Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 137

Thread: Operationalizing The Jones Model through COG

  1. #61
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default What the Taliban want is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    What if the Taliban does not care about good governance? What if wants political power, to gain power over the population. If the population doesn't like it, they will kill them... just like they did before.

    There was a civil war going in A'Stan long before NATO got there. What's that got to do with "good governance?" No one is fighting to "bring justice and peace." They are fighting to gain power over the population, to enrich themselves, socially, politically and economically.
    COIN is not about defeating the insurgent, COIN is about out competing the insurgent for the support of the populace. If the populace believes that the insurgent is more likely to provide Good Governance, the insurgent is likely to ultimately prevail regardless of how much he is suppressed militarily, how much development is delivered, or how many elections one conducts.

    If, however, the government can succeed in earning the support of the populace and address the perceptions of poor governance that the insurgent exploited, the insurgency will fade away, a death of natural causes.

    This is the problem with military led COIN, it tends too often to be focused on defeating the threat. The insurgent is not what threatens the stability of the country, it is the failures of the governance to adequately provide good governance to some key segments of their populace that sowed the seeds of discontent that ultimately becomes insurgency.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  2. #62
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hey Wilf,

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    What if the Taliban does not care about good governance? What if wants political power, to gain power over the population. If the population doesn't like it, they will kill them... just like they did before.

    There was a civil war going in A'Stan long before NATO got there. What's that got to do with "good governance?" No one is fighting to "bring justice and peace." They are fighting to gain power over the population, to enrich themselves, socially, politically and economically.
    One of the things that bugs me about a lot of the discussion is the use of extremely fuzzy words - "Good" being a case in point. The Taliban do care about "good governance", but "good" means something totally different from what we would define as "good" (although both Torquemada and Savonarola would probably approve of their actions if not their symbology).
    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/

  3. #63
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Karazai, Mullah Omar and President Obama could all sit in a room and debate why they each think that they have the best answer for what good governance is for the people of Afghanistan; and of course none of their positions would matter. What matters is how the populace perceives its governance.

    Currently, for example, surveys show that most Afghans perceive they receive greater justice from the Taliban than they receive from the GIROA. Score one for the Taliban. Do I kill more Taliban because he is out performing me? No, but I do need to understand what he is doing that is better than me, and then work to provide justice better than him. Not rule of law, as rule of law without justice will make the insurgency worse. Just one example.

    My advice to Karzai would be to focus on fixing his perceptions of illegitimacy first, and then to address the perceptions of hopelessness second. I believe his Peace Jirga coming up is intended to do just that. Does he get it and will he succeed in that effort? I don't know. I hope so, as that is what will most likely take the head off of the insurgency. The revolutionary insurgency that drive this whole thing.

    If that succeeds, then the Coalition can begin to reduce its military presence, which along with the Taliban leadership no longer funding fighters, will begin to make the resistance insurgency to fade as well. This will create maneuver room, so to speak, to be able to begin addressing the justice and repect aspects by spreading opportunity to all to be able to earn a good living regardless of tribal affiliation; or to resolve a land dispute and not lose simply because I am in the wrong tribe as well.

    Focus on the right big things, and the rest will follow.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  4. #64
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Honestly, I have my doubts about the role of good governance as well. Too many states with terrible governance have no civil war and the non-idealistic motives are too strong in the human mind to buy into this "good governance" mantra any more.

    You certainly need to stop the fuel supply of the civil war's fire, but many roads lead to Rome.

    There are negative influences that can be a disincentive to the population (or merely their relevant decision-makers or multipliers) and there are many positive influences other than good governance that can turn them.


    All this "legitimacy" and "good governance" talk assumes quite noble men and chooses a very tough road to success. Maybe we should look at the relevant men as greedy assholes instead.

    You can hurt them badly if deemed necessary - without stepping beyond the limits of Western civilization*. Simply conscript their sons (or even the relevant man himself) into an vehicle-less army unit somewhere in a desert or confiscate vehicles or animals for the army and/or set up a temporary army camp on their crop field in order to compel a desired reaction. Keep in mind that there are enough unsympathetic officials available to do this.



    *: Let's be honest; this is the critical limitation, for else "we" would have used or tolerated the Hama tactic long ago.

