Page 45 of 54 FirstFirst ... 354344454647 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 900 of 1063

Thread: COIN Counterinsurgency (merged thread)

  1. #881
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Case by case,

    is what my analysis came down to:

    4. Definitions in this area (e.g., "group") can't be precise; and matters have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
    The "Fuzzstick-Rufftough" event is a conflation of a number of "border incident" case studies which CLAMO and the ICRC have put together over the past two decades, with which everyone is probably familiar. The bottom line is that "war" and "armed conflicts" are a sticky wicket militarily, as well as legally.

    I wouldn't necessarily "extrapolate that if Fuzzstick and Ruffstuff were the heads of two rival street gangs and they engaged in the same type of activity it would still be war." Note that I understand your definition and its application #1, but that there are at least two more viewpoints to consider #2 & #3:

    1. The Fuzzstick-Ruffstuff event meets the definition of "war" as proposed in the quote.

    2. Strachan probably would find this "border skermish" not to be "war", although his five "rules" do not explicitly explain why this is so.

    3. The Fuzzstick-Ruffstuff incident might well fall into the category of a limited "armed conflict", with application of some "in war" rules.
    On the other hand, I wouldn't exclude inclusion of urban gangs within a "war" or "armed conflict" paradigm based on the particular case. Again, all of us are familiar with the work done by Max Manwaring and John Sullivan.

    As to the "political", my views correspond much more to those of Bill Moore and Steve Blair; though I have to correct Bill on one point:

    Mike provided a legal definition, but in most of the non-Western world people have little use for our legal definitions.
    I believe Bill is talking about this definition I quoted (#53):

    "deadly or potentially deadly organized violence committed by a subset of one group, whose actions are morally sanctioned by that group, against a discrete and identifiable other group with a specific objective or goal." The motivation need not be "political".
    but which comes from this prior post from TheCurmudgeon (#52):

    For purposes of examining the motives behind war I defined it as "deadly or potentially deadly organized violence committed by a subset of one group, whose actions are morally sanctioned by that group, against a discrete and identifiable other group with a specific objective or goal." The motivation need not be "political".
    All of this is kind of funny to me; but in any event no one was putting a legal definition on the table.

    As to hunter-gatherers, one has a wealth of seriously conflicting works to choose from. That is an area of biology in which I have an interest. Maybe I'll start a thread someday if and when I open up some very old mental file cabinets.

    In the meantime, you all can watch and enjoy these; and tell me whether incidents of "war" are shown:

    Gang of Chimps Attack and Kill a Lone Chimp

    Chimp Patrol

    Violent chimpanzee attack - Planet Earth - BBC wildlife

    Chimps vs red colobus monkeys - BBC wildlife

    Baboons vs chimpanzees - BBC wildlife

    Chimpanzee attacks in Florida (Documentary)

    BBC Natural World - Chimps of the Lost Gorge

    And our next installment will be chimp insurgency strategies by someone other than me.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 10-03-2013 at 09:34 PM.

  2. #882
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    As to hunter-gatherers, one has a wealth of seriously conflicting works to choose from. That is an area of biology in which I have an interest. Maybe I'll start a thread someday if and when I open up some very old mental file cabinets.
    Just some snippage from that post, but I think it's also risky to lump "hunter-gatherers" into a single group like that. If you were to look at Vietnam, and the Montagnard population in particular, you find some fairly wide variations between the tribes regarding social practices and even their warlike propensities...yet they're all considered either "hunter-gatherer" or practitioners of slash-and-burn agriculture. Even a comparison of two more traditional Plains tribes (Kiowa and Comanche) turn up some differences in warlike outlook (some of the clans/bands within the Comanche structure alone had distinct variations in terms of their propensity to raid or make war).

