[IP] more on USG RFI for "metrics" on the 'terror war'

[Lee Tien]

I'm sure the military folks on the list can suggest better sources.

 Arreguin-Toft, Ivan.   "How the Weak Win Wars:   A Theory of
Asymmetric Warfare."   International Security, vol. 26, no. 1, Summer
2001, pp. 93-128.

 Paul, T. V.   Asymmetric Conflicts:   War Initiation by Weaker
Powers.   Cambridge, MA:   Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Miles, Franklin B.   Asymmetrical Warfare:   An Historical
Perspective.   Carlisle Barracks, PA:   Army War College, 1999.

See generally http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/asymmetric.html

Lee

At 5:25 PM -0400 10/4/05, David Farber wrote:

>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 at columbia.edu>
>Date: October 4, 2005 4:32:01 PM EDT
>To: dave at farber.net
>Subject: Re: [IP] USG RFI for "metrics" on the 'terror war'
>
>
>Regarding the statement that:
>
>
>
>> the continuing belief that a conventional high- tech army
>> can defeat a low-tech insurgency (something that has not happened
>>in  Western
>> history to my knowledge)...
>>
>>
>
>Things aren't quite that bad:  there have been "successes" such as
>
>-        the British and then US "pacification" of North America
>(the United States and Canada) and the whole western hemisphere for
>that matter)
>-        the British "pacification" of South Africa, Australia and
>New Zealand
>-        the United States in the Philippine Insurrection at turn
>of the 20th century
>-        British suppression of insurgents in Malaya after WWII?
>-        British suppression of the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 1950s
>-        British suppression of the IRA in Northern Ireland
>
>And in "Western history" Rome's high tech army (for its time)
>defeated insurgencies throughout the centuries of the Roman Empire.
>There are probably plenty of other examples that historians can
>offer.  In this day and age, the important thing is to understand
>why high tech armies sometimes lose to low-tech insurgencies? My
>guess is that the willingness of the high-tech army's "homefront"
>to sustain the cost and horror of a long, drawn-out counter-
>insurgency (including periodic tactical defeats such as Tet in the
>Vietnam) is a very important factor in the longterm success or
>failure of the high-tech army.
>Thanks
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>David Farber wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Richard Forno <rforno at infowarrior.org>
>> Date: October 4, 2005 2:45:23 PM EDT
>> To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior at g2-forward.org>
>> Cc: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
>> Subject: USG RFI for "metrics" on the 'terror war'
>>
>>
>>
>> While I'm all for knowing how to measure one's effectiveness, I
>>fear  that
>> such "metrics" will be nothing more than a rehash of Vietnam-era
>>body  count
>> tallies as the "measure of success" in the 'war' to make juicy and
>> positive-sounding quotes for the current iteration of the Five
>>O'Clock
>> Follies.
>>
>> This, coupled with the continuing belief that a conventional
>>high- tech army
>> can defeat a low-tech insurgency (something that has not happened
>>in  Western
>> history to my knowledge) only reinforces my sense that the USG is
>>not
>> learning from history but rather repeating it.
>>
>> The fact that a contractor is being asked to develop these
>>"metrics"  speaks
>> volumes, IMHO.  You'd think this would be something they'd have
>>come  up with
>> BEFORE launching into the 'war' on terror, right?
>>
>> -rick
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The Contractor shall develop, in conjunction with the Joint
>>>Staff,  OSD,
>>> Combatant and Unified Commands, Services and designated Agencies
>>> (stakeholders) a system of metrics to accurately assess US
>>>progress  in the War
>>> on Terrorism, identify critical issues hindering progress and
>>> develop and
>>> track action plans to resolve the issues identified. In this
>>> effort, the
>>> contractor shall work as an independent contractor not subject
>>>to the
>>> supervision and control of the Government. All deliverables
>>>become the
>>> property of the US Government.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Source document:
>> http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/files/
>>WarOnTerrorismMetrics.doc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>> You are subscribed as rca53 at columbia.edu
>> To manage your subscription, go to
>>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>>
>> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
>>interesting-people/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>You are subscribed as tien at well.sf.ca.us
>To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
>people/
>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as eugen at leitl.org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]