Rhodesian COIN (consolidated thread, inc original RLI)

[TheCurmudgeon]

JMA,

I am jumping into this thread late. I wish I had a better understanding of Rhodesia but I don't. I actually think that it would be very interesting to do a paper where Rhodesia and South Africa are compared in their transition from colonial state to "modern" state. But that is for another day.

I have written several pieces for the SWJ. I like this forum because, unlike more academic journals it lets nearly everyone offer their opinions. You do not have to agree. You can violently appose the author's take on the world, but it still gets put out there. I don't think you understand how important this level of unopposed give and take of knowledge is; how rare this is in the world of academics. In addition I get feedback from the audience who has knowledge and experience in the field. This is invaluable to me.

So please, do not take this out on the editors of the SWJ. They are few and they are well meaning. I personally appreciate this forum. Do not attack Dave and others unless you are willing to become an editor for this forum.

I feel that you too, have become personally involved in matters here. It is hard to hear that people who you came to respect and love died for an unjust cause. I don't know how to address that or to deal with the fallacious nature of it. I do know that this site is unique in what it offers. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This site cannot always be great, but it is good. Sometimes, that is the best we can expect.

[JMA]

JMA,

I am jumping into this thread late. I wish I had a better understanding of Rhodesia but I don't. I actually think that it would be very interesting to do a paper where Rhodesia and South Africa are compared in their transition from colonial state to "modern" state. But that is for another day.

If you want a better understanding you would have to read widely. If you do not have the interest to do so better not to involve yourself in making comments and judgements on the Rhodesians and the Rhodesian war.

South Arica and Rhodesia were two totally different situations. South Arica was not a colony - the Union of South Africa came into being in 1910. No comparison of note.

I have written several pieces for the SWJ. I like this forum because, unlike more academic journals it lets nearly everyone offer their opinions. You do not have to agree. You can violently appose the author's take on the world, but it still gets put out there. I don't think you understand how important this level of unopposed give and take of knowledge is; how rare this is in the world of academics. In addition I get feedback from the audience who has knowledge and experience in the field. This is invaluable to me.

I understand the dynamics of this place well - I have been posting here for a few years now - and am happiest posting in the cut-and-thrust environment of the Council. I find much of the content and posts on the Journal to be too pretentious for my taste - this probably because of the low barrier to entry which allows just about any wannabe to try to 'make a name for himself'.

So please, do not take this out on the editors of the SWJ. They are few and they are well meaning. I personally appreciate this forum. Do not attack Dave and others unless you are willing to become an editor for this forum.

They have been sloppy and need to tighten up and apply some discipline. It is quite possible to pass stuff like this garbage from Dzimbanhete around to establish that it has no academic merit and is merely a continuation of propaganda from a bygone era. But yes, the Journal has to be cut some slack on their sloppy editorial implementation while the piece from the Dutch boy that appeared in MR is scandalous.

I feel that you too, have become personally involved in matters here. It is hard to hear that people who you came to respect and love died for an unjust cause. I don't know how to address that or to deal with the fallacious nature of it. I do know that this site is unique in what it offers. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This site cannot always be great, but it is good. Sometimes, that is the best we can expect.

You are missing the point ... My criticism has been aimed at the Dzimbanhete paper that was published by the Journal. Others have turned this into a general thread on Rhodesia with Outlaw 09 freaking out.

Those I served with understand we are caught on the wrong side of history. While here and elsewhere I discuss military aspects and seldom if ever allow myself to get drawn into a political debate. Yes I lost dear friends in the war but I am able to sift through the crap and apply the filter of 'from whence it comes'.

JMA are my real initials and Mark Adams is my real name, I make no secret of my identity and as such don't protect myself with anonymity. I appreciate that serving men may need to be careful if they are commenting on a controversial subject.

Why you feel the need to defend the right of an individual to write garbage and those who publish it is beyond me. Maybe you should discuss this with someone (seriously).

[TheCurmudgeon]

Mark,

In the spirit of honesty my name is Stan Wiechnik. My bio is somewhere on this site. I don't want to go all Voltaire on you, but I do like the free give and take this site offers within the realistic limits of what they can do. I would like to make three points:

1)The editorial staff of this site is limited and they have a lot to do. I know that on one of my articles (Political Legitimacy and Values) it took Dave four days to edit it for presentation on the site. That was simply converting it and correcting some simple errors. I don't know if Dave has any help, but it is a daunting job to edit everything let alone fact checking the information. Dave gets it ready.

