Operationalizing The Jones Model through COG

[William F. Owen]

"
Steve the Planner says "Hey England exploited the globe until it was no longer in there interest to do so, so they then just tossed those used and abused populaces aside of their own volition and look, it was all great for England." What about those populaces???? Was it great for them too??

No it was not great for them and in a few places they did not want the UK to leave. Generally things went downhill. So what? UK policy is for the furthering of UK interests.

Virtually all of the insurgencies of the past 100 years have been rooted in populaces risking everything to rid themselves of such benevolent European Colonial rule.

OK, let us just assume that might be correct. Does it include the Native Americans? but so what? What causes Revolts and Rebellions is a desire to alter the distribution of political power using violence. Same, same, 3,500 years or more. Policy usually demands that any attempt to do so be resisted, not accommodated or rewarded.

If I understand you correctly Bob, your thesis is rooted in the idea, that if someone takes up arms against a government, they have a good cause and it's the fault of the goverment?

[Bob's World]

Close, but not just anyone.

If a significant distinct segment of a populace does, with the armed aspect being much like the above surface portion of an iceburg, yes. It is the duty and the right of such a populace to rise up in insurgency when the govenance is perceived as despotic by them.

If it's a handful of wingnuts without broad popular support, no.

Does the state have the legal right to suppress a populace exercising this moral right? Yes as well.

But if the state wants to resolve the problem in the best way possible they will recognize their own shortcomings and address them. Too often the state just hides behind it's legal rightness and simply suppresses those who dare to complain. This is the most common form of COIN, and it is bad COIN. It merely suppresses the inevitable, and promotes despotism and governmental arrogance.

We can be smarter, we can be better. In the emerging world where individuals are more impowered than every before we MUST be better and smarter. Before you could get away with it. Now you can't.

[Steve Blair]

OK, let us just assume that might be correct. Does it include the Native Americans? but so what? What causes Revolts and Rebellions is a desire to alter the distribution of political power using violence. Same, same, 3,500 years or more. Policy usually demands that any attempt to do so be resisted, not accommodated or rewarded.

I honestly don't think you can include the Native Americans in an insurgency discussion, at least not in a blanket sense. You could make that argument in certain locations and during specific time frames, but that's about it. The Modoc War, many of the Apache excursions after about 1875, and the Crow Uprising would certainly qualify...but that's under my own interpretation of the Indian Wars (which considers something a possible insurgency after a tribe had been shifted to a reservation).

[William F. Owen]

I honestly don't think you can include the Native Americans in an insurgency discussion, at least not in a blanket sense. You could make that argument in certain locations and during specific time frames, but that's about it. The Modoc War, many of the Apache excursions after about 1875, and the Crow Uprising would certainly qualify...but that's under my own interpretation of the Indian Wars (which considers something a possible insurgency after a tribe had been shifted to a reservation).

Steve, actually I do not necessarily disagree with your point. I try not to use the word "Insurgency". Rebellions and Revolts are far more accurate. Were there armed uprisings by Native Americans? If so, then I submit that they would be in that category.

The US did actually come into conflict with the Sioux Nation, as the UK did with the Zulu Nation. These were actually de-facto nation states, but the "warfare" was arguably Irregular in nature. Again and again, I am at a loss to understand why calling something an "Insurgency" or saying "COIN" brings any benefit.

[Steve Blair]

Wilf,

The instances I mentioned could be considered rebellions in that the tribes in question had been settled on reservations prior to the conflicts. For me the precise line of demarcation is the establishment of a reservation (and that's also based on how the Army tended to approach the situation).

The Sioux were one of many tribes engaged by the U.S. military (and using the term "nation" for the Sioux is rather misleading...it could perhaps better be applied to the Kiowa or many of the Eastern tribes), and were not necessarily the most powerful.

I could ramble on and on about this stuff, but I'll stop now.

[Bob's World]

For what it's worth on the indian stuff; our GWOT strategy is almost a direct lift from our strategy for subduing the Sioux. Pick a leader for them, expect them to govern and live like us, then label anyone who refuses to confrom to our wishes as a "terrorist" and conduct capture/kill operations on them.

Otherwise, I'm with Steve, an insurgency implies a rebellion by the populace of a state to challenge it's own governance. The Native Americans had their own Governance, and their own concepts of what their territories were. The fact that some white guys had drawn lines on a map and determined that they lay within the US was moot to them. Much more state on state warfare; though obviously the cultures had very different perspectives on what that meant, to the demise of the Indians.

[Steve Blair]

For what it's worth on the indian stuff; our GWOT strategy is almost a direct lift from our strategy for subduing the Sioux. Pick a leader for them, expect them to govern and live like us, then label anyone who refuses to confrom to our wishes as a "terrorist" and conduct capture/kill operations on them.

We'd tried that with other tribes before and after the Sioux, with mixed success. FWIW, the technique worked best (and that's a relative term) with tribes like the Kiowa who had their own fairly developed political infrastructure (although it didn't work along our lines, it was close enough for early officers and agents to manipulate) and failed horribly when applied to tribes without that framework (the Apache peoples spring first to mind, although the Comanche had a similar loose clan-like structure). And even with the Kiowa, there was a lack of understanding of the social structure that underpinned the politics, which contributed in no small measure to the 1874 Red River War.