The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[UrsaMaior]

With all respect sir, I tend to agree with Steve Metz
Contemporary insurgencies are less like traditional war where the combatants seek strategic victory, they are more like a violent, fluid, and competitive market.

and Gen. Krulak "I feel it will be Stepchild of Chechnya.".

These 'new wars' or conflicts are not the "clean", collateral damage-free and strategically clear (objective: Defeat Hitler, or the Soviet Union) wars we westerners got used to fight. Especially when no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'.

[William F. Owen]

With all respect sir, I tend to agree with Steve Metz
Contemporary insurgencies are less like traditional war where the combatants seek strategic victory, they are more like a violent, fluid, and competitive market.

and Gen. Krulak "I feel it will be Stepchild of Chechnya.".

Please call me Wilf, and with equal respect I disagree with Steve on this one. I agree with Colin Gray. If an insurgency does not have a strategic (change of government?) then it's not an insurgency. People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational.

Good man though Krulak may be, lets not get lumbered with another simplistic analogy like "three-block war."

These 'new wars' or conflicts are not the "clean", collateral damage-free and strategically clear (objective: Defeat Hitler, or the Soviet Union) wars we westerners got used to fight. Especially when no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'.

I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free. About 27,000,000 civilians died. Allied Forces killed 7,000 French civilians during the Normandy Campaign alone, and about 300,000 German civilians in Bombing raids. That Governments didn't care that much does not define a "new war now that Governments may pretend to care. What you are seeing is merely a form of operations that requires the restriction of force when and if appropriate. It's not new.

If you wish to believe that "no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'" then I would ask where you have found the evidence to support this idea.

[Ken White]

...If an insurgency does not have a strategic (change of government?) then it's not an insurgency. People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational.

True.

I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free...

Very true and you just hit the tip of the old iceberg. Consider also the damaging (then to the war and future until today...) political interplay between the UK, US and USSR (among others) and the fact that one of Roosevelt's war aims was to strip the colonies from France and the UK, an attempt in which he was generally successful. WW II was a very big, very messy and not well conducted war, lot of failures military and political by all involved. It also was not totally supported by the non combatant population as many seem to believe.

That Governments didn't care that much does not define a "new war now that Governments may pretend to care. What you are seeing is merely a form of operations that requires the restriction of force when and if appropriate. It's not new.

Nope -- nor is it guaranteed to be the only venue...

[UrsaMaior]

Please call me Wilf, and with equal respect I disagree with Steve on this one. I agree with Colin Gray. If an insurgency does not have a strategic (change of government?) then it's not an insurgency. People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational.

Wilf
If a rebellion, civil unrest etc. has a long term goal can we call it an insurgency? BTW as a newcomer to COIN is there any broadly accepted definition for IN/COIN?

Good man though Krulak may be, lets not get lumbered with another simplistic analogy like "three-block war."

I have not read his work, I only remembered he forecasted the 'new kind of war'. IMHO this urban guerilla, street gang, militia style MOUT war interwoven with the 24/7 media coverage is not something that has historic precedence.

I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free. About 27,000,000 civilians died. Allied Forces killed 7,000 French civilians during the Normandy Campaign alone, and about 300,000 German civilians in Bombing raids.

The '1000 bomber raid' and similar operations were clearly NOT aimed at military objectives. The first Schweinfurt attacks yes. But not most of the attacks in 1945, and not the night ones. In that sense only the french casulties you mentioned can be called collateral damage. The rest were victims of intended genocide mostly by the nazis and the soviets. But let's stay on topic.

That Governments didn't care that much does not define a "new war now that Governments may pretend to care. What you are seeing is merely a form of operations that requires the restriction of force when and if appropriate. It's not new.

Wilf. An enemy whose actions are clearly aimed at reaching media coverage, and not at causing military losses (in the sense of seriously weakening the enemy warmachine), while at the same time hiding among the civilians hoping to avoid the reprisal, based on 'Human rights to everyone' is not something we have seen before. Of course elements of it yes. But not the whole picture.