  5. #65
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good post, Fuchs. As Bob's world says:

    "These things are rarely black and white, and as Ken White loves to beat me about the head and shoulders with (hey, a guy his age needs the exercise) there are no pat answers. There are, however, some underlying fundamental "truths" that help shape an effective understanding of the suface conditions we observe.
    Yes I did, but I've sort of quit that except for an occasional stray round. He's too wedded to the dream to change. Much of what he advocates is worthwhile and it may do some good. Some is less worthwhile. Some is arguable.

    One should take care to insure that ones desires do not become "truths."

    I have long said that poor governance is not the only cause of insurgency and that good governance is not only solution. Others make the same points but Bob continues to see "truths." S'okay, everyone ought to have ideals and dreams. Maybe the good points will get some traction...

  6. #66
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Comments on comments

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    You cannot reach for a different tool IF you are the hammer! - that's my point. Military force is a set of hammers. You use them on nails.
    Wilf, I understand your point here, and in a sense it’s valid. It’s also largely irrelevant. Look at it this way, continuing your analogy.

    We send a bunch of hammers out into the field to drive nails. Fortunately these hammers are not completely dense, and they quickly notice that a lot of the nails are in fact screws. They report back to their Government that a lot of these nails are screws, and they need some screwdrivers. The Government’s reply is along the lines of “we haven’t any screwdrivers, do the best you can”.

    You’re right, the functions under discussion are not really military functions and it’s not a great idea to be asking a military force to perform them. Unfortunately that is the position we’re in: the functions need to be performed and there’s nobody else available to perform them. So we have a bunch of hammers talking about how best to drive screws. Saying that they’re hammers and they shouldn’t be driving screws is probably accurate, but it isn’t very helpful: there are screws that need to be driven and there aren’t any screwdrivers. Maybe better to lighten up and try to help them work out how to do what needs to be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Great observations that play into my own struggle to define area denial. Reading your points brings home the fact that despite all the collections assets we have at our disposal, that harness military manpower, very few of them (at least that I can tell) are focused on identifying the root causes of why knuckleheads do what they do
    One place to start might be to question the knucklehead assumption.

    Of course some of them may be exactly that: testosterone-addled young men just looking for a fight. In some cultures young men are expected to prove themselves by fighting, and it’s possible that some of them are fighting us just because we’re there, and if we weren’t there they’d be fighting the tribe on the other side of the hill.

    There may be other factors involved also. I’ve said this before, but I think failure of government to deliver services or development is overrated as a cause of insurgency, especially in areas where people have very low expectations of government. People are more likely to fight because of anger or fear: either something has been done to them that they didn’t like, or they expect something to be done that they won’t like.

    There’s also the foreigner factor. What would happen if some vastly superior power sent an army to our country, removed our government, installed a new one, and told us that it was henceforth our duty to support that government, and if we failed in that duty we would be called “insurgents”? I may be wrong, but I kind of suspect that a few of the people on this forum might be tempted in such circumstances to do a bit of fighting.

    In any event, if we want to get people to stop fighting without having to kill them all, figuring out why they are fighting is a reasonable first step, and it’s also worth looking for divergence between the local narrative of resistance and the insurgent ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Recently MG Carter looked his commanders and staff in the eye and told them during a planning meeting for Kandahar: "The key to Hamkari is the creation of representative governance and representative opportunity."

    Now, this is very much in line with what is proposed in the Jones Model, and I knew immediately what he was getting at, and more importantly, why it was so critical. To create these two conditions would strike at the heart of the causal perceptions of poor governance in Kandahar Provence.

    Afterwords several of the commanders were discusing the meeting. One of them said: "I understand what the General wants, I just don't know what he wants me to do." This drew several nods and grunts of agreement.
    This to me underscores one of the real problems we encounter when we identify governance as the core challenge.

    At least MG Carter was proposing to create “representative governance and representative opportunity”, which is one step up from trying to take them out of a box. The problem, to put it bluntly, is that we can’t do that. We cannot create representative governance and representative opportunity in Afghanistan, or anywhere else. The Karzai Government can’t create them either. These things aren’t created, or installed. They grow, and they grow through a long process of adaptation and cultivation.

