Talk:Asymmetric warfare
|
|
"The multi-national presence of Al-Qaida, accused of carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States"
You mean it hasn't been proven?
The original version of this page appears to have been one of 24's rants. I've trimmed down the more obvious bias and nonsense, but like much of 24's stuff, there is some good material too.
This article needs careful review for bias and editing for NPOV.
Why are the "anarchist assassains'" "political motive[s]... obscure or incomprehensible"? --Daniel C. Boyer
This article is mostly a POV advocacy piece, mixing a kitchen sink of ideas.
| Contents |
Terrorism
Clearly we need to bridge this topic. C-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y-! ;) Specifically, where is the line drawn? When does carpet bombing become war crime or state terrorism? When does a pipe bomb go from a valid weapon against a legitimate enemy to a criminal act of terror against civilians? I think we need to clarify these things as best we can, as this info is sorely needed these days. Sam Spade 09:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- To approach the topic clearly, I think we need to separate out rhetorical positions from substantive ones. "State terrorism" is used as a counterpoint to "terrorism" (i.e., I do it, but you do it, so it's OK). When a state actor is involved in a legitimate war, the question is whether the action violates the wars of law or not. To answer your specific questions, carpet bombing becomes a war crime if it exceeds military necessity (wanton destruction) or targets a civilian population; you answered your own question on the pipe bomb--the difference is legitimate enemy vs. civilians Cecropia 10:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How to deal with rampant POV?
I'm fretting over the article Asymmetric warfare. The original author seems to be making a sincere effort to put forward what he/she thinks the subject is about, but it amounts to an extensive POV, mixing incomparable elements, personal musings and attempting to reach a conclusion.
I know something about the subject, having taught related subjects in the US Army, and the subject is worthy of discussion, but I'm not comfortable essentially throwing out someone else's work and writing the article new.
This is not the only such article. I'm tempted to simply leave them alone, but it makes wikipedia very un-encyclopedic, if someone were actually researching a subject.
Opinions? About this and the issue of near totally POV articles in general? Cecropia 14:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- You are quite welcome to completely re-write articles if you want see Wikipedia:be bold in updating pages If you think the present article is beyond salvage. I have done on occasions and I have also had some of my articles completely re-written by other people, although it might be better to try to integrate changes with the existing text G-Man 14:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- In this case, if you know that this (really long) article is riddled with POV and since it isn't the focus of edit wars and you wont be upsetting a delicate balance, I suggest that you can be quite radical. If you're willing to do the work this involves, I suggest that you write a good solid stub from scratch and replace the current article. If the current article contains anything useful then copy it to the talk page first, or summarise the key points it makes which should still be included (albeit it correctly flagged as a certain POV). Then build on the stub, reintergrating anything you want to keep into the new article, expand it and add balance where appropriate. If you document all these stages on the talk page, you may even encourage other knowledgeable people to join you in creating a much better article. :) This might be too radical an approach for articles which have escalated into an edit war, in which case you might propose completely rewriting the article on the talk page, and solicit a lot more opinions in order to reach a consensus. fabiform | talk 15:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, you guys are encouraging me. It's a complex subject and might be more controversial if more people really knew what it was. I'll see if I can upgrade it modularly. Cecropia 23:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- A further thought: Set it in context at the start. "Asymmetrical warfare is an inherently freighted term expressing the value judgment that..." Thus you can discuss the subject within its defined bounds. Not all point-of-view need be smoothed into cream pudding. Sometimes a statement that seems to lack any objective reality springs into crisp focus when the opening words set the context: "In Arianism..." "In Catholic dogma..." or "From the standpoint of..."etc. Wetman 14:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the links to Khobar Towers and Cole bombing be removed from this article? They are just examples of minor terrorist action. Pavel Vozenilek 17:11, 19 Dec 2004
- I hardly think so, as these are what I consider to be defining examples of the concept. What could be more asymmetrical that two attackers in a $2000 boat with a couple of thousand dollars worth of explosive doing the following, here using the Cole attack as an example:
- 1). Almost sinking a capital warship costing many hundreds of millions of dollars. A slightly different attack point would have flooded two engine rooms, not one, and would have ensured the sinking of this ship, creating much more damage and expense of both recovery and rehabilitation.
- 2) Exchanging two lives for 17, or two casualties for 56, considered a highly favorable kill ratio in any conventional warfare.
- 3.) Causing great damage to the reputation of a world superpower, demonstrating that it is not immune from attack.
- Similar considerations apply to Khobar towers, and even more so with 9/11, with a three hundred thousand dollar project cost yielding perhaps up to ten billion dollars in direct and indirect damage, a damage/expense effectiveness ratio of thirty thousand to one. Leonard G. 02:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Warfare is defined here as conflict between relatively large groups of people, not as attack of few (organized) individuals. Pavel Vozenilek 20:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
War by Proxy
at the beginning of the "War By Proxy" section, it reads "This conclusion is contraversial". what conclusion is it referring to?
- You pushed me to update the article as I've been meaning to do. Done Cecropia 19:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
British SOE and American OSS
How to tie up lots of the enemy at little cost to your own side by using Guerrillas or in Churchill's words "To set Europe Ablaze"
This is classic example of the difference between guerrilla warfare from the tactical level where it may not be Asymmetric warfare, while remaining so at the strategic level, it was for the Western allies in WWII.