If you wish to believe that "no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'" then I would ask where you have found the evidence to support this idea.

If I were a rational, thinking people I would consider my actions and their consequences before I act against a technically or numerically superior enemy. Of course religious fanatics appear from time to time, but get their a***es whacked real quick, after an inital surprise.

But you are right, I reformulate. No sane future enemy will stand up against say NATO and organize its fighting force into neat military units in uniforms ie to put up a fair fight.

In the age of information industrial age armies are as irrelevant as were pre-industrial ones to industrial ones. They still have their validity as deterring force, but the 'succesful' herero or boer war solutions of previous ages cannot be repeated.

Edit
Yours truly Carl has said war is a chameleon. Well it is.

[AmericanPride]

Ursa,

What's 'new' about the nature of war and what makes it 'new'? How does a new tactic indictate a fundamental change in war itself?

Also -- what conditions exist now that compel an adversary to not pursue a conventional war? What makes those conditions enduring?

[zenpundit]

Wilf Owen wrote:

"People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational"

Instrumental for some. States, for example.

Arguably "recreational violence" is an end in itself and a point of recruitment for certain kinds of military forces from tribal raiders, to mercenaries to citizen soldiers where a public demonstration of martial prowess was integral to social concepts of "honor" or future individual political credibility. From counting coup to ethnic cleansing the neighbors who have marginally different customs, taking up arms throughout history has had other pretexts besides strategic political objectives.

I would also argue that some of history's more poorly conceived military ventures failed in part because they were gratuitous gestures of force lacking in a coherent purpose.

[Ken White]

Instrumental for some. States, for example.

Arguably "recreational violence" is an end in itself and a point of recruitment...taking up arms throughout history has had other pretexts besides strategic political objectives.

True but that does not indicate that such recourse to arms is recreational even though some, a small percentage and generally young and inexperienced may actually enjoy conflict it is unlikely that the majority of groups that take up arms do so for recreation.

I would also argue that some of history's more poorly conceived military ventures failed in part because they were gratuitous gestures of force lacking in a coherent purpose.

Also true but again, not a contradiction of Wilf's point. All Movies lack a coherent purpose IMO yet they are seen by some as recreation and by others as instrumental for achieving social change. Movies are not real and some have entertainment value. War is real, it is singularly lacking in entertainment value...

[William F. Owen]

Arguably "recreational violence" is an end in itself and a point of recruitment for certain kinds of military forces from tribal raiders, to mercenaries to citizen soldiers where a public demonstration of martial prowess was integral to social concepts of "honor" or future individual political credibility.

...and thus instrumental. Instrumental does not mean "fun free" it just means for a purpose.

If you want to talk movies, I'd say there is an object lesson to be had from studying "The Shield" which is exceptional screen writing and where all violent actions have direct story consequences.

[UrsaMaior]

Ursa,

What's 'new' about the nature of war and what makes it 'new'? How does a new tactic indictate a fundamental change in war itself?

Also -- what conditions exist now that compel an adversary to not pursue a conventional war? What makes those conditions enduring?

Excellent questions. In my humble and yet not thouroughly researched opinion

ad 1. War was/is/will be a social "activity" if we accept (I do) van Creveld's findings about it (even Keegan's examples in his falied yet interesting try to refute Clausewitz prove it) iMHO it is an inseperable part of human (or maybe male) nature. So it cannot be old new etc only different. New kind maybe.

Therefore it is a 'new kind' to us since the way it is fought (through media driven pseudo military actions), for it is fought (the suport of the popalation's majority), and by whom it is fought (militias, gangs not something we can call a military with OOB's and C4ISR etc.). Yet it is a war since it is waged on states with clearly defined strategic goals.

