Military Operations:Toward an Objective Theory

Today, however, U.S. forces face the long-awaited asymmetric, non-linear battlefield. As Lind, an American strategist, noted, on this Fourth Generation Battlefield we see trends blurring the distinction between Peace and War, and civilian and military.

Avoiding the Stellenbosch Syndrome: A Strategy, Operational Concepts and Measures of Effectiveness for the War on Terror
By Lieutenant Colonel David E.A. Johnson (USA) *

Today, however, U.S. forces face the long-awaited asymmetric, non-linear battlefield. As Lind, an American strategist, noted, on this Fourth Generation Battlefield we see trends blurring the distinction between Peace and War, and civilian and military. Rapid, decisive warfare targeting militaries and capitals has little effect on trans-national or ideologically- based groups. In fact, the capture or death of leaders may not end a conflict with widely dispersed, ideologically motivated, and technologically super-empowered individuals in a globalized world. Decentralized, cellular groups, sharing an intention can create a form of swarm warfare difficult for traditional militaries to counter. War ceases to be a duel, with factions and nations, allied in one moment, competing against us the next moment. Unlike the battlefield addressed by traditional internal war or revolutionary warfare doctrine, multiple players with divergent end-states are the norm. The security problem is defining the enemy and understanding his Battle Operating Systems so that our already overwhelming combat power can be effectively focused. In this instance, victory conditions are unclear. A terrorist leader cannot surrender his sword and ensure the cessation of hostilities. Establishing the military conditions does not guarantee the political solution. You and I can clearly see this trend in Palestine. Diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and political systems are part of a larger complex adaptive system and are not separable.

This work was originally published by:
The Center for Advanced Defense Studies
The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052
with the following provisio:
This work reflects the opinions of the author and not the official positions of The George Washington University, The Department of Defense, or any other organization with which the author is affiliated.
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/AvoidingStellenboschSyndrome.asp

I still believe that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Even so,as fallible creatures, we all face our inability to cope with the unexpected when it catches us unprepared. It may be that competent tactics can rescue an incompetent strategy. -- MEM

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/20, 4:42am)

Post 1

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:08pm

I still stand by my original position on this matter: Fight Terrorism with Terrorism.

In this position -- which I've indirectly defended here -- Muslim radicals would be violently uprooted by radicals for capitalism ("good-guy" guerillas); using the profit motive.

Ed

Post 2

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 3:39pm

Sounds like a recipe for appeasement to me. Ideologically based wars are not exactly something new. Nazism led to World War II, and the Japanese were strongly motivated by the Shinto religion, which had deep philosophical roots in Buddhism and spawned kamikaze suicidal attacks. The ultimate offering to the divine emperor was to give up one�s life, and Japanese newspapers and books supported the heroism of suicide bombers. After Japan was soundly defeated, Shinto violence ceased to be a threat.

Communism was a major factor in Vietnam and the Cold War. The Crusades and the Inquisition could not have succeeded in their murderous reign without state support. The only "trend" demonstrated by Palestine is the severe human cost of doing too little, too late. Israel could have eradicated Palestinian violence long ago but for the United Nations and lukewarm moral support from the United States.

The fact is, an ideology without state sponsorship is largely impotent. Nothing has changed. When we are threatened, we either neutralize the threat by means of military force or we perish.

Post 3

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 8:01pm

Read here (Wall Street Journal from Feb. 25, 2003) about Sgts. Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart at the Battle of Mogadishu.

"It is a history that comes to mind for good reason these days, as Americans are urged to look back at their retreat from Somalia to see what might happen in a war with Iraq, particularly in the event of street fighting--now held up as the most threatening of specters."

That was written a month before the launch of the current Iraq war.

The thing about Gordon and Shugart is that they requested three times to be inserted. They were clear in what they were asking. They knew the risks.

The idea that only the inhumane -- and therefore non-human -- enemies of the moment are "suicidal" is not a clear identification. All populations regress toward the middle: no matter where you look, you find the same distributions within margins of error. We all ask a lot of our defenders.

Also, I point out that 100 years ago, for an entire generation, the world was gripped by anarchist assassinations and bombings. Starting in Russia and extending across Europe to the USA, anarchists had assassinated Czar Alexander (1881), President Carnot of France, Empress Elizabeth of Austria-Hungary, King Humbert of Italy, and then U.S. President William McKinley (1901). They needed no state to sanction them or hide them or support them. While it is true that terrrorists today operate in the shadows of states, it is also true that states use terrorism as a weapon. This is not an Either-Or proposition.

Post 4

Monday, January 21, 2008 - 10:37am

Dennis Hardin:
"The fact is, an ideology without state sponsorship is largely impotent."