    The belief that we can create or install governments for other people is a monument to hubris, and it’s already gotten us into a world of merde. We need to set that one aside forever, and quickly.

  7. #67
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Smile I draw comfort from knowing the Ken counseled my predecesors too

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Yes I did, but I've sort of quit that except for an occasional stray round. He's too wedded to the dream to change. Much of what he advocates is worthwhile and it may do some good. Some is less worthwhile. Some is arguable.

    One should take care to insure that ones desires do not become "truths."

    I have long said that poor governance is not the only cause of insurgency and that good governance is not only solution. Others make the same points but Bob continues to see "truths." S'okay, everyone ought to have ideals and dreams. Maybe the good points will get some traction...
    Young Henry Ford was too wed to the idea that horseless carriages were better than the way we had always done it with horses;

    Those darn Wright brothers and their fool contraption were way to wedded too the idea of powered flight as well.

    As to the "fuzziness" of goodness. Read the paper. Insurgency IS fuzzy. That's why governments and militaries stuggle with it so mightily. They try to solve it by "defeating it." Kill the members of your populace who dare to challenge your failed ways. Or worse for the US, go help the failed governments of another country kill the members of their populace. It's not working.

    I say again: It's not working.

    So, like the Ranger instructor in your face: "Are you as F'd up as you want to be??" There's no good answer to that. Sure we know were F'd up, but we don't want to be, we just don't know what else to do.

    Legitimacy is not a difficult concept. It comes from the people. Figure out how the people in a troubled area bestow legitimacy and simply empower that. Don't force them to do it your way (elections); don't pick their candidates for them (Hello, meet Mr. Karzai); and most importantly of all, don't try to shape the outcome in terms of form, nature or manning of said government and be willing to work with or abandon whatever emerges from the process. That is not complicated. But it does fly in the face of 60 years of control-based Cold War Strategy.

    Hope is not a difficult concept either. Why are the teabaggers in America not an insurgency right now? They challenge the legitimacy of the President; They feel that they are not receiving Justice; and they sure as hell don't feel that they receive any respect. (A fellow SF Colonel who is extremely liberal told me with a straight face that "conservatives just aren't as smart as liberals." They believe that, it rationalizes their behavior and empowers them to ignore the express will of the ignorant masses and provide what they know is best for them). But in all of that, the Tea Party members have one thing that no current government can take from them. Its the same thing that the Bush administration could not take away from a equally frustrated liberal community: Hope. They know the system is strong, and that it will prevent any one approach to governance from enduring. Sure it disrupts the good a bit, but it is a showstopper for the bad. We have a system in America born of insurgency, and it is designed to prevent insurgency because of it.

    Or we could just do capture kill on the Tea Party Leadership; Or perhaps try to buy them off with development projects; or maybe if we need help, bring in a couple hundred thousand Chinese military and aid workers to help provide security and development. We could have Chinese Captains and Majors advising our Cabinet members, Congressmen and Generals. We could have the Chinese show us how they pick leaders, and have them apply that process to picking and sustaining the leaders here that they think are best for us (when we know they really mean best for them) That should work. Right?? Good luck with that.

    No, I'll keep banging my drum. I like the sound of it. I think some of the otherr members of the band are sounding a little flat though
    Last edited by Bob's World; 05-25-2010 at 03:01 AM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  8. #68
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    COIN is not about defeating the insurgent, COIN is about out competing the insurgent for the support of the populace. If the populace believes that the insurgent is more likely to provide Good Governance, the insurgent is likely to ultimately prevail regardless of how much he is suppressed militarily, how much development is delivered, or how many elections one conducts.
    ...and this is our fundamental disagreement. Support flows from power. Not the other way around. The populace support who has the power. Power does not come from the populace. To get power over them, you just have to terrify them. Insurgents can and do do this. They do not need much if any support to wield this kind of power. Thus the Government should seek out and destroy them. Crushing revolts and rebellions is about killing the competition.
    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    The Taliban do care about "good governance", but "good" means something totally different from what we would define as "good" (although both Torquemada and Savonarola would probably approve of their actions if not their symbology).
    Sure. Even the Nazis thought they were doing something good. No one ever set forth a policy they believe to be immoral of bad. My point is that "the Talian" seek power - and will use all and any means to get it.
    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

  9. #69
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    To get power over them, you just have to terrify them. Insurgents can and do do this.
    Governments do it too. It doesn't always work, and when it does work it's often only in the short run.