The section War by proxy does not mention these examples and the last thing anyone wanted to do was deny that they were taking place. It helped to deny the German assertions that the Occupied Countries' populations were happy with occupation! Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
IRA
The provisional IRA were secretly supported by the Irish Government at the start of the recent troubles, because they are based in the North and it gutted the Official IRA which was the problem South of the boarder. Two members of the Irish Government were later charged and cleared on gun-running. Once that limited objective had been achived, (and the British Army had been deployed stopping what is now called ethnic cleansing,) the support ended. The last sentence but the disassociation is intended to blunt the lesser charge that the government is not controlling a hostile group within its borders is not true. The IRA lost the Irish Civil War against the Irish Free State. The Irish Government is the descendant of the winning side. It never supported taking the North with force, that is one of the things the Irish Civil War was fought over. The IRA are banned because they are a threat to the Irish State! 'Nothing is as simple as the statements in the page when it comes to the IRA, NI and Anglo-Irish politics! [1] (http://irelandsown.net/plot.html)
I would suggest removing it as an example because it is too complicated and controversial a subject to use as an example in a page like this. Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
What is a fourth generation war?
- I posted this question on 25 May 2004 does any one know? Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No answer after 6 months so I removed:
- In modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation war. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often pejoratively and inaccurately characterized as "terrorism."
--Philip Baird Shearer 22:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
origins of the word Guerrilla
Theses are notes on a thread which I think needs adding to this page:
The Peninsular War the origin of the word Guerrilla, The Spanish guerrillas tying down 10 of thousands of French troops; and British self-serving aid to help them do it cost Britain much less than it would have done to equip British soldiers to face the French troops in conventional warfare.
Commandos
In my opinion there is a whole chapter on Asymmetric warfare missing at the moment. Theses are notes on a section which needs adding to this page. This is not meant to be a specifically British section it is just that I know more about it so I am using the UK armed forcesas an example.
The Second Boer War and the way that less than 20,000 Bores kept 450,000 British Empire tied up in knots after the conventional war was over. The number of Empire troops during the conventional phase of the war was much smaller. Of particular interest are the deep cammando raids into the Cape Province lead by Jan Smuts. The best narrative on this is 'Commando by Deneys Reitz (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/reitzd/commando/cover.htm)
Winston Churchill and the formation of the British Commando as he had been on the receiving end in SA. The Green Berets link between the British Commandos and the American special forces e.g. U.S. Army Rangers
The WWII Desert War and the development of the SAS who's NATO job is deep penetration of enemy lines. Not the same as the Commandos which use standard army units, the SAS use and operate in smaller units.
The WWII Burma War under General Slim and the Chindits. The ideas of the of bases set up in enemy territory and supplied by air and then launching offencive operations.
All these ideas were bought together in the last two chapters of a book called called Commando Extraordinary Otto Skorzeny by Charles Foley published in 1954. Whilst not calling the the ideas Asymmetric warfare he called it a "Strategic Assault Corps" it has all the ideas.
Sir Robert Thompson, the counter-insurgency expert, who served with the Chindits, Malaya, Borneo, and Head of British Advisory Mission in Vietnam, wrote extensively about this subject. His Auto Biography Make For the Hills, shows that the best example to date where the British have used Asymmetric Warfare successfully was the Indonesian Confrontation 1962-66. The SAS found Indonesian troop formations and the Gurkhas dispatched or persuaded them to stay on their side of the boarder. Philip Baird Shearer 02:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Removed some text that seemed irrelevant and incoherent Roadrunner 22:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't usually agree with the ellision of entire paragraphs, but I do in this case. Most of the article was like that. I rewrote large portions of it several months ago and never got to those. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia:"terrorism is not the same as AW; terrorism is primarily a political description, not a military one." I dont disagree with the rewrite, but these days its a bit hard to go along with the party line, regarding how the military defines its methods, when some "assymetric" elements within the military can be so (FLOABT) "political." The only thing I suggest is that the term be qualified as a military one, so "Assymetric warfare is a military term..." -Stevertigo
Urban Warfare
copied text from Urban Warfare?
A lot of the text in the "urban warfare" section seems to be copied from the urban warfare article. --NeuronExMachina 04:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The statement "asymmetric warfare tends to take place inside densely populated urban terrain" is nonsense.
"The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Tse-Tung. If the sea is predominantly urban, then an asymmetric war can be fought there. But other terrain is also used and mountains swamps, and jungle/forest can be utilised effectively by the weaker party. Here is a brief, none exclusive, list of post 1945 asymmetric conflicts which were not fought in cities
- Most British colonial wars were not fought predominantly in cities.
- The troubles in NI were as much about keeping control of the rural broader counties ("Bandit Country (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/10/13/npara13.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/10/13/ixhome.html)") as Belfast . The carefully planned ambush by the IRA on the Paras in 1979 at Warrenpoint makes the point (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/27/newsid_3891000/3891055.stm).
- France Vietnam experiance was dominated by Dien Bien Phu
- The American fight, agains the Viet Cong, Post Tet Offensive, was predominatly a rural war.
- Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)
- Burma (post independence).
- Soviet Afghanistan war.
- PPK insurgency against the Turkish Government (and other Kurdish uprisings in other countries).
- Many of the conflicts in Latin America.
Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Date-able material
Nonetheless, large scale conflicts remain the province of tightly organized armies, as evidenced most recently, in the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq campaign has now moved into an asymmetric warfare phase as US alliance and coalition forces battle an insurgency by Iraqi and foreign militants. See 2003 Occupation of Iraq
- Can the above be expressed without the use of the word 'now'? So that it will be accurate later?Pedant 01:42, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Large rearrangement
I am about to save a large rearrangement of the text. Nothing will be deleted in the move and one paragraph will be duplicate so that it can be split into two after the move. I think that these changes will bring some structure to the subject. I've used the Guerrilla page as a crude templates for these changes because I think that they are better structured articles.
I will make one simple copy edit after the first change and then leave it a lone for 24 hours so that if a number of people register their complains to the new format it will be easy to revert and I will not of spent too much time on it. Philip Baird Shearer 18:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)