Dennis, I admit that what follows is "my expert versus your opinion." That said, I think that the empirical evidence is hard to argue away on rationalist grounds. In short, the terrorists do not need states.

The enemies we face in the future will look a lot like al-Qaeda: transnational, globalized, locally franchised, extensively outsourced -- but tied together through a powerful identity that leaps frontiers and continents. They won't be nation-states and they'll have no interest in becoming nation-states, though they might use the husks thereof, as they did in Afghanistan and then Somalia. The jihad may be the first, but other transnational deformities will embrace similar techniques. Sept. 10 institutions like the UN and the EU will be unlikely to provide effective responses. -- Mark Steyn, America Alone, (Excerpted as "The Future Belongs to Islam" in MacLeans, Oct. 20, 2006. Read here.)

The "war' (such as it is) is best fought by meeting the actual threat. Asymmetrical threats require asymmetrical responses. This discussion is about military operations. In another thread, we can discuss the fact (or assertion) that the basis of the war is ideological. We can only win completely fully and totally via philosophy. Given that there will always be some who deny reality -- mystics and muscle-mystics -- the best way to deal with them is to take the conflict directly to them.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/21, 11:06am)

Post 5

Monday, January 21, 2008 - 9:39pm

Michael---

The assassinations and bombings you refer to were the deeds of individuals, and the violence was largely condemned by leaders of the anarchist movement. Consequently it did not last. Our main concern is with groups who pursue long-range campaigns of organized violence. No one denies that individuals working alone�Sirhan Sirhan, Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh�could not achieve some isolated success.

�Your expert� appears to concur with my �rationalism�:

They won't be nation-states and they'll have no interest in becoming nation-states, though they might use the husks thereof, as they did in Afghanistan and then Somalia.

In fact, of course, unless they operate out of a deserted island in the South Pacific, they will have to use the �husk� of a nation-state, and any nation-state that sanctions or tolerates terrorist activity should be neutralized--militarily.

Post 6

Friday, January 25, 2008 - 5:59pm

Writing in "Bidinotto's Facts" Dennis Hardin opened a door:

Jim,
Are you advocating that the soldiers have the right to unilaterally abrogate contractual obligations that they voluntarily entered into, and for which they have received the stipulated compensation?

No. I am not advocating that. I am defending the soldier�s right to express a contrary viewpoint if the war is not justified or his life is being put in danger when it should not be. Needless to say, there are limits to what a soldier can reasonably do when he is obeying orders, but that is a topic for another thread.

This is a good thread for that. A basis of an Objective Theory of Military Operations is that soldiers are free agents. How can a soldier be metaphysically different from any other kind of employee? The relationship must be one of contract and agreement. The fundamental question is: can you sell yourself into slavery? Anyone who expects soldiers to obey orders without reservation expects the anti-mind from non-humans. We know from business ethics that to get the best results, you have to have agreement and consensus from those who do the work. As there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practcal, then it must follow that soldiers can be expected to stay or leave as they see fit.

Post 7

Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 1:52pm

What kind of soldier are you?
http://quizfarm.com/quiz_repository/new/2757/

You scored as a Artillery/Aircraft

You are an artillery/armor soldier. Fighting really isn't your strongsuit, and instead you prefer to sit back and blow things up with your 80+ mile range. This isn't to say you don't have a strong sense of duty and honor. You just seem to be smarter about it than most others around you. You agree with Gen Patton's words: "The object of war isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other bastard die for his."

Artillery/Aircraft		94%
Special Ops		88%
Officer		69%
Support Gunner		56%
Combat Infantry/Armor		50%
Medic		50%
Engineer		44%
Civilian		31%

Post 8

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 6:19am

I got the same thing MM

Post 9

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 6:49am

I got almost the same score.

Bob Kolker

Post 10

Monday, February 4, 2008 - 7:48pm

We should form a unit. But what kind?
Field artillery, infantry support, guns, mountain guns, howitzers, gun-howitzers, mortars, rockets, Motorized, Self-propelled, Coastal, Anti-aircraft ...

And what kind of mission?
Counterbattery, Counterpreparation, Defensive, Final Protective, Harassing, Interdiction, Preparation, Deep Supporting, Close supporting, Neutralization, Suppression ...

After getting lost on military websites, I got even loster on Wikipedia. Now I know way more than I ever cared to. Whatever we choose, I nominate for our patch, the motto "Reductio ad Absurdum."

I am sort of torn, you know, for a rational man qua man kind of mission. Perhaps motorized rockets for deep support with warheads of nitrous oxide or maybe LSD. (Is that against Geneva?)

Post 11

Monday, February 11, 2008 - 9:28pm