Asymmetric morality is one key to victory in asymmetric warfare

On the 10th of May 2007 General Petraeus made 3 things clear in a letter about values:

1. The war in Iraq is about securing the population of Iraq. This means more than providing them with personal safety and a secure environment in which to live. It also means winning the battle for their hearts and minds.

2. The way to secure that population, in both senses, is to uphold important human values particularly respect for human dignity.

3. Personal integrity must require that the captured enemy prisoners are treated in accordance with the rules applicable to any detainee. For the American Army this is Field Manual 2-22.3: Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

The key to this is to understand that if you sacrifice your values you become no different from your enemy. If the population cannot distinguish you from the enemy you are doomed to defeat in the battle for their hearts and minds. But victory in this sphere is critical because the physical war is being fought with asymmetrical tactics. This means that the allies cannot win the physical war without victory in the battle for hearts and minds.

Fortunately General Petraeus has recognised this important tenant. In part the recent drop in American casualties has resulted from the application of this principle of asymmetric morality.

The interesting thing about this approach of asymmetric morality is that its potency increases with the extent to which the opposition has an opposing corrosive morality. Where the population is offered a similar morality one's own (e.g. the reconstructive work done by Hezbulloh in Southern Lebanon after the failed Israli incursion in 2006) the asymmetry fails and something more must be done to distinguish oneself from your opponent.

To reach this principle General Petraeus has recognised the deeper principle that modern war is about the population not just the land. This principle applies as much to the world as to Iraq. There is scope for American foreign policy to realign itself by absorbing this valuable lesson from the Iraq war.

One key test of when and whether this type of thinking is operating will be passed when the Guantanamo Bay detention camp succumbs to the same logic.

(c) R Mohindra

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unisex premiums for driving insurance? EU crazy?

The recent judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealing with the problem of sex discrimination as it related to actuarial risk calculations in insurance contracts (1) was a Belgian case where the ECJ had to interpret Article 5 of Directive 2004/113 (2). The Dire ctive itself emanated from the Council of the European Union. Article 5 states that: "1. Member States shall ensure that in all new contracts concluded after 21 December 2007 at the latest, the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services shall not result in differences in individuals’ premiums and benefits." but then goes on to say that: "2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may decide before 21 December 2007 to permit proportionate differences in individuals' premiums and benefits where the use of sex is a determining factor in the assessment of risk based on relevant and accurate actuarial
Read more

Brexit, the UK Constitution and politics - do not confuse the rules with the game

The recent judgement of the High Court in R (Miller) vSecretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (3 November 2016, Admin) seems clear enough. The issue is one of law. Is there, as a matter of law, power in the executive to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union?   The consequences of this decision fall into the political domain. But the decision itself is not political. It is not about what is the right thing to do, it is about who has the power to that thing. The conclusion of the judges, after hearing full argument, is that there is no power in the Executive (which draws its power from the Crown) to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union .  So, the Executive/ Crown cannot change the rights of UK citizens without the consent of Parliament. A deep and very important cornerstone of UK civil liberties.  The judges are right to guard it even in the face of miscomprehending public hysteria whipped up by cynical and misl
Read more