  10. #70
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    . So we have a bunch of hammers talking about how best to drive screws. Saying that they’re hammers and they shouldn’t be driving screws is probably accurate, but it isn’t very helpful: there are screws that need to be driven and there aren’t any screwdrivers. Maybe better to lighten up and try to help them work out how to do what needs to be done.
    I do understand this. Really I do. My constant emphasis is because some believe it is a job the military should do, rather than understanding that the "COIN approach" is deeply flawed - IMO. My point is use armed force against armed force - leave the population out of it!!
    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

  11. #71
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Governments do it too. It doesn't always work, and when it does work it's often only in the short run.
    Concur. Governments should not. It's dumb. Not doing dumb things is a given.
    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

  12. #72
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    When the opposing armed force IS the populace, how do you leave them out of it at the same time you are merrily militarily crushing them?

    I had an opportune discussion with Dr. Maria Stephan this morning, who's work is on nonviolent conflict. She has a book out on the topic, and handed me a short paper:

    "Why Civil Resistance Works - The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008) pp.7-44.

    We need to hope that AQ does not read her work. Her research shows how nonviolent campaigns achieve success 53% of the time, whereas violent movements only prevail26% of the time.

    Key is that she recoginzes that violent tactics are a choice, and one that often harms the ability of the challenger to achieve legitimacy themselves, and that allows the despotic counterinsurgent to presume the moral highground and justify their violent crushing of their own populace.

    When the resistance selects nonviolent means the roles reverse, and the despotic leadership loses credibility in responding with violence, and it is much more likely for governmental officals to go over to the other side.

    I have often stated god help us if we merely crush AQ without also addressing the underlying causation for their movement; because if the organizaiton that comes behind them, and there will be one as sure as day follows night, and they adopt such nonviolent tactics such as Maria promotes; they will likely achieve all of their goals in short order.

    At that point we will have to ask ourselves the wisdom of siding with the Despots over siding with the populaces of those same countries.

    The Jones Model applies to both types of movements; and as Maria points out, those that chose the non-violent path are far more apt to prevail.

    Jury is out as to what happens when the state choses the more non-violent path in the face of a resistance that has chosen violence.
    Last edited by marct; 05-25-2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason: Added link
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  13. #73
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jcustis
    Great observations that play into my own struggle to define area denial. Reading your points brings home the fact that despite all the collections assets we have at our disposal, that harness military manpower, very few of them (at least that I can tell) are focused on identifying the root causes of why knuckleheads do what they do.
    One place to start might be to question the knucklehead assumption.

    Of course some of them may be exactly that: testosterone-addled young men just looking for a fight. In some cultures young men are expected to prove themselves by fighting, and it’s possible that some of them are fighting us just because we’re there, and if we weren’t there they’d be fighting the tribe on the other side of the hill.

    There may be other factors involved also. I’ve said this before, but I think failure of government to deliver services or development is overrated as a cause of insurgency, especially in areas where people have very low expectations of government. People are more likely to fight because of anger or fear: either something has been done to them that they didn’t like, or they expect something to be done that they won’t like.

    There’s also the foreigner factor. What would happen if some vastly superior power sent an army to our country, removed our government, installed a new one, and told us that it was henceforth our duty to support that government, and if we failed in that duty we would be called “insurgents”? I may be wrong, but I kind of suspect that a few of the people on this forum might be tempted in such circumstances to do a bit of fighting.

    In any event, if we want to get people to stop fighting without having to kill them all, figuring out why they are fighting is a reasonable first step, and it’s also worth looking for divergence between the local narrative of resistance and the insurgent ideology.
    After cruising through this thread more than once, I sat down with our task force's intelligence officer and began to ping him on this issue of why. We began to go around and around in response to my questions of why certain actors in the battlespace were doing what they were doing, and he quickly grew tired of me telling him that he was defining the symptons of the environment and the behaviors themselves, but very little of the true reason why it was happening.

