more on USG RFI for "metrics" on the 'terror war'

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lee Tien <tien () eff org>
Date: October 4, 2005 5:47:42 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on USG RFI for "metrics" on the 'terror war'


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 () columbia edu>
> Date: October 4, 2005 4:32:01 PM EDT
> To: dave () 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 () infowarrior org>
> >  Date: October 4, 2005 2:45:23 PM EDT
> >  To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior () g2-forward org>
> >  Cc: Dave Farber <dave () 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 () 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 () 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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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