2) on other more academic sites there is a bunch of old "know-it-alls" that have their own agenda. What gets by them is limited. Here, the members of the SWJ community are the editors. We read the papers and make comments. If we think something is BS, we can say it for all to see. Two articles after the one on the Rhodesian conflict was a article entitled "The Rule of Law: A Definition in Socio-Political Terms". While good intended, the author could not find the Rule of Law with both hands. Perhaps it should have never been published. But even in that lacking piece of scholarship were nuggets of interest. He is right that the concept of Rule of Law needs to be expanded and addressed in relation to the specific nature of the society that you are trying to apply it in. It is culturally biased to attempt to foist our ideas on the Rule of Law on others. I made my feeling known in the comments after the article. In essence, you and I are the editors of this journal and we do it by the comments we make after the article.

3) related to two, because it offers a cornucopia of articles, some good and some bad, ideas get offered here that could not be offered elsewhere. I have two articles I hope get published because they offer a different way of looking at the problem of COIN. They would never get published elsewhere ... no "academic journal" would take the risk. Here it is and open forum. It is for the members of this small community to do the work of looking at ideas for their practical value.

No, I am not defending a biased article. I can say that, since that article was published here I have learned more about the Rhodesian conflict than I knew before BECAUSE people like you called BS!

I hope you understand my position. I certainly mean no offense or disrespect.

[jmm99]

not a demand or even "suggestion" (since both of you would tell me to go to hell in that case), please take the continued discussion of SWJ Editorial Policy and Freedom of Speech to PMs.

Stan, take a look at Kalyvas' large volume of work. It's very much "We-They" and his level 3 equilibrium is much akin to the situation between equally matched chimp groups and equally matched "primitive" human groups. They confront each other, make a lot of noise and don't kill a lot (relative to unbalanced groups).

Gotta leave for a while.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

I would appreciate to hear what aspects of the Rhodesian Bush War are of interest to (principally the) US reading public (as represented here).

Responses will be much appreciated.

Moderator's Note

Created as a new thread, which hopefully will get attention and responses - one has been moved (ends).

[davidbfpo]

After a long delay (from September 2013) I have finally read the CSI article: 'The Rhodesian African Rifles: The Growth and Adaptation of a Multicultural Regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980'. Well worth reading, although it naturally lacks any contribution by African members, even if there are few references and wartime quotes.

I knew the RAR expanded to three battalions by the end and that many of its recruits came from one particular tribe, where there was a strong family tradition of service. The author notes that whenever the RAR stated it was recruiting large numbers offered to service, even if paid 10% of the white Rhodesian pay scale.

Rightly he asks whether a much larger RAR would have served all Rhodesians better. Majority rule with a largely African military would have been a "game changer".

Link:http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/car...icanRifles.pdf

[JMA]

David,

I know that a paper was put forward in 1968 after Op Caudron to increase the RAR to two or three battalions. It was turned down. Two reasons for it being turned down were that there was no money in the sanctions limited budget to meet the increased cost and secondly a perceived need - at the time - by politicians not to arm to many blacks. This last supposed reason was ridiculous as by the end of the war up to 80% of the security forces were black.

It should be noted that the RAR was unique among colonial African battalions formed by the British in that the (white) officer corps were Rhodesians and not Brit expats doing a few years on service out in the colonies.

This officer corps stayed until the end and were in command when 1RAR put down a ZIPRA insurrection in Bulawayo area called the Battle of Entumbane in 1981. The RAR were loyal to their battalion (and their officers) to the end.

On the other hand elsewhere in Africa as soon as the Brit expat officers left the units became involved in all sorts of skullduggery working on the basis that 'power comes from the barrel of a gun'.

Effectively then the RAR example can not be replicated and training of such forces will inevitably lead to providing better trained troops for future political misuse.

After a long delay (from September 2013) I have finally read the CSI article: 'The Rhodesian African Rifles: The Growth and Adaptation of a Multicultural Regiment through the Rhodesian Bush War, 1965-1980'. Well worth reading, although it naturally lacks any contribution by African members, even if there are few references and wartime quotes.

I knew the RAR expanded to three battalions by the end and that many of its recruits came from one particular tribe, where there was a strong family tradition of service. The author notes that whenever the RAR stated it was recruiting large numbers offered to service, even if paid 10% of the white Rhodesian pay scale.

Rightly he asks whether a much larger RAR would have served all Rhodesians better. Majority rule with a largely African military would have been a "game changer".

Link:http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/car...icanRifles.pdf