Brother,Originally Posted by William F. Owen
As most of the time, violently agreeing. I was taking issue more with some of the other comments. My bad for being less than clear.
However, with the compressed 24/7 news cycle, the interweb and all the other issues we see, could we not say Lyndie England (poor sap/poorly led) was a strategic PFC? Lasting political damage? Worldwide perception impact? Big hit to moral high ground?
You can't go on being a Guards officer if you start making incisive and intelligent observations like that! Rupert and Tarquin will get very miffed!
....but yes, this is the nature of the debate. My points are:
a.) Lyndie England cannot loose the war for you.
b.) What she did will still have the same effect, with or without the internet or 24 hour news - Remember this?
or
Neither picture or the stories surrounding them had strategic effect. The only thing that generally creates strategic effect is the reporting of something strategically significant - The Sinking of the Lusitania, being a good example, and 911 being another. Both were deemed indicative of a collective intent, with political aims. Lyndie England type issues are very different.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Now now...when Rupert and Tarquin are sober they're actually quite bright! More importantly, they have decent estates for their fat old company commander to shoot upon - so cease your Light Division wibbling! (Not so different from a number of Riflemen I know, come to think...)You can't go on being a Guards officer if you start making incisive and intelligent observations like that! Rupert and Tarquin will get very miffed!
....but yes, this is the nature of the debate. My points are:
a.) Lyndie England cannot loose the war for you.
b.) What she did will still have the same effect, with or without the internet or 24 hour news - Remember this?
or
Neither picture or the stories surrounding them had strategic effect. The only thing that generally creates strategic effect is the reporting of something strategically significant - The Sinking of the Lusitania, being a good example, and 911 being another. Both were deemed indicative of a collective intent, with political aims. Lyndie England type issues are very different.
And I disagree! I think all your examples are have strategic effect - its a question of degree. The Vietnam pics most definately had a negative impact on the perception of the war, the opinion (right or otherwise) of the legitimacy of the US. And in all these things, Legitimacy, and the perception of it - is the most important strategic factor of all. US (IMHO) came unstuck in Vietnam because they were backing a loser - Govt of SVN couldn't/wouldn't provide for its people in an equitable way - VC notwithstanding (query Karzai and Kabul...oi vay...)
Collective intents? Political aims? Again all relative. What about that nutter who plugged Archduke Ferdinand and lit the fuse for WW1. Was he part of an organised collective that wanted World conflict? Or an aggreived Balkan who just wanted to lash out at the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
I think enough Lindie Englands probably can lose the war for you. The local national populace get incensed and support the insurgent more. The home base loses faith and want out. The Allies have even more of an excuse to break out their inhalers and run for their immodium tablets. And the poor bloody infantry groan, wait for the incoming, and count down the days until the RIP, and subsequent PTSD.
I thinks are more complex (and yet more simple) than the old state on state 'big event' paradigm.
If that were true 9/10ths of Africa would have had an effective insurgency by now. There is a long history of goverments that have existed only to better themselves at the expense of people, and this has a long history of mostly acceptance by the population. This good goverment as a form of COIN is a very new concept and has hardly been proved. I tend to question it's effectivness myself
Reed
When the Cold War was raging, much of Africa was indeed riven by insurgency. And many of those insurgencies were fuelled by bad governance- expertly stoked by communist agent provocateurs and advisors.
Africa is difficult - most African 'countries' barely warrant the name, God help them - arbitrary colonial lines across the continent, with no development from ethnic, geographical or political lines. And most are indeed riven with internal conflict and insecurity - largely based on the reasons stated.
Well we could put in another way, and that is these pictures became emblematic of US Strategic failure, but I can't see how a picture of very minor tactical actions can inflate the worth of the tactical action.And I disagree! I think all your examples are have strategic effect - its a question of degree.
Whose legitimacy. Legitimacy, as used by the 4GW crowd is an entirely cultural construct. Legitimacy is really only relevant in that it causes political action.The Vietnam pics most definately had a negative impact on the perception of the war, the opinion (right or otherwise) of the legitimacy of the US. And in all these things, Legitimacy, and the perception of it - is the most important strategic factor of all.
How many is enough?I think enough Lindie Englands probably can lose the war for you.
Seriously, yes you are correct, but only when they cause your side to change the policy or the other sides leadership change their intent.
Example: The PIRA killing Lord Mountbatten caused not a blip in UK policy to Ulster, yet there was massive public outrage.
Now did the Sergeants Affair get the UK to leave Palestine. Some say it did, but the evidence is doubtful.
Basically the argument that some News coverage, of a purely tactical act, can alter the course of a conflict means strategic and operational planning is useless since it has to account for a degree of prediction that is essentially impossible. What is more there is no evidence from history that this is the case.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was strategically significant. If the nutty Balkan has shot the Archduke's French Bulldog, "Scipio" no one would have cared... except the British....
War has always been infinitely complex. It cannot become more complex.I thinks are more complex (and yet more simple) than the old state on state 'big event' paradigm.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks