The Science of Insurrection and Irregular Warfare

[Christians4LessGvt]

I fail to see why the US should have attacked the Kosovars.

Ha!....we should not have attacked anyone.
The US has no business being involved in a civil war in Yugoslavia.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It was threatening to bring about yet another ethnic cleansing situation in NATO's sphere of influence.

I suggest that Clinton knew far more about it than you.

As a military operation, it was quite successful.

[Christians4LessGvt]

It was threatening to bring about yet another ethnic cleansing situation in NATO's sphere of influence.

Yugoslavia was not connected to NATO.
The US should not have involved itself in a civil war in Yugoslavia.
Ethnic cleansing is some bs word for civil war....
You sit on land right now won in "ethnic cleansing".

I suggest that Clinton knew far more about it than you.

Ha...what a weak argument.
I could say the same that Clarence Thomas knows far more than you about the law.

As a military operation, it was quite successful.

As I have stated many times before it was a near perfect military operation
that could easily be used again in Iran.
but because Kosevo was a successful military operation in no way translates
that the US should have been involved.
The over-throw of Saddam was a very successful military operation as well.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, the overthrow is Saddam was NOT as successful as the Serbian bombing was. There were many fatalities of US troops in Iraq, none in Serbia. Seven years of chaos and a million refugees resulted from Bush's inept war.

And NO, the Serbian campaign would NOT work in Iran.

It is not comparable in any way, other than the Iranian government opposes the US and has some local opposition.

Iran is much larger than Serbia in both population and area, Iran is not attempting to ethnically cleanse its own population.

Many Serbs want to be a part of the European Union, and saw Milosovic as an obstacle, which he was. Iranians would see the defeat of the ayatollahs by the US as another attempt at colonialization, like the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeagh in 1950 by the UK and the US.

You hate Muslims.

[Plane]

This economist article has drawn a lot of interesting comments.http://www.economist.com/node/21553006/comments#sort-comments

Captain KephartApril 22nd, 10:54


There is a theorem called 'Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem' which shows, mathematically, the hard limits of modelling. It states that models, such as those mentioned in this article, are 'formal systems', are incomplete and could, if misused, cause damage. One of two main things may happen. If the model is asked 'Is there anything else we can do?' it may answer 'No'. Gödel states that there WILL always be other valid options, but that the model will not be able to reveal them (because it is incomplete). Someone may then ask: 'Is this the right answer, the right thing to do?'. Again the model may say 'No'. In this case, Gödel indicates that it is possible for people to come up with valid insights - yet there will be some that the model won't be able to test or 'prove' to be 'right'. What does this mean in practice? It means that someone may reject an option because the model 'tells' them to reject it - not knowing that the option would work fine in reality. We can conclude that modelling is appropriate when used to inform human decision-making but not to replace it. Practitioners therefore should partner with the modellers / technocrats and question 'the answers' that the model gives. According to Gödel's Theorem, any other use may lead to people seriously deceiving themselves - even causing unnecessary harm. Complexity science indicates that predictive modelling is too constrained by its assumptions about knowability and by its limited ability to represent easily (if at all) qualitative factors such as trust and motivations, for example.
 

    Modeled huiman behavior might be usefull, but it would be a mistake to really depend on it, not only is completeness impossible , but a subject of study that knew you were gathering data might spoof the data and make your efforts his own..

[BSB]

You are running a mission with only 5 or 6 people and the enemy spots you. They out number you 40 to 1. They decide to send an element after you. You shift into escape and evasion mode.  One of the tools you deploy is a "toe popper" (very small anti-personal mines that will blow a foot, or part of a foot, off, thereby slowing down their persuit). Where do you lay them while you're on the move?  You lay them where they are most likely to step while in pursuit. Where would that be? Example: You're on a trail, on purpose. The trail rises steeply for a short distance in a spot. In middle of that rise two roots from a tree beside the trail cross the trail and form a step. Bingo, you lay one there. Human modeling.

Human modeling isn't some strange imagining born of over analyzing. It points to what people do. It's common sense. If they hand you a model that doesn't make sense, you toss it out, or give it a try or two, than toss it. No big deal. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

This is unconventional warfare. There are no written rules. It's nothing but human nature, and very primitive human nature at that.


BSB

[Plane]

  I get your drift , but the experience level of the opponent is an important factor.
  If the guys following you are very experienced they will understand your mine placement strategy , their experience will reduce the effectiveness of any strategy they have seen before.
  This doesn't mean that strategy or modeling is useless, I think it meansx it has a lifespan.

    Any strategy gets learned by the opponent and if understood by them , becomes less effective.

     If models are not flexable and teachable they might become a hidebound rulebook , gradually growing less effective and more like an impediment.

[BSB]

"....experienced they will understand your mine placement strategy , their experience will reduce the effectiveness...."

No. Look, Plane, everyone has to eat, sleep, defecate, drink water, and so forth. You turn that against them. Every bomb maker needs explosives, communications, a place to build his bombs, and so forth. You turn that against them. That's what you use the model for. Forget all the other BS.

You always seem to get off on a tangent, plane.
 


BSB

[Plane]

  I don't see this being off.

  If you understand the enemy behavior better by use of models, then the model will have been valuable.

  But , I don't think that any enemy we might ever have will be totally free of intelligence.

   As we learn them (including with models) they will also learn us.
 
   Thus the value of older learning or seldom updated models will degrade as a function of how well we are understood.

   

"everyone has to eat, sleep, defecate, drink water, and so forth. You turn that against them."

    Perfectly true, especially the "and so forth" because there are a large number of behaviors that you can predict a human being will do.
    But this is no less true in reverse , because we are just as human.
   In the worst case scenario some of the enemy could be genuses in possession of computer power and even worse, a copy of our model.


There is a general principal here.
     As in the drone that Iran recently captured , any tecnology or tecnique that we rely on too much has a potential for becoming a trap.

[Christians4LessGvt]

No, the overthrow is Saddam was NOT as successful as the Serbian bombing was.

Yes the overthrow of Saddam was a spectatular military victory.
The occupation afterwards not so much... mainly because of the "5th column"
But the actual overthrow and invasion was a true work of art.....precision military warfare.

And NO, the Serbian campaign would NOT work in Iran.

Yes the Kosevo strategy can and will work in Iran.
It will work anywhere the US has overwheleming air power superiority.
Unless a country has nuclear weapons there is no logical reason it would not.

You hate Muslims.

You hate true-bue conservatives.
I hate people trying to kill me....especially those quite vocal about it.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Iran has done nothing that would prompt the kind of action you're talking about.

Shame on you for disrespecting and devaluing the lives of the US Marines murdered in the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing  and all of the American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by arms, weapons, and IUD's supplied by Iran to kill Americans. Iran should have been dealt with a long time ago and the longer the nasty task of leveling them is put off the more lives in the end it will end up costing. The moral low road is allowing that rotten tooth to continue to fester, putting off the pain for a latter day.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Give me a break!

Stuff that happened a generation ago is hardly motive for your misguided revenge now.

Attacking Iran now would be very stupid and very expensive in both lives and money.
If we stayed out of their sphere of influence, we would have no problems with Iran at all.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Give me a break! Stuff that happened a generation ago is hardly motive
for your misguided revenge now.

"Misguided"?...Ha Ha....yeah sure.
Are you so detached from reality to not realize we are already at war?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wbBWju8HPG4#

[Xavier_Onassis]

Speak for yourself. I am not at war with anyone.

Nor will I waste my time with your idiot YouTubery.

[Christians4LessGvt]

and some still say the Kosevo strategy....air/sea/no ground troops
wouldn't work in Iran....."oh no Iran is different"...."oh no Iran is bigger"...blah blah.
but then this week the Obama Central Command agrees with me!

"U.S. Central Command believes it can destroy or significantly degrade
Iran's conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air & sea strikes,
according to a defense source familiar with the discussions"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/1/pentagon-planning-contingency-iran-n-korea/