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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 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/