Read and understand the article of LTC Downey "PIR development in a COIN envirinment". Dare to look at the broader context. There is no enemy besides the ones excisting in our perception. An opponent dresses in clothings referring to the goal that opponent wants to achieve. Why is some one your enemy ? Try to figure that out. The human terrain dictates, that is the challeging fact for us military.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Perhaps, but clarity in communication is also important. It ensures that your message isn't lost or garbled. It also prevents us from wrapping the same old smelly fish in new newsprint and trying to pass it off as the catch of the day. I think that's what Wilf thinks some of this "newfangled talk" is doing, and in some ways he may be correct.
"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
Try to read and understand the things you like to refer to as "newfangled talk" first. We all work in a modular way with elements which we used to call "non kinetic". The (non)kinetic is not existent anymore. We constantly operate in a (semi)(non)permissive enviroment. That asks for something else than throwing lots of bombs, those bombs are just part of a, hopefully, well thought strategy. We, as military, are not the core buzzword anymore. We have to shape the environment, not to destroy it.
Do not hesitate to react in a constructive way.
Here is a constructive piece of advice:
Simply expressing old ideas in new terms is an old technique that many of us have seen time and time again. Try using plain English versus:
- Non-kinetic modular elements
- (semi) (non) permissive environment
- Military as core buzz word
- Shape the environment, not destroy it
Those will simply get you tossed from the TOC
And finally try not lecturing the reader because you are not communicating effectively as in
TomTry to read and understand the things you like to refer to as "newfangled talk" first.
Said better than I ever could... or did.
... and the only thing about war that is changing, is Tom and I are agreeing more often!
Again, Tom said it better than I did. If someone can't describe a military concept or operation, using words and expressions that an officer from 60 years ago would not understand then it should set the BS detector well into the red.
We might all be better served if we stopped using silly words like "human terrain," - do we mean population? Let's say population then. Let's start speaking real English, and stop BS'ing.
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
Well said, thank you, Tom.
Coined,
I am not saying that you are uninformed, but your text is similar to that of people who have read a recent article or book, but haven't developed an understanding of the historical precedents behind the emerging ideas. The down side of all the buzz words and new constructions is that, for example, people will be so distracted by trying to figure out what ais, that they'll miss that this is an effort to bring back the COHORT concept (which I support).(non)kinetic organized unit
Just like in Truppenführung, HeeresDienstVorschrift 300, 1933.Through interaction more sub effects and indicators will be derived from the Lines of Operation. "Out of the box" thinking will have to be encouraged at the expense of stove pipes, "fenced domains", personalities and comfort zones.
Just like in the USMC Small Wars Manual, 1940.Maneuver elements will “social patrol” a part of the town,
And this is the one place where I disagree. Yes, these are potential conflict areas, but, at least in the U.S., we've planned and trained for the 'right' war once in our history (Iraq 2003), and even then we only thought halfway through what needed to happen. I would argue that flexibility and adaptability must be our watch words, lest we end up with soldiers in desert camouflage fighting in the mountains of Peru.Imo the potential conflict arena for the coming ten years stretches between the republics bordering Russia via Eur Asia, the ME to Africa.
"right war"?? Hmm ... short term memory!!And this is the one place where I disagree. Yes, these are potential conflict areas, but, at least in the U.S., we've planned and trained for the 'right' war once in our history (Iraq 2003), and even then we only thought halfway through what needed to happen. I would argue that flexibility and adaptability must be our watch words, lest we end up with soldiers in desert camouflage fighting in the mountains of Peru.
Btw, smart bombs did the trick ... and after "victory" the real #### came along.
Hey, William and Tom .... your reality still is a reflection of your own shadows.
Well, at least the two of you agree ...
Nice approach you all show, if you don't get ... slaughter it ...
Last edited by SWCAdmin; 04-29-2009 at 08:32 PM. Reason: to display quote correctly
Rather gratuitous, don't you think? One could also say "If you don't know about it, invent new words to describe old concepts." This post-modern trend is quite distressing both in general society and in academia. It is also, IMHO, correlated rather strongly with ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with the "new, bright shiny penny".
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Well that may indeed be true, but please show us some evidence. So far you have just presented a set of opinions, that are by no means clear.
This forum tends to subject ideas to rigour. If you can't explain it clearly, then no progress will be made.
For example, what doesactually mean?Through interaction more sub effects and indicators will be derived from the Lines of Operation.
What is a "sub-effect"? The result of a "sub-action" or a second order effect? Ball is in your court.
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
"Right" as in "the war we really we going to fight rather than the war would would like to fight"
And smart bombs did not do the trick, no matter how much they helped. The political endstate that military action was supporting was "regime change", and that came about due to the ground operations. Whether or not "regime change" was the ideal solution is for politicians to decide, not soldiers.
"Ignoratio elenchu"; ignoring the main point of our arguments and shifting to different point? Or would this be "ad hominem"; criticizing us rather than either accepting or rebutting our points?
Your hand is shown. Good day, sir.
P.S.Another crack like that and I'll thrash you with my walking stickPlease don't upset the old men...They tend to get grumpy.
V
Last edited by Van; 04-29-2009 at 07:11 PM.
Me and my shadow....
Dancing down the avenue...
In Baghdad
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks