PJB:How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative

[Winehole23]

Interesting that you didn't bold THIS part of the article...

I'm frankly more concerned about the humans on the receiving end of our humanitarian bombing campaign than any evident progress toward establishing either a western satrapy or a hardline Islamic state in Libya. Besides, the defection relates only superficially to our discussion of tactics. Self-interested calculation, rather than US psyops, is the likely mover here.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a blog post. Calling it an article is a bit grandiose, and your charge that it is misleading rests on your own invidous gloss. What you call an imputation of desperation could just as easily be called one of cluelessness or stupidity.

If the writer doesn't clearly explain his reasoning for not liking the tactic, that's his own fault.

Rereading his article now, he is all over the map. Let's see...

If so, that’s a big reversal, right as NATO assumes command of both the no-fly zone and the airstrikes. Whereas once the loyalists did the besieging, now they might be preparing for a siege of Gadhafi’s capitol. No wonder the call for defections is ringing out.

But that’s the only endgame that Clinton and Gates articulated. And NATO’s announcement that it’ll take over the war stopped short of measures to directly tip the military balance on the ground.

So he assumes that asking the generals to give up is the 'last plan' we have for the rebels to win. It's right there.

Then, further in the article:

But it’s an open question whether the poorly trained and outgunned rebels can defeat Gadhafi’s mechanized forces, even if they march all the way to Tripoli. For what it’s worth, the top U.S. intelligence official assessed that Gadhafi’s military was simply too strong, although that was before the U.S. and its allies launched the war. That sets up a stalemate on the ground, with NATO planes flying over the protracted war.

I don't think he realizes exactly what air power can do. His assumption that there is a "stalemate" is incorrect. Along with the no-fly zone is the "plus"... the US is also hitting communication towers, which severely hurts any modern military. Communications is a force multiplier; it allows rapid decision making in the face of crises. Without that comm, groups are isolated and may not work in a coordinated fashion, severely limiting their effectiveness.

Finally, if Gadhafi's forces ARE being sieged, the author doesn't mention anything about "starving out" Gadhafi's forces, cutting the supply lines to the military, or any number of tried-and-true methods that could also be considered part of the "end-game".

[LnGrrrR]

I'm frankly more concerned about the humans on the receiving end of our humanitarian bombing campaign than any evident progress toward establishing either a western satrapy or a hardline Islamic state in Libya. Besides, the defection relates only superficially to our discussion of tactics. Self-interested calculation, rather than US psyops, is the likely mover here.

Are we moving some goalposts here? Earlier you decried the usage of the psyops, asking how many people high up have defected. Now we have one, and you dismiss the psyops, saying it was likely self-motivation, as if the two couldn't be used together. That's the point of psyops, to demotivate/demoralize the enemy into surrendering. It does so by giving the surrendering party reason to surrender (ie self-interested calculation).

Now, I don't know why he defected, or whether psyops had to do with it. But let's not move goalposts.

And if you're concerned about humanitarian bombing, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the overall tactic of psyops, or psyops deployed in this war.

That's like saying, "I don't believe it's moral to eat meat. Also, there's no point in using marinade."

[Winehole23]

So he assumes that asking the generals to give up is the 'last plan' we have for the rebels to win. It's right there.

Not exactly. All he did was take war propaganda at its word. Perhaps that was naive.

Look, I'm not really invested in defending a crummy little blog post. I thought it highlighted what to date has been an incoherent, improvised and frankly incoherent intervention to date.

Tear it to pieces; I'll not defend it.

[Winehole23]

Are we moving some goalposts here? Earlier you decried the usage of the psyops, asking how many people high up have defected.

I asked no such thing. And all I did was make fun of a particular tactic. I did not deride psyops as such. Exaggerate much?

Now we have one, and you dismiss the psyops, saying it was likely self-motivation, as if the two couldn't be used together.

Laughably naive in this case, but you're welcome to think so.

But let's not move goalposts.

What goalposts? I have a number of objections to our intervention. Am I restricted to talking about one thing at a time? Absurd.

And if you're concerned about humanitarian bombing, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the overall tactic of psyops, or psyops deployed in this war.

I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

[LnGrrrR]

Not exactly. All he did was take war propaganda at its word. Perhaps that was naive.

Did he quote any general saying that surrender appeals were the military's last plan? If so, I missed it.

Look, I'm not really invested in defending a crummy little blog post. I thought it highlighted what to date has been an incoherent, improvised and frankly incoherent intervention to date.

Could've fooled me, what with the two pages of replies or so.

And if you think the intervention is poorly managed, incoherent, etc etc, that's a whole different topic than the effectiveness of surrender appeals, either in this conflict alone or in historical usage.

