The Sling and the Stone by USMC Col Thomas X Hammes

"The Sling and the Stone" details the 4 generations of warfare from the use of the rifle to modern insurgent warfare, which the author details as 4th generation. It is not new, however. Col. Hammes traces the beginning of 4th generation warfare back to Mao Tse Tung.

As opposed to our involvement in World Wars I or II, 4th generation warfare is not about killing as many opposing forces as possible. In fact, it may not be about killing at all, but rather some political outcome the insurgent is fighting for. The insurgent knows that his military might, at least at present, is unable to match up with the counterinsurgent force. So the insurgent must do things that change the behavior of the decision makers for the counterinsurgent. This has more often than not, been voters.

4th generation wars are typically measured in decades, not months or years as a prior generation of warfare might have been. The bottom line is can the insurgent force wait out the counterinsurgent? Each situation is different, but one thing is for sure:

Any insurgent with half a brain will look at warfare over the past century and determine that counterinsurgencies are very difficult to fight and are the only way a small force can "defeat" a larger one, particularly with the technological advantage the United States maintains over nearly every potential threat. Furthermore, as long as the insurgent has more patience, the counterinsurgent will soon leave and allow the insurgent to make his political gains.

I believe that the primary message of this book is that our future enemies are not the large states we have fought in the past. While these are possible, we are far more likely to engage insurgencies. Unfortunately, our military establishment has been arming our forces not for counterinsurgency, but for high-technology conventional warfare. In other words, we are attempting to fight the last war, rather than trying to fight the next war. This can have devestating implications for our soldiers. For while there is a significant constituency for fighting the last war, namely the military industrial complex, and numerous billion dollar war fighting machines which can employ alot of Americans, the most important constituency we have as a nation is the tip of the spear, or the young men and women who put their lives on the line to fight out our politicians' battles.

I thought the book was fascinating and should be read by all policy makers before sending our soldiers into battle. After all, this is the kind of warfare we are likely to face for decades to come.

Parker's First Haircut

He didn't care much for the process of getting his hair cut, but he likes the results.

And Speaking of Torture

Not literally, but something tells me Parker may disagree when he gets older:

Yesterday, Parker woke up from his afternoon nap looking like this. I thought it would be a good picture to give perspective on just how long his hair actually is. He is probably getting his first cut today.



In this picture, we see Parker eating a Cheerio. It is one of his first non-baby foods. At first, he was pretty agnostic towards them, finding more enjoyment in sweeping them off his tray and into the jowells of the dogs waiting below. However, in just a couple of days, he is learning to appreciate the delicacy of the cereal.

By Any Other Name...

Torture has been in the news for several years now. It has been alleged, and even alluded to by coalition officials, that aggressive techniques have been used to elicit information from detainees accused of cooperating with our enemies. These techniques have been described by some advocates as simply alternative interrogation methods, by opponents as plain torture and by sound-bit junkies as "torture light."

This debate has brought up a number of questions:
- Is torture effective?
- Is our country torturing detainees?
- Should our country torture our enemy detainees to elicit information?
- Should our country torture our enemy detainees to prevent a catastrophic attack?
- Is "24" one of the best shows on television?

OK, that last question isn't related, but should be.

Like many other topics, the various partisans don't do the debate any justice because they nuance their positions so significantly that each side is debating the merits of the other's nuances, not primary positions.

For example, the real question should be, "should we torture enemy detainees to gather information," as you might see CTU agent Jack Bauer do in the fictional series, "24"? Everything else just gets us off track.

So, let's start with the misnomer questions:

- Does torture work?

Opponents of torture argue that we shouldn't torture our enemies and that it doesn't work anyway. They go on to quote the FBI techniques which use verbal persuasion, rather than physical manipulation. The answer: Of course torture works. It may not always be reliable; it may produce some incorrect answers; but it does work. This is why groups as diverse as the CIA and al-Qaeda teach techniques to avoid giving up information under duress and torture. This is why narco-terrorists, such as the Colombian Cali Cartel, with no interest in the rule of law torture captives (and not just because they are sadists). They know that if they need some information, duress, fatigue and threats contribute to breaking down the will of the captive. This of course assumes the captive actually has the information they need.

- Should we torture our captives?

The first known revolutionary insurgency featured the Chinese Communists, led by Mao Zedong, against the Chinese nationalists. One of Mao's principles of the insurgency was to offer their captives the opportunity to join them, and if they didn't, to release them. This wasn't done because Mao was a nice guy (he ultimately instituted policies leading to the mass starvation of more than 30 million Chinese, among other things). He did this because he knew how important it is to win the hearts and minds of his opponent. He knew the nationalists were torturing insurgents and he also knew that his more humane "catch-and-release" would endear his cause to the population.

- What if it is to prevent a catastrophic action?

This statement is a non-sequitur. Except on television, this has never happened and will never happen. The statement exists only to suggest the impossible.

The reality of the situation is that torture is effective in obtaining information, but at what cost? All detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere are accusing torture. Were they tortured? We will never know, but we do know that by permitting the argument, we are losing the support of the populations necessary to fight the "global war on terrorism." What distinguishes the United States as "the good guys" is that we treat our prisoners fairly. The "bad guys" torture their captives. The "bad guys" try their prisoners in a kangaroo court. The "bad guys" hide their prisoners.

We can't afford to be the "bad guys." It is not part of the American way.

Who Is In Charge of America's Foreign Policy?

Recently, several members of a congressional delegation (1 Democrat and 3 Republicans) flew to Damascus, Syria (a declared state-sponsor of terrorism) to have an audience with Syrian president, Bashar al-Asad.

For the moment, we will forget that the Syrian regime is under international investigation for assasinating several Lebanese politicians, including Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon. We must also forget that all four representatives voted for the "Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003," which stated among other things that Syria was supporting Hizbullah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And let us also forget that the regime is doing nothing to prevent insurgents from crossing their border to fight our soldiers in Iraq.

The really humorous part is the supposed big break that Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims to have made in peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, which according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html), both nations more or less deny. What is Speaker Pelosi and her 3 Republican counterparts doing in Syria anyway?

What this is really about is domestic politics. While this is not new (Speakers Gingrich and O'Neill were accused of many of the same kinds of foibles against an executive branch of the opposite party), this is nonetheless problematic. The constitution in Article 2, section 2 declares that, rightly or wrongly, the President is in charge of the foreign policy of this nation, provided the support of the Congress. What message does this send to our allies? Further, when we have rogue elements of the legislature trying to make foreign policy, what message does this send to our enemies. The best rule of thumb I have heard regarding our partisan divides is that these divides terminate at our shorelines; as it should be.