    We ignore the social/cultural landscape at our peril...and I'm not talking that nifty pie-charted landscape beloved by social scientists. Bob may be correct in stating that insurgency rises from governance, but governance rises from the social-political swamp that holds groups.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  3. #883
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Just some snippage from that post, but I think it's also risky to lump "hunter-gatherers" into a single group like that. If you were to look at Vietnam, and the Montagnard population in particular, you find some fairly wide variations between the tribes regarding social practices and even their warlike propensities...yet they're all considered either "hunter-gatherer" or practitioners of slash-and-burn agriculture. Even a comparison of two more traditional Plains tribes (Kiowa and Comanche) turn up some differences in warlike outlook (some of the clans/bands within the Comanche structure alone had distinct variations in terms of their propensity to raid or make war).

    We ignore the social/cultural landscape at our peril...and I'm not talking that nifty pie-charted landscape beloved by social scientists. Bob may be correct in stating that insurgency rises from governance, but governance rises from the social-political swamp that holds groups.
    I don't think any of the groups in Vietnam would be considered hunter-gatherers. The number of groups around today are very limited. There are a number of horticulturalists, or slash-and-burn groups as you refer to them, but they have a different dynamic.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #884
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Did I "lump" hunter-gatherers into anything ?

    No, I didn't; and in fact I stated the works in that field are "seriously conflicting" - and again, I do things on a case by case basis.

    If you have an argument about hunter-gatherers, take it up with The Curmudgeon who raised the topic in post #54:

    So, if war is political, what do we call it when pre-political hunter-gatherer tribes engage in organized violence - a rugby match? The reason we call it political is because that is how we see the world.
    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 10-03-2013 at 10:42 PM.

  5. #885
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    No, I didn't; and in fact I stated the works in that field are "seriously conflicting" - and again, I do things on a case by case basis.

    If you have an argument about hunter-gatherers, take it up with The Curmudgeon who raised the topic in post #54:



    Regards

    Mike
    I know you didn't, but you conveniently used the term close to my posting string. Didn't mean to imply that you were doing any lumping.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #886
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Civil-Military Continuum

    I'm filing this post since TheCurmudgeon mentioned my continuum idea, which was expressed in a prior post, in my words (post #53):

    One might formulate something of a continuum (roughly based on the degree of violence sustained by, and the size of, the groups involved) reflecting the balance between political action and military action. For example, in an all-out nuclear war, political action would seem immaterial. In the early stages of an insurgency, the incumbant should be looking more at political action than military action. State to state conventional warfare would be in between.
    This is a hypothesis (that means it is untested and is offered as something to be researched), expressed in a number of posts in the thread, Applying Clausewitz to Insurgency: We have a civil-military continuum; Co-belligerency; Transition Zone; and Transition Zone - Continuum.

    In graphic form, it looks like this; but there's a lot of text explaining it in the four posts, which I'm not going to regurgitate:



    Takio was the only one who was interested enough in the hypothesis to ask if he could use it ("yes"). I don't know whether he did anything with it on a professional level.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 10-03-2013 at 11:29 PM.

  7. #887
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Mike, question on the continuum.

    In the section marked Military Struggle you indicate that it is controlled by the Law of War. This would indicate a level of control by each of the two combatants (or parties if this were a non-military struggle). Is there a point on your continuum where that level of control breaks down, where chaos reigns, or is that outside the sphere of this chart?
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  8. #888
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I know you didn't, but you conveniently used the term close to my posting string. Didn't mean to imply that you were doing any lumping.
    Hunter-gatherer was used by me. I don't like the term but it is one that most people understand (to a point). I prefer Family-Level Foragers as used by Earle and Johnson in "The Evolution of Human Societies". These are relatively small groups (about one-hundred) who consist of a small cluster of related families. They have no real political structure. The IKung are probably the most famous of such groups but the American Shoshone would qualify when first encountered by Europeans. People who study war in these groups tend to point to the Yanomamo and Napoleon Chagnon but much of his work has been called into question. The allegations were that he staged many of the incidents of combat that he filmed.

    In any case these groups are generally considered egalitarian, but they are not quite at that level.