[Winehole23]

Could've fooled me, what with the two pages of replies or so.

The surrender appeals thing is a sidebar, one of little importance and slight interest to me. I kept up my side of the conversation mainly as a personal courtesy to you.

[Winehole23]

Did he quote any general saying that surrender appeals were the military's last plan? If so, I missed it.

I said it was sloppy, even called it crummy. Not sure I could be any more emphatic.

[Winehole23]

Maybe you'd like me to delete the post?

[LnGrrrR]

I asked no such thing.

Really?

So then, based on these criteria, how effective were our appeals to Qaddafi's generals to surrender likely to be? Isn't it just possible that Wired's spit take was essentially correct?

That certainly seems to ask how effective psyops were at accomplishing their goal. Then, when I pointed out that one person had defected (in the article you linked to), you then put it on self-calculation.

Heck, if you're going to do that, then psyops are NEVER effective, because you can always rationalize a different reason for any enemy surrendering, no?

Laughably naive in this case, but you're welcome to think so.

If anything is laughable, it's your idea that psyops isn't effective because people surrendered due to self-interests.

What goalposts? I have a number of objections to our intervention. Am I restricted to talking about one thing at a time? Absurd.

Whoever said you're limited to one thing? I didn't. But if you're going to focus on one particular tactic, and make fun of it, then you should at least have some sort of knowledge about it. Which I provided even, free of charge.

I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

What's silly is that you find surrender appeals silly.

You say you're upset about deaths caused by bombing, which is one thing that surrender appeals are designed to limit. Surrender appeals aren't usually just for higher ups, they're for the ground troops too. (While the article asserts that the surrender appeals are for the higher ups, it doesn't say whether or not the rank and file are getting them too.)

By accepting surrender, we reduce enemy casualties while maintaining a moral upper hand by giving them an out before we start an attack.

Why you think that's "silly" is beyond me.

[LnGrrrR]

The surrender appeals thing is a sidebar, one of little importance and slight interest to me. I kept up my side of the conversation mainly as a personal courtesy to you.

How kind of you. And here I was, thinking I was educating someone who was indeed earnest in wanting to know the whys and hows of an aspect of military warfare.

If you don't want to waste time next go-round, you could just admit that the article was poorly written, and you don't have any knowledge of why surrender appeals are a rather effective tactic.

[Winehole23]

You're gettin carried away with this. I don't believe anything of the things you're inferring.

[LnGrrrR]

I said it was sloppy, even called it crummy. Not sure I could be any more emphatic.

Since you were the one who posted the article, I assumed you gave it some merit. I'm glad I could change your mind.

[LnGrrrR]

You're gettin carried away with this. I don't believe anything of the things you're inferring.

A bit vague there. What "things" that I'm inferring don't you believe?

[Winehole23]

How kind of you. And here I was, thinking I was educating someone who was indeed earnest in wanting to know the whys and hows of an aspect of military warfare.

I appreciate the info, even incorporated it into an argument. Thanks for filling me in on something I was ignorant of.

If you don't want to waste time next go-round, you could just admit that the article was poorly written

I did. More than once. Please take the wax out of your ears.

(btw, I don't consider the time wasted. If you do, sorry.)

[Winehole23]

you don't have any knowledge of why surrender appeals are a rather effective tactic

You've not demonstrated this, but I can see how it's worth doing. I wasn't criticizing them in the abstract. You seem to have lost sight of this.

[Winehole23]

A bit vague there. What "things" that I'm inferring don't you believe?

Asking how likely it is the tactic would be effective in this case is not tantamount to asking how many generals have surrendered, and criticizing the particular case, even ignorantly, does not amount to denouncing psyops as such. You're really starting to reach here.

Are you spoiling for a fight?

[Winehole23]

Since you were the one who posted the article, I assumed you gave it some merit.

Honestly, I didn't much reflect on it before posting. That ever happen to you?

[LnGrrrR]

You've not demonstrated this, but I can see how it's worth doing. I wasn't criticizing them in the abstract. You seem to have lost sight of this.

Edit: Did you not read the Time article I linked to, describing the many uses of psyops/surrender appeals and how they were effective? In Desert Storm, for instance, they prevented many deaths.

Are you criticizing a specific way they are using the tactic? (For instance, you think they're using it too early?) That they're using the tactic at all? Or the intervention in general?

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=169

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=170

[Winehole23]

Short memory? Your fire seems to have unbalanced you.

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, I didn't much reflect on it before posting. That ever happen to you?

Occasionally. I take a bit less time to backtrack/denounce though.

[Winehole23]

So I didn't agree with you promptly enough?

[Winehole23]

Called it flippant here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=170

[Winehole23]

Expanded my criticism here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=170