You, on t'other hand along with many others in the Realist School of IR, automatically assume a telelogical position by asserting the "struggle for power" as both a cause and an end.The danger with such a position is that you already know the cause - "now lets finish the proposition by identifying the cause, the struggle for power". That is a theological position.

Hardly. The roads to human power and knowledge lie close together and are nearly the same; nevertheless on account of perniciousness and inveterate habit of dwelling on abstractions, it is safer to begin and raise the sciences from those foundations which have relation to practice, and let the active part be as the seal which prints and determines the contemplative counterpart (Novum Organum). I don't assume I prove via fact that in reality the struggle for power is the cause. I do not arrive at that statement by applying a tautology based on a teleological assumption arrived at via induction. The struggle of power is the cause the ends of that struggle is the imposition of an individual or political units will over another individual or political unit. Considering that is the reality of what you are doing right now, how can you conflate those two distinction as being the same? Just because reality does not conform to your theory does not mean that reality is false, just may be, your theory is false. You should reread Kuhn. I'll save you the trouble of rebutting this statement by rebutting your next statement. Are you making an objective statement that all reality is subjective?

[goesh]

"All the technological innovations you have cited and the 'change in behaviour' they have created are examples of human's attempting to control the minds and actions of other humans, they are examples of aspirations for power. In short the exercise of power (the why) that has been a ongoing condition of human nature's struggle for power and, it will continue, despite the advances in technology (the how)." ((Taiko))

It seems some fundamentals of physics are being ignored in this general discussion of animate and inanimate matter, the sentient and non-sentient, that all matter is energy and vibratory and each exerts an influence upon the other. Physicists have no problem thinking in 4 dimensions but we tend to stay in 3 and pay homeage to our Judeo-Christian heritage admirably, where man (mind) is the center and reigns supreme at all times, rather God-like. Life is just not that static and predictable. In the bush in W. Africa there were a few guys that wore ju-jus for protection from knife attacks. I met one and scoffed at him. He took off his ju-ju and told me to cut his arm, very lightly with my knife, I put a small cut on the inside of his forearm, he held the ju-ju in his hand and told me to try again and with the same general force I did and he was not cut the second time- reminded me of the principle of an antibiotic. All this really means is while some folks extrapolate this out to the Nth degree of probabilitiy/rationality and accountability in 3 dimensional thinking, others generate X amount of matter and thought interactions that create, grow, stagnate and decline (4) , equally. That's my tangent for the day.

[rborum]

Consistent with Gumz' concern about not pigeonholing conflicts.....

"Looking at irregular warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet kind of warfare is an outdated concept," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Conflict in the future will slide up and down a scale, both in scope and in lethality."

Might a Hoffman-esque Hybrid framework be replacing the "IW" brand?

[Bob's World]

Consistent with Gumz' concern about not pigeonholing conflicts.....

"Looking at irregular warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet kind of warfare is an outdated concept," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Conflict in the future will slide up and down a scale, both in scope and in lethality."

Might a Hoffman-esque Hybrid framework be replacing the "IW" brand?

All war is, and always has been "hybrid" under the definitions proposed by Mr. Hoffman and his ilk. Simiarly we have always needed to be prepared to deal with a wide range of conflicts that fall across a broad range of lethality as indicated by Secretary Gates.

To me, the only form of war that could be described as "hybrid" is a true Civil War; as it combines aspects of State vs State conflict with aspects of Populace vs State Conflict. These two types of war while similar on their face or to the rifleman in the frontlines; are extremely different in their strategic construct. Understanding these differences helps shape effective policies, strategies, campagin plans, operations, tactics, etc for a true success.

To say that state actors will also employ para-military elements, or enlist the support of other states, tribes, clubs or individuals who they think might help their cause is as old as warfare itself.

This goes to an earlier position I have made on here. We conducted Cold War operations (VERY irregular in the history of man) for so long we came to see that model as the norm, or "regular": We have been struggling to name everything since as some type of "irregular", be it 4GW, hybrid, Global insurgency, etc. i.e. "current warfare is only irregular if the Cold War was 'regular'"

I understand exactly what Secretary Gates means when he makes statements like that; but I also disagree with the line of logic that the "experts" have been handing him. It shouldn't bug me, but it does.

[William F. Owen]

"Looking at irregular warfare as being one kind of conflict and conventional warfare as a discreet kind of warfare is an outdated concept," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "Conflict in the future will slide up and down a scale, both in scope and in lethality."

When in the entire history of warfare, were there ever discrete forms of warfare? It's not "outdated." Such a time never existed!

Might a Hoffman-esque Hybrid framework be replacing the "IW" brand?