    In egalitarian societies such as the !Kung's, group activities unfold, plans are made, and decisions are arrived at - all apparently without clear focus of authority or influence. Closer examination, however, reveals that patterns of leadership do exist. When a water hole is mentioned, a group living near there is ofter referred to by the !Kung by a single man's or woman's name: for example, Bon!a's camp at Xangwa or Kxarun!a's camp at Bate. These individuals are often older people who have lived there the longest or who have married into the owner group, and who have some personal qualities worthy of note as a speaker, and arguer, a ritual specialist, or a hunter. In group discussions these people may peak out more than others, may be differed to by others, and one gets the feeling that their opinion holds a bit more weight than the options of other discussants. Whatever their skill, !kung leaders have no formal authority. They can only persuade, but never enforce their will upon others
    The Evolution of Human Societies, p.80.

    I term these groups "pre-political" because they have no formal authority or even institutionalized influence. Their age and their accomplishments are all they can draw on to influence the minds of other members who are free to agree or disagree. There is no alpha male or alpha female. Clearly, however, they are not "pre-social" and they have a group dynamic that holds them together.

    As the groups get larger and they start to have possessions like herds or they become tied to the land as with agrarian cultures the dynamics change. Big Men who control resources start to become the central figures although age still matters. THe control over resources is where I tend to draw the line between pre and post political entities. But that is just me.

    Technically speaking the Indians of the Pacific Northwest are considered hunter-gatherers, gathering fish. But they do this in settlements of several hundred to several thousand and their leaders control the resources of the group. So while their lifestyle qualifies them as hunter-gatherers (and they are considered complex hunter-gatherers) they are beyond the level of the family-level foragers and clearly have a political structure.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 10-04-2013 at 12:52 AM.

  9. #889
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Curm...

    If you haven't done so, slog through the four posts dealing with my "continuum hypothesis" - which should tell you what it is and what it isn't. Your precise question:

    In the section marked Military Struggle you indicate that it is controlled by the Law of War. This would indicate a level of control by each of the two combatants (or parties if this were a non-military struggle). Is there a point on your continuum where that level of control breaks down, where chaos reigns, or is that outside the sphere of this chart?
    Your first two sentences are not within my hypothesis. Please note that this is a simple Euclidian, two-dimentional chart of straight lines. The development of the chart can be followed in the four posts. There are three material inputs by Bill Moore cited in the posts.

    BTW: in reality, the lines would be non-linear (even in a two-dimensional presentation). In this simple sketch, I'm charting the amount of violence (not exactly defined; it's some sort of power relationship) vs. the relative spectrum (again not defined by formula) from Utopian Peace to Absolute War. Those are the x-y axes. One could add a z-axis (for "control" or whatnot) and the graph would become three-dimensional.

    In the real world, we live in a non-Euclidian space-time continuum, where non-space-time variables would have to appear as added dimensions. E.g., an 8-dimension graph would be needed for violence, peace-war spectrum, control axes for A and B groups + the space-time continuum. Moreover, each case is unique. I claim no general rule from which solutions for wars (armed conflicts) can be deduced.

    Now back to the simple chart. The Military Struggle is not "controlled" by the Laws of War. The Laws of War "apply" because the Military Struggle exists. The Rule of Law "applies" because the Political Struggle exists. The Transition Zone exists where the Military Struggle and Political Struggle are so intertwined that choice between the Laws of War and the Rule of Law is not clear.

    Polarbear1605 and I would select the Laws of War in most cases in the Transition Zone because of an a priori "argument" - in our opinion, it protects our troops better. The "international community" would go the other way in many cases, again by their own a priori argument(s).

    As to the underlying premise (not shown in the chart, but explained in the four posts), it's another hypothesis:

    Group A: its politics > its policy > its Political Struggle and its Military Struggle actions;

    interacting with

    Group B: its politics > its policy > its Political Struggle and its Military Struggle actions;

    "effect" (I'd not say "control", since other factors can also have material "effects") the level of violence and the peace-war spectrum.
    This is based on Saint Carl, who did not recognize any material effect of law on war and warfare. "Law" doesn't control anything in the chart, except itself; and is in any event an a priori choice. So, you could eliminate "Rule of Law" and "Laws of War" from the chart and insert two different non-legal doctrines.

    This "continuum hypothesis" may have some usefulness as an illustrative tool. Of course, it can be misread or overread. That's true of any chart. Once, I used the standard CLAMO three-ring intersection chart (military considerations, political considerational, legal considerations) to explain what goes into ROEs; and someone commented that he didn't really understand the "targeting system" I had presented - and he thought it needed work.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 10-04-2013 at 02:24 AM.

  10. #890
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Technically speaking the Indians of the Pacific Northwest are considered hunter-gatherers, gathering fish. But they do this in settlements of several hundred to several thousand and their leaders control the resources of the group. So while their lifestyle qualifies them as hunter-gatherers (and they are considered complex hunter-gatherers) they are beyond the level of the family-level foragers and clearly have a political structure.
    You might check out some of Leslie White’s stuff. He concentrates on the ratio of energy input to energy output rather than worrying a typology to death.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  11. #891
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I term these groups "pre-political" because they have no formal authority or even institutionalized influence. Their age and their accomplishments are all they can draw on to influence the minds of other members who are free to agree or disagree. There is no alpha male or alpha female. Clearly, however, they are not "pre-social" and they have a group dynamic that holds them together.

    As the groups get larger and they start to have possessions like herds or they become tied to the land as with agrarian cultures the dynamics change. Big Men who control resources start to become the central figures although age still matters. THe control over resources is where I tend to draw the line between pre and post political entities. But that is just me.
    Here is a link to the skeleton of a presentation I gave a few years back that touches on social evolution theory, should you be interested.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  12. #892
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Mike,

    In your graph in the left bottom corner is a condition that indicates that there is a level of violence but armed military action is not yet started. What do you see occurring in that space? Is this simply protests and political rhetoric or could an un-coalesced insurgency be included in that period.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  13. #893
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    As the groups get larger and they start to have possessions like herds or they become tied to the land as with agrarian cultures the dynamics change. Big Men who control resources start to become the central figures although age still matters. THe control over resources is where I tend to draw the line between pre and post political entities. But that is just me.
    Except that it's not all about control of resources. I can point to at least two individuals who had considerable authority within their respective Native American tribes who controlled little or nothing in terms of physical resources (in fact both seemed to go out of their way to avoid controlling resources). My point in bringing that up dovetails to a degree with ganulv's comment about beating typologies to death. It's more important to understand how a particular society or group works than know what broad classification it might fit into (IMO, anyhow).
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  14. #894
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Mike,

    In your graph in the left bottom corner is a condition that indicates that there is a level of violence but armed military action is not yet started. What do you see occurring in that space? Is this simply protests and political rhetoric or could an un-coalesced insurgency be included in that period.
    It could also represent the "fundraising" phase (as put forward by Carlos Marighella). He contended that insurgent groups (urban guerrillas in his language) needed to raise operational funds by robbing banks, kidnappings, and other activities calculated to generate operational funds.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  15. #895
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Except that it's not all about control of resources. I can point to at least two individuals who had considerable authority within their respective Native American tribes who controlled little or nothing in terms of physical resources (in fact both seemed to go out of their way to avoid controlling resources). My point in bringing that up dovetails to a degree with ganulv's comment about beating typologies to death. It's more important to understand how a particular society or group works than know what broad classification it might fit into (IMO, anyhow).
    As Bob's World has already noted, and I have to agree with, definitions and typologies both illuminate and constrain.

    Perhaps Platonic or Weberian” Ideal Types” would be a better way to categorize politics – it can have certain characteristics in greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it is a useless concept – going back to my quasi-tautology that saying that war is political is like saying that war is conducted by humans.

    Speaking of Weber, the influence described in the !Kung example I equate to charisma, which I would assume you could agree could be a description of what your two leaders wielded (instead of control over resources). I think that level of natural influence is different than institutional influence that I would equate with politics. Perhaps politics is more than influence, it is authority which infers control. I don’t know.

    In the end though, you are correct. However you describe or define it, understanding why your enemy is acting as they are, their dynamics of influence, authority, and/or control within that society, provides you the ability to tailor your response.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 10-04-2013 at 04:33 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #896
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    As Bob's World has already noted, and I have to agree with, definitions and typologies both illuminate and confine.

