[Polemarchos]

Hi folks,

deep theory in short.

There are two fundamental concepts of strategy: direct and indirect.

definitions for strong actor:
direct = conventional attack/defense
indirect = COIN and/or barbarism

definitions for weak actor:
direct = conventional defense/attack
indirect = Guerillawarfare and/or terror

I analyzed 219 cases of asymmetric war (5:1 asymmetry and 1000/deaths per year) from 1800-2007 myself

here is the result - overall outcome

Strong wins 66.6
Weak wins 33.3

A existing theory of Arreguin Toft proved that same-approach favors the strong while opposite approach favors weak.

definitions:
same-approach = direct vs. direct + indirect vs. indirect
opposite-approach = direct vs. indirect + indirect vs. direct

then the result of 219 cases would be:

same-approach =
Strong wins 73%
Weak wins 27

opposite
Strong wins 39,1 %
Weak wins 60,9%

A-Toft thus says that same approach favors strong, opposite favors weak.
so much for the background.

Now my question:

If same approach favors strong actor, than indirect-indirect and driect-direct does, right? Ok. But i have coded 34+ cases aditionally to those 219 and found that indirect-indirect usually leads to strong actor faliure.

For example, nazi occupation COIN on the Balkans or in Russia in fact lead to defeat, althought conducted with barbarism (strongest form of indrect).

This means that even "semi-holocaust" occupation policies fail against guerilla strategy, even if it is the most brutal thing one state might employ. Same counts for strategic bombing with B52 in Vietnam or Dresden. The thing is that barbarism enhanvces the opponent will to fight.

Can barbarism succeed? Are authoritarian regimes better at COIN than democratics? And if so, why did the Germans or Soviets failed on the Balkans or Afghanistan 1980-89?

.......

P.s. Theoretically barbarism engulfes the direct harm of innocent civilians in a theater in order to dimish the basis of effective guerilla warfare. In theory that means exinction or assimilation by force for anybody or like Clausewitz would say:

"Unless you put behind every civilian an prussian soldier with a rifle, you wont be so sure about the loyality of peoples in recently captured lands."

[ANZAC_Tack]

ur really deep into this stuff.

i am not. ;o)

but i cant agree total barbarism wins long term. there will always be subversion,and killing over 10% i read causes it even more so.

i believe the examples or japan,germany today are the long term winners.

[Blackstump]

If you look at it from the modern era of history. then the colonization of the new world was achieved by barbarism from British, French, Spanish,Porteugese,and Dutch influence, using the context of your meaning.. Alot of these countries are now thriving and democratic, of course the "victim" see's barbarism the victor see's it as getting the local population in line... as all governments do...dont forget that there were 3 continents "conquered" by these countries and one would assume that the locals werent that happy at the time, some of these countries have blossomed into the 21st century.. the others are being draged by the ears so good or bad ? well i give barbarism a big thumbs up :ok2

[ANZAC_Lord4war]

i always thought it was when a barber done a bad haircut.

[dilldeath]

I don't know if you've read this book called War of the Flea but the guy talks about that. He says that by the very nature of a large country wanting to control the smaller one they will take actions that will further the insurgency. Every time they try and "crack down" on the population the population will just get more pissed off and resist more. Hearts and minds are the key.[/u]

[HistoryTeaches]

could you specify barbarism please?

as we all know it comes to the point of view from which side you talk of barbarism

one country might find something barbaric,while the other might not
it is all a part of different culture
for example the native population of central america when the spaniards came:
the spaniards thought of them as barbaric people since they had not the same scientific level and did not believe in their christian values
on the other hand there are sources of a native tribe (i think it was the aztecs) who describe the spaniards as pigs as soon as they get gold in their hands
a different value of a material

one very effective way of countering insurgency is to do it like it was common in the ancient times up to a certain point (i think when rome had defeated it´s surrounding neighbours and began it´s rise to hegemony in italy)

when you defeated the enemy, you kill all the male and enslave the female and children

[tomcat]

It can succeed, every idea and plan can succeed, but depends on leadership, resources, mobility, morale, and plain luck, look at the french ressitance in ww2 although alone they could never have beaten the german forces in france they delayed reinforcments, cut supply lines, destoryed bridges, railways, dams, military posts, convoys petty much anything to hinder the enemy, and the germans being of direct approach could never find enough resistance members to stop the 'terrorist' acts. A battle group of a german division using the blitzkrieg tatic of fast moving armour and armoured infantry cover suppported by stuka dive bombers and SP guns would be useless against an enemy if there are no definative front lines. However if the indirect or guerilla troops show themselves they wouldn't stand well against front line troops. So all your 'calculations' are useless because it depends on everything stated above also : terrain, civiallian support, troop movments and numbers and basically how well they know there own county. You can't put indirect soldiers up against direct troops in a direct move, nither vice versa and expect to win but that dosn't mean it can't happen. Look at the warsaw upsriing.

polish rebels uprish against the german garrison in warsaw in an indirect approah they not only all but destoryed the garrision but held back all attempts by the germans to retake the ghetto(where the rebels were). The germans were using armour and planes and even AT guns, and were still losing. in the end the Germans went to level bombing and leveled the ghetto and used flame throwers to finish it..

So it all depends on the situation

[rouge5]

In the case of guerilla tactics/terrorism/barbarism "win" I believe it is always due to the stronger/civillzed antagonist who allows the other part to succeed by not using enough force on its enemy - Example: Afghanistan is a stalemate due to NATO not using terror tactics and overwhelming firepower on the Taliban/Al -Qaead/Afghani civilians and thus the enemy is not frightend to the point where they loose the will to fight and therefore they are not loosing the war but on the other hand NATO with its internal struggles between USA/UK/Canada/Holland/Denmark on one side and Germany/France on the other is a gift to the taliban/Al-Qaeda cause.
To ensure viictory over such a force of barbarism it is my opinion that NATO should resort to terror bombings of the afghan poppy fields, the afghani and pakistani water and food supplies in order to starve the enemy into submission - if that initiailly fails use NBC weapons to exterminate the enemy untill victory is secured.
The rise of a barbaric enemy such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is only possible thorugh the coorporation of the civilian population and therefore the so called civililans are the enemy also and should be part of the target lists.

That is just my opinion on this matter, whether you agree or disagree is not my concern..

[Pz_Meyer]

barbarism that was used by Hitler was of an extreme example, ultimately the soviets won, inpart, because their massive use of indirect war in the german rear not only disrupted german supply trains but more importantly tied down badly needed front line german units guarding the rear or on anti-partisan operations.

Soviets were equal in barbarism either at the front lines or behind the german lines, the germans couldn't match in any way the partisan warfare by disrupting russian supplies