Likewise, Hybrid warfare has always existed. Frank Hoffman is using Hybrid as a way of forcing people to think. It's like putting training wheels on a kid's bike for folks not comfortable with being outside the box they created - and as such is useful, if limited to that purpose.

[Bob's World]

Oh, and for those who would like me to begin a thread to further explore the concept of employing "Deterrence of Irregular Threats" as a new and more effective focus for the "Son of GWOT," I will gladly do so, but am busy tuning that same concept up to set on the SOCOM J5's desk and to inject into the QDR.

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

To me, the only form of war that could be described as "hybrid" is a true Civil War; as it combines aspects of State vs State conflict with aspects of Populace vs State Conflict. These two types of war while similar on their face or to the rifleman in the frontlines; are extremely different in their strategic construct. Understanding these differences helps shape effective policies, strategies, campagin plans, operations, tactics, etc for a true success.

How would you define a "true" civil war? Would you hold that it requires a state framework, or would a non-state framework work as well. I'm asking because in some ways a large part of the conflct in Afghanistan can be described as a Pashtun civil war analogically quite similar to the English civil war.

Cheers,

Marc

[Bob's World]

Hi Bob's World,



How would you define a "true" civil war? Would you hold that it requires a state framework, or would a non-state framework work as well. I'm asking because in some ways a large part of the conflct in Afghanistan can be described as a Pashtun civil war analogically quite similar to the English civil war.

Cheers,

Marc

Because one segment of the populace broke off and formed a new state and engaged on state on state conflict; but with the underlying unescapable fact that both separate states once were one, and success for the north was to make them one once again.

Perhaps Vietnam as well, as it too was one state broken into two, that fought as two states while also having that same inescapable fact that it was once one. In that regard, come to think of it, the South in Vietnam was much like the South in America. They fought to remain separate, while the north fought to preserve the union.

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

Because one segment of the populace broke off and formed a new state and engaged on state on state conflict; but with the underlying unescapable fact that both separate states once were one, and success for the north was to make them one once again.

I get the impression that you would consider a contiguous geographic area as a requirement as well. Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.

Perhaps Vietnam as well, as it too was one state broken into two, that fought as two states while also having that same inescapable fact that it was once one. In that regard, come to think of it, the South in Vietnam was much like the South in America. They fought to remain separate, while the north fought to preserve the union.

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states? How would you characterize a civil war where the breakup of the larger state is not a desired end state? Or one where the geographic boundaries of a state are not recognized by one party in the fight?

[William F. Owen]

Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.....

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states?

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

[Entropy]

What about East Pakistan?

[Bob's World]

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

I Iraq we had all three types of insurgency going on at once; in Afghanistan we have at least two; and anyplace that the US goes there will be causation (though it may not manifest into actual conflict) for a resistence insurgency. How we act can temper the effects of that causation, but only our departure can remove the causation.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

I agree, it was over the type of government which, I would argue, is what is going on in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban want one type of government, NATO wants another type and many individual people and groups want still another type. Personally, I don't think that a civil war requires the creation of separate successor states - I view that as a sub-set of civil wars.

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

I agree as to the multiplicity of causes, but I'll disagree with you on whether or not that gets thing further forward . If the desired end state of one group is to create a successor state, then we can pretty much predict what components of their strategy will be (generally defensive militarily, although a TKO strike is a definite option; a long war with an emphasis on diplomatic recognition; etc.). The same holds true for a war about forms of governance, although the general strategy would be somewhat different and include a much greater degree of education / indoctrination (IO, PR, etc.) and much less reliance on diplomancy.

[Bob's World]

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

Mr. Webster may differ, but that's how I see it.

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

Ahh, okay, I can live with that type of differentiation. Personally, I would call your first two types "civil wars", but that's a case of using a different signifier for similar concepts - a moot point.

[marct]

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

Not quite, they were both "the state". It hinged on a question of the source of legitimacy - the divine right of the King or the actions of a rump parliament.

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

Then by those definitions, the English Civil War was a civil war of the second type (two organized groups). Both sides had roughly equal legal legitimacy (or illegitimacy - take your pick).

[William F. Owen]

Given this, I stand by my position that the English example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

How so? According to the King, the Parliament rebelled against him. According to the Parliament, he exceeded his authority and sought power he was not entitled to.

Given that, who is the insurgent?

....and what about La Violencia?

[Bob's World]

How so? According to the King, the Parliament rebelled against him. According to the Parliament, he exceeded his authority and sought power he was not entitled to.

Given that, who is the insurgent?

....and what about La Violencia?

So, if the two organized groups are within the government it is "civil" war. I can certainly buy into that.

I'm not sure what to call it when the two organized groups are outside the government and battling each other, but not the government; not very "civil"; but perhaps more than a feud...