They failed to defeat the Kurds and they had it easy with the Shi'ite rising just as the MC had it easy at Fallujah.Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
The Iraqi army did furthermore not do the job (that it did) alone. Saddam had powerful intelligence service(s?). That was crucial for the suppression of the kind of low level resistance that the foreigners faced since 2003.
----------------
About swarming: I'm beyond the typical age for it (I'm 33), but let's out myself as someone who played a bit online, mostly in pvp (player vs player) battles.
The example is very useful in regard to swarming.
#1
The basic mode of pvp is that everyone "fights" as an individual, merely taking into account what others do. A team without voice communication acts often like an animal swarm, pack, herd. They move into position and suddenly one decides to attack and all attack. This sudden decision can also define what target will be attacked or the route or direction of attack.
#2
This becomes much more effective when voice communication is being added. Targets are called, one calls for patience, help is being requested, reports are made and the attack is usually timed.
#3
A team with voice comm and a leader becomes more effective, quicker and less wasteful (in regard to time, firepower, opportunities).
#4
There's also the possibility of a very leader-controlled encounter with a great degree of control. This mode is extremely slow, but it's very capable in predictable, complex situations. It's rarely used in pvp, but very common in pve (player versus environment, that is: against computer-controlled opponents).
#5
Then again a team that has played together for a while can be very different again; voice comm loses relevance because they know what to do, when and how. They can again approach the basic mode of operation; keep eyes open and try to do what's necessary to win. Central control can be reduced to three or fire commands with a total of less than 20 words - in a "fight" of 10-30 minutes.
The effect is usually superior to all previous modes despite the similarity with the first one.
Swarming can be seen as simply "keep eyes open and use your brain" and nothing special. It's quite different from orthodox tactics, though.
Let's call #1 incompetent swarming, #2 leaderless cooperation, #3 mission tactics, #4 order tactics and #5 competent swarming.
I assure you that #3 is superior to #5 in a crisis, but that's the only exception to the otherwise universal superiority of #5 in PvP.
I observed these patterns and results in different games, with German and international (English-speaking) players, over years and with very different game mechanics. Teams were 5 to 40 players strong.
I'm convinced that I observed universal, natural human behaviour patterns (at least for males, age group 16-45).
#5 works usually best. Do not take it lightly, and don't despise it for a superficial similarity to #1. Incompetence is possible in any system.
It may be difficult to extrapolate this stuff to the behaviour of small units or units instead of individuals. Nevertheless, "swarming" is something that we should look at.
History (a trend away from authoritarian control in the Western world) suggests that we probably know enough about leadership by exogenously enforced authority, but probably not enough about decentralized, independent yet cooperative forms of coordination.
A modern military is a bureaucracy. I served long enough in the Bundeswehr to know what this means. Such a bureaucracy has a tendence to develop according to the preferences of the bureaucratic hive mind. That does not need to be optimal, it's certainly averse to self-organisation ("disorder") and there's pretty much a technological lock-in in favour of what we know as orthodox military doctrine, command & control.
Others who do not get "educated" by such a bureaucratic can revert to more "natural" modes of operation. They do not need to break through a technological lock-in barrier. They may actually use methods that are superior in sizeable niches.
Bookmarks