What to Know Before You Go

[William F. Owen]

Oh I am beginning to think that we need to have many pints to thrash this one out . Defining legitimacy by intent and target? That sounds way too much like "I just waned to scare him! I didn't know it was loaded!". If legitimacy is defined that way, then AQ is quite legitimate..

I think that, TODAY, the intentional lethal targetting of civilians is never justified. It is one of my qualifiers for war crimes. So that's why I say intent and target.

Hmmm, I don't think so - I would suggest that the US people's will, not that of the military, was broken by the North Vietnamese. I used those two examples because they were both cases where all the battles were won by one side, but the war was lost - basically, the side that lost the war never really suffered a military defeat.

So someone's will was broken by military action. Some as in some part of Clausewitz trinity. This would suggest that part of the "narrative" has to be "we are winning." Of course most terrorism and insurgency comes from the narrative, of "we are oppressed, occupied, and/or victims."

This is where I become sceptical of the utility of a narrative, because they are so subjective and culture specific. EG: In Thailand most rural Thai/Lao men think all western woman love having sex, all the time, with anyone, because that's what it shows on TV and in movies.

Predictably I am also an effects/ information operations skeptic, for this same reason.

If what I can take from your paper is, "Do no harm to civilians, because it makes you look bad," then I can sign up for that and did so long ago. If we further suggest that you can ACT in a way that projects an image of what you want them to believe, I begin to scratch my head a bit.

Got to admit, Wilf, this is fun - but a few pints would make it more so .

If I ever get north of the lower 48, or you ever get your ass to Tel-Aviv then pints of something it is!