    After that, I tool a look at the priority intelligence requirements that are laid out. Not surprisingly, not a single PIR asked the question "why?"

    I am pretty much smacking myself on the forehead with the realization that the only way we can actually attack the system and problem, comes from understanding that simple three-letter word.
    Last edited by jcustis; 05-25-2010 at 10:12 AM.

  14. #74
    Council Member Chris jM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Jury is out as to what happens when the state choses the more non-violent path in the face of a resistance that has chosen violence.
    Doesn't the very identity, ideology and purpose of AQ demand violence, though? Establishing the caliphate is, from my limited readings, a necessarily violent process according to the fundamentalist Islamic view of the world.

    Further, I would suggest that a non-violent fundamentalist Islamic movement would be exactly what we are after - in a war of ideas and words, we have nothing to fear. Fundamentalism will inevitably lose to modernity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Jury is out as to what happens when the state choses the more non-violent path in the face of a resistance that has chosen violence.
    Is this even possible? I can't think of any historical situations where the ruling power has the ability to choice non-violence to a violent opposition, probably for good reason. Your concept of 'good governance' specifically states that legitimacy is required. How can a government be legitimate if it allows violent opposition to it to go unchecked? Perhaps I'm being overly classical and old-fashioned in my views here, but a government that loses it's ability to protect it's own people and interests is on the brink if not the very definition of a failed government. Of course this term (good governance) is relative, as has been pointed out before, however failing to provide the accepted or expected level of security, both tangible (physical security from violence) and intangible (economic security, amongst others) loses crucial amounts of legitimacy with it's polis. I would argue that, by accepting non-violence in the face of violence, a government would surrender it's mandate to monopolise force in the interests of the people and thus lose any right to govern immediately.

    Wilf, you no doubt agree that the vast majority of us/them out there have differing and incorrect views of both military employment and the meaning of the CoG. However, would you agree that an inefficient strategy pursued with great vigor and resolve immediately is better than constant strategic re-orientation and indecision?

    I ask this as I agree with you in every point you make, but once I try and frame the course of action I would follow were I king I keep compromising the lofty visions of a military specialising in force-on-force solutions. Sure, pop-centric COIN may be horribly inefficient and ineffective, but if the US and her allies have a strong, developed pop-COIN capability inclusive of people, doctrine and equipment, is it not better to throw support onto this course than find as-of-now-elusive alternatives?

    Also, have you considered the fact that pop-centric COIN is quite possible the most reliable method we have of finding insurgents in the Afghan environment? There is no point throwing a military capability against an enemy if they cannot complete the first core function of 'find'. Even though COIN-specific forces are horribly inefficient in the job of destroying and deterring, is it possible that the COIN focus is absolutely necessary to identify those we want to employ force against?
    '...the gods of war are capricious, and boldness often brings better results than reason would predict.'
    Donald Kagan

  15. #75
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    When the opposing armed force IS the populace, how do you leave them out of it at the same time you are merrily militarily crushing them?
    Because they oppose your setting forth of policy, and the the opposing armed force is a minute percentage of the population in exactly the same way your army is. - it's called the armed force, not the population.

    I had an opportune discussion with Dr. Maria Stephan this morning, who's work is on nonviolent conflict. She has a book out on the topic, and handed me a short paper:

    "Why Civil Resistance Works - The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict" International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008) pp.7-44.

    We need to hope that AQ does not read her work. Her research shows how nonviolent campaigns achieve success 53% of the time, whereas violent movements only prevail26% of the time.
    So politics works 53% of the time... wow... I will read with interest.
    Key is that she recoginzes that violent tactics are a choice, and one that often harms the ability of the challenger to achieve legitimacy themselves, and that allows the despotic counterinsurgent to presume the moral highground and justify their violent crushing of their own populace.
    Ends, Ways and Means. This has been said many, many time before.
    Non-violence does not stop the bad guys killing your family. Achieving policy goal by non-violence IS politics.
    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