It is fundamental because it is irrelevant how big your arsenal is. I would quote Boyd here but in my perception he is not really welcome here, so I merely would like to quote a group called Human League (having lived behind the Iron Curtain while they were hip I only know their songs not their backgrounds). So here it goes "You cannot make friends with an M-16." The net effect of globalisation, the collapse of the colonial system not to mention the cold war is that you cant just invade a country and suppress its population with brute force. It's not a new tactic hit and run is as ancient as the ancient scythians or even older. It is a fundamental change in the circumstances. Industrial age is over and the information age is upon us. But it does not mean we must get more information on possible targets through sensors and share it with the others, rather ' He who has more information of the enemy's intents, support and objctives wins.' to paraphrase Sun Tzu.

ad 2. As I already said in one of my answer to wilf, any rational enemy would avoid a direct confrontation with the military technological, organizational superiority of the West. Why? Because it is obviously counterproductive. As long as we preserve a credible deterring force it wont stand a chance in a classical "clausewitzian" conflict. Therefore if it wants to pursue its goals (and again thanks to globalisation and UN etc. they can be non-state actors as well), it will have to resort to non-conventional means, in which we have a bit poor record.

If we unmake globalisation, and the watcher of human rights (the UN) I don't see any reason not to resort to the ol' victorian methods of brutal population suppression. I am too uniformed to see any of the above coming. But if these are to stay, then classical military operations with army groups and dozens of divisions have ended since any gain from such an industrial style war is insignificant compared to the level of damage evenn the winner has to suffer.

This is my pronouncedly humble opinion since I am yet to publish anything in this issue.

[William F. Owen]

ad 2. As I already said in one of my answer to wilf, any rational enemy would avoid a direct confrontation with the military technological, organizational superiority of the West. Why? Because it is obviously counterproductive. As long as we preserve a credible deterring force it wont stand a chance in a classical "clausewitzian" conflict. Therefore if it wants to pursue its goals (and again thanks to globalisation and UN etc. they can be non-state actors as well), it will have to resort to non-conventional means, in which we have a bit poor record.

I take your point, if the rational enemy was rational and did not possess equivalent technology of his own. It may be different to ours but is may still be effective.

Don't dismiss 6,000 Toyota Land cruisers all armed with MANPADs and ATGMS

"Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars".

[UrsaMaior]

I take your point, if the rational enemy was rational and did not possess equivalent technology of his own. It may be different to ours but is may still be effective.

Don't dismiss 6,000 Toyota Land cruisers all armed with MANPADs and ATGMS.

Well, China. Russia, India all possess (sp?) equivavalent technology ie "modern" equipment. But I doubt they will try to 'stand up an' fight' with any sizeable western force. As long as the West has its technological edge in numbers and demostrates its willingness to use it we wont see 6,000 pick ups.

"Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars"

Ok I meant big war, or High intensity conflict. Alas it is another argument for me this chaos of terminology. All society has problems naming new phenomenons. See Kilcullen's relevant article.

[selil]

Anybody who thinks in western civilization violence does not exist for the sake of violence has been in the disciplined world of the military for way to long. Detroit devils night would be a good example. The assertion that people don't engage in violence for no reason other than political is a ludicrous as people rioting when their team wins! Maybe that isn't war, or warfare, or diplomacy, but the assertion appeared to be that people don't engage in violence for acts other than those. To use a word from a previous poster that would be ludicrous.

[William F. Owen]

Anybody who thinks in western civilization violence does not exist for the sake of violence has been in the disciplined world of the military for way to long. Detroit devils night would be a good example. The assertion that people don't engage in violence for no reason other than political is a ludicrous as people rioting when their team wins! Maybe that isn't war, or warfare, or diplomacy, but the assertion appeared to be that people don't engage in violence for acts other than those. To use a word from a previous poster that would be ludicrous.

Sure people beat their wives because it makes them feel good, and as Brit I have fairly good, and perhaps shameful personal experience of football violence. I would further add that I my experience, football violence was instrumental. It conferred status.

What I said was,

"People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational"

If you can show me any armed group that has organised for recreational violance and show it as a consistent and persistent trend, that undermines the validity of my comment, I will gladly retract it or re-consider it.