Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 4, 2005 4:32:01 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: October 4, 2005 2:45:23 PM EDT
To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/