  16. #76
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris jM View Post
    Wilf, you no doubt agree that the vast majority of us/them out there have differing and incorrect views of both military employment and the meaning of the CoG. However, would you agree that an inefficient strategy pursued with great vigor and resolve immediately is better than constant strategic re-orientation and indecision?
    Strategy is not right or wrong. It's better or worse, and the cost can be more more than you are willing to pay. It's about judgement, and skill.
    The military contribution to strategy is violence. Strategy, is this context, is using force to gain what you want. If you are not using violence, you are using politics and diplomacy. You may use both. The real point about strategy is having one.
    I ask this as I agree with you in every point you make, but once I try and frame the course of action I would follow were I king I keep compromising the lofty visions of a military specialising in force-on-force solutions.
    Well I can't guess at the context, but it all depends on the policy. Most people confuse policy with strategy. It doesn't matter how good your strategy is, if the policy cannot be implemented by the means employed, or the cost required.
    Policy is politics.
    If you believe that developing A'Stan into a stable nation is the right thing to do, then this is personal belief. It is not dependent on logic, evidence and least of all strategy.

    Does this help?
    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

  17. #77
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default While I will refrain from simply replying "Jackass..."

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Because they oppose your setting forth of policy, and the the opposing armed force is a minute percentage of the population in exactly the same way your army is. - it's called the armed force, not the population.


    So politics works 53% of the time... wow... I will read with interest.

    Ends, Ways and Means. This has been said many, many time before.
    Non-violence does not stop the bad guys killing your family. Achieving policy goal by non-violence IS politics.
    I will instead refer you to page 9 of the document you felt you free to deride without the benefit of a quick scan first to see how it might measure up to your dogma:

    "Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, phychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence. It includes acts of omission, acts of commission, or a combination of both. Scholars have identified hundreds of nonviolent methods - including symbolic protests, economic boycotts, labor strikes, political and social non-cooperation and nonviolent intervention - that groups have used to mobilize publics to oppose or support different policies to delegitimize adversaries, and to remove or restrict adversaries' sources of power. Nonviolent struggle takes place outside traditional political channels, making it distinct from other nonviolent political processes such as lobbying, electioneering, and legislating.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  18. #78
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I have no dogma in this fight...

    ...............

  19. #79
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I will instead refer you to page 9 of the document you felt you free to deride without the benefit of a quick scan first to see how it might measure up to your dogma:
    I did not deride the document. I merely expressed surprise at the conclusion as stated, because it did not seem insightful. Thus-
    "Nonviolent resistance is a civilian-based method used to wage conflict through social, phychological, economic, and political means without the threat or use of violence.
    No threat of violence - thus politics in the truest sense of the word.
    It includes acts of omission, acts of commission, or a combination of both. Scholars have identified hundreds of nonviolent methods - including symbolic protests, economic boycotts, labor strikes, political and social non-cooperation and nonviolent intervention - that groups have used to mobilize publics to oppose or support different policies to delegitimize adversaries, and to remove or restrict adversaries' sources of power.
    Again, all political instruments. None of this should be the concern of anyone in uniform - bar Policeman.
    Nonviolent struggle takes place outside traditional political channels, making it distinct from other nonviolent political processes such as lobbying, electioneering, and legislating.
    And? This statement attempts to draw a false distinction between formal political processes and real politics in the wider sense. Poll Tax Riots? Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Greenham Common? These are all well tracked and well understood aspects of politics since time began.

    Sorry Bob, I full confess to not getting it. I grew up with Protests, Strikes and Boycotts. They pure politics in one of it's most unambiguous forms.
    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

  20. #80
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Recognizing that you don't understand the point of this particular thread

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I did not deride the document. I merely expressed surprise at the conclusion as stated, because it did not seem insightful. Thus-

    No threat of violence - thus politics in the truest sense of the word.

    Again, all political instruments. None of this should be the concern of anyone in uniform - bar Policeman.

    And? This statement attempts to draw a false distinction between formal political processes and real politics in the wider sense. Poll Tax Riots? Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Greenham Common? These are all well tracked and well understood aspects of politics since time began.

    Sorry Bob, I full confess to not getting it. I grew up with Protests, Strikes and Boycotts. They pure politics in one of it's most unambiguous forms.
    There is a good chance your persistent posts consisting of "I disagree" or "I don't understand" don't lend much to the SWJ community. There are dozens of other threads on this site where your comments typically add very much indeed. Post where you please, obviously, but I for one am not benefiting from what you are posting here.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

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
  •