Hybrid Warfare (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

Maneuver warfare is usually terrain oriented, but can be force oriented, but uses speed and firepower as both security and to achieve localized advantages over one's opponent.

Well that's an interesting observation, but it's very different from the concept of maneuver warfare advocated by the US Army and USMC. At the higher Conceptual level, MW plays very well in COIN. The reality, as well all know is entirely different.

MW may have had a purpose once, but what that was is no longer clear.

[Bob's World]

Well that's an interesting observation, but it's very different from the concept of maneuver warfare advocated by the US Army and USMC. At the higher Conceptual level, MW plays very well in COIN. The reality, as well all know is entirely different.

MW may have had a purpose once, but what that was is no longer clear.

4. Employment of forces in the operational area through movement in combination with fires to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission. See also mission; operation.

[William F. Owen]

4. Employment of forces in the operational area through movement in combination with fires to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission. See also mission; operation.

Well aware... but this is where I am coming from

[Bob's World]

Well aware... but this is where I am coming from

This one line says a great deal: "Success in battle is based on breaking the enemies will to resist."

I would just add from my perspective as a guy who spends a lot of time and energy working on and thinking about populace based conflicts that while your line is right on in state on state conflicts, I would offer a slight but important modification for populace based conflicts:

"Success in battle is based on breaking the enemies desire to resist." If I simply crush the people's will, they will be back with a vengence. If I defeat the violence and also take away the cause for trending to violence in the first place, I achieve an enduring peace.

States can come back at you too of course, but we have better mechanisms for detering state conflict than we do popular conflict.

[William F. Owen]

"Success in battle is based on breaking the enemies desire to resist." If I simply crush the people's will, they will be back with a vengence. If I defeat the violence and also take away the cause for trending to violence in the first place, I achieve an enduring peace.

...or removing the enemies reason to resist? Breaking people's Will works, as well as anything else. It is the cause of military activity. It's why we have armies. Reason falls outside the scope of military thought.

So It works for a generation? Sometimes more. Sometimes less. Nothing lasts forever. King Hussein of Jordan eradicated the PLO in the Jordan in 1970. They never came back. Yes, he seceded the West Bank in 1988, but the point is, the "reason" is sometimes, not negotiable, so an enduring peace is not a solution. A period of a better peace may be achievable.

[Bob's World]

The difference between being an Idealist in the real world and a realist in the real world, perhaps? I could tone down my positions to be more realist, but I think it is important to set the bar high, even if not achieved, there is great value in making the effort.

Often what is seen as impossible one day, becomes very possible the next with a simple change of perspective. For example, I saw an interesting piece on TV where an archeologist has sound evidence to support his theory that the Wailing Wall is actually a remnant of a Pagan Roman Temple (matchs exactly plans to another roman temple elsewhere) and that the Dome of the Rock is not built on the Temple, but rather beside it. It would take some digging to prove, and that is not allowed. How would that change the equation. If these structures were co-existing side by side and not either or, perhaps the people could move in that direction as well.

Of course no Jew wants to learn that he has been worshiping at a pagan Roman wall all these generations...

Point being though, if they could redefine the issues, they could redefine the conflict. To simply keep fighting over the same perspective will never resolve the problem. Oh well, won't solve this one here.

[William F. Owen]

Of course no Jew wants to learn that he has been worshiping at a pagan Roman wall all these generations...

Eyh... Not so bad. I'd be intrigued as to the evidence. THE Wall is actually the face of a platform, on which the Second Temple stood. It's known not to be part of the actual Temple itself, and yes the Dome of the Rock is built over the rock, so that was not inside the Second Temple.

Point being though, if they could redefine the issues, they could redefine the conflict. To simply keep fighting over the same perspective will never resolve the problem. Oh well, won't solve this one here.

For sure. Wanna send the girls home and go get a beer?