Hizbullah / Hezbollah (just the group)

[Rank amateur]

And a war were Ken served.


But the AP found in researching declassified Army documents that U.S. commanders also issued standing orders to shoot civilians along the warfront to guard against North Korean soldiers disguised in the white clothes of Korean peasants.


Were the North Koreans moral or immoral: justified or unjustified?

if we can/should use some of their successful tactics in Iraq.

Which specific tactics are you thinking about?

[Surferbeetle]

Which specific tactics are you thinking about?

R.A.,

This quote from the Krepinevich article I referenced above sticks in my head....and I believe we can substitute Hezbollah/Hizbollah for Iraqi.

"Then there are "market metrics." Insurgents have exploited both the unemployed and criminals in seeking support. They often pay Iraqis to plant IEDs and declare bounties for the killing of government officials. Such measures indicate that the insurgency is struggling to expand its ranks and must buy support. It would be helpful to keep track of the "market" in this aspect of the conflict. What are the insurgents offering to those who will plant an IED? What kind of bounty are they placing on the lives of their enemies, and how does that price change over time? The assumption behind these market metrics is that the higher the insurgents' price, the fewer people there are who are willing to support them. Such a reduction in support could indicate success on the part of the coalition and the Iraqi government in improving security, reducing unemployment, and strengthening the popular commitment to the new regime, all of which would leave fewer people vulnerable to persuasion or coercion by the insurgents."

Steve

[Rank amateur]

R.A.,

This quote from the Krepinevich article I referenced above sticks in my head....and I believe we can substitute Hezbollah/Hizbollah for Iraqi.

"The assumption behind these market metrics is that the higher the insurgents' price, the fewer people there are who are willing to support them. "

Steve

The problem with price is that it's a function of supply and demand. High price could indicate few people willing to plant them (low supply) or that AQI has a lot of money and a lot of IEDs. (high demand.)

All war is immoral; period, end of sentence.

I tend to agree with that - with a few exceptions - but we do seem to spend a lot of time talking about the superior way we fight. It would be more sense - IMO - if we talked about the superior reasons why we fight.

[That's why I asked if anyone could identify any western nation who had done that sort of thing -- so your attempt at diversion or obfuscation sorta falls flat...

I did say "it depends on how you define "we.""

I can show you a western nation that sells cluster bombs to an ally who drops them on civilian areas, which I think has some moral similarity to the use of civilian shields, but if you consider those two things apples and oranges there is no sense discussing it further.

Good try, though

Thanks. It's always nice when someone notices that you're trying.

[Ken White]

...I tend to agree with that - with a few exceptions - but we do seem to spend a lot of time talking about the superior way we fight. It would be more sense - IMO - if we talked about the superior reasons why we fight.

I don't make any exceptions; just note that, immoral or not, some are necessary. I do strongly agree with your last sentence there...

I did say "it depends on how you define "we.""

That was your response to Wilf's 'we.' Since he's a Brit, one could assume he was referring to only the UK, I took it as a western or Eurocentric generic. I think stretching it beyond that would be counter to the thrust of the discussion he was engaged in. YMMV.

I can show you a western nation that sells cluster bombs to an ally who drops them on civilian areas, which I think has some moral similarity to the use of civilian shields, but if you consider those two things apples and oranges there is no sense discussing it further.

Apples and Tractor-trailers more like...

Thanks. It's always nice when someone notices that you're trying.

De Nada.

[Rank amateur]

I don't make any exceptions; just note that, immoral or not, some are necessary. I do strongly agree with your last sentence there...

I knew we could agree on some things. I also agree that a soldier's best moral defense is, "someone has got to do it." Thank God that some people are willing to do it. (Cowards like me really appreciate it.)

I'm sure we agree on the first sentence too. I don't think genocide, or ethnic cleansing, are ever justified. You probably don't consider them military tactics. My only comment is that if you don't clearly state they're never justified, some nut will attempt to justify them as military tactics. (Sadly, some nuts already have.) But at least once we had to go nuclear. Hopefully, we won't need to again, but we might.