    Perhaps Platonic or Weberian” Ideal Types” would be a better way to categorize politics – it can have certain characteristics in greater or lesser degree. Perhaps it is a useless concept – going back to my quasi-tautology that saying that war is political is like saying that war is conducted by humans.

    Speaking of Weber, the influence described in the !Kung example I equate to charisma, which I would assume you could agree could be a description of what your two leaders wielded (instead of control over resources). I think that level of natural influence is different than institutional influence that I would equate with control. Perhaps politics is more than influence, it is authority AND control. I don’t know.
    One leader (Roman Nose) certainly had that charisma, but the other (Crazy Horse) didn't seem to...or didn't use his in the same way. Both exerted influence over younger warriors through their conduct in combat but didn't necessarily have any wider influence (Roman Nose did, but again Crazy Horse seemed to avoid it and had a mixed reputation within the wider Sioux nation).

    I would say that politics at any level (but especially at the group/social level and context) is certainly about influence, authority (of some sort) AND control. How they intersect, and the tensions arising from those intersections, may be one of the causes of external conflict you're looking for.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  17. #897
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    As the groups get larger and they start to have possessions like herds or they become tied to the land as with agrarian cultures the dynamics change. Big Men who control resources start to become the central figures although age still matters.
    When you’re talking about the Big Man you’re talking about New Guinea and concepts derived from ethnography of that region. Paul Roscoe has done good critical (as in “attentive” and “informed”) work there.
    Last edited by ganulv; 10-04-2013 at 05:12 PM.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  18. #898
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ganulv View Post
    When you’re talking about the Big Man you’re talking about New Guinea and concepts derived from ethnography of that region. Paul Roscoe has done good critical (as in “attentive” and “informed”) work there.
    I do like the definition he uses in "Before Elites: The Political Capacities of Big Men"

    First, the Big Man is foremost a manager,
    an organizational entrepreneur, and only secondarily
    a transactor of material goods. Second, under
    the uncircumscribed conditions that obtained in New
    Guinea, he does not become ethnographically visible
    until crude population densities rise above 30/sq km
    or so. The maximum crude densities under which he
    is known to have operated were around 110 people/
    sq km, at which point elements of de facto ascription
    may be apparent in his rise to prominence. Given the
    uncircumscribed status of most European prehistoric
    environments, Big Man systems are thus plausible
    analogical candidates for political society wherever
    similar demographic regimes prevailed in the Neolithic
    and metal ages.
    Third, I have attempted to estimate the capacity
    of Big-Man communities to mobilize collective
    labour for certain types of political task. In contrast
    to Sahlins’s assertion that a contradiction existed
    between the Big Man and his followers, major collective
    projects such as material distributions, performances
    of singing and dancing, and monument
    building involved them in a symbiotic relationship
    based on their common interests in communicating
    fighting capacity to other individuals and groups. It
    is a graphic instance of Kienlin’s suggestion (this volume)
    that there are subtle forms of power that build
    up from “below”, often with a much stronger impact
    on the individual’s life than “political” authority.
    He is not a chief – he has no ability to order compliance. He did not gain his “title” by right of birth and he cannot pass it one to his children. He is a self-made leader who has a following that he "influences" but has no "authority" to control beyond what he can offer in exchange for loyalty. He is what I would term a “proto-politician” if I were to dive back into the dangerous waters of defining terms.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  19. #899
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default You two are having more fun with my little chart

    than I did.

    In your graph in the left bottom corner is a condition that indicates that there is a level of violence but armed military action is not yet started. What do you see occurring in that space? Is this simply protests and political rhetoric or could an un-coalesced insurgency be included in that period.
    It could also represent the "fundraising" phase (as put forward by Carlos Marighella). He contended that insurgent groups (urban guerrillas in his language) needed to raise operational funds by robbing banks, kidnappings, and other activities calculated to generate operational funds.
    All of the above are plausible as interactions between groups or a state and a group. As also are interactions between states short of war (aka armed conflict).