[Ken White]

...I'm sure we agree on the first sentence too. I don't think genocide, or ethnic cleansing, are ever justified. You probably don't consider them military tactics. My only comment is that if you don't clearly state they're never justified, some nut will attempt to justify them as military tactics. (Sadly, some nuts already have.) But at least once we had to go nuclear. Hopefully, we won't need to again, but we might.

but you're correct, genocide or ethnic cleansing are not military tactics in any sense, though such tactics may be used in the process of committing the crime. To my mind it is a crime -- but a difficult one to curtail. We can say they're never justified and most of the world does and has for some time said just that. Unfortunately, saying so doesn't seem to stop it from occurring even today.

As to whether it's a justification for war, my sensing is that it is not. If it were wars would be started to stop it at each occurrence yet they rarely are. The few occasions like Kosovo where that was invoked generally end up causing more problems than they solve.

United external pressure from the rest of the world is more effective -- IF one can develop a united front. That seems to be almost impossible; nations tend to be far from altruistic and to be pretty selfish. Bad problem with no easy solutions.

[Surferbeetle]

The problem with price is that it's a function of supply and demand. High price could indicate few people willing to plant them (low supply) or that AQI has a lot of money and a lot of IEDs. (high demand.)

R.A.,

Price can in fact serve as a measure of the capability and desire to engage in the insurgency.

You have half of it when you state that high price indicates low supply. Assuming that AQI has a fair amount/'excess amount' of money (a reasonable assumption since we are targeting the money supply of AQI) does not mean however that the supply of people willing to do this type of work (the issue that we are measuring) is limited.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/ please see 'Extremism's Deep Pockets' by Michael Jacobson as just one open source example of the tactic of targeting funding)

The demand function can be described mathematically as:

Qd=a +bP+cM+dPr+eT+fPe+gN

Where
Qd = Quantity Demanded
P= Price of the Good or Service
M=Consumer Income
Pr=Price of Related Goods or Services
T=Taste Patterns of Consumers
Pe=Expected Price of the Good in Some Future Period
N=Number of Consumers in the Market
a = Intercept Parameter (when P,M,Pr,T,Pe, and N all equal zero)
b,c,d,e,&f are slope parameters.

So let's check our equations prediction (low supply = high demand) against an in-country observation.

Given a state of ~XX% unemployment in your country (which includes you 'Joe-Iraqi') your family asks you (the patriarch) when water, food, and shelter will be purchased (electricity is out again, your food spoiled in yesterdays 125F heat, the cities pumps have not delivered water to your home, the markets are closed due to security concerns, and you and your family can't stay in your house due to security issues). You know that you will need to pay XX dollars to get your family through Y time.

What do you do? Your choices include:

a) Food/Water/Shelter is available so you do not have to participate (you obviously live in America - Lucky You!). b) Sell your possessions. c) Ask your tribe or militia to help you out yet again. d) Join the local CLC/Iraqi Army and hope the American funding continues and retribution does not come to you or your family. e) leave the country f) Participate in smuggling, crime, etc. g) Take X dollars to shoot at the infidels. h) Take XX dollars to plant an IED. i) Take XXX dollars to act as lookout for an IED attack. j) Take XXX dollars to push the IED trigger.

Supply and Demand are metrics which can be used to measure the insurgency. The 60,000 dollar question is how accurate are the estimates for the variables used in the model.

Steve

[Rank amateur]

R.A.,
The 60,000 dollar question is how accurate are the estimates for the variables used in the model.

Steve

There's also the issue of whether or not it's an efficient market. It appeared to be surprisingly efficient at one time. As our COIN efforts get better, it should become more inefficient.

It would be interesting to see if the price changes when we think we've killed/arrested " a major distributors of IEDs." It would also be interesting to see how long the price was disrupted. That would indicate the flexibility/resilience of the supply chain. It would also be interesting to see if there were different prices for different types of IEDs, or placing them in different locations. That would give some indication of the tactical importance placed on the different IEDs/location: though again you can't necessarily assume a constant supply of "labor" across Iraq.

Given all the variables, however, I would think that the operational value of the data is somewhat limited. How many IEDs, where and placed by who is probably the most important data.