    Let me tell you what my ideas were on the y and x axes - and they were much simpler (simplistic) than what you two are suggesting.

    First as to the y axis of violence and destruction, we've had Lanchester models ("Lanchester's Laws") for a long time. E.g., Taylor, Lanchester Models of Warfare, volumes I & II. Operations Research Society of America (1983), which may be hanging around online as pdfs. And, Hugh Everett's 1959 WSEG study on the "The Distribution and Effects of Fallout in Large Nuclear-Weapon Campaigns". That was a major factor behind the Kennedy-McNamara flexible approach to war. The point is that the interactions of states, state & group and groups leading to violence-destruction have been modeled through the stages of insugency, and into conventional war and nuclear war.

    The x axis is more problematic mathematically. It's based on Clausewitz's theory of state-state interactions in ratcheting up their means and wills to go from limited war to absolute war. You also could throw in some Andre Beaufre ("Peace" no longer makes a quantum leap to "War" - it's a spectrum); and Mao and Giap (the Political Struggle and the Military Struggle); and Bill Moore for the Transition Zone (although all errors in expressing it are mine). I don't know of any models based on a Clausewitzian continuum of Means and Wills; but there certainly could be one or more out there.



    In summary, the x axis is a continuum of the Means and Wills created by the interactions of A and B. The y axis is the Effect caused by the interactions of A and B in "pushing" the button on the x axis and applying their Means and Wills from that point.

    The genesis for the chart travels back to my watching Dr Zhivago one night, where the commisar says:

    Understand this: as the military struggle draws to a close, the political struggle intensifies. In the hour of victory, the military will have served its purpose - and all men will be judged POLITICALLY - regardless of their military record! Meanwhile, there are still White units in this area ...
    and, before that, a Dow poster showing a Bull and Bear wrestling. All very Claustewitzian.

    In mucking about the Web today, I came on this abstract, Spatial Lanchester models (2011):

    Lanchester equations have been widely used to model combat for many years, nevertheless, one of their most important limitations has been their failure to model the spatial dimension of the problems. Despite the fact that some efforts have been made in order to overcome this drawback, mainly through the use of Reaction-Diffusion equations, there is not yet a consistently clear theoretical framework linking Lanchester equations with these physical systems, apart from similarity. In this paper, a spatial modeling of Lanchester equations is conceptualized on the basis of explicit movement dynamics and balance of forces, ensuring stability and theoretical consistency with the original model. This formulation allows a better understanding and interpretation of the problem, thus improving the current treatment, modeling and comprehension of warfare applications. Finally, as a numerical illustration, a new spatial model of responsive movement is developed, confirming that location influences the results of modeling attrition conflict between two opposite forces.
    and an interesting abstract on social animals, Lanchester's attrition models and fights among social animals (2003):

    Lanchester's models of attrition during warfare have served as the basis for several predictions about conflicts between groups of animals. These models and their extensions describe rates of mortality during battles as functions of the number and fighting abilities of individuals in each group, allowing analysis of the determinants of group strength and of the cumulative numbers of casualties. We propose modifications to Lanchester's models to improve their applicability to social animals. In particular, we suggest that the per-capita mortality rate of a group is a decreasing function of the fighting abilities of its members, that the mortality rate is an increasing function of the number of individuals in both groups, and that there will often be diminishing returns for increasing numerical advantage. Models incorporating these assumptions predict that the ability of social animals to win fights depends less on group size and more on individual prowess than under Lanchester's original models. We discuss how data on casualties can be used to distinguish among alternative attrition models.
    That's all folks.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 10-04-2013 at 07:12 PM.

  20. #900
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,074

    Default Did CT Kill COIN?: Perspectives on the Special Forces Raids

    Did CT Kill COIN?: Perspectives on the Special Forces Raids

    Entry Excerpt:



    --------
    Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
    This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Similar Threads

  1. Capture, Detain and COIN: merged thread
    By SWJED in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 08-23-2017, 12:57 PM
  2. French & US COIN and Galula (merged thread)
    By Jedburgh in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-18-2016, 09:54 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •